Tuesday, 28 October 2014

Two Texts Claiming to be Catholic

Sample one:

Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente traditam per Apostolos revelationem seu fidei depositum sancte custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Quorum quidem apostolicam doctrinam omnes venerabiles Patres amplexi et sancti Doctores orthodoxi venerati atque secuti sunt; plenissime scientes, hanc sancti Petri Sedem ab omni semper errore illibatam permanere, secundum Domini Salvatoris nostri divinam pollicitationem discipulorum suorum principi factam: Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos.


Vicifons Latina : Pastor Aeternus/Caput IV
http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pastor_Aeternus/Caput_IV


My own a bit slavish translation - footnotes about obvious translation alternatives:

For not was promised to the successors of Peter the Holy Ghost, so that Him revealing they should publish a new doctrine, but so that Him assisting they should in holy manner keep and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the Apostles or the Deposit of Faith. Which Apostolic Doctrine then all the Venerable Fathers have hugged* and the holy orthodox Teachers** have revered and followed ; knowing in the fullest measure, that this Seat of holy Peter remains always free from every error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord Saviour*** made to the foremost of his disciples : I have prayed for thee, so that thy faith may not fail, and thou, once converted°, make strong thy brethren.


Now look at this, I read it in English, without translation :

'Big Bang needs God': Pope Francis has declared the prehistoric event that most scientists believe was the beginning of the universe was part of God's Plan

The Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.8billion years ago, was all part of God's plan, Pope Francis has declared.

The Pope said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution are compatible with the Catholic Church's vision of creation.

He told a meeting of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Sciences: ‘The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.’ But he said Christians should reject the idea that world came into being by chance. Likewise, evolution was all part of God’s plan, he explained.

The development of each creature’s characteristics over millennia ‘does not contrast with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve,’ he said.

Reading Genesis we imagine that God is ‘a wizard with a magic wand’ capable of doing all things, he said. ‘But it is not so. He created life and let each creature develop according to the natural laws which he had given each one.’

Francis praised his predecessor, Benedict, who initiated attempts to shed the Catholic Church’s image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned the astronomer Galileo to death for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism - the belief that God created the world in six days - and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.


Colorado News Today : The Big Bang and evolution ARE real but they were carried out by God, says the Pope as he embraces [hugs] modern science
By Staff Writer 18 hours 24 minutes ago
http://www.coloradonewsday.com/news/regional/81972-the-big-bang-and-evolution-are-real-but-they-were-carried-out-by-god,-says-the-pope-as-he-embraces-modern-science.html


And bowing down before the adulators of Galileo and Darwin was divinely revealed to St Peter and the rest? I do not think so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Sts Simon and Jude, Apostles
28-X-2014

* Yes, that is what the Latin really literally means. One could also translated clung to. Embraced. ** Or Doctors of the Church. Doctor being Latin for Teacher. *** Shall one dare : Our Lord and Saviour ? ° I could have taken : and thou, once [having] turned [yourself] around, etc.

Désolé, mais c'était marqué "Armée du Salut" en haut aussi

Ça faisait qq temps que j’avais noté que dans le service courrier - en haut - de l’Armée du Salut / ESI St Martin, c'est à dire, à 27 ter Bd de St Martin, il y a des affiches (et il y a eu des petites fiches qu'on pouvait emmener) pour le Planning Familial. Vous connaissez déjà le texte. Il a été affiché dans le RER, dans le métro etc. Il déclare entre autre que contraception, homosexualité (interprétable par le contexte) et l'avortement sont des droits.

Non, ils ne le sont pas. C'est contraire au droit naturel. Même une législation ratifiée par un état ne peut pas conférer ça comme un droit.

Quand je vois une affiche comme ça, dans la rue, j'ai envie de coller quelque chose de mieux là-dessus.

Mais quand je vois ça dans l'endroit où j'ai mon courrier, que dois-je faire?

Et l'Armée du Salut est censée savoir que c'est une affiche grossièrement immorale.

Aujourd'hui, après de constater que je n'avais pas de courrier, j'ai eu marre de ne rien savoir sur leur façon de voir les choses.

En bas, une subalterne n'a pas voulu me rediriger à la responsable, elle est entrée brièvement pour lui parler, mais j'aurais encore à attendre. ENTRE TEMPS cette subalterne, qui est possiblement Beurette (comme il y a pas juste des Noirs - dont un Mamadou, ça sonne Chrétien, non? - mais aussi des Beurs parmi le personnel de l'ESI, elle veut quand même savoir pourquoi.

Donc, je lui explique que l'Armée du Salut n'est pas censée faire des affiches pour l'immoralité.

Cette subalterne me vient de dire que c'est un pays libre.

Je lui réponds en essence que:

  • l'immoralité reste immorale [pour clarifier aux lecteurs : homicide reste homicide et l'autre immoralité reste celle qui dans les péchés contre le prochain et un-même est la plus grande après l'homicide.]
  • l'Armée du Salut n'est pas censée faire de la publicité pour l'immoralité.


Elle a voulu faire valoir qu'il y a des femmes seules qui viennent là-bas.

J'ai répondu que d'être une femme seule n'est pas une raison ni pour l'avortement ni pour la contraception.

Elle a invoqué la laïcité.

Je lui ai répondu que dans un endroit géré par Secours Populaire (une assoc. laïque s'il y en a) on aurait pu comprendre ça.

Je n'ai pas précisé, comprendre est une chose, dire que c'est en ordre est un autre. Mais j'ai précisé que là, on était chez l'Armée du Salut.

Elle m'a donc dit que non, dès que l'état donne des subsides, ce n'est pas l'Armée du Salut que gère ça.

Je lui ai donc lancé "donc, en haut ce n'est pas l'Armée du Salut?"

Elle m'a indiqué que j'avais compris l'essentiel.

Je sors (sans me soucier de prendre un café en bas), je regarde encore une fois la porte d'en bas, c'est marqué Armée du Salut. Je me retourne et je regarde celle d'en haut. Oui, il y avait deux affiches qui marquaient très clairement "Armée du Salut" par leur logo qui se voit comme un blason.

Elle - la subalterne à qui j'avais parlé - m'avait pour l'essentiel menti.

Bon, sait-elle (ça pourrait être une employée qui n'est pas soldat de l'Armée du Salut), sait-elle même pourquoi l'Armée du Salut existe du tout?

William Booth a été non-conformiste. Pas juste envers la si-dite église anglicane, pas seulement encore envers la si-dite église méthodiste, mais encore envers la police anglaise de son époque.

Et un siècle plus tard, voilà l'Armée du Salut en train de vendre son âme (si elle en avait eu une) pour avoir des subsides de l'état.

Posons l'hypothèse on aurait refusé. On aurait pu dire "ici, c'est l'Armée du Salut, ici on est maître chez nous, ici on ne pose pas des affiches qui portent gravement atteinte à la morale chrétienne."

On aurait donc probablement eu une réponse "alors, vous n'aurez plus les subsides". Ce qui pose la question si l'Armée du Salut dépend des subsides. Posons qu'on aurait pas pu répondre du tout qu'on allait se débrouiller sans les subsides, que l'état leur aurait dit alors "dans ce cas on ferme".

On aurait après ça pu répondre à ceux qui faisaient pression - s'il y en a eu, notons que j'ai pas eu une explication complète de la responsable, mais une explication quasi ad hominem d'une subalterne - "bien, débrouillez-vous avec les sdf, on ne peut pas assumer sans être nous-mêmes." Il y a des fois que je vois des policiers venir en bas avec un sdf pris en charge. Fermer parce que l'Armée du Salut aurait refusé cette affiche du Planning Familial, ça aurait été peut-être un patate chaude pour l'état.

On aurait pu faire comme les Jésuites à propos l'expulsion de France sous Louis XV et sa maîtresse adultère Madame de Pompadour.

N'empêche pas, dans le cas des Jésuites, si eux ils étaient - à l'époque - héroïques, alors Pompadour et Louis XV étaient méchants cons et même lâches. Et si aujourd'hui l'Armée du Salut est lâche, alors aussi il y a des gens qui sont des méchants cons et en plus des lâches parmi l'administration civile.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux
Sts Simon et Jude, Apôtres
28-X-2014

Monday, 27 October 2014

Do Not Forget Asia Bibi

Death Penalty Upheld; Battle Not Over for Asia Bibi
The Christian Broadcasting Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oml6Z2obYrs

Why I find Jane Friedman's advice largely beside the point

Please Don’t Blog Your Book: 4 Reasons Why
By Jane Friedman
http://janefriedman.com/2012/02/08/please-dont-blog-your-book/


1. Blog writing is not the same as book writing.

Blog posts, to live up to their form, should be optimized for online reading.


Mine are not.

Some are so long they make better sense if printed out.

Some are linked in series which are easier to read if printed out - and even easier than that to read if bound as books.

Writers who ask, “Can I blog to get a book deal?” probably think of the blog as a lesser form of writing, merely a vehicle to something “better.” No. A blog has its own reasons for being, and blogs do not aspire to become books if they are truly written as blogs.


I have no idea what she means by "truly written as blogs", except if she means "optimised for online reading", which mine are as said not.

I have an idea of what I consider a readable essay, Chesterton being one example of mine. I try to get my posts readable as essays. I enjoy essay collections, both such as read as diverse essays on diverse subjects, and such as form a monography.

If you can't read it online, because it is too long for the stress factor in front of a computer or scrolling dysfunctions (as it sometimes does, which is bad for longer posts), print out unless you can find a printed and bound edition - or even print out in order to make one.

I’m talking about lack of vision for how the content ought to appear in print, or how it ought to complement, extend, or differ from the online version. How can the content benefit from a print presentation? How does it get enhanced or become more special or valuable?


When Microsoft (i e Bill Gates) closed down the MSN Groups, I had a few months notice to save up discussion threads from Antimodernism. I had no one helping me to do so. I tried to get help from a few group members, they had no time, I tried to get help from someone who turned out to be a God damned freemason! And who obviously was not interested in perpetuating the things I was writing, since, even if it was not antimasonic in the sense of inimical to masonry, as it sometimes was and still is, it was antimasonic in the sense of being unmasonic.

Not quite surprising for those who know I am a Catholic.

Once the text is on printed paper, Bill Gates cannot destroy it by pushing a button at the other end of the world.

Besides, many of my blogs are too long to be published all posts in one single book, as over 2000 posts (and last time I checked was months or over a year ago) would suggest. A book would select a more modest number of posts/articles in possibly a more systematic order.

