Sunday, 31 May 2015

Islamic vs Christian view of slavery

Wikipedia : Ma malakat aymanukum

Al-Muminun 6 and Al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and "those whom one's right hands possess" (female slaves), saying " أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ" (literally, "their spouses or what their right hands possess"), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with either is permissible regardless of consent. The female slave may be punished if she doesn't consent.

Spanish Colonies : if a master has sex with a female slave outside marriage, he ows her freedom, as he has proven himself a slave of his passions.

Spanish Mainland : slavery not allowed./HGL

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Were the Ehrlich's Wrong to Fear Exponential Growth?

Here is a passage from The Population Explosion by Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich.


The time it takes a population to double in size is a dramatic way to picture rates of population growth, one that most of us can understand more readily than percentage growth rates. Human populations have often grown in a pattern described as "exponential." Exponential growth occurs in bank accounts when interest is left to accumulate and itself earns interest. Exponential growth occurs in populations because children, the analogue of interest, remain in the population and themselves have children.

[Footnotes 7 and 8:]

Exponential growth occurs when the increase in population size in a given period is a constant percentage of the size at the beginning of the period. Thus a population growing at 2 percent annually or a bank account growing at 6 percent annually will be growing exponentially. Exponential growth does not have to be fast; it can go on at very low rates or, if the rate is negative, can be exponential shrinkage.

Saying a population is "growing exponentially" has almost come to mean "growing very fast," but that interpretation is erroneous. True exponential growth is rarely seen in human populations today, since the percentage rate of growth has been changing. In most cases, the growth rate has been gradually declining since the late 1960s. Nevertheless, it is useful to be aware of the exponential model, since it is implied every time we project a population size into the future with qualifying statements such as "if that rate continues."

For mathematical details on exponential growth, see P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and J. P. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), pp. 100-104. The term "exponential" comes from the presence in the equation for growth of a constant, e, the base of natural logarithms, raised to a power (exponent) that is a variable (the growth rate multiplied by the time that rate will be in effect).

[Back to paragraphs footnoted:]

A key feature of exponential growth is that it often seems to start slowly and finish fast. A classic example used to illustrate this is the pond weed that doubles each day the amount of pond surface covered and is projected to cover the entire pond in thirty days. The question is, how much of the pond will be covered in twenty-nine days? The answer, of course, is that just half of the pond will be covered in twenty-nine days. The weed will then double once more and cover the entire pond the next day. As this example indicates, exponential growth contains the potential for big surprises.

[Footnote 9:]

The potential for surprise in repeated doublings can be underlined with another example. Suppose you set up an aquarium with appropriate life-support systems to maintain 1.000 guppies, but no more. If that number is exceeded, crowding will make the fishes susceptible to "ich," a parasitic disease that will kill most of the guppies. You then begin the population with a pair of sex-crazed guppies. Suppose that the fishes reproduce fast enough to double their population size every month. For eight months everything is fine, as the population grows 2→4→8→16→32→64→128→256→>512. Then within the ninth month the guppy population surges through the fatal 1,000 barrier, the aquarium becomes overcrowded, and most of the fishes perish. In fact, the last 100 guppies appear in less than five days -- about 2 percent of the population's history.

One problem with this analogy is that it is very highly theoretical. It is purely based in maths.

I do not know any pond which has been covered with pond weed in one day, after having only half as many the day before.

I don't know any Aquarium of guppies where in nine months the guppy population is caught by ich and mostly perishes.

Besides, a key word if it would occur is "sex crazed".

Men have some of that after fall, but also a capacity for self control, like in punishing rapists as for collective capacity, or like in going to monasteries as for individual one.

Now, let us have a look at the concept of exponential growth of population.

Can a population double in a generation? Theoretically that is not a problem. Two people get four children (but Adam and Eve got more). Or the six people in the generation after Noah get twelve children (each two getting four, but actualy they got more than that) - no problem. Suppose you do not believe in Adam or Noah? Well, the mathematical capacity for doubling is the same. So, Evolutionists say we have been around for 100.000's of years (just counting Homo Sapiens and presuming, probably wrongly, that Heidelberg man and Neanderthal man were no men, plus assigning the usual ages to these creatures presumed to be ancestry intermediate between apes and us, and probably just dead old uncles - or ancestors - between Noah and us). We Christians say humanity had one round before the Flood and has had another since then, basically 5000 years (ok, 4972, actually). Since Noah. How many generations are that? How much would we have doubled to, if exponential growth had been uniformally 2:1 per generation?

I made a calculation on that one, assuming 5000 years, so it goes likely nearly twice as many as we should get in pure mathematics for just 4972 years. Here are my results:

5,708,990,770,823,839,524,233,143,877,797,980,545,530,986,496 = 2152 = doubling each generation for 152 generations.

5000 years : 33 years per generation = 151.5151515 ... generations.

Obviously there are other factors to population growth than exponentiality, but it is one main such - the other main being limited resources and our perception of them, while disasters augmenting temporarily mortality are a subsidiary strong third.

This is from back 24-II-2015. I saved it in my guestbook.

Perhaps the population in pure exponential mathematics would just have been:


Let's divide this by 7 billion:


So, the calculation is that much off between the theory of exponential growth at set rate of doubling each 33 years and the actual population we have.

Is that because there has been another set rate, which is lower and which has been uniform? No, it is because human behaviour is adaptable. Even if a couple easily can get four children, many don't get into couples and many don't get four children.

This much the Ehrlichs agree on. It's just that they think this can be done easier by contraception.

Well, it can also be done easier by wars. And these might not always be as bad as contraception.

Nevertheless, in same chapter, they slurred the Catholic Church:

Even though the media occasionally give coverage to population issues, some people never get the word. In November 1988, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's ban on contraception. The occasion was the twentieth anniversary of Pope Paul's anti-birth-control encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

Fortunately, the majority of Catholics in the industrial world pay little attention to the encyclical or the Church's official ban on all practical means of birth control. One need only note that Catholic Italy at present has the smallest average completed family size (1.3 children per couple) of any nation. Until contraception and then abortion were legalized there in the 1970s, the Italian birth rate was kept low by an appalling rate of illegal abortion.

The bishops who assembled to celebrate the anniversary defended the encyclical by announcing that "the world's food resources theoretically could feed 40 billion people." [Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1988, p. C-15.] In one sense they were right. It's "theoretically possible" to feed 40 billion people - in the same sense that it's theoretically possible for your favorite major-league baseball team to win every single game for fifty straight seasons, or for you to play Russian roulette ten thousand times in a row with five out of six chambers loaded without blowing your brains out.

One might also ask whether feeding 40 billion people is a worthwhile goal for humanity, even if it could be reached. Is any purpose served in turning Earth, in essence, into a gigantic human feedlot? Putting aside the near-certainty that such a miracle couldn't be sustained, what would happen to the quality of life?

First of all, I don't think feeding 40 billion people would take a miracle. But second, I also do not think that it would mean a quality of life being lowered. Using the kind of resourcefulness and reruralisation I think feeding them would imply is probably rather healthy for the overweight and overstressed.

And thirdly, I think that Catholicism has two sides when it comes to population: banning contraception and extolling monasticism.

Now, not that I'd want to become a monk myself, as per where my life has brought me, I might have done better at age twenty, but it uses far less resources and has a far better quality of life and extends this better quality of life to non-monastic Catholic or even not actively anti-Catholic non-Catholic neighbours.

So, I trust the tradition of the Church as well as the common sense that God created our genitals to be used for procreation, and consider the recommendation of the Ehrlichs as being as stinking as my pants are right now, since two shorts and one pair of pants were stolen or lost and with too few people giving money for my laundry.

And that stinks!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Austin of Canterbury

To honour today's saint, here is "And His Word Went Marching On"

Not linking to Ehrlich book, but title is Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, 1990. And chapter cited is 1 Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are? - The title could be answered "because we are not New England Puritans or otherwise into Responsabilistic Heresies". Not being Atheist, we believe God takes His responsibility for making observance of His law work out.

Wednesday, 27 May 2015

A Question for Mr. Duggar - answered by Google - and a Question for In Touch Magazine

Back in 2006, did you take any steps for your son Josh to get married?*

Obviously, according to what the scandal says, your son was in a position described by St Paul. 1 Corinthians 7:9.

Vulgate : Quod si non se continent, nubant. Melius est enim nubere, quam uri.

Douay-Rheims : But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

Supposing the scandal was untrue, your son getting married might still have been a good thing, for him and to avoid the scandal happening now.

Yes. Two years later, Josh married Anna. Congrats!**

If Anna has already years ago made an honest man of Josh, why take it up now?

