Intro on "socially relevant":
- What is meant by socially relevant?
- Own answer
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- studied at Lund University
- Written 2m ago
- I don’t use the phrase, or not often, but my spontaneous reaction is this:
- a thing may be relevant in a certain context related to a thing other than itself (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism are relevant for Biblical Inerrancy, while value of pi isn’t, since the passage involves an object which measures for more than one geometric circle);
- a thing may be relevant to a particular person (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism are relevant to me, socker and American football are not)
- a thing may be relevant to a particular society (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism were relevant to Catholic 16th C Italy, Young Earth Creationism is relevant and Geocentrism irrelevant to late 20th C US, Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are both irrelevant to late 20th C Sweden or France.
When speaking about one society, one can say that for instance in it Neo-Darwinism is socially relevant (there you have the phrase) while Creationism is socially irrelevant (there you have opposite phrase).
I am reminded of a time when Judaism was very socially irrelevant to Antiochus Epiphanes or Christianity very socially irrelevant to Nero.
Socially relevant is not an absolute value or measure of value. Nor is it a constant which can’t be changed.
- Quote from other answer
- When I hear ‘socially relevant’ I think of high school. What did it mean to be socially relevant in high school?
It would start with the question “Am I socially relevant?” That would imply many questions: Did what I say matter to other people. Was it important to invite me to parties? If I was single, was there potential interest in dating me? If I was dating someone, was it ever discussed by others? ...
- Read more on
- What is meant by socially relevant?
and look for the answer of Peter Moore. At present, it is the first one and so it is easy to find.
- Just in case
- anyone were thinking I as a homeless man cannot be "socially relevant" and therefore what I write on any topic can't be either, I note that I am often writing on topics which have very great social relevance at least somewhere.
I also note, that someone would be guilty of going back to the deplorable High School ethos described by Moore if applying this as a criterium on whether what I write should be read or not.
The same obviously applies if some shrink type of observer of my internet actions and other actions would try to pretend that "since HGL am not socially relevant, he's nuts to believe he can make it as a writer."
People do become socially relevant by making it as writers. They very much less often become writers by being already socially relevant.
And yet a third type of person could be involved in hoping I meet such a question.
He might want to tell me:
"You are not socially relevant, why should I care what YOU think on such and such a matter?"
And I would respond that the important part is not my thinking such a thing, but the important part is I have reasons for thinking it. And an ability to state them. While not tired enough to complain about this, I am even able to write them in fun and attractive ways. But even when tired, I am able to argue coherently. If you missed that, you have never read any of my posts attentively.
"Well, who do you think has?"
Well, some, like all of these have been read at least 500 times over, and one of them at least 26 000 or 27 000 times over.
And that means, either it went viral very quickly, or it has gone on gathering readers well after I published it. As I recall the stats from back then, it went viral very quickly.
Now, in Junior High School as in my present mode of existence, I am from time to time confronted with people trying to tell me I am not socially relevant.
If this is true, why do you care about that?
If you care about that, how can it be true?
A man is hardly systematically humiliated time after time unless someone finds him socially relevant, and itches to tell him he isn't.
Here are the posts and pages:
- Creation vs. Evolution :
Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present
Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings?
Genesis 2:17 - Same Day? Are There Long-Age Implications?
Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14
ENG/FR : What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser
"They even have little papers they sign that say they must fit everything into the Bible."
I Like "Miacis Cognitus"
AronRa, did I mention you are worthless on history?
A Catholic who will go unnamed
Weakness of CMI : Church History
Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic
FR : Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants.
- Great Bishop of Geneva!:
Answers about "The Forbidden Book"
Great Bishop of Geneva, Apostle of Savoy ...
- somewhere else :
Answering Barbara Smoker's Path from Rome
Correcting Theodore Gracyk's analysis
Kalam, Loftus & Lindsay
Two rebuttals of Kalaam rebutted
What did Early Christians Believe About Greek and Roman Gods?