3. It’s more difficult for narrative works to get picked up as book deals.

This is a generalization, but most authors who ask me about this blog-to-book phenomenon are either memoirists or novelists.


I am marginally both, but specialise in essay writing and republishing of debates I had on other sites (for those debates a book publishing would of course have to be preceded not just by my release, but that of the other participants as well, and they deserve some royalties too).

As to my novel, as said a marginal part of my blogging, only 75 or so chapters/bloggposts out of lots of blogposts more often describable as articles,it is fan fic, and a release would thus depend on copyright holders to original works. IF I ever get it ready. And if I do and they are then interested, they would be very much better placed than Jane Friedman to mediate it to printers.

4. I love books that delve deeply into a topic and make no sense as blogs.

I read hundreds of blogs each week. Much of my reading is done online, in fact. So nothing makes me more irritated than when I sit down to read a book—expecting something meaty, in-depth, and worthy of my full attention—than to find it reads more like a series of blog posts. Unfortunately, due to the blog-to-book deal (in part), this is becoming more common. (Also, some books now mimic the online world by chunking the content so the book reads “faster.”)

In my mind, a book is a great medium for delving into those topics where the simplified, keyword-driven, ADHD world of blogging has no place. If I read a book and think, “I could’ve gotten this from a series of blog posts,” then I consider it a failure.


If for instance my diverse series on Geocentrism (how it relates to Bible, Tradition, RC Magisterium, how it relates to Distant Starlight Problem, metaphysical non-materialist implications - God and angels as movers of daily and other movements, debates with diverse people on the internet over diverse aspects, less noticed physical implications of Heliocentrism as commonly taught and refutations-non-confirmations of them, was that all?) when put together in a book do not make a reader feel I have delved deeply into the subject, then I am for my matter dissatisfied with the blogsposts in the first place. But I do not think that is the case.

Of course, THE great reference of Geocentrism these days is, in film format The Principle and in book format Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right. Both with various proportions of involvement of Robert Sungenis. Nevertheless, I think there are things I have dealt with a bit better than he, since for instance he totally overlooked angelic movers aspect and seems to constantly miss implications about Distant Starlight Problem. He uses - perhaps half-consciously, perhaps totally on purpose - a model in which α Centauri is always exactly 4.sth lightyears away from the Sun and thus varies by two astronomic units, basically, in its position to earth so that conveniently the 0.76 arc seconds per year can still be decoded as 4.sth lightyears. In my view one angel moves the Sun around each year, another one α Centauri, and no one can tell if they move same distance or not, so no one can tell how far α Centauri is from the Sun - from Earth, and except it is further away than objects with Tychonian orbits around the Sun. The distance of which can be trigonometrically measured while considering angles of sunlight reflected. But since the distance of α Centauri's annual movement of is unknown, its distance to us cannot be calculated from the angle of 0.76 arcseconds as being 4.sth lightyears.

Or if my blogposts on psychiatry do not delve into various enough aspects of this evil malpractise (usually) based on pseudo-science and modernism, so that put together they can form a book plea good enough for abolishing or curtailing its powers over unfortunate victims - I would be dissatisfied too. How psychiatry serves sectarian and similar exactions of accepting contact would be a thing to delve further into ("unable to contact X" might too often be that X finds those precise persons claiming that disagreeable: wouldn't you dislike persons who said "hello" just in order to check if you say "hello" back, and never have any discussion with you that you enjoy? or who are of a certain ethnicity and check out if you have racist attitudes by checking how you respond to their approaches?).

Or if my posts against compulsory public schooling or compulsory curricula (which hamper non-public schooling) or for teen marriages and for teens working and for small companies where teens might like to work, if it can get them a family, as opposed to big ones, and other themes dear to my heart cannot make a seriously non-shallow book, I would also be dissatisfied.

Nevertheless they are series of blog posts - on the blogs often enough discontinuous if one takes posts in chronological order on each blog, but continuous in so far as either I have given links to a series within each post (sometimes a series straddles blogs) or some editor of a printed book would search out the continuity (like if a theme, like these two, has several series and a few stray posts too).

I have no doubts that Jane Friedman gives a very good summary of her corner of the publishing business - which today may be a very big corner indeed, reducing in appearance other routines of publishing to a corner or even non-extant status, once you agree with her to limit yourself to what is done today: as I do not.

Ultimately, it’s the buzz you generate, and the audience you develop (your platform created by the blog), that attracts a publisher to you—not the writing itself (though of course that’s important too!).


I would like publishers to exist who seriously browse blogs for publishing - and who couldn't care less how big or small their platform is, but who want paramount writing and content that they personally like. I encourage them to get into existence by my licence for reprinting my blog posts. A non-publisher or non-editor likes my writing and content, this licence enables him to pursue a perhaps till then secret dream of publishing along with promotion of my material which he or she likes or of the parts of it that he or she finds atttractive. A non-publisher or non-editor seriously doesn't like my posts (would like very much more popular language, would like very much more academic language or doesn't like my content), the existence of my licence is an encouragement for others to make similar licences and therefore would ultimately help also such an as yet non-publisher or non-editor to become a publisher and an editor.

But before we assume that Jane Friedman's corner or publishing is much bigger than it is, let's have a look:

The blogs most likely to score book deals are in the information-driven categories (e.g., business and self-help) or humor/parody category (e.g., Stuff White People Like).


She has a corner in which information driven and humour category seem not to overlap. A corner in which the essay category (overlapping both of above) seems to be lacking.

So, are her fans, or fans of that particular post, putting pokes in my bike wheels?

I am not sure, but it seems there could be a scenario like this one:

People who do not like my support of Geocentrism and Creationism, who do not like my support of Catholicism (or who, if Modernist Catholics thinks it inadequate if I don't adulate Georges Lemaître), who do not like my attacks of the modern slaveries of compulsory school/compulsory curricula for home schoolers or free schools, or of psychiatry or of child protective services or of big companies draining a market for smaller ones, or of households depending on electricity (I use computers in libraries), or who do not like my support of the traditional family, or of Catholic Sexual Morality (I just learned Simenon had, since 15, been apostate and opposed to it) cannot attack my writing openly for my saying these things, since my arguments are too good and since I have won more than one debate on each matter.

So, they attack my person, in part also for the folly of my undertaking ... not an opposition to them (which would let the cat out of their bag) ... but a blogging which I hope will lead to book publishing.

Even that they dare not do openly, so they hide behind routines like that described by Jane Friedman.

Does this seem farfetched?

She has had 15 years of experience of publishing. During thirteen of them, I have been writing on the internet. The first years of this writing have been partially lost, since I wrote self publishing my material (online, for free, as the blogging part is now) on MSN Group Antimodernism which closed down without my being able to save it along with ALL other MSN Groups back in February 2009. I saved some in late 2008, but not nearly all or not even half of it. So, I cannot very easily prove I have been writing as long as I claim. At least not until some of the saved messages are also consulted on the back up site where I saved some back-ups from even before I left Sweden. Only the two first years of her experience were from before I was a writer.

BUT this does not mean she must know my writing and be a knowing part of such a plot as I described. She might be simply an unwitting "pawn" in it. Or she might have been pressured to approve of it, since a woman, by family affections. Some young ladies have turned me the back for such a reason in ways that affected me worse, since I was in love with them.

Meanwhile, I feel a pressure on me to explain why I have any hope of getting published (rather republished) while an acknowledged expert as she says I cannot. When I came to Paris, in July 2009, I was not so sensitive to pressure (excepting on the theological front). The fact I have become so, is a bad testimony about my piety - and also a testimony of effective networking to keep me down. In 2012, for a few days, I was put in mental hospital, which discouraged me. From some sides it may well have been meant to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude
27-X-2014

Link to a page I published yesterday:

What Readers Should Expect from my Blogs [on this blog]
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/what-readers-should.html


I published it yesterday, but now that pages - posts detached from the continuous chronological flow of posts on any blog - can be hidden from visitors to blog, the default option is not showing them as buttons above or in side bar until one has taken the extra step of making them visible among those buttons. And this step cannot be taken in Georges Pompidou, since the widget for making that redaction is permanently in error mode when I try it here.

So, I linked to it on FB yesterday and on this post today./HGL

Will Carol Costello Apologise on her Own Show on CNN?

Bristol Palin, daughter of politician Sarah Palin, whom some admire and some detest for her rightwing positions, was caught in a fight and cursed on. Carol Costello told her viewers to ... I'll quote the text now:

“This is quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across,” Costello said, sounding gleeful as she introduced audio of a distraught Bristol Palin describing being attacked. “Well, come across in a long time anyway.”

Costello told her viewers to, “Sit back and enjoy.”

On Thursday, Costello apologized for the way she had treated the incident…to Politico.

But as the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple pointed out Friday evening, Costello did not apologize on her own show, and in Wemple’s view, that’s much like when NBC executives apologized to other media outlets, but not on NBC itself, for editing audio from the George Zimmerman 911 call.


So, she told her viewers to "sit back and enjoy", apologised elsewhere but not on her own show. I voted below the article I just quoted she should apologise on her own show. I am shocked at only 3% voting decently, and I first hoped the majority of the rest thought her apology elsewhere was enough. Er ... no. That is not how decent the guys were who voted./HGL

The Blaze : Does This CNN Anchor Owe the Palin Family an On-Air Apology?
Oct. 25, 2014 12:07pm Zach Noble
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/25/does-this-cnn-anchor-owe-the-palin-family-an-on-air-apology/


  • Yes! Of course she should apologize for her insensitive remarks! (142 Votes - including mine) 3%
  • No, she shouldn't have to apologize at all! (5025 Votes) 89%
  • No, she already made it clear that she's sorry for how she presented things. (471 Votes) 8%

Sunday, 26 October 2014

Reviews of the Principle

Mark Shea : Catholic and Enjoying It! : The *Real* Message of “The Principle”
October 23, 2014 by Mark Shea


Disqus thread of same

CBN : Film Shocker! Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth?
The Christian Broadcasting Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IxQY7Fr9I0


Own comment in the group Geocentrism and Catholic Cosmology on FB, under link to above:

First featuring of Robert Sungenis, as a former Big Bang believer (before I became a Christian) I have to caution.

You believe there was a singularity in space and all matter soared out from it, the centre will obviously be where the singularity was before.