*Duggar father-in-law defends Josh amid molestation scandal
By Lindsey Kupfer
May 25, 2015 | 5:55pm

** Josh & Anna’s Story

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Savitri Devi avait tort sur les persécutions antichrétiennes

Citons la page qui la cite:
Comment pouvez-vous honorer Savitri aujourd’hui, si vous en ressentez le besoin ? Dans une lettre à un jeune camarade américain datée du 13 avril 1975, Savitri parlait de la manière dont elle célébrerait le proche anniversaire d’Adolf Hitler :

Sa propre lettre:
« C’est juste une courte note pour vous dire comment je penserai à vous (et à tous nos camarades et supérieurs de partout) lors du grand Anniversaire dans une semaine. Il se trouve que ce sera un dimanche cette année, donc grâce aux dieux je n’aurai pas à me rendre à mon travail ennuyeux et je pourrai être entièrement seule et seulement… penser. Je pense que notre Führer aurait maintenant – dans une semaine – 86 ans, s’il était vivant. Et je me demande si nous, les quelques disciples dans la vie desquels Il occupe vraiment la première place, sommes aussi nombreux et fervents que l’étaient les premiers chrétiens en 86 après J.C., c’est-à-dire sous l’Empereur Domitien. Il y avait eu une spectaculaire persécution des chrétiens en 64 après J.C. (sous Néron), mais rien depuis. Mais sûrement on aurait éclaté de rire en entendant dire qu’« un jour » la secte méprisée et de temps en temps persécutée dicterait ses dogmes à tout l’Occident et les imposerait même à des continents et à des îles pas encore découverts. Qui aurait pu imaginer la personnalité et la puissance de Philippe II d’Espagne en ces jours si éloignés ? Et qui peut dire maintenant si naîtra ou pas, dans les 1500 ans à venir, un racialiste aryen aussi puissant, un adorateur de notre Führer, notre équivalent de Philippe II le Catholique ? D’une manière c’est une bonne chose que l’avenir – bien qu’il existe déjà, tout comme le passé – soit totalement imprévisible pour les esprits limités. »

Cité d'après:
La femme contre le temps : pour le 100ème anniversaire de la naissance de Savitri Devi
par R.G. Fowler
Traduit par Arjuna

Qu'ai-je à dire dessus?

D'abord, je ne serai pas "le Philippe II de Hitler", je ne le méprise pas totalement, surtout dans son aspect personnel et artistique comme peintre, mais je trouve l'idée aryanisante et racialiste déplacée et une grande erreur de lui.*

Mais ensuite, qu'ai-je à dire sur ce que la feue Maximine Julia Portaz avait à dire sur les persécutions antichrétiennes?

Son erreur historique est à l'autre côté par rapport à l'erreur de certains Protestants.

Eux, ils disent que le Christianisme ne fut jamais vraiment toléré, que Constantin instituait une religion hybride que nous connaissons comme Catholicisme et comme Orthodoxie et qui a de la suite persécuté les Chrétiens pendant mille ans du Moyen Âge, jusqu'à la Réforme Protestante.

Elle au contraire dit que le Christianisme ne fut jamais vraimant persécuté, à part cette "épisode" sous Néron.

Faux. La persécution de Néron fut renouvelée par Domitien, qui essaya de tuer St Jean en huile bouillante (là où se trouve St Jean de Latran) et ayant échoué par miracle, l'expulsa à Pathmos.

Ensuite on a eu d'autres persécuteurs.

Dioclétien était le neuvième ou dixième grand persécuteur. Entre les grandes persécutions, il y a eu une persécution légale à intensité moins haute, voir parfois basse.

Mais les premières 280 années du Christianisme ont des martyrs, plus ou moins nombreux, quasi pour chaque année. Parmi les Papes, Pie XI, le dernier pape dont je suis sûr de la papauté, était le nombre 259. Donc, le règne moyen est de 7 ans et quelque. St Sylvestre I était le premier pape à ne pas être martyr. Non, c'était St Miltiades. Il était le 32:ème pape. Hmmm - semble que le règne moyen était plus long, 8 ou presque 9 ans. Mais citons les martyres des papes:

  1. St Pierre, martyr sous Néron, l'an 64 ou 67
  2. St Lin - possiblement pas martyr, possiblement si (selon le Liber Pontificalis, si), l'an 76 ou 79
  3. St Anaclète - martyr, sous Domitien, l'an 88 ou 91
  4. St Clément I - martyr sous Trajen, 97
  5. St Évariste - martyr sous Trajen, 105
  6. St Alexandre I - martyr sous Trajen, 115 ou 114
  7. St Xyste ou Sixte I - martyr sous Hadrien, 125 ou 128
  8. St Télesphore - martyr sous Hadrien, 136
  9. St Hygin - martyr sous Antonin Pie, 140
  10. St Pie I - martyr sous Marc Aurèle, 155
  11. St Anicète - martyr sous Marc Aurèle et Lucius Vère, 161 ou 166
  12. St Soter - martyr sous Marc Aurèle, 175
  13. St Éleuthère - le martyrologe ne le note pas comme martyr, mais qu'il a fait baptiser par envoyés Lucius en Bretagne insulaire**. St Irénée qui avait vécu une persécution à Lyons a porté une lettre de là au pape. Obiit 189.
  14. St Victor - martyr vers l'an 200 (198 - 200, les trois ans sont possibles). Sous Septime Sévère.
  15. St Zéphyrin - martyr l'an 216 ou 217. Sous Caracalla.
  16. St Callixte I - martyr v. l'an 223. Sous Alexandre Sévère.
  17. St Urbain I - martyr l'an 230. Sous Alexandre Sévère.
  18. St Pontiain - martyr l'an 235, sous Maximin le Thracien, exilé en Sardaigne déjà par Alexandre Sévère.
  19. St Antère - martyr le 3 janvier 236 sous Maximin, pour le fait d'avoir utilisé des notaires pour compiler les actes des martyrs.
  20. St Fabiain - martyr le 20 janvier 250, sous Dèce.
  21. St Corneille - martyr le 14 Septembre, sous Dèce. 253, et il avait été élu en 251, car la persécution avait empêché qq temps l'élection d'un successeur de St Fabiain.
  22. St Luce I - martyr le 4 ou 5 mars 254. Sous Dèce.
  23. St Étienne I - martyr le 2 août 257. Sous Valérien.
  24. St Xyste II - martyr le 6 août 258. Sous Valérien.
  25. St Denis de Rome - mort après des peines et fatigues pour la foi, 268. L'empéreur Gallien avait abrogé l'édit de persécution directe, ce qui n'empêche pas que l'église ait eu à subir des tracasseries. Pas noté comme martyr.
  26. St Félix I - martyr en 274. Sous Aurélien.
  27. St Eutychiain - martyr en 283. Sous Numérien.
  28. St Caius - martyr en 296. Sous Dioclétien. Célébré comme St Soter le 22 Avril.
  29. St Marcellien - martyr en 304. Sous Dioclétien.
  30. St Marcel I - martyr en 309, il avait été élu quatre ans après le martyre de son prédécesseur. Sous Maxence. Saint patron de Marcel Lefèbvre, dont la mère visita Rome pendant la grossesse.
  31. St Eusèbe de Rome - martyr en 309 ou 310, après 4 moi de pontificat.
  32. St Miltiade - pas martyr, mais a repris les réliques de son prédécesseur martyr de Sicile.

Et ceci n'était que petite partie des persécutions par les empereurs payens avant Constantin. J'avais tort pour trois papes pas morts colmme martyrs même avant Constantin. Et certains disputent autres martyrs aussi, sous prétexte qu'à telle ou telle date il y ait eu un relâchement de la persécution. Ainsi les doctes de Catholic Encyclopedia, d'où j'ai la liste. Elle conteste aussi, sans raison, que l'antipape Félix II ait été de la suite un vrai pape et un martyr - mais ça c'était sous les Empereurs Ariens.

Il y avait eu une persécution par les Juifs aussi, ceci pas dans le sens primitif d'homme de l'ethnie juive, mais dans le sens d'un homme ayant opté contre Jésus-Christ et donc pour le proto-talmudisme. Leurs victimes chrétiennes étaient souvent aussi d'ethnie juive - comme St Pierre. Et je passe aussi des persécutions faites par les Ariens, par Julien Apostat (notons juste que Sainte Viviane était parmi les martyrs sous son règne), par les ethnies Germaniques plus souvent Ariens que Payens, par les Sarrasins ou Maures, par les Protestants (oui, les Protestants n'ont pas juste été des victimes des Catholiques, ils ont fait des martyrs aussi, comme ceux d'Angleterre ou comme St Fidèle), par la Révolution Française, par la Commune, par la Révolution Russe, par la Terreur Rouge en Espagne, sous le Communisme et jusqu'à nos jours.

Non, Savitri Devi avait tort, et si Hitler pensait la même chose, il avait tort aussi. La persécution romaine sous Néron était juste la persécution la plus célèbre, celle que même les sécularistes chez nous n'ignorent pas.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Éleuthère, Pape

* Pas le seul. S'il avait attaqué la question de business malhonnête de certains Juifs, soutenus souvent par les autres, comme le bon Catholique Karl Lüeger ou comme Chesterton, comme une question des lois et de jurisdiction pour l'économie, et non pas comme une question de pureté raciale, s'il s'était opposé à la guerre économique des Juifs par un autonomisme plutôt que par révanche ... ou s'il avait insisté de rester peintre.

** La Bretagne Armoricaine n'existait pas encore sous ce vocable. C'était Armorique. Comme aux temps d'Astérix.

Can Pentecostals Bless?

