Friday, 30 March 2018

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

Beltrame : Franc-Maçon ou Grand-Loge? Ou Catholique?


Joseph Pohle a voulu que celui qui meurt pour sa patrie est au rang des martyrs, mais, pour d'autres catholiques, cette position de Pohle ne fait pas l'unanimité.

Donc, pour beau que soit son sacrifice, celui de Bertrame, il ne le rend pas martyr, et, comme c'est le martyre, pas un acte de patriotisme, qui peut être un baptême de sang ou une communion de sang, donc remplacer les sacraments pour remettre quelqu'un dans la grâce, il faut normalement pour qu'il soit sauvé qu'il soit mort en catholique.

Là-dessus, il y a deux opinions.

Elisseievna : Arnaud Beltrame
http://elisseievna.blogspot.fr/2018/03/arnaud-beltrame.html


La Grande Loge de France rend hommage à son Frère, le lieutenant-colonel Arnaud Beltrame.


Espérons qu'ils aient tort de l'appeler leur Frère ...

Et voici l'autre:

L'AGRIF : Lieutenant-Colonel Arnaud Beltrame : mort pour la France.
http://www.lagrif.fr/s-informer/nos-communiques/89-lieutenant-colonel-arnaud-beltrame-mort-pour-la-france


Le lieutenant-colonel Beltrame est mort après son acte héroïque et sacrificiel à l’hôpital de Carcassonne, après avoir reçu l’ultime sacrement de sa religion catholique : la veille du dimanche des Rameaux, premier jour de la Semaine Sainte, celle du sacrifice du Christ pour le salut des hommes.

Il avait il y a peu revivifié la foi de son enfance auprès des chanoines de la Mère de Dieu de la proche abbaye de Lagrasse.


Espérons que Bernard Antony ait raison de l'appeler catholique.

L'éternité en dépend. Et, notons, être membre de la Grande Loge reste puniable avec excommunication, puisque le nouveau code de 1983 n'est pas un code très catholique.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Mardi de la Semaine Sainte
Mémoire de St Jean de Damas
27.III.2018

Monday, 26 March 2018

Responding to Zack Hunt




H/T : Mark Shea

Now, I don't own a gun. I do think gun ownership is a good thing on other grounds. I see a glaring omission from the debate ...

If teens are slaughtered in the school they were more or less forced to attend most of them, and your reaction is "don't you dare think about touching my teacher's salary!!" rather than "how do we stop this from ever happening again?" ...


Seriously, we cannot stop anything from "ever happening again", we do have a difference in morality, we do not owe our liberties to hairbrained schemes of stopping X from ever happening again. God decides what will and won't happen again. If we try to stop a disaster by committing an atrocity, we court disaster.

But a good reducer of school shootings would be:

  • less legal or other pressure to be in school
  • fewer people involved in psychiatry or child protective services or adoption
  • fewer obstacles for young people to leave school and marry and earn a living.


I cannot and you cannot guarantee anything will stop it from ever happening again, but I am sure this is a recipy for it happening less often.

In France where guns are more restricted you do get the school and teen suicides. This means, you might by banning guns reduce school shootings and the news stories about very unhappy young people killing only themselves are less shocking.

Especially if you are a teacher and don't want anyone to touch your salary.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Castulus
26.III.2018

Saturday, 24 March 2018

Harcèlements à la BU


Et j'ai zappé certains des requêtes d'identification.

Pour préciser, il y a normalement deux telles, s'il y a : une fois au début d'une session internet tout court, et encore une fois si la session sort du site de l'Université.

Déjà le premier ici-même noté est après ça, car on est déjà arrivé au site de mon fournisseur de courriel:











Et j'ai réussi à zapper deux requêtes abusives, mais voici une autre:



Notez les signatures de temps. Il s'agit de l'heure quand je suis là, quand j'ai pris "l'Imprimer l'écran" pour documenter ceci.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Gabriel Archange
24.III.2018

Festum sancti Gabrielis Archangeli, qui ad annuntiandum Incarnationis divini Verbi mysterium a Deo missus est.

En prime, encore une fois, quand je regarde un propos de proteste par TFP contre Amazon:



Et encore:

Friday, 23 March 2018

Before You Accuse a Blogger / Avant d'accuser un bloggueur ...

On parle trop de fumer?


Mis en examen dans le cadre de l’affaire libyenne, l’ancien chef de l’Etat s’est défendu avec énergie sur le plateau du 20 heures de TF1, jeudi soir.
http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/mais-vous-fumez-monsieur-la-phrase-de-nicolas-sarkozy-qui-ne-passe-pas-inapercue-22-03-2018-7623963.php


« Si jamais on m’avait dit qu’un jour, j’aurais des ennuis à cause de (Mouammar) Kadhafi, je me serais dit : « Mais vous fumez, monsieur ? ! », s’est exclamé l’ancien président de la République, semblant quasiment prendre Gilles Bouleau à partie.


Je crois que les jours quand ça était une bonne boutade viennent de passer ....

Même si Sarko n'était pas celui que j'aurais préféré voir mis en examen pour une chose (il n'était pas ultra bon, mais Chirac et Hollande étaient pires, pour Macron ça reste à voir)./HGL

On the Seven Works of Mercy


Feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, give shelter to strangers, visit the sick, visit prisoners and bury the dead.

What do coffin makers do? They help to bury the dead.

Now, one Markus Daly, namesake and friend of Mark Shea, is a coffin maker, but he is in rehabilitation after a surgeon has sewn severed fingers back onto the hand.

Here is the story:

Catholic and Enjoying It : My friend Marcus Daly needs our help
March 22, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/03/my-friend-marcus-daly-needs-our-help.html

Monday, 19 March 2018

Je parlais sur l'avortement, il y a deux semaines


Avec un homme et une femme, celle-ci assez jeune et celui-là un peu plus vieux.

Les dames d'abord.

"Si on interdit l'avortement, il faut interdire tout ce qui est sexe et qui ne fait pas d'enfants aussi"

D'abord, non, pas exactement.

Ensuite, pas mal de ça devrait être interdit aussi, notamment l'homosexualité et les capotes (sans de parler du fait que la pilule devait être interdite comme une forme d'avortement, parce qu'en certains cas elle a aussi un effet abortif).

La Suède, en 2003, a annoncé : le public ne peut plus assurer les retraites, il faudra s'assurer en contractant avec assurances-retraites privées.