However, it is likely to be a very empty centre and impossible, one could say, that there would be a daily rotation about it caused by natural causes. Also impossible that, on purely natural causes, a planet orbitting a star should so be caught up in that centre that the star and its other planets orbit - directly for the star and indirectly for other planets - it.

So, though BB excludes Geocentrism (and vice versa), BB does not exclude there being a geometrical centre to the universe.

Friday, 24 October 2014

On n'a pas besoin de réfuter un homme sans domicile qui se prend pour Jésus

Justement, je ne me prends pas pour Jésus.

Pourtant, il semble y avoir des gros connards qui aiment répandre une rumeur idiote sur moi, là-dessus. Hier j'ai trouvé cette allégation (ou quelque chose apparentée) en forme demi-audible dans la bouche d'un jeune Gaulois qui regardait dans ma direction avec ses potes.

Non, je ne me prends pas pour Jésus. Je prends Jésus pour Jésus, et moi juste pour moi.

Qu'on réessaye, alors, sans calomnies cette fois ...

"On n'a pas besoin de réfuter un homme sans domicile"

Non? "Un homme sans domicile ne sait rien"? "Un homme sans domicile est un ignare"? "Un homme sans domicile ne compte pas"?

Avec des préjugées comme ça, difficile pour un homme sans domicile de s'en sortir!

En plus, assez barbare et sans la tradition dans un pays où des Dominicains et Franciscains à la Sorbonne et un François Villon comptent parmi les grandes lumières du Moyen Âge.

Quand j'ai quitté mon dernier domicile, je n'ai ni laissé mon cerveau avec les clefs, ni acquis miraculeusement des muscles de travailleur. Je n'ai pas non plus acquis le cerveau d'un travailleur. J'étais écrivain d'internet bien avant de quitter mon domicile, je le suis resté.

Quand j'écris quelque chose, je compte qu'il y ait des gens qui pensent que j'ai bien écrit car la vérité - et des gens qui pensent que j'ai mal écrit, car une erreur. Et normalement, en pensant la deuxième option, on réfute.

Il y a des personnes qui préfèrent me ridiculiser à cause de mon manque de domicile que de me réfuter - peut-être parce qu'ils savent que je suis redoutable en débat. Et de le savoir de moi-même n'est nullement de me prendre pour Jésus.

Et il y a encore des personnes qui, voyant que mon manque de domicile ne suffit pas pour me ridiculiser devant tout le monde ici, préfèrent me ridiculiser en prétendant que je me prenne pour Jésus, ou de m'attribuer quelque autre signe de la folie.

Est-ce que ce genre d'intrigues psychiatrisants viennent peut-être des Musulmans?

Avant, j'ai entendu des inepties comme ça surtout de la bouche des gens soit Beurs, soit aussi Blacks. Par exemple à la Boutique de la Solidarité à Beauvais:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : Quelques astuces en culture générale
http://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.com/2011/05/quelques-astuce-en-culture-generale.html


Les Musulmans auraient bavardé à mon propos pour éviter que je devienne connu, quand j'essaie de me faire connaître?

On sait que je suis Chrétien. On sait aussi que le Daesh cible les Chrétiens comme "ennemi principal". On sait que je suis Catholique. On sait aussi que les Musulmans souvent préfèrent les Protestants aux Catholiques:

  • pas de clergé aux sens aussi stricte chez les Protestants
  • plus de facilité chez certains Protestants au moins de trouver un appui dans leur préjugés et hystérie à propos l'alcool
  • moins de dogmatisme, donc moins d'insistance sur la Sainte Trinité
  • prétention que le Catholicisme était déchu et nécessitait une réforme - un appui à leur propre prétention que la Oummah du Christ était déchu et que c'est alors que leur dieu ait envoyé Mahomet.


Donc, il y a parmi les Musulmans des gens qui auraient un motif. Je ne dis pas tous, je dis qu'il y en a.

En plus, j'avais dit en Suède et je n'ai pas renié depuis que:

  • les Occidentales se marient trop tard, elles ont trop peu d'enfants
  • les Immigrées se marient en bon temps, elles ont normalement d'enfants
  • ceci peut donner (et sans changement va donner) un déséquilibre en faveur des populations immigrées
  • la bonne solution est que les Occidentales se marient plus tôt et qu'elles aient davantage d'enfants
  • mais on peut aussi limiter l'immigration. Surtout celle des Musulmans.


Pour certains, ceci est autant dégoûtant, car autant en défaveur de leur immigrationnisme et leur alliance avec les Malthusiens parmi nous, que des droitistes racialistes, ou des gens qui prétendent que les Immigrées aient trop d'enfants. Et c'est peut-être, à leur avis, plus dangereux, car la mesquinité des gens qui parlent par exemple - ceci sont pas mes mots, ce sont des mots que j'ai entendus - des "dégénérés qui font des gosses comme ..." (comparaison animalière et grossière omise de la citation), cette mesquinité les désarme devant les autres.

Mais, si les propos sont à leur vue autant dégoûtant et plus dangereux que ceux des nationalistes banales, des incultes parmi la droite, néanmoins, mes propos ne peuvent pas (encore, au moins!) être poursuivis comme "incitation à la haine" ou des choses comme ça.

Il y a donc, et pour d'autres motifs, un intérêt de certains de me tamponner comme fou, comme négligeable.

Mais parfois je me demande si c'est tout.

Les Musulmans ont une certaine loyauté - pas une parfaite à mon avis, mais une certaine. Dont le sens, parfois exagéré, de la gratitude.

Des gens qui les ont accueillis et qui m'ont accueilli moi aussi, encore une fois, je ne dis pas tous, ont de leur côté parfois une autre forme de loyauté exagérée ... envers la modernité, envers la science moderne, envers l'esprit de Vatican II et ainsi de suite, et ils ont pu - certains me l'ont dit - me considérer comme un déséquilibré. Un ou deux d'entre eux ont pu me tamponner devant les Musulmans avec des mots comme "il se prend pour Jésus!" (dit sans préméditation, avec une exagération évidente à leurs propres oreilles) et ces Musulmans là ont pu reprendre ça pris trop à la lettre, par malentendu des mots comme non-figuratifs, par un respect de la véracité et de la cohérence de leurs accueillants inspiré par la gratitude, et en ce cas ci mal placé.

Je vais vous donner un exemple de ce qui s'est passé entre moi, des accueillants, des co-accueillis. À Versailles, j'ai été d'abord très bien accueilli dans les espaces pour les sans-abris, les matins. C'était luxueux. C'était magnifique. J'avais l'impression que les choses allaient se résoudre.

J'ai eu une conversation avec des accueillants:

deretour : Par gratitude envers quelqu'un de très hospitable cette matinée...
lundi 11 octobre 2010
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/par-gratitude-envers-quelquun-de-tres.html


Par gratitude envers quelqu'un de très hospitable cette matinée...... j'ai demandé sur quel sujet j'écrirais sur mes blogs.

D'abord il n'a pas voulu préciser, ensuite on est allés ensemble regarder une page: celle-ci.

Puisqu'il s'est présenté comme orienté vers les sciences exactes, je n'ai pas été étonné, ni de voir son interêt pour le sujet, ni de le voir se hâter de repondre - quasiment "corriger" mes "erreurs" - avant d'avoir tout lu.


Accueil Ozanam à Versailles. Même accueil, quelques mois plus tard, je me vois attaqué à propos Pie XII. Ou plutôt, au début ça ne ressemble pas que je sois visé. Un accueillant-volontaire (peut-être lui-même sdf mais avec des confiances données à lui) et des Musulmans et une bénévole ou salariée entre eux réussissent à:

  • attaquer Pie XII comme un pape "Nazi" (accueillant avec un Musulman)
  • me reprocher que je ne regarde pas toutes les religions comme pareilles (autre Musulman) et ceci en ton menaçant
  • m'excuser devant les accueillis Musulmans comme un malade, c'est à dire comme un fou (la bénévole ou salariée).


Je me vois obligé à battre la retraite, et c'est plus tard le même jour que j'écris ceci pour défendre la mémoire de Pie XII (au moins contre l'accusation d'être collabo des génocides, réels ou supposés):

HGL's F.B. writings : Pie XII aurait arreté les tuéries de Juifs s'il avait parlé?
réponse donnée : Quelle sornette!
jeudi 24 février 2011
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/02/pie-xii-aurait-arrete-les-tueries-de.html


Après ça, j'évite "Ozanam", mais pas l'autre acceuil, SOS Accueil.

Deux ans plus tard, l'autre accueil, un matin j'ai été un peu maladroit, un jeune beur s'est fâché, le soir en se revoit, il s'agit du 10 septembre 2012. La suite a fait objet d'un PM (on m'a refusé une plainte) chez la police. Le policier qui prend le PM et qui me refuse la plainte est, en plus, de la communauté musulmane, Karim Ounoughi, et après quand je veux corriger ça, il m'arrive d'avoir oublié le PM dans la bibliothèque de Versailles, une ville que j'avais évité depuis l'événement, je m'y rends des mois plus tard:

HGL's F.B. writings : Le PM de Versailles - avec des corrections
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2013/01/le-pm-de-versailles-avec-des-corrections.html


Me puis-je confier à la police? Non. Aux accueillants des abris de jour? Non. À des spécialistes de la santé mentale? À quoi bon? Pour les entendre dire que le public fait une psychose collective, mais que c'est quand même moi qui devrait soigner ma névrose? Je préfère éviter cette capitulation.

En plus je les soupçonne d'avoir l'attitude que je viens déjà de traiter comme inculte, parmi des Français et des Catholiques, car ceci (les mots cités dans le titre) a été dit devant la Bibliothèque Universitaire de Nanterre/Paris X:

HGL's F.B. writings : - "On ne peut pas être écrivain et sdf." (sic dixit)
jeudi 12 juillet 2012
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-ne-peut-pas-etre-ecrivain-et-sdf-sic.html


Ah oui? Le jeudi 12 juillet 2012? Donc, quelques mois avant la scène avec le co-accueilli à SOS Accueil et le mauvais accueil de ma plainte chez le policier Karim Ounoughi ... a-t-il pu y avoir une intention de me donner une leçon?

Donc, ce n'est pas à des gens comme ça que je peux me confier. Donc, à qui?

À mes lecteurs? Peut-être. Dépend de qui ils sont. Mais les malintentionnés ne s'évitent de toute manière pas si j'évite mes lecteurs. Et les autres pourraient éventuellement encore avoir une bonne surprise pour moi. Quoique, ça fait longtemps.