Not if they are pastors and should know better than to be Pentecostals.

TIA : Pope receives ‘blessing’ from Protestants ministers

I might have been too weak when doing a sign of the cross when someone said "God bless you" and I suspected it was a Protestant. But at least I thought it was a Protestant layman who hadn't studied enough theology (or Church History) to be aware why Protestantism is wrong. And I was taken by surprise.

I did not stand up for an occasion of getting a public blessing by Protestant Pastors.

Bergoglio is harming himself, he is harming the Catholic Church and he is also harming the Pentecostals and Anglicans whom he confirms in their errors by allowing them to bless him./HGL

PS, TIA set the heading Pope receives ‘blessing’ from Protestants ministers, but should have set it as 'Pope' receives ‘blessing’ from Protestants ministers. One set of quotation marks too few. How about "Pope" receives "blessing" from Protestants ministers?

Ireland and Novus Ordo

It’s a strange irony that the Irish constitution, dedicated to the Most Holy Trinity, will now enshrine same-sex marriage. An austere portrayal that even the most formally Catholic legal charters for a formally Catholic country can be usurped by secularism.

As a non-Vatican-II Catholic, I wonder if that wasn't what happened in Rome and Vatican a few decades earlier./HGL

PS, read all of the article, it is well worth reading:

Catholic Herald : The Irish Church’s failures have caused its people to choose secularism over faith
by Mary O'Regan posted Monday, 25 May 2015

Saturday, 23 May 2015

Sex should not be barren, money loans not fertile

Now, there are cases when barrenness with sex comes without it being the fault in anyway of the contrahents.

Suppose Abe age 100 meets Sarah age 90? Humanly speaking they have VERY slim chances of making a baby. Should they be allowed to marry?

Yes, there was an Abe and a Sarah who did get a son (and name him Isaac) when they were as old as all that.

But if the contrahents do sth to make sure they rest barren, if Abe and Sarah instead of being infertile for old age are infertile by choice, like using condoms?

Well, there is sth wrong there.

So it is, if Amy and Sarah or Abe and Simon walk up to a registrar. What they should hear is:

"Sorry folks, the joke is a bit stale. You two can't make babies together, and it's not a question of infertility not your fault either. This is not a thing I am authorised to register."

They should hear that, not just in any Catholic culture, but in any sane culture.

So that kind of law discriminates? Well, it doesn't per se discriminate between people of same sex attraction issues and people without them. It discriminates between people willing and those not willing to obey the law.

Precisely as a law that says "money loans are allowed, but only if no interest is involved, except for damages for later-than-agreed payments if losses were incurred" is not discriminating against people of hooked noses, but against people with usurious ambitions.

So sad for Ireland. And so sad for modern culture making this an equality issue.

The equality was there in the law. The inequality was only in the willingness of obeying the terms of the law. And it was a just law, just as a law banning the taking of interest on money loans is just. Because, it is natural justice that sex should not be barren, at least not intentionally, and money loans not fertile, at least not directly as such.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Pentecost Eve
Saturday the 23-V-2015

Thursday, 21 May 2015

Pray for Ireland!

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum : Pray for Ireland
By roger | Published: 20 May 2015

A quote from St Thomas More was misused as about Communism - Answering Elena Maria Vidal

Tea at Trianon, Elena Maria Vidal, introducing:
Of course, "communism" as a political and economic term did not exist at the time. Nevertheless, St. Thomas More described it quite accurately in his writings. To quote:

The Actual Quote, with Source :
But, Nephew, there have to be people with wealth, because otherwise you'll have, by God, more beggars than there already are, and no one left able to relieve anyone else. For in my mind I feel quite certain of this: that if tomorrow all the money in this country were brought together out of everyone's hands and laid all in one heap, and then divided out equally to everyone, things would be worse on the day after than they were on the day before. For I suppose when it was all equally divided among all, the one who had been doing the best would be left little better off than the average beggar is now. Whoever was a beggar before would be so little enriched by what he received that he would still not be much more than a beggar....

~A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation by St. Thomas More, Martyr*

EITHER most workers in his time were close to beggars OR beggars were very close to most workers in his time.

Please note that the description is neither of Communism nor of Distributism, but rather of Fiscal Socialism.

And yes, Social Democracy in Sweden has done some steps towards a Fiscal Socialism in which most people have to be on the dole, which is worse than being a beggar (I have tried both).

Communism means lumping all PRODUCTIVE property together and making sure the workers elect their director.**

Which may be a boon to workers in large companies, but hardly to small shopowners, nor to all of their employees.

Distributism means dividing up large companies in order to have more small ones.

And as you can see, that is sth else than either gathering it in a heap or distributing equal amounts of money, but it does equalise.

Other aspects of Communism and Socialism were realised back then, like Poor Houses, where a certain set of beggars were forced to live while begging from a certain village or number of villages and forced to divide it equally in the Poor House. The Parens Patriae doctrine which means State can take away children from parents is also from Reformation England.

And is also a moral situation where Communism and Distributism are in conflict.***

I answered above, unless I added last lines here, and here I also add footnotes./HGL

* Missing on the page of St Thomas More in Wikisource: Author:Thomas More

Red link on wiki = missing document, empty page.

** If instead of workers electing the director, the administration imposes it, we are talking some form of State Socialism, very far from Communism, except by historic accident. However, State Socialism is as capable nearly of thriving on Fiscal Socialism and huge taxes as on the stage one of the Communist scenarion the lumping together of companies and elimination of owners.

*** Distributism is basically to economy, what Subsidiarity is to administration and politics. Communism and Huge Companies are essentially as much the opposite in economics as Totalitarian Centralism is in politics and administration.

Wednesday, 20 May 2015

What About Hava Nagila?

I heard the melody often as a child, in periods.

I recall the first phrase of text, which is repeated three times over. But I have not learned Hebrew, I do not know exactly what it stands for without looking up.

Now, I did look up.

I thought "hava" might be the same word as the Latin version "ave(te)" and the words of the translation seem close enough to Greek χαιρε(τε).

But was the Balfour declaration a good thing? Nevertheless, the British victory may have been a good thing.*

Under one recording of the song, I found a reminder about Palestinians. And I was also reminded of Our Lady's words at Fatima - not to rejoice in public. Russia is not yet consecrated to her immaculate heart by all the bishops of the world in union with Pope Michael.

Wiki : Hava Nagila

When I went away, I did not do so with a curse, nor with a blessing in my heart, but with a "wait a minute, I have to check".

Mother told me to check things before I went enthusiastic about them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bernardine of Siena

PS: Note, my mother was and is a Christian, and back then the kind of Christian Protestant who was a bit carefree about Judaism. I am not that, though I am a Christian too./HGL


See also: Mormonism : by G K Chesterton
from Uses of Diversity 1921

PS 2, aus der Wikipädie: Es ist ein Lied der Feier, sehr beliebt im Judentum und in Roma-Gemeinden.

Well, if Gipsies use it, it should be OK./HGL

SPUC, Yes! UNPFA/UNFPA, No! (Link)

UN Pushing for Abortions on Babies of Girls Raped by Boko Haram
Sarah Zagorski May 14, 2015 | 9:32AM Washington, DC

Since 2009, the terrorist organization [Boko Haram] has been capturing, raping and sometimes forcing girls to marry in Nigeria. For example, in 2014, they abducted 500 girls from the northern part of the country, of which 276 were from a secondary school.

Now, unfortunately, the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA) is pushing for abortions on girls who are pregnant from rape.

Which makes UNPFA* a worse actor in the lives of the girls, supposing abortions are carried out, than even Boko Haram had been./HGL

* Was also spelled UNFPA, don't know which of the spellings is official.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

La faute à l'obligation scolaire?

Dans une lettre, que je n'espère pas confidentielle, je vois ce paragraphe:

Quand le savoir n'est pas valorisé, quand le bon élève est traité de bouffon par des allogènes nourris de jeux vidéo et de films porno...,quand la culture est considérée comme un chose inutile bonne pour les fils ruine est dans les esprits avant de s'inscrire en graffitis sur les murs du temple !

Je suis très d'accord.

Sous l'Ancien Régime, et même encore un peu sous le XIX S. le peuple avait des écoles gratuites (pas toujours, mais les Ursulines faisaient bon boulot et la dernière reine de Louis XIV, la veuve de Maintenon, les aidait à travers son mari royal, lui aussi veuf avant le mariage). Mais une école gratuite était là pour les gens qui savaient l'apprécier.

D'abord, elle ne prenait pas les élèves malgré des parents qui ne voulaient pas d'école.

Partie de la mauvaise conduite de certains est un camouflage d'une autre attitude, aussi abordé dans la lettre : " Boko haram " " le livre est interdit " disent certains haut et fort, "l'enseignement n'est pas pour les filles "... - et quand les parents ont une telle attitude à la base, c'est honteux qu'ils n'aient pas le droit de retirer leurs enfants et leur arranger une éducation comme bon leur semble (et pourquoi pas à leurs propres frais?) ensemble avec d'autres ou seuls dans la famille.