La cause étant bien entendu la dénatalité. Trop peu de jeunes par rapport aux vieux = trop peu de monnaie payé aux systèmes de retraite par rapport à ce qu'en sort. Trop peu de choses et de services produits par rapport aux besoins.

Non, une dénatalité n'est pas une fatalité, mais une catastrophe à éviter et qui se laisse éviter.

Par contre, ce qu'on peut considérer comme "les préliminaires" n'a pas besoin d'être interdit, puisque, c'est sinon toujours au moins souvent une préliminaire au sexe fertile.

Ensuite l'homme. Je ne le cite pas verbatim, je n'ose pas me confier à ma mémoire suffisamment pour ne pas déformer une petite nuance, mais son histoire était celle-ci : il avait été éducateur, il avait eu une fille de quatorze parmi la clientèle, elle venait d'être violée par un agresseur dans la rue, qui n'avait pas été pris (supposé-je), et qu'elle ne pouvait pas contacter. Il lui avait dit - l'éducateur donc - "tu peux accoucher sous X ou avorter, et je te soutiens et respecte dans les deux cas".

Là, je considère qu'il l'a poussé à un meurtre.

L'avortement est un meurtre, le fait qu'elle avait été violée, cette fille, n'a pas changé la nature de l'acte abortif. Elle a pu avoir une responsabilité moindre, étant sous le choc, dans ce cas, il a une responsabilité alourdi.

  • 1) Parce qu'il a considéré l'avortement comme une option.
  • 2) Parce qu'il a présenté comme seule autre option le fait d'accoucher sous X.


L'avortement étant un meurtre, il n'est pas une option. Tout d'abord ça.

Ensuite, être enceinte et savoir qu'on va accoucher sous X, c'est quelque part d'être une mère porteuse.

Une société qui ne permet pas - et ça de manière régulière! - qu'une fille de 14 enceinte puisse épouser le père de l'enfant, qui pose l'accouchement sous X comme l'acte la plus pro-vie possible pour elle, c'est une société qui lui donne le choix entre deux rôles, mère porteuse ou meurtrière.

Vu comme on est, même parmi les conservateurs qui prétendent être contre l'avortement, contre les arrangements d'être mère porteuse pour un couple qui paie, on devait être moins fiers de poser une fonction comme presque mère porteuse comme principale alternative à celle de meurtrière ou collabo avec les vrais meurtriers.

En Suède, à ma conversion catholique, j'ai connu deux paroisses, dont celle en Lund connaissait un couple d'académiciens. Leur fille de treize était enceinte, et, vu qu'il était pas question en Suède pour une fille de 13 d'épouser qui que ce soit, on a des "lois" différents du temps quand la sainte Brigitte avait épousé Ulf Gudmarsson quand elle avait 13, ce couple a aidé leur fille à garder l'enfant.

Elle a été mère célibataire, faute de mieux, faute de pouvoir épouser le père, mais, c'était au moins mille fois mieux que, pas seulement avorter, mais aussi accoucher sous X (qui d'ailleurs n'est pas la modalité qu'on a en Suède pour une accoucheuse dont l'enfant sera adopté).

Non, je ne considère pas que des cas comme ça justifient la légalité de l'avortement. J'ai récemment lu des choses sur les pratiques médicales de la Juiverie, et, je comprends après ça très bien pourquoi un pape a décidé que des médecins Juifs ne peuvent pas pratiquer sur des patients Chrétiens : ils ont une éthique médicale fourvoyée. Bien entendu, selon ce que j'ai lu sur leur pratique, je ne le dit pas pour trouver des fautes avec les Juifs.

À partir de Constantin, l'avortement a été illégal en Empire Romain, Est comme Ouest. L'avortement devrait redevenir illégal, et les jeunes mariages devraient redevenir légaux.

Et l'état actuel juridique est un rêve ou un eldorado pour les "pédophiles" : pas pour des hypothétiques sociétés secrètes qui abusent des bébé en rituel sataniques, mais simplement pour les hébéphiles abusifs qui, ayant joué d'une Lolita ne veulent plus assumer cette Lolita comme femme : parce que leurs collègues ricaneraient ou parce qu'ils aiment avoir une garçonnière de temps en temps dorée par la présence d'une Lolita. Il y a des gens qui disent qu'un certain juge américain était autrefois de ce type, et personne n'a prétendu qu'il était sataniste.

Les gens qui ont ce goût là d'une bonne vie, ça leur arrange que l'abusée ne puisse pas exiger le mariage, parce qu'il ne sera pas légal pour la victime, et ça leur arrange aussi que l'avortement puisse être une solution pour leur victime - ou accoucher sous X. Dans les deux cas, aucune preuve qu'ils ont failli à leurs éventuels devoirs comme professeurs, éducateurs ou autres, sans rien dire des devoirs selon une certaine moralité des "adultes" de ne pas abuser des "enfants" (qui ne le sont pas vraiment, d'ailleurs).

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Jour ou mémoire de
Saint Joseph
19.III.2018

Bonum Festum vel Bonam Memoriam Sancti Ioseph


Christifidelibus exopto./HGL


In Judaea natalis sancti Joseph, Sponsi beatissimae Virginis Mariae, Confessoris; quem Pius Nonus, Pontifex Maximus, votis et precibus annuens totius catholici Orbis, universalis Ecclesiae Patronum declaravit.

Quia iam prima est hebdomada passionis, nescio an potius sit dies Sancti Ioseph an potius secunda feria post primam Dominicam passionis, cum memoria Sancti Ioseph. Liturgista non sum perfectus, et non quaesivi quos sint vel quem sit./HGL

Sunday, 18 March 2018

Here is How Matthew Hunt Characterised the Michelson Morley Experiment


Quoting his comment from a FB Group.*

No, it wasn't due to the annual movement of the Earth, it was to do with light passing through the aether. There should have been a slowing down of the light beam through the aether. After all, the aether was invented as the medium which light waves pass through.


Now, this would normally mean Michelson Morley was NOT concerned with any aether wind and definitely if any at all not the one due to the orbital speed of Earth, as the Heliocentrics Michelson and Morley supposed to be the case.

Wiki disagrees:

"It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

In fact, this doesn't tell precisely whether this movement of matter through a supposedly stationary aether was that of rotation or of orbit. Here are some added considerations on that one.

"Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the Sun, but once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds with respect to the stars (see below)."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
"40,075.017 km equatorial circumference."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

40075.017 km / 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds
40075.017 km / 1436 min 4 sec
40075.017 km / 86164 sec
40075.017 km / 23.93444444444444444 h
465.10163177196973222508[((m)/(s))]

Average orbital speed 29.78 km/s


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

29780 m / s
29780 m / s / 465.10163177196973222508[((m)/(s))]
29780 / 465.10163177196973222508 = 64.02901638195187788750057

So, any aether wind would be 64 times greater along the orbital velocity than along the rotational one, and I even took the rotational speed at equator, which is greater than where Michelson and Morley conducted their experiment.

He also said, compared to speed of light Earth was (in Heliocentrism) stationary or as good as.

Let's check that. Orbital speed : 29.78 km/s. Is it correct? I'll go by an approximation and treat "orbit" as a circle with "semi-major axis" as radius. 149598023 km * 2 * π = 939952100.096[km]. 365.2425*24*60*60 = 31556952 s.

939952100.096 km / 31556952 s = 29.786 km / s.

I'll go by 29.78 km/s as verified, right order of magnitude.

Speed of light: 300,000 km / s.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocidad_de_la_luz

300,000 / 29.78 = 10,074. This is then the kind of relation we are looking for.

For instance, the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus could measure the speed of light to perhaps 5% accuracy, which was quite inadequate for measuring directly a first-order 0.01% change in the speed of light.


1/10,074 = 0.0000992654357753
0.0000992654357753
0.0001 = 0.01 %

So, what Michelson Morley, with better apparatus than Fizeau-Foucault were trying to measure was precisely the speed change in light which would result from an orbital speed through a stationary aether.

I hold Matthew Hunt refuted.

Luminiferous aether is impossible (if stationary) if Earth is moving through space as thought.

Earth moving through space as thought is impossible in a luminiferous aether not moving with it.

Michelson Morley either refutes aether or Heliocentrism. I prefer it refuting Heliocentrism. For more than one reason.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
I Passion Sunday
18.III.2018

* If you want the whole context, here is a dialogue, on another blog:

http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-thought-attacking-kent.html

Saturday, 17 March 2018

Is Internet Freedom of Speech being Targetted?


Update : it seems CMI changed the reason for site being inaccessible, before it was "technical difficulties" and this is when I wrote below, now it is "facelift:"
Correction of below, as under this update, which was posted earlier, insofar as it concerns CMI:

Me
Would you take my observations on this post as being wildly inaccurate?

[link here]

I first wrote it while the lower notice was up "experiencing technical issues"

Then I see "major facelift"

Jonathan Sarfati
No, CMI really is doing a site upgrade this weekend. Thanks for your concern though.

Me
Need I correct anything?

Jonathan Sarfati
Yes, this time it's not a case of Fascistbook and Google censoring conservatives. The site is back with a different look.

Me
OK, I saw, and sorry for delay, as I saw it already yesterday!


Now enjoy (with caution on occasional Protestant content, but I mean the typical content which is Creationist):

CREATION.com/
Creation Ministries International


It's back!

See however, a bit before 14:24 in Nanterre University Library:
Cette page ne peut pas s’afficher

Activez TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1 et TLS 1.2 dans Paramètres avancés, puis essayez de vous reconnecter au site https://creation.com . Si cette erreur persiste, il est possible que ce site utilise un protocole non pris en charge ou une suite cryptographique telle que RC4 (lien pour plus de détails), qui n’est pas considérée comme sécurisée. Contactez votre administrateur de site.


I was speaking about the speech of French Minister of Culture before the Journalists on March 15th, the day before yesterday, and I was writing it the next day.

Now, one of the things which from time to time gets stamped as fake news is Creationism.

And one Creationist site recently promoted (with some bad publicity along with it) by Dan Brown is CMI, also known as creation.com.

I usually take time to at least skim and often read their latest and earlier connected every day; was going to enjoy that today too, but here came a bad surprise:



Meanwhile, here is a site which remains up:

Creation vs. Evolution
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com


It is a blog of mine.

If you want a specific subject on it, there is a search bar on that blog, like on this one, like on every blog I have.



The arrow marks I moved the blog header left so it shows under the search bar, saves horizontal space on the image.

This means, of course, that if you suspect me of having stated sth illegal or immoral and therefore reproachable, you can figure out a keyword to search on, do a search and then check what I stated in the posts containing the keyword. If you find no posts with that keyword, check the spelling, unlike a google search bar there is no approximation of spelling. Any word having an American spelling differing from the English one would be in English spelling any word I write (usually even the s in -ise verbs, but I have vacillated lately because of reading too much American*), but could be in American in quotes I make. This is so for any blogs in which I write in English.

But it seems some guys will gas on about certain things containing immoral or even illegal material and this in spite of the "immortality" being a very contested such, and in spite of the searches giving no hits which would qualify as illegal before an actual judge.

Sure, in the former Soviet Union, Creationist material would indeed have been illegal. In certain Muslim countries, CMI would be targetted for being Christian. Solution? Some people think that, if the state should forbid it and doesn't, they can make some Fehmgericht and sabotage it. Secret trial, secret sentence and that one carried out by means usually illegal, like hacking in this case.

Unless it is simply CMI's way of making publicity for the other two Creationist major sites, ICR and AiG. But, somehow I don't think so.

I am living on the streets in France, and in some places where I have been going to breakfast at homeless shelters of morning shelter type, at some occasions, I have got crap from other homeless over being a Young Earth Creationist. Possibly instigated by personnel who did not want to expose themselves to my anger or suspicion, after these and young volunteers had tried some less crappy** "fraternal corrections" like "aren't you afraid of going against the Magisterium of the Church" which is obviously not what I am doing.***

Some of these homeless in Paris have connections either to former East States or to US or both. Like I for my part have more to Sweden and to Austria - countries of my citizenship and of my birth and much of childhood - and to Germany, country of my toddler years, along with Sweden. Some of them therefore have connections to former Communist educations.

So, it seems there can be some more targetting of conservative media ahead. For my own part, I had to change computer, since the session broke down where I was answering a youtube comment by copy paste to a notepad and inserting my answers to every point - as I usually do conduct my debates.

I think an excellent youtube channel has put things in a fairly correct perspective by the captions I give here:



Politically Correct Area Ahead. 1984.