Et si je me confie à Dieu, Il sait très bien ce que je Lui ai plaint depuis longtemps. Aide toi-même et Dieu t'aidera? C'est pour ça que j'écris ceci. Et en plus pour donner une correction à la connardise que j'ai dû supporter, mais que Dieu aussi a dû supporter, car Il n'aime pas le blasphème (et le reproche était reformulé comme si le jeune me pointait comme Jésus, donc comme un blasphème).

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
comme dit
St Raphaël
24-X-2014

Thursday, 23 October 2014

New blog find ... OK, new blog finds

Once I was a clever boy : Oh no, not another blog...
http://onceiwasacleverboy.blogspot.com/2010/03/oh-no-not-another-blog.html


ibid. : English Iconoclasm IX
http://onceiwasacleverboy.blogspot.com/2014/10/english-iconoclasm-ix.html


ibid. : The benefits of reading crime fiction
http://onceiwasacleverboy.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-benefits-of-reading-crime-fiction.html


Update on St Raphaël's Day:

The Hapsburg Monarchist : Happy Birthday Chancellor Dollfuss
http://madhapsburgmonarchist.blogspot.com/2013/10/happy-birthday-chancellor-dollfuss.html


There is really not too much that modern, liberal society can say to condemn Chancellor Dollfuss so they generally prefer to simply ignore him. They would love to condemn him for being a fascist but there is the pesky fact that he was assassinated by the Nazis, in fact he was the only head of government in Europe to actually be killed for his opposition to the Nazis, and that would terribly confuse those who think "Nazi" and "fascist" are exactly the same thing.


Bingo!

The Hapsburg Monarchist : M[ad] M[onarchist] Mini View: The Hapsburg Emperors
http://madhapsburgmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/07/mm-mini-view-hapsburg-emperors.html


The Hapsburg Monarchist : M[ad] M[onarchist] Mini View: The Hapsburg Emperors, Part II
http://madhapsburgmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/07/mm-mini-view-hapsburg-emperors-part-ii.html


The Hapsburg Monarchist : M[ad] M[onarchist] Mini View: The Hapsburg Emperors, Part III
http://madhapsburgmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/07/mm-mini-view-hapsburg-emperors-part-iii.html


Part I starts with Emperor Frederick III, part III ends with Emperor Charles I (a k a Charles the Last).

In 2004 Charles, the last Hapsburg Emperor, was formally beatified by Pope John Paul II. He was a saintly man and, like a number of “last” monarchs, too good for his own good in a number of ways.

I reserve myself against the wording "by Pope John Paul II" and thus also against "formally beatified" (on that particular occasion). But of course not against him having lived a saintly life./HGL

Other update same day:

Emperor Francis Joseph I: ... [end of section:] When World War I came, he probably viewed some sort of showdown with Serbia as inevitable but he was still reluctant and had to be lied to before actually giving the order to go to war. Too old, by that time, to play much of a part, he died in 1916.


Did not know that!/HGL

Sorry if this irritates you, but here is ...

Third update today!

I did not know Jennifer Fulwiler (of Conversion Diary) had been "pro-choice". She had. I have not. Here is how she became pro-life:

Conversion Diary : How I became pro-life
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html

Thursday, 16 October 2014

Décapitée

On est une semaine après St Denis de Paris, un saint céphalophore. C'est à dire, il a été décapité pour la Foi Chrétienne, pour le Christ, et ensuite, par miracle, il a porté sa propre tête un bout de chemin.

Ajourd'hui on se souvient d'une décapité qui n'était pas céphalophore. Sans doute la modestie enculquée à la cour de sa mère Marie Thérèse l'aurait empêchée de demander cette grâce, si elle en avait l'occasion.

Je ne sais pas si Pape Michel a canonisée Marie Antoinette, Veuve, Reine de France, je ne crois presque pas, et je ne sais pas qui détient les dossiers des éventuels miracles, et il est probable en tel cas que ce n'est pas lui le premier qui verra ce dossier.

Comme je viens de dire, elle n'était pas céphalophore. Un miracle qu'elle n'a pas fait ... ce qui ne compte pas s'il y a miracles qui ont été faits par son intercession. Elle semble par contre se souvenir de ma pauvreté, comme le fait aussi son mari, le roi Louis XVI. Je n'ai pas eu un mauvais 16 octobre, ni un mauvais 21 janvier, depuis mon arrivée en France.

Hier, je viens de recevoir une rumeur sur des guillotines qui s'installeraient aux États-Unis, en but présumable de décapiter des Chrétiens. Entre-temps on est en train de combattre d'autres qui décapitent des Chrétiens - et peut-être aussi d'autre Occidentaux. Mais la Théologie qui allait avec cette rumeur rappelait l'Apocalypse 20:4.

On vient de me citer que les Distributistes étaient des amis de la Révolution française. On me balançait même qu'ils approuvaient les brûleries des églises. Faux. Ils approuvaient certaines décapitations, notemment je crois que ce noble s'appelait Foulon - et la wikipédie me donne raison (quand à ma mémoire de son nom):

On le pend à un réverbère dans la rue de la Verrerie, en présence de son gendre Berthier de Sauvigny qui fut lui aussi pendu place de Grève. La corde entourant le cou de Joseph Foulon ayant cassé, on le décapite. Sa tête fut portée en triomphe avec une poignée de foin dans la bouche. On l'accusait d'avoir conseillé la banqueroute et d'avoir dit pendant la famine : « S'ils ont faim qu'ils broutent de l'herbe ». Toutefois, cette citation n’est pas authentifiée


Pour Chesterton, cette citation était génuine, et il approuvait donc que la tête de Joseph Foullon de Doué ait été portée en triomphe. Il pensait qu'il y avait pas mal d'autres nobles, Voltairiens ou pires, parfaitement capables à dire des choses comme « S'ils ont faim qu'ils broutent de l'herbe ».

Ni lui, ni Belloc ne pensaient que "s'ils n'ont pas de pain, pourquoi ne mangent-ils pas de brioche" valait la même indignation que la suggestion attribuée à Foullon, quoique Belloc la tenait comme une personne ayant trouvé la place où elle devait être plus catastrophique que n'importe où ailleurs. J'observe que ça peut, pendant la vie terrestre, facilement arriver à n'importe qui de calomnié, et elle fut calomniée. En cette anecdote, il semble s'agir d'un malentendu, un qui-pro-quo entre elle-même en France et sa mère en Autriche:

Tea at Trianon : "Let Them Eat Cake"
http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/09/let-them-eat-cake.html


Par contre, et lui, et Belloc, ils pensaient que ce peuple déchaîné après avoir dû supporter des gens comme Foulon de Doué, n'avait pas tout à fait sa tête très bien sur les épaules à chaque instant. Et qu'il était donc capable à des bêtises et à des qui-pro-quos. Ce qui n'empêche pas leur admiration pour Rousseau, Contrat Social, ou Jefferson, Declaration of Independence. Ou pour le peuple qui voulait les mettre en pratique. Le pire des bêtises était l'attaque à l'Église, bien sûr.

Admirable ou pas, il y a eu des torts. Si les dûs aux seigneurs venaient de s'augmenter incrédiblement (selon Régine Pernoud, Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge) quand les seigneuries étaient achetés par des avocats incapables à comprendre que quand une charte précise telle ou telle corvée, elle ne s'ajoute pas mais remplace la charte d'avant, et ça avant la Révolution, de manière que la Révolution, d'une manière sommaire, le rectifie, il y a eu un tort pendant et après la Révolution, l'abolition des Corporations. Et ceux-ci avaient soutenu les petits contre l'arrogance des grands, en chaque métier, et obligé les plus grands à une certaine modestie et à une aide solidaire aux plus petits parmi leurs collègues. Chesterton et Belloc étaient, notons-le, pour ces mêmes corporations que la Révolution détruisit.

Et il y a eu pendant cette révolution, un fétichisme de têtes qui rappelle un peu les ancêtres gaulois avant César et un peu le Da'esh ajourd'hui. Il y a des victimes de cette Révolution qui étaient certainement des saints martyrs, car déjà canonisées. Les Carmes ensevelies à Picpus par exemple.

On n'a pas besoin d'avoir été céphalophore pour être un saint martyr ou une sainte martyr, si on meurt pour Jésus. Il y en a qui mettent avant que Marie Antoinette était contre la Constitution Civile du Clergé - et qu'elle mettait son mari sur le bon chemin, là-dessus aussi. Mais les céphalophores rappellent que les martyrs, ça comprend des décapités.

Et vidi sedes, et sederunt super eas, et judicium datum est illis: et animas decollatorum propter testimonium Jesu, et propter verbum Dei, et qui non adoraverunt bestiam, neque imaginem ejus, nec acceperunt caracterem ejus in frontibus, aut in manibus suis, et vixerunt, et regnaverunt cum Christo mille annis. - Puis je vis des trônes, où s'assirent des personnes à qui le pouvoir de juger fut donné, et je vis les âmes de ceux qui avaient été décapités à cause du témoignage de Jésus et à cause de la parole de Dieu, et ceux qui n'avaient point adoré la bête ni son image, et qui n'avaient pas reçu sa marque sur leur front et sur leur main. Ils eurent la vie, et regnèrent avec le Christ pendant [les] mille ans. *

St Denis a regné avec le Christ déjà un peu moins que deux mille ans. Si le monde finira bientôt, Marie Antoinette aura regné avec le Christ bien moins que mille ans, ou que sa moitié, et St Thomas More (décapité sur Tyburn, par le schismatique Henri VIII) à peu près la moitié de mille ans. Mais on peu dire en moyenne mille ans, ainsi est-ce que St Augustin comprend l'Apocalypse 20.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Ste Hedwige, Veuve,
Duchesse de Silésie
16-X-2014

* Latin Vulgate (Clementine) : The Apocalypse Of Saint John (Revelation) : Chapter 20
http://drbo.org/lvb/chapter/73020.htm


La Sainte Bible, traduction de l'abbé Crampon : Apocalypse de St Jean, p. 312
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k75755t/f1579.image


** C'est à dire, le millennaire est entre la Mort et Résurrection de Notre Seigneur et la Seconde Venue. Quand il reviendra sur les nuages, comme il a promis.

Let's see if I can find all four

Sometimes I am looking at tips for writing (I could hand out tips as well), but today I got a tip which I haven't been using lately, and now tried again.