Et ensuite, si les parents voulaient l'école, parfois l'enfant ou le jeune y était quand même mal adapté. À ce temps là, d'abord ça n'était pas une diagnose, parce qu'ensuite ça n'était pas un drame. Si tel élève faisait trop de bruit, on le virait. Si tel autre élève ne faisait pas de bruit de tout et se trouvait parfois incommodé par les autres, ça pourrait arriver qu'on lui proposait un petit-séminaire ... ce qui ne l'obligeait pas à devenir prêtre plus tard, il y a eu de temps à prendre ces décisions là.

La présence des jeunes décrits dessus, paragraphe cité, les incommode, en toute apparence, autrement ils se comporteraient bien, comme ça arrive qu'on les voit se comporter très bien aussi chez leurs parents, en dehors l'école, mais, en plus elle incommode les studieux aussi.

C'est précisément comme ayant été en certains matières as de la classe, mais aussi incommodé par la présence obligatoire des gens qui se font désagréables dans l'école, que je suis fortement contre l'obligation scolaire.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Yves Hélory de Kermartin

What Should Belhumeur Do, If It Happened?


Napa Valley Register : Police: Napa High teacher had sexual relationship with 16-year-old student

Napa Valley Register : Napa High teacher pleads not guilty in sex case

First of all, I don't claim to know whether it happened. I don't claim to know if the "not guilty" may be a truthful "nothing happened at all".

But, supposing this is not so, supposing he is not married, knowing pretty certainly she is not married, hoping they are both baptised Christians (perhaps not active believers) or otherwise both non-baptised non-Christians, the proper thing to do IN SUCH A CASE (still not presuming to judge whether Belhumeur is such a case) would be the following:

  • 1) Breaking off the usual and official relation as teacher and student to each other.
  • 2) Asking her, in front of her parents, if she liked him.
  • 3) If answer were yes, getting down on knees and asking for marriage.
  • 4) Marrying her.
  • 5) Getting back to teaching in a class/in all classes where his wife was not the student.

What would be the objections, and how do I answer these?

"Since he is her teacher, he's in a position of authority and it's kind of rapeish/incestuousish to abuse authority that way".

Part of the authority figure is CERTAINLY gone when such a thing has happened.

Plus, this is why I consider as step 1 to break off the authority-inequal relationship between them, hence step 1.

"She's too young."


The Catholic Church throughout centuries, and both Roman Empire and presumably Davidic Kingdom before it, as well as its "twin" Russian Orthodox Church under the Czars have unanimously maintained that age 12, when a girl is in the medium age for physical puberty to have happened (menarché medium age is 12 years and a few months, according to a study I read back in a library in Sweden, before 2004), is an appropriate age for marriage to be allowed (but not compulsory, as marriage is not compulsory - except for seducers or worse, on demand of victim).

Psychologists have defended the modern 18 year limit by referring to a brain change occurring both sexes between age 18 and 25. This brain change is a shrinking, though not yet the one that may occur in old age.

The last growing of the brain occurs, also for both sexes, ages 10-12. So that brain growth spurt is the mental capacities maturity required for marriage, and not the later one.

Individual maturity depending on mental factors and cultural factors rather than on mental capacities factors cannot be standardised and therefore cannot be taken as a rule, except if it lines up with a mental capacities factor.

The 18-25 developments is the wrong and the 10-12 developments being ready is the right mental capacities factor to be lower limit. PLUS it should be finished (which is the case age 12). PLUS puberty should also have started to change hormones. Puberty changes tastes in many things, not just taste buds. And this may influence the taste in matrimonial partner, plus before puberty marriage cannot be correctly consumed phsysically.

Hence 12 for girls and 14 for boys.

"He's too old for her."


Or perhaps rather : that is for her to decide.

One should be shocked if teens are forcefully married to much older men (though if they cannot choose, a near age peer might be even worse!), but one should not be shocked if a teen choses someone older or - in some cultures - willingly obey parents about someone much older.

One bonus might be her getting leave off childbearing before her menopause. And of her husband having an easier time being faithful after her menopause.

And obviously there are, either way, individual merits she might prefer to age considerations, which is totally her right. Whether against Muslims who might think she is a fool to fall for a young guy, or against a certain tribe of Romantics who might think she were foolish to fall for an older one.

Some might add as a fourth objection it is already a police investigation (I don't know if a verdict has been made yet, while I am writing this) and the State has such and such laws. OK, but what if the laws are modern and therefore likely to be bad?

1970's saw one good wave of legislation, abolishing certain racial and eugenic laws or rather tyrannies that had been in place since 1920's or 1930's, and sometimes legalised discriminations that had been in place even earlier (since in US Civil War's aftermath, since in many places over the world, certain wars had subdued indigenous populations or started meddling with only nominally subdued ones). But it also saw quite a few bad ones in other areas.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Dunstan of Canterbury

PS, I just forgot, some really creepy types might say things like "she can't marry, she needs to study" ... well, motherhood is both a better study than high school and a better carreer than the ones that high school prepares for./HGL

Monday, 18 May 2015

Gallia Watch about Robert Chardon (link, very brief comment)

GalliaWatch : UMP mayor "hospitalized" for remarks on Islam

Two more remarks (second subdivided):

  • This discredits psychiatry as a Stalinist type or Khrushchev type politicalised psychiatry.
    • Motive MAY be that his remark was "islamophobic", BUT
    • may ALSO be that it involved some kind of indiscretion against some network making plans for 18th October 2017;
    • he was quick to correct it to 2027 (ten years later), so as to avoid panic, no doubt.

Monday, 11 May 2015

Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter?

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Natural Law is Constant : St Augustine Presumably Refuting Sarfati on Sibling Marriages [after second generation of mankind] · 2) New blog on the kid : Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter? · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Overpopulation Still Falsehood

Here is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's* solution:

Another problem is this artificial separation of moral and ceremonial laws. Surely every law God gives is a ‘moral law’, in that it would be immoral to disobey. The Mosaic Law of 613 commandments is a unity, which is why James told us that breaking one commandment was breaking the whole Law (James 2:10). And were we to categorize the law that Adam broke, it would come under ‘ceremonial’ since it was a prohibited food law.

Any law of God is immoral to disobey, including a ceremonial law. However, some commands are immoral to break before they are commanded, and some are immoral to break because of high and ceremonial respect and special relation to the lawgiver.

There is a law which is written in man's hearts. In and of itself it does not forbid eating porc or shrimps as such, unless one eat so much it leads to sexual overindulgence (when eating porc and shrimps were among abhominations of Canaanites, this was the case). There are two ways of dealing with porc and shrimps so as not to become sexually immoral. The old Jewish way was to avoid them. The Catholic way is to abstain once or even better twice a week. Twice was the original discipline and also involved fasting up to a certain hour.

Probably the Pharisaic custom of fasting developed in Babylon among people told to eat porc and shrimps and not wanting to defile themselves.

But to Jews living in freedom, like under King David or King Solomon or in the South Kingdom, abstinence from the fattest meats and allowance of other meats, was the custom required by law. It would have been immoral for them to disobey it. However, it was immoral to them, but not to each and every neighbour, unless they were so opulent they didn't fast. A Hindoo or Buddhist monk at that time would have been sinning by idolatry, but not by eating shrimps, since these monks were also fasting - and since they had no such special relation to God as the Israelites had. Socrates and Stoics may be presumed to have eaten of shrimps in this sinless way. Their behaviour was not identic to Canaanite behaviour when overindulging in aphrodosiac foods.

So, in the time span given, it was not unlawful for non-Jews to eat moderately of foods which, if taken in greater quantities would be aphrodisiac foods, hence Socrates** who was not a Jew did not sin by eating clams or shrimps. Some might even say that shrimps are not technically "fish" anyway, so it doesn't matter if they have fins and scales or not. On the other hand, are shrimps "plants" like some have regarded clams, or rather non-locust insects? But eels and lampreys would have been sinful for a Jew, unless forced by a Babylonian to eat thereof, and sinful if eaten as the Canaaneans did, in great quantities. But was not sinful for a non-Jewish philosopher enjoying them in moderation, even at that time.

When we say that ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are not binding, we do not mean that it would only have been a ceremonial bad manner rather than immoral to obey them, we mean that the ceremonial law is now other, as especially clear with reference to sacrifice and circumcision, we now have Holy Mass and Baptism.

And it would be immoral for a priest of Byzantine rite to use unleavened bread and for a priest of Roman Latin rite to use leavened bread in Holy Mass : because these ceremonial rites are, unlike that of the Old Testament, still in current validity. At least one of them, probably both, will remain so up to Doomsday. However, during Mosaic rite of Old Testament no bread at all was used in sacrifice, it was in the older Melchisedecian rite that bread and wine were used, as they are again under Christ.

In each case, breaking the laws of a ceremonial rite in current validity when belonging to the covenant is immoral. But not because of the action in itself, rather because of the covenant. And the Eternal Covenant is the New one. The Old was desecrated by Caiaphas and was made impossible to keep after the letter by destruction of the Temple.