Yes, that is my impression too. 1990 was not "the fall of Barad-Dûr", just "the fall of Dol Guldur". Communism didn't die, it moved around.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Patrick of Armagh
17.III.2017

* See the essay heading by Helge K. Fauskanger "Of a modern Mannish tongue" in the essay "By way of explanation...:" I tend to be more consistently British than he. ** Crappy may be an American word, but that doesn't oblige me to use American spelling. I feel free to mix words from both sides of the Atlantic and to also choose to continue the spelling I was taught in school which, for many words, is historically older than the American one. A "colour labelled axe" is and older spelling than a "color labeled ax". *** Up to and including Humani Generis, 1950, if Pius XII was Pope, no definite favouring of Old Earth or Evolution was there in Roman levels, and from the speech next year to scientists, no word of any either real or supposed Pope favouring Deep Time or Evolution has had anything like the formality of the canons of the Council of Trent, tying exegesis to Patristic consensus, where such a thing exists for a given question.

Friday, 16 March 2018

A Conclusion Needs No Sources - It is the Facts It is Based on that Do


A discussion long ago, with participants abbreviated back then from names and from a medium (FB, blogs, etc) no longer identifiable.

BFH
I'm not sedevacantist, but the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church.
EF
How so? Think very hard about where your sources are for that.
BFH
My sources?
EF
Yes


One can wonder whether EF imagines BFH has "a source" for "the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church" or whether he is asking for sources about a) Bergoglio's behaviour and b) BFH's idea of what constitutes the health of the Catholic Church.

I assume EF actually means the first guy or girl who told BFH to compare the two concepts. But that is not a source. That is an influence.

As to BFH's sources for Bergoglio's behaviour, they are the usual media.

As to BFH's sources about Catholicism, various really Traditional ones - not "Traditional" or "Traditionalist" groups today, but exponents of Tradition as recognised and partially followed even by Pope Francis fan clubs - might do as indicating various actions as being bad.

I have been asked the totally idiotic question about "sources" when it comes to what were obviously conclusions of mine.

Again : a conclusion needs good logic. It is the facts it is based on that need sources./HGL

[Sur la liberté d'expression]


Mercredi 14.III.2018
Je publi l'article Mark Shea on Samizdat and Tacitus on a Similar Situation

Jeudi 15.III.2018
Françoise Nyssen se prononce à Tours, aux Assises du journalisme.

Vendredi 16.III.2018
J'en lis en CNEWS Matin

Le texte, comme cité
"Les fausses nouvelles ont toujours existé, ce qui est nouveau, c'est leur viralité avec Internet. [...] Nous avons besoins de garde-fous."

Contexte possible
Il y a un blog qui les semaines passées, même depuis l'année dernière, il me semble, a été viral en France et en Grande-Bretagne, dernièrement davantage en Grande-Bretagne. La semaine passée il avait 4168 en Royaume-Uni et 1730 en France.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Il me semble que la viralité pourrait être parmi psychologues, psychiatres, experts de sécurité, Juifs, Musulmans, ressortissants des pays "ex"-communistes et qui se font souci pour l'idée que mes positions, exprimées assez polémiquement parfois sur ce blog et prises encore plus polémiquement par des gens qui refusent de comprendre que telle ou telle idée est mon sérieux sérein, pas une exaggération rhétorique pour provoquer ou exprimer mon dégoût avec telle autre idée, et que ces gens là auraient pu, entre autre d'Angleterre précisément et pas le moins simplement des gens qui croient "la science" et refusent d'avoir des idées comme héliocentrisme ou évolutionnisme remises en cause avec des arguments philosophiques et scientifiques, certes pas corrosifs dans le sens social du terme, mais corrosifs pour tel ou tel abus d'argumentation, pourraient un jour devenir monnaie courante.

Le troisième visiteur sur ce blog est la Turquie. Pour certains Musulmans, simplement rester Chrétien et refuter un argument bidon contre le Christianisme, et encore répondre qu'il projettent les faiblesses de Mahomet sur St Paul, ça suffit pour que je compte comme islamophobe. Sans doute, il y a des Juifs et Protestants avec une réaction semblable à mon Catholicisme - et même des Néo-Cathos qui l'ont vis-à-vis mon créationnisme et géocentrisme. La Turquie, si elle n'est pas adverse à un créationnisme "leger" (sans forcément de mettre en cause les datations) est néanmoins pas connue pour créationnisme jeune terre, ni pour géocentrisme. Elle est parc contre connue pour être un pays où la liberté d'expression est très circonscrite pour un pays de l'Union Européenne. Ou candidat de le devenir. J'avais l'impression il y a quelques années qu'elle l'était déjà devenue ...

Pourrait être parmi ces gens pour des motifs comme ça, je ne peux pas garantir que ce soit le cas. Il y a d'autres possibilités.

Contexte clair
Avec l'impression de livres par Gutenberg, le contrôle de la littérature qui circule est devenu quelque part un privilège des riches. C'est la base sur laquelle Cheserton et Belloc, autrement favorables à la liberté d'expression et même vétérans d'une lutte pour celle-ci, motivent que l'Église a bien fait d’introduire la censure des livres.

Avec l'internet, comme je viens de découvrir, un homme pauvre comme un rat d'église, comme on dit en certaines langues européennes, peut se publier et peut être lu un peu partout.

Certains - moi compris, mais je ne suis vraiment pas le seul - ont exprimé des choses qui dégoutent ceux ou certains d'entre eux qui avaient l'habitude de contrôler l'expression imprimée ou en médias diffusées par éther. Comme on sait, je ne suis pas fan de la loi Gayssot, il y a des idées que je ne me sens pas libre à exprimer en France. Une autre époque, je n'étais pas inconditionnel pour Faurisson, je trouvais des critiques à faire à certains de ses critiques (notamment : ce qui est raconté dans le Journal d'Anne Frank peut être vrai, la volonté de protéger ou de klaften peut dans une population occupée vaciller très beaucoup, les précautions à faire par les cachés peuvent diverger et reconverger d'une manière très incohérente avec les libertés réelles, notamment si au début Anne Frank n'avait pas encore suscité la jalousie des autres - et le problème de l'encre et du fluide correcteur peut être resolu si Anne Frank a survécu et collaboré incognito avec son père après la guerre). Or, il y a des débats qui me sont plus chers que celui sur le sort des 3 ou 4 millions noms que Yad Vashem présente comme morts mais qui pourraient plutôt être décrits comme décédés ou portés disparus.

Mais pour certains, un débat sur la crédibilité de NASA (où je ne suis pas le plus défavorable, de loin), un débat sur le bon jugement des scientifiques en refusant le géocentrisme et le créationnismes jeune terre en grande masse, même un débat sur les "petits fascismes" qui n'ont pas eu des cibles ethniques (Austrofascisme, Franco, Salazar), même un débat beaucoup plus reculé, comme de défendre la France catholique à propos des incessantes reclamations à propos les Huguenots, pour certains, ceci est autant sensible comme un débat qui leur paraît (même si ce n'est pas le cas avec moi) comme un insulte à la véracité des survivants des camps.