The most important post relates to this one of mine:

"Aborting because not enough mature"? WHAT?

So, here it is:

The Maxwell House : NOT mom enough
http://corrieandjosh.blogspot.com/2012/05/not-mom-enough.html


Last one I looked at was the blog of one Edmund who had written this book:

Amazon : stuck.at.seven [while awkwardly aiming for ten] [Kindle Edition]
Edmund Christopher McCombs (Author), Stephanie Meyers (Illustrator)
http://www.amazon.com/stuck-at-seven-while-awkwardly-aiming-ten-ebook/dp/B00BN6V8CE


And where was the blog? Here, right post too, I think:

stuck.at.seven [while awkwardly aiming for ten] : Two Wrongs Don't Make Me Write.
http://www.stuckatseven.com/2013/12/two-wrongs-dont-make-me-write.html


No, I think I forgot first blog post and certainly not forgot but forgot adress of the second one ... no, I can find them by clicking the back button at the left of the adress bar:

articles Bloom ... blossoms for the soul : I Gain Nothing - By Cheryl Goforth
http://cotrwomensministrystudypage.blogspot.fr/2014/10/i-gain-nothing-by-cheryl-goforth.html


Which was of course an opportunity to gently push the Catholic understanding of the Three Theological Virtues.

Actually, this was the first one. I reached it from a post on a blog which I had already commented on. So, I think you can guess what tip it was I read:

Today’s assignment: leave comments on at least four blogs that you’ve never commented on before.


Note, the further description makes it precise that the comments must be courteous. Related to blog post one comments on, gentle, non-spam. Here is where the "assignment" came from:

The Daily Post [Wordpress] : Blogging 101: Be a Good Neighbor
By Michelle W. [who is obviously spelling things the American way, witness her spelling of neighbour!]
http://dailypost.wordpress.com/dp_assignment/101-commenting/


BUT, there is a fourth blog post to comment under ... BBL.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Hedwig of Poland
16-X-2014

PS, fourth blog post so happened to be somewhat relevant for the part of my writing carreer that is concerned with novels rather than essays ... here it is:

Scraps of Literacy : Hype: Commerce's Noisy Weapon Against Looking Inward - One Reader's Perspective
http://scrapsofliteracy.blogspot.fr/2014/09/hype-commerces-noisy-weapon-against.html

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

On vient de blaguer sur le thème "on nous cache tout"

On nous cache tout! On nous dit rien!
Fluide Glacial.
http://www.fluideglacial.com/niouzes/index.php?id_niouze=146


J'ai pas lu.

Y a-t-il des indication, pas qu'on nous cache vraiment tout, jusqu'à la vrai somme de 2+2 ou la vrai couleur de l'herbe fraîche, mais qu'il y a des choses importantes où on nous cache, sinon tout, au moins beaucoup?

Peut-être que oui. Le maire de 6e Arrondissement de Paris vient de lâcher que la mendicité avec enfants est un "problème sanitaire". Peut-être qu'il a aussi précisé pour qui et en quelle mesure, mais DirectMatin nous en dit rien.

C'est pourtant un peu important. On peut dire, surtout en certains cercles, que tel ou tel phénomène est un "problème sanitaire", et pourtant il ne le serait pas d'un point de vue médical objectif, c'est juste qu'on peut le prétendre d'une manière trop floue.

Analysons ... les enfants souffrent à leur santé puisqu'ils sont exposés au plomb dans les fumées des pots d'échappement des voitures?

Il y a pourtant des rue piétonnes où ils seraient moins exposés. En plus, si les mères d'une chiourme se prennent les relais, il y a des chances que chaque enfant ne soit pas trop exposé.

Ou ... les enfants sont plus souvent enrhumés que les mendiants adultes, et leurs rhumes sont contagieux?

Encore une fois, les mères d'une chiourme peuvent se prendre les relais. En plus, pour donner on n'est pas obligé à s'approcher à distance de contagion.

Ou ... la présence des enfants constitue pour eux-mêmes et pour les enfants des bourgeois aussi un danger de santé mentale?

Là, halte. Précisément comme un terme comme "problème sanitaire" relève objectivement de la médicine, ainsi aussi l'accoutumance mentale au phénomène de mendicité ne relève pas objectivement de la médecine du tout. Donc, ne relève pas du tout non plus du terme "problème sanitaire".

Ou Ban Ki-moon précise que le cesse-feu à Gaza est bon, mais il faudra aller aux racines du problème pour éviter un nouveau conflit. Peut-être lui aussi a-t-il précisé de quoi il parlait, mais les lecteurs de DirectMatin mardi 14 octobre, version papier, ont là aussi dû se contenter de deviner quelles seraient les racines qu'il voudra attaquer.

Là aussi il y a plusieurs possibilités. Je ne sais pas s'il a considéré la solution que je soutiens, je ne crois presque pas. Donc, on aimerait savoir quelle solution il soutient et quel problème il pose comme la racines des conflits successifs dans cette aire.

Il pense que le problème soit la haine? Soit, la haine est un problème, mais il n'a pas de solution qui va pour tous les situations. La solution la plus générale se trouve en Mathieu 5-7 et aussi en Luc ... pourtant St Augustin dit qu'il peut y avoir des situation où on est tellement maltraité qu'on n'a plus le devoir de tourner l'autre joue. D'ailleurs, je ne crois pas que c'est ce que Ban Ki-moon propose à tout le monde là-bas. Et la solution "éduquer" n'en est pas une, des qu'il y a des divergences entre les parents sur le contenu de l'éducation. Comme c'est très palpablement le cas là-bas.

Ou il pense que le problème serait résolu dès que les Palestiniens auront un état? Même s'ils sont divisés entre Chrétiens en minorité et Musulmans en majorité et que cette majorité musulmane est elle-même divisée entre les gens qui soutiennent les libertés des Chrétiens et Hamas, qui, une fois en position de pouvoir, s'est attaqué à leurs libertés, autant que l'administration zioniste ou bientôt peut-être même davantage?

Ou Ban Ki-moon penserait-il que le problème serait dans la nature exclusive des religions Abrahamiques? Après tout il est Sud-Coréen. Un pays d'où le Christianisme est historiquement assez absent, sauf une période de mission catholique qui s'est soldée avec des martyres.

Ou peut-être a-t-il une diagnose vraiment bonne, mais DirectMatin nous le cache.

Entre-temps, ceux qui ont lu ont pu se faire leurs idées, parfois assez saugrenues (les Athées du type "Humanistes" penseront par exemple que Ban Ki-moon a pu viser les religions Abrahamiques et leur exclusivité, les extrêmes capitalistes anti-pauvres penseront que Jean-Pierre Lecoq sympathise avec ceux qui prennent la mendicité comme une saleté, même si les mendiants sont souvent pas très sale du tout - et surtout c'est le cas avec les familles d'enfants).

Et ainsi de suite. On cultive une langue de bois. Et ces personnages là ne sont pas les seuls, autrement on les aurait remarqués ou remarqué que leur propos sont en DirectMatin reduits à de la langue de bois. Non, on nous ne cache pas que 2+2 font 4, ou que l'herbe fraîche est verte, mais il y a des thèmes un peu moins générales (et déjà, parmi les thèmes généraux on nous cache la véracité de nos yeux et nos équilibrioceptions quant à la stabilité de la Terre et le mouvement diurne du Ciel, et l'inaccessibilité du passé pré-humain - qu'il soit six jours ou des milliards d'années - à des observateurs purememnt humains, c'est à dire on nous le cache en ridiculisant ceux qui soutiennent la solution simple et obvie), il y a des thèmes comme le fonctionnement de la politique où on nous habitue à une malfaisance déjà dans l'ordre linguistique et philosophique, comme une casserrole lentement chauffée habitue la grenouille à ce qui sera sa mort.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Ste Thérèse d'Avila
15-X-2014

PS, parfois la langue de bois devient un problème sanitaire létal. Comme pour les fétus, quand les mères, croyant une telle baliverne se considèrent trop peu mûres pour être mères. Déjà à l'âge de cinq ans on peut faire quelques actes de baby-sitting, et à l'âge concerné (les filles de cinq ne tombes pas enceintes, Dieu ne fait pas d'erreurs) on peut faire du baby-sitting tout court. Donc, on peut être la mère d'un bébé aussi./HGL

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

"Aborting because not enough mature"? WHAT?

A child of five is not mature enough to be a real mother, but still mature enough to start some acts of babysitting. But a child of five does not need to be a mother, because she cannot get pregnant.

God makes no mistakes./HGL

1) New blog on the kid : "Aborting because not enough mature"? WHAT?, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Teen Mothers. From a debate about a link I am not linking to

How Geocentrics Account For Seasons

Citing a group Geocentricity where I am not a member:

Dave Rogers
How do geocentrists account for the seasons? Does the sun's orbit oscillate between the hemispheres? Do all the other planets orbiting the sun oscillate with the sun?
Someone
answers the question by linking to a blog and to a video model made by a Geocentric. Whereupon ...
Dave Rogers
Can you cite an actual scientific source? Blogs and videos aren't even close. [...] Blogs and YouTube videos are worthless in the actual scientific community.
At which I can only comment
that if "the actual scientific community" refuses to consider an argument because the format of the presentation is a blog or a youtube video, then the "actual scientific community" is worthless as far as serious discussion is concerned. But more seriously to our purpose:
Ibn Salama
Spiral orbit of the sun. 6 months near the north, 6 near the south
Which is about
my answer too, as far as geometry and direct accounting for seasons is concerned. I would not word it "near the south" and "near the north" but "on southern hemisphere of heaven" and "on northern hemisphere of heaven" (crossing between hemispheres at equinoxes). But that is probably a specificity of Arabic phrasing, and would be more intelligible, as would a Latin or Greek text, if put in the comparative: "6 months nearer the north, 6 nearer the south".
Dave Rogers
How does the sun reverse its momentum at the summer and winter solstice? How does it reverse its momentum to head back to the other hemisphere?
Here comes one answer, not mine:
Alex Naszados
As alluded to in the two papers above, the sun moves with the whole star field, and the star field is moving vertically by 74 million miles every six months. The combination of the star field’s rotation and its vertical oscillation moves the sun laterally and vertically. Because of the distance of the stars (relative to the proximity of the sun), we do not detect the 74 million mile vertical movement as we do with the sun. While the sun creates a 47 degree angle with the Earth when it moves vertically by 74 million miles, the nearest star (Alpha Centauri) would only create a 0.00019 degree angle (too small to detect). This viewing angle is much smaller than the angle of aberration caused by the lateral, 1 AU, movement of the star field.
Dave Rogers
Okay Alex, but that doesn't answer my question. How and why does the "star field" reverse momentum? What force is reversing the "star field's" inertia? Also, is this just within our galaxy or are far off galaxies oscillating too?
Alex Naszados
There is no "reversal" of the star field. You can think of it as a "wobble" of a gyroscope, by way of illustration. By star field, the entire observable universe is indicated. Since this motion is that of the aether (or quantum vacuum- there are several modern versions of aether theory), the stars are not actually moving through absolute space (absolute space does not actually exist, since space is relational). This answers the question of how distant stars can move faster than the speed of light (since they are technically not moving, but it is "space" itself that can be said to be moving- somewhat in the same way that expansion cosmology proposes that the very early universe was expanding superluminally, where it is proposed that so-called space-time was expanding & carrying the stars with it at FTL). As to the origins of this motion, it is as metaphysical a question as a Big Bang cosmologist asking what initiated the "bang" in the first place. This would involve stepping out of the observable universe to observe it from a vantage point that is not available to us.
One thing:
a wobble involves a reversal of direction, of momentum, so he is not quite wording his answer as well as he should, even from his own standpoint.
Another thing:
while being Geocentric, the answer remains mechanistic. Which brings me to a group where I am a member. Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism
Brandon Kleinhaus
"The sun rises every morning. I do not rise every morning; but the variation is due not to my activity, but to my inaction. Now, to put the matter in a popular phrase, it might be true that the sun rises regularly because he never gets tired of rising. His routine might be due, not to a lifelessness, but to a rush of life.