But after the spirit, even now we must observe the ceremonial laws, though not each one doing so knows he is doing so. Because each of the 613 laws, if that is the correct number, has a spiritual significance which remains valid in the common or specifically ritual laws of the New Covenant, as given by the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and Jacob, Apostles

* Cain’s wife and brother-sister intermarriage
Published: 14 May 2011(GMT+10)

Main theme already answered under the other post.

** Socrates was not technically fasting, but he was "only eating when hungry", i e eating frugally. Lean fish was more frequent in Athens of his time than either porc or even presumably shrimps. And he was more frugal than most Athenians of his time.

Is David Palm Preaching to Me, by Any Chance?

I came across this on Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism (yes, we DO look at what opponents say, and I look at it very carefully to find logical flaws, unless it is too specialised). I found this one:

The “Simple” and “Scary” Mindset of Robert Sungenis
Posted on May 4, 2015 by David Palm

I will quote the last bit first:

As remarkable as that is [the incompetence in physics he thinks he demonstrated in Sungenis], it’s even more remarkable that some people see all of this incompetence and paranoia repeatedly demonstrated in front of their eyes, yet they still conclude, “Yes, these geocentrists are honest, competent, trustworthy experts and I should trust them instead of virtually the entire world of astrophysics.”

While the new geocentrists decry the fact that some scientists have crossed the line into philosophy and even quasi-religion at times, they seem completely oblivious to the blind faith required to follow them in their quixotic quest to prove geocentrism.

I very much wonder if "some people" specifically means myself.

I feel "alluded to but not rightly so", as Marine LePen said "je me sens visée, pas coupable".

I can assure you, David Palm, everyone else whom it may concern, including all the readers (I mean, they would of course like to know if the author they follow is somewhat showing good judgement, wouldn't they?) and all whom it may not concern too, but who are reading this anyway, since some creeps are mainly reading my blogs for evidence about my "feeble state of mind", that I am NOT following Sungenis in blind faith. Nor Kent Hovind.

But it seems some persons who have a very weird combination of liking for my person as in me rather than someone else, have a similarily great dislike for all I actually believe. It is as perverted a love hate as one can find in accomplished shrinks.

So, if I am a geocentric, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing Sungenis". If I am a young earth geologist, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing Kent Hovind". If I am a Catholic, I once had to be exoerated by "blindly believing John Paul II". If I am an Orthopapist Conclavist Catholic, I must be exonerated by "blindly believing David Bawden". And if I was a Palmarian, I had to be exonerated by "blindly believing Gregorio XVII".

There is not much of blind and unexamined beliefs in my life.

If I commend having faith as a coal burner (the famed coal burner whom Luther met and whose faith he disparaged, "foi du charbonnier" and "kolartro" in French and Swedish), I only have the part which is compulsory for all Catholics to have : to believe all that the Church teaches. The other half, which is not compulsory, i e not knowing what that is, not only do I not have, but I have on the contrary a very good knowledge of not only what the Church teaches, but also why She teaches it. And what are the criteria for saying it is the Church as such and not just an individual Churchman teaching it.

And the same goes for things I believe on less than supernatural grounds, things I believe but which are not taught by the Church, which I believe on natural, logical, grounds.

If David Palm is trying to save me from "blindly believing in Sungenis", he is seriously wasting his time, as far as I am concerned. Debunk SUNGENIS all you want, you have still not proven the Heliocentric consensus or close to such among natural scientists (as opposed to other men living now) and among such of them who live today (as opposed to for instance Astronomers like Tycho Brahe and Riccioli) is worthy of the kind of blind belief you want me to waste on them while pretending I waste it on Sungenis.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Philip and Jacob

Saturday, 9 May 2015

"The Beliefs of Christians is Similar to that of the Pagans according to Saint Justin Martyr"

Answering an essay* by Sami Zaatari:

Quote from St Justin, 1:st Apology, chapter xxi, given by Sami Zaatari:
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know.

Comment By Sami Zaatari:
Notice what this man is saying, he is telling the Roman rulers that what the Christians believe in is nothing different than what the Roman pagans believe in, that Jupiter who is one of their gods also had sons, making them sons of god. Justin then goes on to mention other beliefs of these Roman pagans of people ascending into heaven just like Jesus did etc.

So if this is not enough prove that the Christian belief system is the same as the pagan beliefs then I don’t know what is! This Christian saint is saying it in plane words that what the Christians BELIEVE IN IS NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE ROMAN PAGANS BELIEVE IN, how much more clearly do you want it to be?!

What Sami Zaatari doesn't quote from same chapter xxi**:
This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

End quotes.

In other words : St Justin says there is a parallel between the behaviour we Christians admire in Christ and the behaviour pagans admire in those whom THEY consider sons of the gods (in other words, St Justin doesn't so consider them).

However : he says there is no parallel between the behaviour pagans honour in the gods themselves at times and what Christians honour in the true God. And he explains those Pagan beliefs by the devil "perpetrating these things".

Like "divine" behaviour being analogous to fallen angels producing nephelim (Genesis 6) or like devils masquerading as Nine Muses to deceive Hesiod, a shepherd. In other words, he perfectly agrees that honouring Jupiter or Apollo is a kind of Satanism. Which Sami is somehow missing, when he calls the Christianity of St Justin Martyr a Paganism. He jumped at two words and he had the proof he needed.

Now, after that observation, what would Sami Zaatari consider as an evaluation about Jibreel appearing to Mohammed and about Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith?

And what do you say about Sami's honesty in debate?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Gregory of Nazianzus

* The Beliefs of Christians is Similar to that of the Pagans according to Saint Justin Martyr
By Sami Zaatari

** NewAdvent site / Fathers of the Church :
The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

Scroll down to: Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ

Additional answers to Sami:

Sami's problem

Jesus is God and Man. Jesus died as Man, not as God, and yet the Person who died is the Person who was always God the Son. God the Son was Created-Assumed a Human nature for Himself and is For Eternity Future united to it as one Person with two nature, as one Being with two Kinds of Being. Between Calvary and Resurrection, the Soul that went down to Sheol was God and the Corpse that was buried was also God. That is it.

Sami's problem

Yes, insofar as Jesus as Man prayed to each Person of the Trinity, including Himself as God, and insofar as this prayer is the human translation of the Sonly love He always had for the Father, from all Eternity.

Sami's problem
Some Christians believe that Jesus’ miracles prove that he is God. The problem with this claim is that almost every single miracle performed by Jesus finds a parallel within the OT. There are many OT prophets that performed the very same kinds of miracles that Jesus did. If the miracles of Jesus make him God then why don’t the miracles of the other prophets prove that they are God/gods as well?

None of these prophets dared say "before Abraham was, I AM". None of these prophets predicted he would die and rise from the dead, none other rose from the dead without someone calling them back to life.

Sami's problem
Jesus says that the Father is greater than he is, proving that he is not God. There is no one who is greater than God.

Jesus as Man is less than the Father. Jesus as God is Equal with the Father. In other words, the subject He raised was another than the one Sami takes it as.

Sami's problem
It is reported in Matthew's Gospel that Jesus said that all authority was given to him in heaven and earth (cf. Mat. 28:18), which means that someone else gave it to him. That someone else must be greater than Jesus, which means that Jesus cannot be God. After all, how can God be given all authority when he already has it to begin with?

Note ALL authority. So, the authority is not limited. As God He always had it, as Man He received it from God.

Sami's problem
The Bible says that God cannot be tempted (cf. James 1:13) and yet Jesus is said to have been tempted by the Devil no less (cf. Matthew 4:1). Doesn't this prove that Jesus is not God?

Actual words of St James the Lesser : [13] Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.

So, the Bible does not say what Sami says it says, and Jesus was tempted as Man, not as God.

Sami's problem
How can Jesus be God when he denies being absolutely good, and says that only God is good (cf. Mark 10:18)?

Here are the words of Our Lord, they contain no denial of Him being absolutely good : [18] And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.

The question is like: do you mean you realise I am God? Or are you just abusing the word good?

I tried:
to contact Sami for notification. I sent an email to the appropriate given mail adress.

I got an answer including:
As'salamu Alaikum, This is my Yahoo's auto response. I APOLOGIZE, BUT I NO LONGER READ OR ACCEPT EMAILS. PLEASE REGISTER ON MY BLOG (takes less than 1 minute) and post your points there. You can also send me a private email to my account from your blog-account there as well. ... Yours in Islam, Osama Abdallah.

[Same man, new name? Or different men? Answer also contained links.]

Problem of Osama Abdallah:
My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?!

My answer:
Crucifixion was mainly done by binding. Nailing feet and hands was an extra, like the crown of thorns. Now, there are places in wrist (remember, hand is in Greek cheir, a word which literally means anything between fingertips and elbow) where you can nail the flesh between ulna and radius.

As to the one nail piercing the feet, the nail was placed between phalanges or metatarsals or both depending on feet. Probably metatarsals at least one foot.

Hence, no bone was broken during His Crucifixion and the Death of God which gave life to men.

Monsieur N'Diaye, êtes vous malhonnête ou juste un peu ignorant?