Eux, ils ont leur politiquement correct à défendre quasi comme un dogme, comme l'Église défendait le dogme catholique, notamment contre préadamites comme Isaac La Peyrère ou un autre comme le fixiste racial Giordano Bruno*. En défendant leur politiquement correct, ils sont prêts à se reclamer de a liberté d'expression, comme d'un bien précieux et à défendre, mais en même temps de tricher comme modérateurs et administrateurs de sites, pour trouver une "faute" grâce à laquelle ils peuvent exclure quelqu'un. Aussi en même temps, ils sont prêts à faire du lobbyisme pour exclure les "irresponsables" de cette liberté d'expression - comme si l'Église n'aurait pas pu appeler Bruno et La Peyrère "irresponsables" plutôt que de tenir Bruno comme responsable de ses erreurs, si elle avait eu cette vision là de l'humanité, une vision assez dédaigneuse.

Donc, ils demandent le genre de mesures que maintenant semble envisager Françoise Nyssen.

Conclusion
Il semble qu'elle vise des mesures administratives ou légales contre la liberté d'exprimer quelque chose de controversiel, donc, restons vigilants sur la liberté d'expression!

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Sts Hilaire et Tatien
évêque et diacre à Aquilée, martyrs
16.III.2018


* La wikipédie donne Graves, 2003, p. 25. et Graves = Graves, Joseph L. (2003). The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3302-3 et la citation donnée est "In 1591, Giordano Bruno argued that, because no one could imagine that the Jews and the Ethiopians had the same ancestry, God must have either created separate Adams or that Africans were the descendants of pre-Adamic races."

Je vérifie les statistiques pour la semaine:

En total : 9583

Royaume Uni 4181 (4168 1 10 2) France 1881 (1730 1 1 12 14 4 4 11 3 1 7 6 1 2 3 32 2 1 16 8 3 6 3 10)

Italie 737 (144 71 1 138 1 239 143) Russie 653 (27 71 9 6 9 9 13 121 7 6 4 2 48 3 111 4 5 3 9 56 57 11 5 7 1 13 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 15) Ukraine 639 (163 2 54 66 43 46 7 92 3 16 2 1 3 7 3 36 2 20 16 5 52)

États-Unis 380 (38 5 7 10 1 3 20 6 16 2 89 1 3 7 40 15 3 14 4 93 3) Turquie 346 (345 1) Canada 302 (295 4 2 1)

Pologne 155 (1 1 40 2 2 3 8 1 3 1 3 4 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 41 3 4 2 2 4 4 8)

Espagne 68 (5 1 4 2 2 2 1 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 29 2 1 1 1) Allemagne 41 (4 1 15 5 4 9 3)

Corée du Sud 33 (1 32) Irlande 30 (28 2) Indonésie 28 (5 5 4 12 2)

Brésil 21 (1 5 1 10 1 1 1 1) Portugal 19 (13 6) Vietnam 18 (10 1 2 3 2)

Égypte 8 (1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1) Suède 7 (1 2 2 2) Belgique 7 (1 6) Chine 7

Honduras 5 (1 1 1 2) Pays-Bas 4 Australie 3 (1 1 1)

Danemark 2 Cambodge 2 Tchéquie 2 (1 1)

Algérie 1 Colombie 1 Tunisie 1 Argentine 1

Notons, si on enlevait les grandes chiffres pour le blog controversé, ce serait moins que 1000 visiteurs par jour, 3045 en total et donc moins de 500 par jour.

Thursday, 15 March 2018

Jordan Right 5/12


I think a comment on a bare summary of the 12 rules falls within fair use.

1)
Stand up straight with your shoulders back

Comment
Not 24/24, I hope?

2)
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping

Comment
Hmm ... I think there is a bit of atheism involved ...

3)
Make friends with people who want the best for you

Comment
As they define my best or as I define it?

4)
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today

Comment
Sounds a bit as if he's against Syndicates preaching wage equality and "same wage for same work" ?

Putting the latter in citation marks, since I think a family wage can earn more for a family breadwinner than for a single man doing same job, but still.

5)
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them

Comment
For how long? Till 18? Till they leave your house? Past both?

6)
Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world

Comment
Oh dear ... not too bright for those defending poor selves against rich, since poor selves have less capacity to set own house in perfect order

7)
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Comment
Hmmm ... I like that one.

8)
Tell the truth--or at least don't lie

Comment
I especially relish the first half, the second sounds a bit like what is sometimes expedient

9)
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't

Comment
There are clear exceptions to this one - when you have seen each item of the list in a previous comment on internet.

10)
Be precise in your speech

Comment
I think in writing it is even more important - but OK, in speech it is appreciated too.

11)
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding

Comment
In a sense of accidents, should one bother anyone when skateboarding?

I mean, certain activities take concentration and are dangerous when the concentration is interfered with.

12)
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Comment
Well, I would actually wait till the cat comes to me ...


12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
Hardcover – 16 Jan 2018, by Jordan B. Peterson (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0241351634/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8


Actually, here is some more:

The great myths of the hero—from Gilgamesh to Luke Skywalker and Bilbo Baggins—typically recount the story of someone who leaves complacent domesticity behind in order to venture into the dangerous unknown, where he manages to find something of enormous value to his family or village or society. One key to psychological/spiritual fulfillment is to embody this archetype of the hero, to live one’s life as an adventurous exploration of the unknown. So Peterson tells his readers—especially young men, who have been cowed into complacency for various reasons—to throw back their shoulders, stand tall, and face the challenges of life head on. This archetype of the hero also allows us to read the story of Adam and Eve with fresh eyes. In Paradise (the word itself denotes “walled garden”), our first parents were secure and innocent, but in the manner of inexperienced children. Leaving Paradise was, in one sense, a positive move, for it permitted them to grow up, to engage the chaos of the unknown creatively and intelligently. This reading of Genesis, which has roots in Tillich, Hegel, and others, permits us to see that the goal of the spiritual life is not a simple return to the Garden of dreaming innocence, but rather an inhabiting of the Garden on the far side of the cross, that place where the tomb of Jesus was situated and in which the risen Christ appeared precisely as “gardener.”


This is from the résumé of the book by one Robber Baron of Theology, as I tend to call him.

He adds:

On balance, I like this book and warmly recommend it. I think it’s especially valuable for the beleaguered young men in our society, who need a mentor to tell them to stand up straight and act like heroes.