The thing I mean can be seen, for instance, in children, when they find some game or joke that they specially enjoy. A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, 'Do it again'; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony.

It is possible that God says every morning, 'Do it again' to the sun; and every evening, 'Do it again' to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we. The repetition in Nature may not be a mere recurrence; it may be a theatrical encore."


--GKC
Which is very much more my answer.
If the Sun is an angel with a burning gas body (as considered by St Jerome), or is a burning gas body held by an angel, or is a burning gas body doing as any creature whatever God wills it to do, God's ordering it suffices for the execution to follow, either immediately, in the third case, or by means of the freewill of the angel in the two first cases.

The quote is, btw, from a very fine piece of writing by Chesterton:

Orthodoxy
Gilbert K. Chesterton
http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/


Here is another quote from it:

It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything-- even pride. But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert--himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt--the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
Briefly back to subject
If one says a Geocentric cannot account for the seasons and means it in a purely geometric way, one lacks imagination in the field of geoemtry and is sufficiently answered by ...
Ibn Salama (once again)
Spiral orbit of the sun. 6 months near the north, 6 near the south
... If however
the question concerns the mechanics of why things move the way they move rather than in straight lines at same speed or rather than not at all, the question is concerned with the ultimate questions, where Geocentrism usually points very much quicker to the right answer, which was given, not by Naszados, but by Chesterton quoted by Kleinhaus. God orders. Creatures obey. Mechanic necessity is not necessarily inbuilt in creation. If mechanic necessities are so at some level (which a physicist can study at close hand), this does not preclude God or His angels from ordering things more directly than men can do via their bodies and machinery.


Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Buffon
St Callistus I, Pope and Martyr
14-X-2014

PS, if you enjoy my quoting debates from FB, I have another blog where I do much of that:

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com

Saturday, 11 October 2014

The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church


Several times over. Book after book advocating it was put on the Index.

[1) New blog on the kid : David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me, 2) The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church, 3) Correspondence de of Hans Georg Lundahl : David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy]

I read one Israeli Parlamentarian (or is it Knessetarian there?) cite one dead member of her own faction in favour of seeing every Palestinian child as viper brood. That was the doctrine of total war - "Hamas are our enemies, so Palestinian children are our enemies." Not the literal words she said, but a summing up of one of the points.

I have seen the same doctrine for the other side too. Barash and Webel - not sure who Webel is - but Barash is the same as in previous article, were in 2007 cited in this passage:*

It is this mind-set that leads peace professors to accuse the U.S. of “state terrorism,” to call George W. Bush “the world’s worst terrorist,” and even to characterize those murdered in the Twin Towers as oppressors who, by working at investment banks and brokerage houses, were ultimately responsible for their own deaths. Barash and Webel, for instance, write sympathetically of “frustrated, impoverished, infuriated people . . . who view the United States as a terrorist country” and for whom “attacks on American civilians were justified” because one shouldn’t distinguish “between a ‘terrorist state’ and the citizens who aid and abet that state.”


I have for my own part stated a limited sympathy for that point of view. How so? Well, if a country is a democracy, then its citizens are supposed to be responsible for every major policy its government takes, according to the theory of democracy.

Of course, carried to an end point, this logic makes every citizen of a democracy somehow offending a legitimate target of the offended.

Some have taken too literally the brags of US and of Israel to be democracies, and so they see every US Citizen as a culprit for any of the policies US took (and some were bad), and they also see every Israeli (except those going out of their way to make peace gestures) as responsible for whatever has been done to Palestinians (and some of that was bad).

In reality, there is an amount of Oligarchy, and the more complex an issue is (like foreign policy being more likely to be beyond a common citizen than the parts of government touching his affairs), the larger it is.

One can take Twin Towers as an example of Global Capitalism, and some of that is bad.

I have said, the target per se (as distinct from the collateral targets like cleaning ladies in Twin Towers) in Sept 11 atatck was more of a culprit and also less sacrosanct in the manner of statesmanship than the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand. I have from that concluded, either US had no right to start a war for Twin Towers (wait a moment before you conclude this means more than it does) or it owes an excuse to Austria's since Woodrow Wilson (who launched Trotski onto Russia, as Prussia did with Lenin) made Austrian representatives sign a guilt of war clause, owing to their ultimatum to Serbia.

However, I have also said, US had a licit cause other than Twin Towers for war against the Taliban régime. A month or so before Twin Towers, there were 16 Christians in Afghanistan. 8 of them were NGO-workers, they were declared insane and sent back to the West. Bush did not protest, as far as I know, against this demeaning of the Christian name. The other 8 were citizens of Afghanistan. As far as news stories went back then, they were not heard of. That is when Bush had had a right to launch a Crusade. Had he done so, he might have avoided Twin Towers. But even so, I think he had a right to, after starting a war for a wrong reason, continue it for the right one, the protection of Christians.

Understanding that a literal concept of democracy can, separated from Christian charity, lead to a doctrine of Total War (indluding therefore Terrorism, acts of violence of otherwise non-involved civilians) is not the same as endorsing it.

What St Thomas said is rather "one cannot take revenge on a multitude" - this is a concept which I think Christianity brought into the world.** Once a rebellion is quenched, not everyone who supported it, but only instigators can be punished by the legitimate authority targetted by the rebellion (that is one reason why Robespierre and Danton were not legitimate authority as regards Bretagne or Vendée, nor the Choans rebels : the French Republic answered with genocidal acts, with massacres).

Hans Georg Lundal
Nanterre UL
Motherhood of Our Lady
the Blessed Virgin Mary
11-X-2014

* City Journal : The Peace Racket : Bruce Bawer, Summer 2007
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html


** Julius Caesar also proned this mildness, in a limited way : when the multitude in question was one of Roman Citizens or Auxiliarii, who had fought on the other side of the Civil War.

David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me

1) New blog on the kid : David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me, 2) The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church, 3) Correspondence de of Hans Georg Lundahl : David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy


Here is what CMI have to say about him (whole article):

CMI : Darwinist professor David Barash gets ‘theological’ in the classroom
But his presentation is a one-sided, intellectually dishonest attack on religion
by Keaton Halley and Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 11 October 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/darwinist-david-barash-theological


Here is what he has to say about himself, or rather the part of his origins:

My parents were Canadian, my dad from Montreal and my mom from a small town a hundred miles or so further north in Quebec, known as Ste. Sophie. (Their parents in turn were immigrants from Eastern Europe.)


David P. Barash (his own site)
http://www.dpbarash.com/


I have a certain feeling they left Eastern Europe for Canada to avoid pogroms, and that hatred of Christianity in David P. Barash comes from there. Also, when they came to Canada, Evolutionism was the vogue among a certain élite. And that people, as it happens, sometimes carries gratitude to men to the point of idolatry and apostasy from God.

I do not know what Barash means, but I would be surprised if the name wasn't Hebrew. It is triliteral (three consonants). It contains a shin. There is an Asher Barash who studies German Historicism. So, I think my guess is fairly solid, as guesses go.

Now, back to the CMI article, now for details:

Barash (1946– ) is well known for his radical anti-Christian views. His book Peace and Conflict Studies (2002) has been criticized for Marxist–Leninist views and for a moral equivalence between Islamist terrorists murdering innocents in their fight for imposition of Sharia tyranny and soldiers fighting for genuine freedom.


Jews who remain within that community have a certain history of more or less equating Christians and Muslims. As I mentioned Pogroms, it is not totally not at all understandable. But it is nevertheless wrong.

One of their ways of describing Christianity and Islam seems to be (I have not read their Talmud myself) referring to ancestry (including by adopotion or even discipleship as quasi-adoption, I presume?) of Esau for Christians and Ishmael for Muslims. Calling Christians Edomites probably goes back to after the Sack of Jerusalem by Titus, when Christians having fled from Jerusalem to Pella (in Jordan, i e in "Edom-Moab-and-Ammon") came back from there and brought converts from there. Jews think the Jordanians arriving after Titus had left for Rome mean they have a right to describe Christians as Edomites. I think the floight to Pella and making converts there fulfil the promise about Messiah of his conquering Edom, Moab and Ammon (Isaiah 11), and very correctly so, since Christ did it "post-mortem" through His Church, and Isaiah 11 has a verse "and his sepulchre shall be glorious" (i e by the Resurrection), which Jewry has changed (reading or interpretation) to "and his abode shall be glorious" (though, as His abode is Heaven, since Ascension, that also remains true). Calling Islam Ishmael refers - with less bad faith - to fact that Mohammed was from Mid Arabian Peninsula, where Ishmaelites and Madianites had mixted, Ishmaelites having upper hand.

Unfortunately, Barash now thinks that his biology class is the proper forum for explicitly attacking his students’ religious convictions, as he shamelessly announced in his recent New York Times op-ed.