1) Il y en a qui trouvent la Suède un modèle · 2) Vous l'avez peut-être entendu en Quatrième · 3) Monsieur N'Diaye, êtes vous malhonnête ou juste un peu ignorant? · 4) Une nouvelle ministre du Travail : Myriam El Khomri

Je commence ce qui suit sans m'énerver suffisemment pour vous adresser la parole. Ensuite, vous m'intéressez comme un homme à qui on peut poser la question que j'ai posée.

Joseph N'Diaye Il fut un jour à Gorée, je viens d'en prendre quelques notes.

Pp. 22 s. c'est en 1750 (donc époque des Lumières!) que les cinq chefs d'une révolte échouée avant même le début d'exécution des intentions sont mis dans les bouches des canons "in terrorem". Il donne l'année, mais il oublie que cette année est pendant les Lumières.

P. 24: "Il faudra les Lumières du XVIIIe siècle, juste avant la Révolution française, pour que certains esprits émettent quelques doutes."

Est-ce à cette époque que la conscience morale commence à se faire noter? Ou plutôt à cette époque que ça commence à devenir cynique?

P. 26, le mot racisme n'existe pas encore, mais le sentiment est "extrêmement répandu". La preuve? Voltaire exprime le sien dans son Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations. Par exemple les Juifs y sont décrits comme ennemis du genre humain et les Noirs semble y avoir une intelligence inégale avec celle des autres.

KKK? Nazisme? Voltaire est votre père! Et la loge, d'ailleurs, votre mère.

P. 26 également, en Nègre sous N, Diderot trouve l'esclavage avantageux, les Noirs sont apparemment mieux nourris aux Amériques qu'en Afrique. Et si l'homme ne vit pas du seul pain? Ah, faut pas dire ça à Diderot, semble que ça vient de la Bible et que Diderot est athée.

Donc, si le Déiste (Voltaire) et l'Athée (Diderot), si ce "bon côté" même lui est raciste, les Cléricaux, le "mauvais côté", doit l'être davantage.

Et si la vérité était tout le contraire? Si ceci était une des raisons pourquoi Voltaire et Diderot se truvent, comme on sait, sur l'Index des Livres Interdits, que l'Église Catholique maintenait encore?

Pp. 27 - 28, en décrivant l'esclavage des Grecs et des Romains:

"On naissait esclave ou on le devenait au cours d'une guerre ou encore, plus simplement, quand on ne pouvait pas payer ses dettes."

Pendant les guerres du Moyen Âge, quand elles sont entre Catholiques, un prisonnier de guerre ne devient plus esclave. Il peut être en prison jusqu'à l'échanger contre autres prisonniers (St François d'Assise avait été prisonnier de Guerre, quand Assisi avait lutté contre une autre ville voisine : point d'esclaves faits) ou libérés contre rançon monétaire. Un endetté peut être forcé à travailler plus dur pour payer, mais lui aussi ne devient plus esclave.

Comme dit : en Francie l'esclavage est aboli par la Reine Ste Bathilde, ce qui vaut pour les états successeurs : Saint Empire, France, Suisse, Monaco, Flandres du Moyen Âge, Burgonde comme duché ... Savoie ... en France pourtant, la porté sera limité à la métropole, en rétablit l'esclavage pour uniquement les colonies.

"Mais ces esclaves de l'Antiquité subissaient rarement des brimades et des violences."

C'est biensûr pour ça que Spartacus a fait sa révolte, non?

Être gladiateur, avoir comme devoir d'esclave de tuer ses semblables pour amuser les libres qui paient le maître pour le spectacle, ce n'est pas du tout une brimade, non? Joseph N'Diaye, rigolez-vous?

Et la non-brimade générale des esclaves de l'antiquité incluait aussi la crucifixion autour de la Via Appia des esclaves révoltés, non?

Les gens en Île de Gorée en 1750, ceux qui mettaient les cinq en bouche de canon, ils ne se seraient pas du tout inspiré de Crassus, non?

Parce que mourir lentement sur une croix est tellement plus joli que d'être mis dans la bouche d'un canon, non?

Et si par hazard les gens de cette Île de Gorée auraient fait la même démarche que Crassus, ça ne pourrait pas du tout être à cause d'une inspiration de l'Antiquité, non?

Parce que l'Antiquité était tellement inconnue par les Français, surtout les élites, en 1750, non?

Et l'esclave Épictète n'a pas été brimé non plus, quand on lui brisait la jambe, pas à cause d'une faute, mais par le plaisir malin du maître, non?

Ah, j'ai compris!

La révolte de Spartacus, vous le comptez comme une exception, tout comme l'aurait été le maître cruel d'Épictète!

C'est biensûr à cause de cette exception rarissime que St Pierre dit I épître de lui-même, chapître 2, verset 16, aux esclaves d'être soumis à leurs maîtres, même les cruels, non?

Mais alors, pourquoi est-ce qu'on reproche à l'autre côté de l'Atlantique, à St Pierre d'avoir dit ça, si le maître cruel était déjà tellement exceptionnel?

Et encore, si la brimade et la violence était tellement rare, parce que vous connaissez pas d'autres exemples que Spartacus et Épictète, pourquoi pas ne dire que c'était la même chose avec l'esclavage transatlantique? Il y a cette épisode à Gorée, il y a Oncle Tom, brimé par un maître et heureux de retrouver l'ancien, et encore deux ou trois exemples connus ...

Ou avez-vous deux poids, deux mesures?

Encore ce passage pp. 27-28:

"Ils étaient même parfois les enseignants de la famille dans laquelle ils servaient."

Effectivement. Et ces enseignants étaient effectivement pas souvent brimés, au moins s'ils ne tombaient pas amoureux des jeunes qu'ils enseignaient (un faux pas dont ils se gardaient le plus souvent - jusqu'au Moyen Âge, quand ils n'étaient plus esclaves) ... mais ils étaient aussi un article de luxe sur le marché d'esclaves, une rareté.

Un esclave qui faisait les champs de blé, pouvait par exemple être obligé de porter un col de bois autour du cou, tellement gros qu'il ne pouvait pas mettre sa main à sa bouche et qu'il ne pouvait donc pas manger avant l'heure fixée par son maître.

Pas de brimade ça? Pas de violence ça? Ça aussi fut changé pour le mieux avec le Moyen Âge, mais ça ne vous interesse pas parce que vous êtes convaincu que ce traitement d'esclaves de champs n'est pas une brimade, n'est pas une violence?

Ou est-ce que vous ignoriez juste que ça existait? Bon, alors pourquoi est-ce que votre livre est récommendé par UNESCO? Parce que vous êtes ignorant?

Plus bas p. 28:

L'esclavagisme "sévissait aussi dans les grands royaumes noirs d'Afrique, bien avant l'arrivée des Blancs."

Ah, un mot honnête qui ne va pas dans le sens unique de culpabilité blanche! (Merci!)

Plus bas encore il dit (vous dites) que l'esclavage transatlantique était d'une autre nature parce que les esclaves n'étaient "jamais considérés comme des humains".

Vous fournissez quelle preuve? Montesquieu, dans l'Esprit des lois ne les considère pas comme tels.

Et Montesquieu, il était quoi à votre avis? Un catho très clérical? Ou un homme des Lumières? Pour moi, il passe comme un homme des Lumières et ce qu'il dit ne vaut pas pour les catholiques du siècle avant lui.

Bon, non. L'œuvre fut mis à l'Index en 1751 - l'année après cette révolte à Gorée.

Monte Rodrigues de Araujo, Manuel de  Elementos do direito ecclesiastico publico e particular em relação à disciplina general da igreja e com applicação aos usus de igreja do Brasil.  Donec corrig. 1869
Monte Rodrigues de Araujo, Manuel de  Compendio de theologia moral, segunda edição portugueza, correcta e annotada.  Donec corrig. 1869
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat de  Esprit (De L') des loix ou du rapport que les loix doivent avoir avec la constitution de chaque gouvernement, les moeurs, le climat, la religion, le commerce.  1751
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat de  Lettres persanes. 1762
Montgeron, Louis-Basile Carré de  La verité des miracles opérés par l'intercession de m. de Paris et autres appelants, démontrée contre m. l'archevêque de Sens.  1739

Index, version de 1948

Et si le fait de ne pas considérer les Noirs comme humains pourraient y être pour quelque chose pourquoi l'Église a mis Montesquieu sur l'Index?

Vaudrait miex s'informer et penser avant d'écrire, non?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Grégoire de Nazianze

Je voulais le contacter pour qu'il eût l'occasion de répondre. Paraît qu'il ÉTAIT un peu ignorant:

Joseph Ndiaye «conservateur» de la Maison des Esclaves à l’île de Gorée.
Amdy Moustapha Ndiaye

Il est mort en 2009. Et l'ignorance vaut biensûr pour les observations sur les Européens en dehors de l'esclavagisme en 1750. On peut être savant sur une chose et ignorant des choses connexes./HGL

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

Est-ce que les Franc-Macs d'ici s'amusent à me peindre comme ignare, tandis qu'en Belgique on sait que je ne le suis pas?

1) Deux bons billets sur le blog de Bernard Antony · 2) Est-ce que les Franc-Macs d'ici s'amusent à me peindre comme ignare, tandis qu'en Belgique on sait que je ne le suis pas?