God vs gods - Keaton Halley, Wilhelm Schmidt, G. K. Chesterton
Ten Extra-Biblical Writers or Sources on Reign of Tiberius (Silent Historians Argument Revisited)
A Case for Considering Western Atheism as Protestantism Losing Christianity
No, true enough Acharya, Varro did not write about Jesus ...
So, Dionysus was a Copy of Moses, may One Presume?
- Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere :
Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
[The answer is also relevant for some other of my blogs.]
What kind of editing I did ... and what kind of copy-pasting
[But not on all debate posts.]
Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
...on Physics from Netscape Boards
... on Objective Morality with Guess Who? I bungled original discussion, but made another on slavery
Lies or Bad Guesses about Inerrantism being Protestant : on Catholic Forums
Answering Steve Rudd
A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :
Where Orthodox Canonists disagree with Catholic ones about Soldiers in War Communicating
Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..."
Misunderstanding Begging (Some Cultural History of, Blog Theme Obliging) and This Beggar
Accusative and Dative for English speakers ...
Answering TheOFloinn some more
Sects, Historical Critical Method, Post-Confessional Christianity
- HGL's F.B. writings :
FR : La Sonate et la Sonatine
Restoring a Christian society, fine but how?
FR : Oui, l'âge moyen de la puberté reste un âge mûr pour le mariage
Being argumentative with people who dislike that (East of Schism)
FR : Mes réponses à propos protestantisme
Situation of Yaqui children better again!
Was John Wesley charitable to Catholics?
Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person
Thunderf00t's fan base, no full freedom of speech
Ayesha's marriage was brought up in a discussion.
Debate on credibility, as with tradition and revelation, of Genesis and Gospels
"et lux non loqui"
Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism
Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
Be my Unwin or Hooper if you like.
Attacked on "Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel" Subject Again
Three links related to dating questions (with some discussion)
I am not sure you know Artur Sebastian Rosman
- Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl :
Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether
If you wish to correspond with me
So, might I be socially relevant to some?
Perhaps enough so for some to want me to be socially irrelevant.
Muslims and Anti-Muslims have their reasons for dreading my social relevance. Muslims because I defend Christianity. And Anti-Muslims are often motivated by a feminism which says, among other "credenda" of their new religion, that teen girls are too young to chose a husband.
Editors and experts have their reasons. Editors, because my plan for getting edited involves a challenge to their quasi-monopoly of merchandise. And experts, because my view on expertise involves a challenge on their quasi-monopoly (shared with religious pastors and with schoool teachers) of ideas.
Mainstream Catholics as per today's mainstream and any Protestants faithful to their reformation have their reasons. The now usual mainstream is as far from traditional Inerrantism as the Arian mainstream under Emperor Contans was far from before and after traditional and mainstream Trinitarianism. And Protestants like imagining that Catholicism was a decay in the Christian faith, whether as to Bible access or as to pseudo-traditionalism spuriously claiming Apostolic Tradition or on other issues.
I am being deliberately treated as socially irrelevant by people to whom I am all too relevant. Because they have found out that debating with me, they can't win. I am usually right. If I weren't, they don't feel confident on my being wrong showing up to everyone by my arguing obviously badly.
But there is perhaps another kind of people who would wish me to remain socially irrelevant for a while. Look here on the following quotes:
|Two thousand years ago, a crew of members of the Kingdom of Heaven who are responsible for nurturing "gardens," determined that a percentage of the human "plants" of the present civilization of this Garden (Earth) had developed enough that some of those bodies might be ready to be used as "containers" for soul deposits. Upon instruction, a member of the Kingdom of Heaven then left behind His body in that Next Level (similar to putting it in a closet, like a suit of clothes that doesn't need to be worn for awhile), came to Earth, and moved into (or incarnated into), an adult human body (or "vehicle") that had been "prepped" for this particular task. The body that was chosen was called Jesus. The member of the Kingdom of Heaven who was instructed to incarnate into that body did so at His "Father's" (or Older Member's) instruction. He "moved into" (or took over) that body when it was 29 or 30 years old, at the time referred to as its baptism by John the Baptist (the incarnating event was depicted as "...the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove" - Luke 3:22). [That body (named Jesus) was tagged in its formative period to be the receptacle of a Next Level Representative, and even just that "tagging" gave that "vehicle" some unique awareness of its coming purpose.]