Chesterton noted that Jews have some cultural trouble distinguishing public from private, distinguishing a public trust from a private property. As I mentioned Pogroms, I might add that Chesterton deplored them.

In publishing such views, the NYT is at least displaying some sort of historical consistency. Its star reporter Walter Duranty (1884–1957) was a cheerleader for Stalin’s evolution-spawned genocide4 in the 1930s. Consistent with the evolutionary denial of the sanctity of innocent human life made in God’s image, Duranty infamously said, “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” where ‘breaking eggs’ = murdering people, and ‘a few’ = tens of millions.


I wonder if Duranty was Jewish? As to NYT, whether its founders were Jewish or not, they were in New York - a town with very many Jews, or a city, if you prefer. Now, let us look it up ...

New York Times was founded by Henry Jarvis Raymond - a Whig, a liberal progressive, a Republican, a Abraham Lincoln partisan. However, after the war he prones clemency towards the South. OK, not as bad as Duranty, then. By the way, New York Times in 1990 had one article by Karl E. Meyer admit that Duranty was bad in denying the famine in Ukraine. But let us not forget that while it went on, New York Times published Duranty, but the correct journalism was done by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. Of the latter I know, he became a Catholic.

Of the former I learn he visited Adolf Hitler - in 1933. Well before any atrocities of his on a scale comparable to Holodomor and Russian Red Terror were known. Of course, even in 1933, there was an installation of Labour Camps with Draconian measures against shirkers ... but I do not know these measures were put into practise before the War. One man cannot see in every direction.

But obviously the fact Gareth Jones had visited Hitler was an excuse for men like Duranty to contradict him as biassed. As to Karl E. Meyer, his article came a bit late for Ukraine, it came in 1990 - when Soviet Union fell and everyone admitted Holodomor.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Médiathèque Segrais, Torcy
Motherhood of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary
11-X-2014

PS, if CMI are, perhaps understandably, a bit shy about pointing out the Jewish heritage of Barash and his Antichristianity, it is a bit thick that they seem to be so ghastly innocent about it being psychology Barash lectures in. Not as if Freud, Sigmund, and Jung, were antichristian? Freud same Darwinian way as Barash, Jung more Blavatskaja type. One reason I will never be member of Watchtower sect is they are so innocent about psycholists and about psychology. Innocent in the way which here in France is called "naïveté".

Friday, 10 October 2014

Le Catholicisme est Charitable, Pas un Système Social


C'est bien grâce à l'église qu'il y a des hôpitaux. Dans l'antiquité païenne, il y avait certes des médecins, mais ils l'étaient à titre commercial. Quasi uniquement. Un homme riche ou au moins un peu aisé était capable de payer le médecin. Un esclave avait un médecin dans la mesure que son maître le voulait. Des pauvres libres, il n'y en avait pas beaucoup. S'ils étaient malades, ils n'avaient pas automatiquement accès à des médecins. Certains se faisaient esclaves pour avoir, certains mouraient prématurément, certains avaient un bienfaiteur qu'ils allaient ensuite visiter et considérer comme un grand homme et presque un patron le restant de leur vie.

Sts Côme et Damien - fêtés le 27 septembre il y a presque deux semaines - ont fait du bénévolat. Ils ont été tués par leurs collègues pour ça. Avec la victoire du Catholicisme, le benévolat des médecins pour assister les pauvres devient un moyen de trouver peut-être une meilleure place au Ciel, peut-être échapper à quelque temps au Purgatoire. Les hôpitaux existent après ce temps dans la plupart des villes, mais les premiers déjà alors, à Constantinople, érigés par Constantin : pour que le bénévolat des médecins passe, pour qu'un pauvre puisse savoir où trouver des soins gratuits.

Et l'église a bénit ça.

Mais l'église n'a pas érigé en norme que l'état ou n'importe quelle autre instance doive toujours être l'instance qui s'occupe de tous les pauvres. À la limite l'église elle-même servait - à l'époque quand le denier était 10% et dépassait souvent les impôts à l'état, tout en restant à 10%. Quand l'église est dôté d'un denier volontaire fixé à moins d'un pourcent du revenu annuel, il est irréaliste de supposer qu'elle fasse le même oeuvre avec beaucoup moins de ressources. Si la dépense doit rester la même, le revenu ne doit pas baisser. Or, le revenu est baissé, à cause de divers révolutionnaires anticléricaux. Donc, les dépenses doivent baisser aussi.

Mais même dans les meilleurs époques - par exemple le XIII. Siècle - l'église ne se prenait pas en charge de pourvoir à tous les pauvres. St Thomas justifie l'inégalité des possessions des évêques et des rois par certain nombre de faits, entre autre celui que ceux-ci doivent donner un bon exemple pour que tous qui peuvent donnent aux pauvres - sans se ruiner eux-mêmes biensûr.

Je ne pose pas d'espoirs dans l'église comme système social donc. Il y a eu des temps, et parmi les plus festives même, que je passais un soir par semaine à manger devant St Nicolas du Chardonnet pendant l'hiver.

Si j'ai une amertume par rapport à ma situation, par rapport à St Nicolas du Chardonnet, c'est ceci : je n'ai jamais demandé qu'ils me fassent de l'aide sociale, comme elle est comprise par les administrateurs de l'RSA. J'ai par contre demandé qu'ils me donnent un revenu pour ce que je fais moi, en fonction de ce qu'ils peuvent faire, non à titre de paroisse, mais des paroissiens à titre individuelle ou en collectives plus petites, par exemple de la performence musicale pour public payant, si j'ai composé une chose bien. Ou de l'édition en bouquins pour lecteurs payants, si j'ai écrit quelque chose de bien.

Je viens de parler avec une dame un peu niaise et même pas très agréable.* Quand elle savait que je défendais le Catholicisme, elle n'a pas voulu me donner un café. Ça, c'est sa liberté. Mais en plus elle a posé une question archiniaise, à savoir pourquoi, si je suis Catholique, ce n'est pas l'église qui me pourvoit avec un café. Comme question c'est niais, parce que sa présuppose à la fois l'ignorance historique de ce que je viens d'évoquer et encore une préoccupation mentale avec cette histoire ou ses héritiers qui me semble assez déplacée chez une personne tellement ignorante. En plus d'être un reproche inutile à un mendiant on ne peut plus utile au bien commun, à travers mes écrits (dont la version internet est gratuite), parmi les démunis, à part les religieux, parce que eux, ils prient avec dévotion. Mais j'espère que ma réponse n'ait pas été tout aussi niaise. Et qu'elle peuve profiter à ceux qui veulent savoir, par exemple quelque chose sur l'Église Catholique, ou sur le Moyen Âge, avant de juger.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St François Borgia, S.J.
10-X-2014

* Des gens comme cette dame me font regretter de ne pas être francophone de souche. Mais c'est peut être plus agréable pour elle. Sa question était intellectualement niaise. La manière de la poser? Qu'elle cherche le mot qui ne m'est pas venu en esprit, si elle veut, c'est en suédois "snorkig", je ne garantis pas l'exactitude de la traduction. Le mot me parait un peu plus banal que la première traduction donnée et un peu plus méchant que la deuxième.

Thursday, 9 October 2014

A note on "Presuppositional"

I have heard this word bandied about among atheists as if meaning "presuppose Christianity is true, and you will conclude it is true." Or other versions of circulus vitiosus.

I have now seen it is used about a proof of God, or a type of such, the one item of which I consider valid is the one I called "the C S Lewis proof of God". As given in his book Miracles.

I have before that discovery used it as a fancy modern description of circular reasoning, in one title:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2014/10/on-who-is-too-presuppositional-plus.html


And I have since defended the type of argument (or the CSL version of it) after having attacked its name:

New blog on the kid : Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/10/sye-ten-bruggencate-c-s-lewis-aquinas.html


The real presuppositional (see article) apologetics may be summarised as follows (for details go to article), in a correct sorites:

  • What everyone without exception believes, is true.
  • But what someone presupposes while reasoning, one believes.
  • So, what everyone without exception presupposes while reasoning, is true.
  • But things incompatible with a purely material or polyspiritual origin of universe (insert item) and with a monospiritual present of universe (insert item) are presupposed by everyone while reasoning.
  • So, things incompatible with a purely material or polyspiritual origin of universe (insert item) and with a monospiritual present of universe (insert item) are true.


The latter sentence is also expressible as that items of presuppositional apologetics excluding materialistic atheism (purely material origin of universe), shintoism and animism (polyspiritual origin of universe), averroism and hinduism (monospiritual present of universe).

The real question is whether there are such items, and yes, I think there are (see article) and they are presupposed by everybody while reasoning./HGL

Update: as also stated in this reply to RomanMissalExegete. Here:

... on Presuppositional, Again ...
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/01/on-presuppositional-again.html

Réjouissez-vous avec moi, lecteurs!


Une bobine était perdue, je croyais devoir acheter encore du fil à coudre - elle était tombée dans le fonds de mon sac, je l'ai retrouvée.

Un livre de bibliothèque a aussi été récupéré, par la bibliothèque, après que je l'ai redonné.

En revanche, la Suède n'est pas si rejouissant. Une connaissance catholique vient de me dire que des homosexualistes peuvent se défiler avec un show assez homo-pronographique et que les gens qui trouvent ça abnorme peuvent être recupérés comme abnormes parce qu'ils sont scandalisés.

Rejouissez-vous, ceux qui m'aiment bien, que je suis en France et non pas en Suède.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Denis de Paris
9-X-2014

Et davantage, le Jésuite George Coyne vient de me contacter pour que je lui puisse communiquer ce que je viens d'écrire à son propos. Je détesterais de l'avoir, même malgré moi, écrit sans le communiquer à la personne concernée!

New blog on the kid : Answering George Coyne's Comment to Bill Maher
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/09/answering-george-coynes-comment-to-bill.html

aussi sur
Creation vs. Evolution : Answering George Coyne's Comment to Bill Maher
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/09/answering-george-coynes-comment-to-bill.html

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God

See A note on "Presuppositional"


Sye Ten Bruggencate gives us this proof. Why is God Necessary For:
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/why-is-god-necessary.php
Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.

Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.

Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change.