The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon
by Bishop Robert BarronFebruary 27, 2018
https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/the-jordan-peterson-phenomenon/5717/


If Robert Barron was anything like tongue in cheek about the fall, and Robert Peterson's Tillich's, Hegel's* and so on take on it, I missed that. The final quote from him seems to indicate, this was not the case, he agreed with it. Or at least found it an interesting and worthwhile take. I most totally disagree.

Leaving paradise was not a move, it was a punishment, it did not make Adam and Eve greater, but lesser, it did not make them more creative, but less so.

Some of the punishments would have been God's way of restoring perhaps half or a third or a quarter of the creativity or greatness they would have had, if they had remained without sin.

The innocence and security were coupled with** inexperience (indeed, Eve must have been inexperienced to talk to a talking snake, a housewife these days with even some basic catechism would probably have resorted to holy water and calling an exorcist as speedily as if pots and pans were flying around the kitchen outside her own tantrums or another family member's). We are savvy about poltergeists and would probably be so about talking snakes, she wasn't.

B u t, she was not just physically but also mentally equipped to her role as mother of all living. She did not need to fall and she certainly did not grow by the mere fact of falling. The innocence and security did not depend on her remaining inexperienced, except insofar as there are "experiences" we would all like to be spared ("ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo").

The reading given Genesis 3 is one I think I recall as reading of as a Masonic and a Mormon one, it is not that I know a Catholic one.

Yes, one experience really made Adam and Eve greater for eternity which they got through their fall : being redeemed by the Cross. O felix culpa, quae tantum nos meruit salvatorem.

But apart from that one, in the "humanist" sense he espouses, no. Over Solzhenitsyn I vastly prefer Tolkien. "To grow is not to lose innocence". And alas, it is Solzhenitsyn and not Tolkien who is - it would seem - Jordan Peterson's hero. Even if perhaps he takes one of his from Tolkien.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Longinus
15.III.2018

* One can note, as C. S. Lewis was an ex-Hegelian, he did not share this error of Hegel in his Christian writings. At all. ** They were coupled with inexperience, but not per se permanently. They were not inexperience.

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

Mark Shea on Samizdat and Tacitus on a Similar Situation


The Catholic Weekly : Mark Shea: Heavenly Samizdat
By Mark Shea March 8, 2018
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/mark-shea-heavenly-samizdat/


Obviously, there is a reference to underground activity in the former Soviet Union.

He is drawing parallels and here are two such I would like to further comment on:

Just as that was a major function of Soviet era samizdat, so it is major function of Resistance literature here in the age of Trump. Samizdat helps free minds from lies by circulating the truth among resisters. (Not, of course, that I mean to in any way compare the oppression suffered by victims of Communism with the aggravations of living under a dumb and incompetent aspiring authoritarian like Trump and the paltry 30% of the electorate who have been brainwashed to believe his lies. The point is to note the similarity of tactics, not the similarity of power. The US still has a free press and freedom of speech and we are still able to speak out about the lies. Heck! The work is largely being done by late night comedians who, under a truly oppressive regime, would long ago have been shot or poisoned with plutonium like Putin’s critics. This is a liberty that the brave critics of Communism never enjoyed and I thank God for it.)


OK, he is speaking about the age of Trump ... what about his own involvement in the age of Evolutionism?

The age in which Karl Keating can pretend that Young Earth Creationist tenets like only thousands of years back to Creation and a world wide flood and languages other than Hebrew coming from Babel are an 19th C Calvinist novum, and in which Anthony Zarrella will pretend that ....

As to angels, of course I believe in them, and I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe. It would bother me not at all to posit that there’s an angel whose divine assignment is to hold atoms together (what we call the “weak nuclear force”), or to regulate the flow of electrons, or to pull masses towards one another (“gravity”). I could even posit that there’s an individual angel assigned to the orbit of each planet and star.

But that is a satisfactory answer to the question of “Why do the physical laws work?” I don’t find it a particularly satisfying substitute for explicable, empirically deducible physical laws.


And no bishop tells Karl Keating he is a bad historian (he got an imprimatur for his hogwash even) and no bishop tells Anthony Zarrella he is not accurately accounting for Thomistic view of angelic movers. A man who is involved in that can give Trump a break.

As for me, in this age of evolutionism, I think that I am providing a potential of ... innizdat ... (else-publishing, as contrasting with self-publishing)*. As long as no one needs to go to prison for publishing what I write, it is not too selfish of me to offer others the possibility and to hope for royalties from them. I have also done conditions such that if anyone should go to prison for publishing what I wrote, it should not be for breach of royalty payments or for breach of copyright.

Here they are:

hglwrites : A little note on further use conditions
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/


But in France and US, normally speaking, someone should be able to use them openly and therefore also to start sending me voluntary royalties.

How old are these conditions? Last post is from May 4, 2015. Second last post is from July 21, 2012, I certainly posted the conditions before that. Both the English and the French version.

I actually had to add a comment on the French version earlier, in 2013: Dec 13, 2013.

This was after a link originally in the conditions had become disactivated and so definitely after I added the conditions. So, at least five years these conditions have been in place.

But more, before being copied onto that one, they were added onto first message of my blog "deretour" after it was written, but at least before 26 October 2010, when I linked to that first message "de retour" as a way to linking to my conditions:

deretour : full url : version / présentation : pleins urls
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2010/10/full-url.html


This means, at least seven years the conditions are visible on the internet, the first message has by now been seen by at least (according to stats provided by google) 3652 times. Cannot access the times the conditions have been viewed on hglwrites, since that account was disconnected.

So many thousands could have started or enlarged a printing business from that offer. Note, I say enlarged, because the conditions do not exclude conventional publishers.

Did I mention anyone is free to print, sew and sell my essays or any reasonable collection of them (by theme or contrarywise on all different themes)?


Anyone, that means literally anyone.

And "my essays or any reasonable collection of them" means, you cannot later what is in an essay (beyond very moderate spelling correction, not stated, but there, and if including comment section on the posts, one can also delete the marks for who is saying sth between for instance different instances of myself adding content that way).

And "print, sew and sell" means any kind of publishing except pure glueback without sewn quiers which is very brittle. The stapled version on comic book or magasine format is acceptable.

Since big publishers do have these means, they could have. As to small publishers, well, they could learn to sew, cooperate with a book binder or settle for comic book format. I have given instructions for all steps up to sewing and binding, for anyone interested.

This means, sth has happened to stop this. I wonder what ... and if it has connection to viewer stats.