Par exemple, un Belge, qui s'est déclaré FM ou au moins plutôt FM que Kto, vient de lancer cette probable mise à l'épreuve:

Et puis, il y a le latin denarius,
mot composé de...

  • deni, le distributif de dĕcem (en français, dixième serait le distributif de dix),
  • as (apparenté au grec ancien εἷς, eis, "un") et de
  • -ius,

qui signifiait littéralement "qui contient dix unités", et désignait une pièce de monnaie d’argent.

Vous avez vu le piège?

"en français, dixième serait le distributif de dix"

Non. En français le distributif de dix, qui correspond à "deni", est "dix à la fois".

Évidemment impossible qu'il l'ignore lui-même! Et personne d'autre parmi ses lecteurs a trouvé, donc c'est que c'est moi qu'il mettait à l'épreuve.

Je refuse bien-sûr de faire ça en discrétion. Je ne cherche pas de devenir Franc-Maçon, moi! L'année de silence? Eh non!/HGL

PS, à part d'être malheureusement FM, et parfois un peu impudique dans les exemples, il fait de la linguistique assez bonne et amusante./HGL

PPS: c'est sur ce site et je donne le message aussi:

le dimanche indo-européen

Dix petits Proto-Indo-Européens

I Wonder Slightly How Calvinist TFP is?

One thing is that they seem to confuse the issue of Dan Savage's horrid attacks on morality in some speech or speeches with the question whether Disney Channel ought to send his sitcom Family of the Year or not. I do not really know how bad Family of the Year is. But when it comes to recommending a letter sent to Disney Channel, they ALSO say the following:

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

God does NOT predestine anyone for evil. Council of Francfurt prefuting John Calvin. Now, having ONLY the alternative between either sodomy, which is a horrid sin, deserving similar punishments as murder and as magic, according to one Church Father, and a harsh struggle against "relentless" temptations would very clearly be evil.

If anyone is in such a position for real, if anyone is really incapable of doing what probable branded sodomite (back in 1534?) John Calvin did when marrying Ydelette de Bure and what more recently has been done even avoiding that sin, by a teenager confiding early enough in a girl friend who was not yet a girlfriend his problem, whom he then married, if someone really cannot do that, either he brought it on himself or it was brought on him. And not by God.

In the wording of TFP there seems to be no room for freedom in the way of seeking a girl who could understand, and it seems pretty clear he considers them about as a Calvinist congregation would consider an alcoholic or a drug addict. Indeed, if someone cannot chose either chastity or marriage, as in the normal way, if he cannot avoid sodomy or frustrated nostalgia for it, he is worse than a drug addict and worse than an alcoholic.

But that attitude while praying for someone that they take, I would not take with a drug addict or an alcoholic either. Of two, one : either I would not bother to pray for a certain person, or I would pray without this supercilious pretence of "charity" towards a specific person who actually disgusts me. I would not try to look before God as I were some understanding wise uncle of a wayward nephew.

Maybe you should take a stand against that sitcom and maybe you shouldn't. I cannot take TFP's word for either option.

There is a difference between "homophobia" as in classing sodomy with murder, and "homohysteria" as in seeing sodomites where someone really isn't at all, as is my case (unless once I was abused while sleeping), or as seeing either sodomites in act or homosexuals in mind not yet sodomite as incapable of making a real marriage by turning around and making a real, Christian marriage, as God intended it. Between one man and one woman.

I was discussing this problem with one leftist I had reason to frequent often, he told me some men would be as disgusted to lie with a woman as I to lie with a man. I told him a man could decide to lie with the woman he married, even if there was no initial attraction spontaneously. As with a man of the mental bent termed "homosexuality".

As Chesterton observed, Universalism is simply Calvinism turned inside out. If John Calvin said "God chooses whom He wants to save and whom He wants to damn in either case irrespective of his own merits, which then only follow from God's choice", a Universalist will reply "God chooses that all are saved and none shall have been able to damn himself". Both options are wrong.

Similarily a Dan Savage who thinks homosexuality should be lived out in sodomy is TFP turned inside out.

And I think both are wrong. In either pair.

Men can be saved and damned according to their acts and choices, and men can be sodomites OR married men, if homosexuality brings them such a choice, OR celibates, but not JUST sodomites or celibates, usually. If one be such, he might for instance have been choosing sodomy for too long.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Pius V

Yes, I know more or less what this pope in Horrendum Scelus said about clergy or monastics who committed such crimes or preparations thereof, and some who are not laymen cannot licitly marry : but that is because of certain vows, not because of homosexuality. Read the document. I haven't, but I would be surprised if it contradicted anything I have said here.

Monday, 4 May 2015

Agnostic About God, Very Dogmatic About Neanderthals

1) Creation vs. Evolution : How Smart Was Ancient Man? · 2) New blog on the kid : Agnostic About God, Very Dogmatic About Neanderthals

Someone in India wrote this, not to me, but to Lita Cosner on CMI:

You say that because evolutionists cannot give a proper theory on how universe was created, it means that god created universe (which is indeed possible). However, the extent to which evolutionists can speculate about the creation of universe is limited by our intelligence as a race. Just like a Neanderthal could only imagine (if he could) more sophisticated beings to be more formidable hunters and better tool maker, while being unable to conceive arts, diplomacy, metaphysics, etc, the way we see them. My point is-the concept of creation of universe could be something that is way beyond our level.* So it doesn’t mean that god created the universe because that’s the only explanation we have currently.

If you want to read HER answer to the enquiry, go to where I found this above text:

CMI : Feedback 2015
Answering agnostic arguments
Published: 2 May 2015 (GMT+10)

My own is given in title.

K. S. from India supposes that, just because we found Neanderthal bones in caves, united with very frugal clothes of animal skins, no pottery, but red ochre used in burials, we can from that deduce how the Neanderthals thought.

Indeed, if they used red ochre in burials, we can validly deduce that they paid attention to burial of their dead. What we can't do is deduce things like what they did NOT pay attention to or could NOT imagine.

"while being unable to conceive"
each of following three items, which I separate by my answers:

We have burials with red ochre, we have also a flute of some animal bone, so they certainly had music and used colour, and perhaps they refrained from painting walls because they had a religious ban on using colours on other things than dead people or perhaps rather on other things than people : as we haven't found their skins, we don't know if they used tattoos or not. We do know that they used red ochre in a way that was not immediately utilitarian.

We do not have their written documents or oral traditions, except insofar as they are contained in such we have but don't often consider as theirs.

That does not add up to their having no diplomacy, it adds up to us not having records identified as their diplomacy.

I'd prefer some agnosticism about fellow men! At least over the kind of dogmatism which bashes their humanity.

When it comes to the Metaphysics of Einstein, we both have access to texts containing his erroneous metaphysics and to his portrait and know they belong together.

When it comes to Mr. Neander or Mr. Thal and their wives and children we can reconstruct a portrait from the bones with some possibility of exactness (however, see Cuozzo's caveat on how they appear to lack protruding chins because the cranium and the lower mandible have been fitted together the wrong way), but we do not have an extensive bibliography as to what they did or did not write or as to what they did or did not transmit orally.

We have no reason to suppose their metaphysics was radically different from that of all who live today. They may have, for all we know, agreed with large parts of Plato, Varro, St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, for all we know. If they did, we don't know it, that does not mean anything like the enquirer's apparent "we know they didn't".

"etc, the way we see them."
And that depends very much on whether you are a normal person or a very over sophisticated modernist looking down on most of not just historic but also contemporary humanity. It might be that YOUR particular metaphysics is so abnormal that you feel very sure no one outside the closest century to you ever shared it. Like if you agree with Lawrence Krauss, you might have a point. Though considering how deeply pre-Flood humanity had fallen and possibility Neanderthals were pre-Flood or very soon post-Flood, I would not bet on it.

But when it comes to normal persons, we might be indeed agreeing with the Neanderthals who might be among our ancestors, though certain of their genes are now diluted by other tribes.

That is MY answer to the enquiry of K. S. And since he is from India, I can nearly imagine he or she is high cast and looking down on both Christians and Neanderthals as caste-less, pariahs.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Monica

* Apart from his being over confident about knowing the past, and overpessimistic on what he consders known about it, he is also overoptimistic about an unknown future. He considers unknown future races of higher developed men, or perhaps machines (which cannot think at all) so much closer to being "God Omniscient" that he feels a need to bow down to him. He is worshipping at the Altar of the Unknown God, alas not an altar which can in any way be considered an alias for the True God. He's worshipping the future and thereby worshipping the unknown. Mellontolatry is a fuddled religion.

Must Scams be Detected by Content?

I got a mail in the spam box, I wanted to look if it was misplaced there or some kind of scam. The latter was the case.

“I am S.P., currently undergoing medical treatment for cancer Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML). I was married to Late Dr. C. P. who worked with Woodside Petroleum Limited (Australia) for 23years before he died in the year 2013.” …

So far the content could theoretically be licit. It could be the one time in a thousand or in a million that such an offer with such a story was by the person named and serious.