The sole task that was given to this member from the Kingdom of Heaven was to offer the way leading to membership into the Kingdom of Heaven to those who recognized Him for who He was and chose to follow Him. "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" meant - 'since I am here, and I am from that Kingdom, if you leave everything of this world and follow me, I can take you into my Father's Kingdom.' Only those individuals who had received a "deposit" containing a soul's beginning had the capacity to believe or recognize the Kingdom of Heaven's Representative. ... Our mission is exactly the same. I am in the same position to today's society as was the One that was in Jesus then. My being here now is actually a continuation of that last task as was promised, to those who were students 2000 years ago. They are here again, continuing in their own overcoming, while offering the same transition to others. Our only purpose is to offer the discipline and "grafting" required of this transition into membership in My Father's House. My Father, my Older Member, came with me this time for the first half of this task to assist in the task because of its present difficulty.
Two pages from this site:
This other category I speak of are people who believe this stuff and who wish me to be an other body given up to incarnate their extra-terrestrial super human false gods. Perhaps because these two have gone old, or died, or gone sick or gone into prison - or, best for them, even converted to Christianity and sanity. But for some reason, they want someone to succeed such "demi-gods" in their modern Paganism.
I do not wish to do so.
They know I do not wish to do so (if they exist at all outside my imagination, and I think they do), they know I believe sth quite incompatible with their views, Traditional as opposed to Modernist, Biblically Interrantist, Roman Catholicism.
They wish me to have as little success as possible as promoting these convictions, so that perhaps by desperation I should be pushed to inviting the kind of demons they are unwittingly worshipping. And become socially relevant after apostasising.
One of their tricks (same proviso as previous : if they exist at all outside my imagination, and I think they do), is to make Christians, especially Catholic Christians, think I am already on their board.
Some of them might even think so themselves. They might think that all of my consistent writing on the internet for 16 years since 2001 as a Catholic (part time Orthodox but revert) is some kind of irony, and I am too socially inept to realise that some don't get this irony but would take my words at face value.
Well, my words usually should be taken at face value. It is they who don't get I am not being ironic when they think I am. When I really am ironic about positions such as theirs, it is they who don't get the irony, think I am expressing their (and on their views my) views too crudely, so people could take it as irony. Well, if I lend words to their major heterodox ideas, I usually am ironic. But much more often, I don't lend words to their ideas, but borrow their own words from debates.
However, on this last issue with religious such as those of "heaven's gate", this is less apparent to readers of my blogs, because they have avoided debate.
Also, some Puritans, Protestants who unduly identify both justice and decency and Christianity with their own narrow and recent prejudices, may have taken me as already being such a thing - because the kind of freedom of thought and action which I enjoy as a Catholic to them seems pure paganism.
Indeed, these guys may have come before the other type and have triggered the interest of the other type.
With these Puritans, I am fairly sure I am not just imagining their existence. Some have been indirect, but so nearly direct (at least in avoidance of replies after a certain point which tended to come quicker and quicker) that the conclusion, though based on facts I did not record while it all happened, can hardly be doubted by myself, nor by people knowing me well enough to realise I haven't hallucinated the facts as well as made hasty conclusions.
Hans Georg Lundahl
PS, adding up the readers of each so to speak marketable blog, I get:
128 408 + 80 619 + 52 255 + 7 920 + 23 182 + 34 941 + 111 337 + 44 343 + 14 968 + 12 672 + 8 488 + 2 144 + 3 245 + 2 303 + 2 174 + 3 068 + 136 993 + 5 357 + 18 081 + 10 859 + 44 530 + 13 257 + 100 461 + 115 828 + 19 436 + 28 189 + 104 654 + 918
= 1 130 630
Limited to only above 7:
128 408 + 19 436 + 136 993 + 104 654 + 52 255 + 18 081 + 115 828
= 575 655