Each following stat is from one of my blogs, not giving all top ten, but the dominant one or ones. A country is counted as sole or last dominant one, if next country is about half as many or less, I did one exception for the really big blog these days.

If you don't like stats, skip these down to below the boxes!
Russia 1
Russia 2
Russia 12
Russia 2
Russia 5

Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1

Russia 12
Russia 4 Russia 1
Russia 10
Russia 3

Vietnam 5 France 4 Ukraine 4 United States 4
United Kingdom 699 France 259 Canada 103
United Kingdom 1

France 2
France 2
France 4
France 2

France 2 Ukraine 2

Ukraine 2
Ukraine 19

Poland 1 Ukraine 1

Poland 1

Canada 1 Poland 1

Italy 71
Italy 69

Spain 2


If, for instance, one blog has France 2 viewers and Spain 1 viewer today, France is dominant country since Spain has exactly half as many viewers. Any blog where a country with only one viewer is dominant country has that country as sole viewer today.

Let's look at the sole viewer countries, for blogs having only one visitor:

Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 1
United Kingdom 1
Poland 1

And on some blogs where Russia had 2 views today, it was also sole country.

Now, Russia has experience with Samizdat, from two sides. From the KGB side and from the Samizdat side.

Supposing my viewers in Russia were in fact from Samizdat side, by now, I think, some of them might have discovered that Samizdat has become legal in Russia. Well, I suppose it has. I am not sure.

In that case, perhaps some of them might have started sending me some. Or some of the material might have come out into the free world traditionally such and been reprinted on larger scale.

On the other hand, if the Russian viewers are from the former KGB side, that might explain why my blogs are not being republished on paper in Russia and ... why perhaps too some of the other countries seem to prefer a fairly similar number of viewers over time and why none of the traditionally free countries has seen any paper publishing on larger scale of any of my six thousand plus articles.

Or why none of my music is played, for that matter.

Psychiatric specialists being involved in the watching is also fairly consistent with the former KGB scenario. It would involve looking at blog after blog and seeing I am not updating it, sometimes because it is an old blog with a successor or for a special finite purpose, sometimes because it is a blog I don't update every day, because I only do so when I have sth new to say on the subject.

When we look at the week, there is less Russian dominance and a bit more US and Ukrainean one ...

United States 6
United States 16
United States 17
United States 5

Russia 5
Russia 10
Russia 83
Russia 16
Russia 7
Russia 1
Russia 2
Russia 2
Russia 2
Russia 2

France 26
France 12

Italy 70
Italy 142
Italy 211
Italy 235

Japan 143

Ukraine 16
Ukraine 14
Ukraine 50

Russia 6 Germany 4 United States 3

Russia 13 United States 10
Russia 2 United States 2
Russia 13 United States 8

Poland 3 Russia 3
Poland 3 Russia 3

United Kingdom 1 Russia 1

Russia 3 Ukraine 2

France 10 Russia 10 United States 9
France 4 Russia 4 United States 3

Russia 6 Germany 4 Poland 4 France 3

Ukraine 103 United States 102 Russia 98

Russia 10 United States 7 Belgium 6



United Kingdom 4196 France 1854
Italy 72 Ukraine 52 United States 41


How if we compare with last month as well?

Russia 44
Russia 179
Russia 8
Russia 408
Russia 110

Russia 121
Russia 134
Russia 179
Russia 18
Russia 17

Russia 50
Russia 32
Russia 55
Russia 30
Russia 89

Russia 159
Russia 260
Russia 166
Russia 172
Russia 387

Russia 29
Russia 38

United States 42
United States 13

Italy 575
Italy 777

France 17760 United Kingdom 12352

Russia 427 Ukraine 382 Italy 348
Ukraine 460 Italy 446 Russia 429

Russia 665 Italy 488

Ukraine 17 Russia 14
Ukraine 35 Russia 31
Russia 67 Ukraine 47
Russia 275 Ukraine 179

United States 1894 Ukraine 1223 Russia 1116

Russia 33 United States 20
Russia 37 United States 20

Russia 260 Japan 158

Russia 27 France 21


So, for last month, Russian dominance is even more marked.

Just taking Ukraine, US and Russia here:

1894
1223
1116
______
4233 : 30 = 141.1

Expected readers from month last 24 h = 141.

13
07
_________
20 Real readers last 24 h.

140 : 20 = 7 Real readers are 1/7 of expected readers from month.

103
102
098
_________
303 Real readers last week.

303 : 7 = 43.3 Expected readers from last week for last 24 hours.

43.3 : 20 = 2.165 Real readers are less than 1/2 of expected readers from last week.

141.1*7 = 987.7 Expected readers f o r last week from last month.

987.7 : 303 = 3.26 Real readers last week are less than 1/3 of what one could expect from last month.

Long story short : Russia, US and Ukraine have dominated my readership and diminished it. From month to week and from week to last 24 hours.

Also, France seems, on most of my blogs, to have a watchdog role. No blog has French dominance one week, let alone one month, except the one where France and UK share the dominance for quite some time now. As to its sister blog in French, it has Italian dominance.

So, for my resistance writing in an age of Evolutionism, I am fairly controlled resistance. Not because the big ones control what I write, but because they control who reads. For free countries, US and France can be pretty unfree, at times.

And I wonder how many of the Russian veterans from Samizdat era would in fact still believe printing from home is illegal - and I wonder if they would be right in Russia.

Now, second point.

Anyway, all this business of samizdat got me thinking. One of the oldest bodies of samizdat in the world is called the “New Testament”. It was written by a community living, not only under the threat of persecution by a brutal Roman regime that killed its Master by crucifixion and which periodically killed his servants by equally brutal means, but also under the rejection of its very own fathers, mothers, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who were constantly telling the early Christians that they had lost their minds, that everything they believed is a lie, and that they are either crazy or liars too.

Such a community, telling the world such a tale as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the God-man, needed to hear words of encouragement from one another—a lot. Its members needed to remind each other not merely to be brave against mobs that wanted to kill them, but against moms who pled with them to stop chasing after this nutty new cult that believed in a risen Messiah and claimed to have seen him with their own eyes. The great danger they faced was not persecution but seduction: the pleading call of friends and loved ones to see reason, abandon Jesus, and come along with them “for fellowship.”

The early Christians needed to tell each other, “No. You are not crazy. We saw the Risen Lord too. We heard his words. We saw the miracles. We saw the signs. We saw the apostles do such signs. We even saw each other do them. It’s all real. It’s all true. Be not afraid.”