However, we can look at other details:

Under signature we get a mail adress ending in:

… [HK = Hong Kong]

I click to see the full heading:

Return-Path: < > [FI = Finland]

OK, HK and FI are not exactly same place, are they?

Received: from ([])

I looked this up so I got:

person:   Michael Herpich
address:   Contabo GmbH
address:   Aschauer Str. 32a
address:   81549 Muenchen
phone:   +49 89 21268372
fax-no:   +49 89 21665862

Now, am I not exposing a possibly innocent Michael Herpich here?

Well, if it was someone who did it behind his back, I hope he won't be putting some poor teenager into some kind of unpleasant custody for that. Besides, it is much likelier that he was acting himself (or giving orders to a juvenile) to see if I would fall for the scam, because all these opponents from Jewry I have, have decided behind my back, that if I can "fall for" Christ being Messiah, if I can "fall for" Christ having done miracles, then I can fall for (!) anything.

Well no.

Some guys think I ought to have eliminated Gospel story because of some Talmudist resuming Old Testament prophecy in such a way as to find discrepancies between the prophecy and what we rightly accept as its (or their) fulfilment, in Christ.

Such discrepancies I think I can safely dismiss as spurious. I have done work on Isaiah 11, which they bring up. Verse after verse matches what I know from Acts and other Church History about His post-resurrection reconciliation of "Judah and Ephraim" (Jerusalem and Samaria in same Church from Acts 8 on), conquest of Edom, Moab and Ammon (at 70 AD Church fleeing from Jerusalem and coming to Pella in Jordan - the three tribes of non-Israelite Hebrews have the territory of Jordan plus Sinai peninsula - did not just sit down and do nothing there, they conquered as missionaries), and the ending of Sumerian and Egyptian paganism by Christianising the lands.

Those verses follow the verse "and his sepulchre shall be glorious", which refer to His resurrection. Another match.

Another reason some guys, not quite necessarily same ones, but possibly still overlapping, say I should reject it due to content is : miracles. "We know miracles can't happen, so this can't have happened."

And some guys know miracles can't have happened because there is no evidence for them.

And some guys say (inter alia) Gospel is no evidence because it's fake. While some don't know of all post-Gospel miracles recorded by the Church and others in this category call them fake.

And some say Gospels are fake, either because Talmudists tell them Jesus can't have been the Messiah, or, because "miracles don't happen".

Whether or not any one of them is making the vicious circle all the way round, certainly some who are not making it are assuming one of the assumptions because they have been taught it as something "everyone" or "everyone who counts" or "every intelligent person" agrees on - i e as sth which they should accept without questioning.

But taken together as a team, they constitute a vicious circle in logic.

So, no, I am not rejecting Gospels due to content. What about return path?

Well, if I were a Protestant, I would have to make assumptions about the verifiable return path such that either these assumptions would invalidate the message, if Catholicism were an Imperial cult hashed together on Constantine's initiative, divorced from all Christianity before it (for instance), or I would have to do what I did when confrnted with Catholic Church as return path for Gospels, namely question the assumptions. Fortunately for me, I didn't have many such. therefore, I did reject the last lingering Protestant assumptions and convert.

It pays not to pay attention to content only, one should check the return path.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL (UB)
St Monica

Sunday, 3 May 2015

Conclusions hâtives

Selon la doctrine bien établie, il me semble même dogme depuis le Concile de Trente sinon déjà avant, un laïque, qui n'a jamais été ordiné prêtre, ne peut pas célébrer la Messe. Et c'est un sacrilège de même essayer.

Bon, qu'on appelle Pape Michel Sa Sainteté ou Mr Bawden, il n'a pas commis cette faute du tout. Élu dans un conclave d'émergence, en 1990, il n'a pas célébré une seule Messe avant d'être ordiné en 2011, un samedi, et le dimanche lendemain, de Gaudete, il a été sacré évêque. Sa ligne selon les wikipédies à l'époque que la lignée épiscopale de chaque évêque connu ayant article était notée, remonte à un schisme contre Pie XII, ayant eu lieu au Brésil. Il n'a donc pas commis cette faute.

Mais le fait qu'on lui attribue cette faute, avec le fait qu'il a été connu en partie avec mon apologétique me fait penser à un fait assez probable, qu'on m'aurait attribué cette faute à Sysslebäck dans les années nonante. Une femme qui était bibliothécaire et qui devait donc être instruite, mais qui ne l'était pas vraiment sur les choses catholiques, était en train de me demander en passant, en vérifiant pour ainsi dire ma situation globale, parce qu'elle "se faisait des soucis" ou on se faisait des soucis, m'a demandé si j'allais à la Messe, vue que le village était à 2 h. de Karlstad avec le bus, et le dimanche le bus partait trop tard pour arriver en temps pour la Messe.

Bon, pour ne pas être rude envers ce qui pourrait théoriquement être juste une enquête polie (pas vraiment, on dit pas qu'il y a des gens qui se font des soucis, alors!) j'ai précisé qu'en Catholique traditionnel, j'ai pas envie à assister à "la nouvelle Messe" - j'ajoutais qu'il y a eu une réforme liturgique que je rejetais - mais que je faisais une "messandakt" comme on dit en suédois. En allemand on dit "Messandacht". En français la seule phrase que je connais est "rester à maison et lire le missel". Une recommendation donnée par Mgr Lefèbvre à ceux qui ne pouvaient pas assister à une Messe en rite traditionnel, donc normalement de St Pie V en latin, ou autrement à une Messe célébrée par des Uniates. Pour revenir de cette explication linguistique, que je ne donnais pas à elle, elle me semblait un peu perplexe, mais ne me posa pas de question supplementaire dessus, plutôt elle dit ne pas se connaître ès choses religieuses, et sa prochaine question était si ce n'était pas solitaire. Je crois que j'ai pu répondre que ce n'est pas pour rencontrer des gens qu'on assiste à la Messe, mais pour rencontrer le Bon Dieu.

Ceci n'aurait pas dû donner beaucoup de conséquences si son enquête avait été vraiment polie, si elle s'était contentée avec mon "bon, tout va pas bien", mais hélas, l'année prochaine ou celle après, j'ai dû me défendre contre la psychiatrie, et depuis j'ai eu des grosses difficultés avec tout ce qui est clergé catholique, de manière de me faire croire qu'elle m'a attribué la faute énormément grave et qui aurait alors prouvé que je n'étais en rien un catholique, de m'essayer à un sacrement sans être ordiné - ou en me donnant le bénéfice du doute en se demandant qui m'aurait ordiné et pourquoi je ne l'avais pas dit.

Soit elle n'a vraiment pas compris, elle n'a rien compris de très exact de la différence entre "messa" et "messandakt", elle n'a pas du tout capté que je n'avais pas du pain azyme, ni du vin ni un autel pour de vrai devant moi, j'étais à genou, je lisais le Missel, et pour les mots de la consécration je me taisais complètement, en imaginant les endroits autre part où un prêtre ordiné les dit sur le pain et le vin qui deviennent le Sacrement, le Christ Sacrémenté, mais elle m'a considéré (à tort) comme incapable de dire cohéremment ce que j'avais même pas voulu dire, mais ce qu'elle devinait : que je fisse une cène protestante, pour l'essentiel, que ma conversion catholique ait été une incohérence mentale de ma part. Non. Alors elle n'a pas compris, et ensuite elle n'a pas fait la confiance normale à ma capacité de me faire comprendre, elle a deviné à tort et travers, juste pour avoir un image qui semblait quelque part cohérent et en quoi que ce soit complet à elle - même si c'était un image qui me rendait illogique. Qui me rendait incohérent.

Soit, elle a très bien compris, mais elle a fait semblant devant les autres. Sa mission était, théoriquement de me refaire les idées, et, à défaut de ça, de me quelque part démoniser comme un fou (bien qu'ils auraient, car le scénario présuppose des gens qui se parlent entre eux avant ou après qu'une d'entre eux vient me voir, plutôt dit "excuser comme un cas mental" - ce qui démonise autant sauf parmi très sélectes et "mures" âmes, parmi lesquelles je ne voulais pas être coincé).

Dans les deux cas, l'un après l'autre, en service de psychiatrie, en service social, en dehors les deux mais à qui ils font confiance, a repris, insensément, que j'eusse commis une faute que je n'ai pas commis.

Qu'on ne l'ait pas dit ouvertement n'y change rien.

Un prêtre, depuis décédé, ou son secrétaire pour l'internet, m'a récemment demandé de n'absolument pas faire des exorcismes. Pas sans être ordiné avant. Ses arguments étaient fautifs, vue que l'exorciste est un ordre mineur qui confère les prières de l'église comme un sacramentel, mais qui ne sont pas à proprement dire des sacrements, mais son insistance me faisait croire qu'il était vraiment préoccupé si je m'osais à essayer l'exorcisme d'une personne possédé - et je ne lui n'avais pas donné un quelconque motif d'un tel soupçon.

Pourquoi l'a-t-il donc de tout soupçonné?

Cette rumeur depuis Sysslebäck, à la diffusion de laquelle ont contribué les psychiatres.

Hans Georg Lundahl
IV. Dimanche après Pâques
et Invention de la Sainte Croix