He also starts out with a road to the proof, a road which is also labelled proof. Here is first page, transcribing button inscriptions as ordinary text, and going on between pages:

4 options:

  • absolute truth exists
  • absolute truth does not exist
  • I don't know if absolute truth exists
  • I don't care if absolute truth exists


(Absolute Truth - True for all people at all times everywhere)

I pick
absolute truth exists
and I get 2 options

  • I know something to be true
  • I do not know something to be true


(Knowledge - Justified, true, belief)

I pick
I know something to be true
and I get first a text and then two options:

You have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, and that you know some things to be true. The next step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you believe that logic exists. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that logic exists. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.


  • Logic exists
  • Logic does not exist


I pick
Logic exists
and I get a text and two options:

To reach this page you have acknowledged there is absolute truth, that you know some things to be true, and that logic exists. Next we will examine what you believe about logic. Does logic change?


  • Logic does not change
  • Logic changes


I pick
Logic does not change
and I get a text and two options:

To reach this page, you have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, that you know some things to be true, that logic exists and that it is unchanging. The next question is whether you believe that logic is material, or is it immaterial? In other words, is logic made of matter, or is it 'abstract'?


  • Logic is not made of matter
  • Logic is made of matter


I pick
Logic is not made of matter
and I get a text and two options:

To reach this page, you have acknowledged that absolute truth exists, that you know some things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging and not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe that logic is universal or up to the individual. Are contradictions invalid only where you are, and only because you say they are, or is this universally true?


  • Logic is Universal
  • Logic is Person Relative


I pick
Logic is Universal
and I get two pages in sequence (I intersperse a bit of critique of his interpretation of Bible [in square brackets] so you can seen what I added):

To reach this page you have admitted that absolute truth exists, that you can know things to be true, that logic exists, that it is unchanging, that it is not made of matter, and that it is universal.

Truth, knowledge, and logic are necessary to prove ANYTHING and cannot be made sense of apart from God. Therefore...

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything

While this proof is valid, no one needs this proof. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. [Not quite true!] The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God [Not quite true either] as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious [could it be via some proof?] that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

God does not send people to Hell for denying what they do not know [denying what one does not know would at least involve presumption and hypocritically seeing "lack of seen proof" as "seen proof of lack"], but for sin against the God that they do know.

Why is God necessary for truth, knowledge, and universal, abstract, unchanging logic?
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/why-is-god-necessary.php


As said, last link on that second page was already cited.

There is actually a third page, after the second, with two options:

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.

This type of logical proof deals with "transcendentals" or "necessary starting points," and the proof is called a "transcendental proof." Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him.

  • I believe that God exists
  • I do not believe that God exists


I pick
I believe that God exists
and I get back to main.

So, for fun:

I pick
I do not believe that God exists (not true of me, but since the computer program has no mind, I am lying to no one, and I am telling my readers the truth of why I pushed it.)
and I get this page:

Denying belief in God is not unbelief, but "professed unbelief" - an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you claim to know. Arguing against God's existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while.You admit that absolute truth exists, but cannot account for it without God. You claim to know things to be true, but cannot justify knowledge or truth according to your own worldview. You use universal, immaterial, unchanging logic in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for it. Truth, knowledge and logic are not the only ways God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God's existence offered on this website. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but 'Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for truth, knowledge and logic apart from God?' Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for truth, knowledge, and universal, immaterial, unchanging logic can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn't it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers say about Christians?

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love in the person of Jesus Christ, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding.


That was more practical than logical, more ad hominem than ad probationem.

How do I agree with the proofs offered, as finally given, apart from the road there?

Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.


NOT a proof. The uncertainty given as consequent of not having revelation from an omniscient is of what we only think we know, yes, but of what we really do know? No.

Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.


Totally agreed on this one. It is the C. S. Lewis proof, basically, in very short, of an eternal mind. Though CSL - in Miracles and in his debate with Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe - is using it more on logic and on morals. Back to Sye Ten Bruggencate. Who is using perhaps something else about logic, or perhaps going a bit "shorthand":

Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change.


Something - to me - needs spelling out here. I will try to do it.

Man has an immaterial component, but it is not universal. It is left to the imagination, or left out, that universality cannot be just an abstract, but the universal mind also must be a person.

If finite personal minds are in any way derived from it, it can be more than personal, like Tripersonal, but certainly not less than Personal. If finite personal minds were not in any way derived from it, it would not be the logical option it offers itself as, to suppose there is an universal mind. Actually, much of the difficulties, I will not say of Theism as such, but of historically unfolding Theistic philosophy, and these preparing the way for Atheism, are related to difficulties in imagining the relation of our finite personal minds to God.

Shall I resume what I think true, now, in a manner which seems to me a bit more complete than that of Sye Ten Bruggencate? Though less so, than the whole book by C. S. Lewis, as said, Miracles (1947).

So, in order for Atheism to be true, or Evolution to be true, or Heliocentrism or Big Bang to be true, or, as many of them Atheists think, Marxism or Freudianism to be true, it is not sufficient, but certainly necessary that there be such a thing as truth.

For there to be such a thing as truth, there has to be a relation, which has not yet been boiled down to a physical one, namely of one thing to be about another. Like the statements "two and two are four" and "two and two are not four" being about abstract mathematical items usually called numbers - or even being about only the concrete items one happens to think of. But one must be about the other. Otherwise they would be equivalent. Otherwise one could not label one of them as self evident (or nearly so) and other as paradox.

Computers can imitate such a relation, but never do it. No programmer (as such) can explain how x can be about y. Except, to the user, not to the computer. To a user and a site builder, a button like "I believe there is a God" is (with the exception I permitted myself above) about the one pushing the button and about his making habitually a statement about whatever he means by God.

No programmer can make anything in the computer itself to the computer itself be about anything else in the computer itself. And by "anything in the computer" I include anything that is in it as occurrences, while it is running, while executing programs.

So, the relation of being about something else is an immaterial relation.

After this relation existing, it is also necessary that such a relation be permanent.

Atheism doesn't make sense if God sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't. Fortunately for Atheists, a being that only existed sometimes would not be God. But then, unfortunately for them, this would only help them if this always held true.

Evolution does not make sense if we sometimes live after ancestors that were fish and sometimes do not live after them.

Heliocentrism does not make sense if Sun is only sometimes where (even if only relatively to Solar System) Newtonian formulas about its position in Solar System would put it - and at other times in the daily rotation round Earth I believe our senses (sight and equilibriocetive) demand us to accept.

Big Bang would not make sense if we only sometimes lived after a singularity expanding in the past and sometimes not.

I think all of these are false, but that they make even as falsehoods more sense than they would if there were no such thing as the relationship of a statment being about a truth, or if there were no such thing as such a relationship being permanent.

BUT the Atheist already knows this. He already knows (and never pretends otherwise, except when trying to argue against proofs for God's existence) that statements have the immaterial relation of being about truths, and that this immaterial relation has the uncannily matter-unlike quality of being permanent.

However, if he is a materialist, he is going to say that x being about y is a complex secondary quality of matter, a bit like colour, and one which is so complex that it hasn't been fully understood yet, but when it will be, computers will be constructed that really can think and not just process information in non-informational ways.

You know, like when each sound is being emitted from the vocal chords and tongue and palate and nose and teeth and lips, these phonetic processes are processing information coded in language sounds, but not processing them in an informational way, unlike the minds of speaker and hearer. It is only the fact of processing them in phonetic and physical ways.

Or like when each letter is being traced in handwriting, the physical tracing of line after line in it is a processing of the information it carries, but there also not directly, so the tracing of the letter is processing information in non-informational ways.

The Atheist can hardly deny this, even if he is not habitually thinking of it.

What beats me, and I never was a hard core Atheist, though one might say I was sometimes a non-Theist or very oblivious Theist, so I have no personal memory of dealing with it as an Atheist either, is how Atheists can pretend that all it takes for non-informational, physical, processing to become informational is some extra level of physical complexity.

So, truth must exist, it must be immaterial, it must be universal.

It nearly follows even from there, that there must be an universal mind. Here is where it becomes a bit tricky, since there are two options of how to relate the universal mind to our non-universal ones.

Creation or emanation of some sort - or some kind of partial identity.

That option of some kind of partial identity, like our minds being really only minds when touched by the universal mind for truth, but not being minds at all when in error (Averroism), or like our minds being a kind of personas in which the universal mind forgets itself and forgets part of its truths (Hinduistic Pantheism), can of course also be refuted. But Sye Ten Bruggencate did not take the trouble to do so. C. S. Lewis did.

Averroism and Hinduism are not strictly speaking Atheism. Rather, they are a kind of denial of our personal selves, as such and as fully minds. But of course, denying us as minds, equals denying the kind of God who created us as embodied minds - the one God Christianity is talking about. So, apologetics has a reason to refute them too, whenever they are imminent. Today they are. More than one Muslim, probably, more than one Jew or Mason, certainly, is into Averroës and Spinoza. I have even had to break off a friendship with a man who was recommending me to become an Averroist as a preparation for accepting Spinoza. Obviously, I will do no such thing! And Hinduism has been imminent in the Western mind since Blavatsky.

On the tour I made of Sye Ten Bruggencate's site, I saw no proofs against Averroism and Hinduism, but perhaps he will add them. C. S. Lewis' Miracles first establishes an universal mind and then refutes Averroistic and Hindoo interpretations of how it relates to us. If the universal mind could forget itself so as to make errors in us (Hindooism), how could it be the universal mind and guarantee of logic's universality? If we were not thinking at all when in errors not attributable to the universal mind (Averroism), we would not be trusting logic either, as we would not be able to know it was accessible to us when we were in error - or we would be very loth to admit error, precisely so as to retain our right to use logic. In social practise, Averroism (or what I suppose to be such in my observation of Westernised Muslim élite manners) works out as little people having to opt out of logic and élite as having to opt out of admitting errors.

St Thomas actually does refute Averroism and Hindooism and not quite unlike the way of C. S. Lewis, especially for Averroism. But his own proof of God (in Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Quaesto Secunda, Articulus Tertius, after quoting Exodus 3:14), is not the kind of presuppositions even Atheists must actually admit while reasoning. Plus addition of refutation of Averroism. It is more direct, if you will.

A very short cut of it as given in Prima Via just after quoting Exodus 3:14, and as given in Contra Gentes, and as given in or alluded to in the follow up, is this: we see that the Universe is turning around us. But it is so big that only God could do that. Back when people still believe the obvious testimony of sight and equilibrial sense, very few men were Atheists. Even Averroism wasn't denying the existence of God - only the existence of us. That is the kind of obviousness that St Paul was talking about.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Bridget of Vadstena
8-X-2014