This is why the letters of Paul are replete with admonitions to “encourage one another.” As Orwell noted, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one’s opinions about important events.” The New Testament is the Church’s diary. Every liturgy is a reading of that diary: a reminder of what happened, of what it means, of what the truth of things really is, that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. It is a call from our most ancient ancestors to hold fast to those truths no matter how much the world may lie to us.


Nearly all is correct.

One little point. In Roman Empire there was no such thing as copyright. Stealing a private letter and publishing it was punishable, I presume, but publishing whatever text you had bought or been sent was perfectly legal. This meant, each person copying could copy less than we would now, and still have more impact in the end - because others followed on.

Knowing you were not writing a faked text was back then an already developed art to which little has been added. It was a question of comparing the manuscripts you had.

And, as everything you copied for others could be copied in turn, it was mainly innizdat*.

This underground innizdat was what actually survived of contemporary history from AD 30 to AD 96 (the latest parts of Antiquities and possibly Jewish War excepted). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are with Flavius Josephus our historians from Tiberius to Nerva's early reign.

And in Nerva's early reign, Tacitus explains why ...

We have read that the panegyrics pronounced by Arulenus Rusticus on Paetus Thrasea, and by Herennius Senecio on Priscus Helvidius, were made capital crimes, that not only their persons but their very books were objects of rage, and that the triumvirs were commissioned to burn in the forum those works of splendid genius. They fancied, forsooth, that in that fire the voice of the Roman people, the freedom of the Senate, and the conscience of the human race were perishing, while at the same time they banished the teachers of philosophy, and exiled every noble pursuit, that nothing good might anywhere confront them. Certainly we showed a magnificent example of patience; as a former age had witnessed the extreme of liberty, so we witnessed the extreme of servitude, when the informer robbed us of the interchange of speech and hearing. We should have lost memory as well as voice, had it been as easy to forget as to keep silence.


Chapter 2 of Agricola.

In other words from Tiberius to Domitian all the Roman Empire lived in a situation very close to that of Soviet Union. Because the latest surviving contemporary historian before this silence falls silent in AD 30 - when St John and Our Lord were speaking to Roman Soldiers in Palestine. It was Vellejus Paterculus, writing about the last 16 years, the first ones of Tiberius, in a very much more general way than he had written about Augustus.

I quoted both here:

somewhere else : Two of These Quoted (Silent Historians Argument Revisited)
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/two-of-these-quoted-silent-historians.html


I made the general observation about "silent historians" argument here:

somewhere else : 1st C Historians, Wikipedia Category
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/1st-c-historians-wikipedia-category.html


This is part of my Apologetics about the Resurrection of Christ, against the argument that no "contemporary and independent" historians confirm the Resurrection, nor even existence, of Jesus, Tacitus, Josephus, and Sueton all being next generation.

Well, there are no "independent" historians in that "contemporary" : the ones not enjoying the Church's faculties of preserving under ground publishing depended too much on the power and perished, if speaking about contemporary events. Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius would all be quoting some historian from Nero's time - which we know now only in the quotes in Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius. The Sovietic parallel was scaringly accurate.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Leo, bishop
martyred in Rome
14.III.2018

PS, if the Church was so good at providing us with illegal writing in the age of Nero, it is astonishing if there would have been a true Church other than the Catholic and in the age of Constantine it survived in silence, like the Pagan Romans Tacitus spoke of. So much for Baptist Continuity theory, the second most absurd Church History after ... how about the "Church was never really Young Earth Creationist but discovered it was Evolutionist only after nearly 2000 years" ...

* OK, never learned Russian, and if my memory of "inny" = "other" is wrong, it would be a "false memory" from my time of learning Polish and having to leave off too soon. But I don't think it is.

Update next day
no clear dominant countryone dominant country
France 1 Russia 1
Poland 1 Russia 1
Ukraine 4 Indonesia 3 Russia 3 United States 3 Poland 2
Russia 10 Ukraine 9 United States 6 France 5 Brazil 3
United States 8 Ukraine 7 Russia 4

France 1 United States 1
France 1 United States 1 Vietnam 1
United Kingdom 713 France 414
Spain 1 France 1
France 2 Ukraine 2
Poland 2 Ukraine 2
Poland 2 Ukraine 2
Italy 74
Italy 75

Russia 10
Russia 1
Russia 1
Russia 2
Russia 38
Russia 7
Russia 17
Russia 1
Russia 1

France 5

Ukraine 2
Ukraine 2
Ukraine 2
Ukraine 2
Ukraine 14

Poland 1

Friday, 9 March 2018

Kentucky and Marriage


Status quo, as resumed by a blog post:

Currently, teens under 18 in Kentucky can marry at age 16 or 17 with a parent’s permission. Teens under 16 can marry with a judge’s permission in case of a pregnancy, though critics say if a girl under 16 is pregnant, it is evidence of a sex crime because she would have been too young to consent to a sexual relationship.


First of all, a pregnant woman should be able to marry the father of the child unless it would involve incest, adultery, sacrilege of vows of chastity (if the father is a priest or the pregnant woman a nun, since in the case a "marriage" would be invalid and involve further sacrileges beyond the one already done), or disparity of worship (if one is baptised and other is not baptised and won't get baptised).

Second, a sex crime can be amended by precisely culprit marrying victim if she so wants to.

Third, in Medieval Latin Christendom, a girl of Twelve was legally capable to marry, even without parental consent. She was also legally presumed capable of consent to fornication and adultery (which in Christendom were not punishable by death), except if she was a virgin, in which case the crime stuprum was a kind of equivalent to statutory rape, except it depended on her being virgin, not on her being 12. So, a widow of 12 and a half could legally consent to fornication. A virgin of 15 or 17 could not, but the culprit was free to make up by marrying the victim. Parental consent was customary except where already married and widowed or already sham married and annulled. It was not a legal requirement.

These are the rules that the Catholic Church upheld, these are the rules that should be upheld.

Making courts capable of forbidding marriage even with parental consent, as proposed by some legislators of Kentucky*, fulfils dire Biblical prophecy:

"[1] Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, [3] Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth."
[1 Timothy 4:1-3]

Obviously, the "marriage at 18 and parental consent for no one" rule would involve some evil spirits coming some places earlier than others.

In 1870, it was imposed on Former Papal States, I suppose, as they were annected by the Kingdom of Italy. If not, Kingdom of Italy got involved in that game after offending Papacy. Either way, while Pius IX ruled in Rome and Romagna, including Nettuno, a twelve year old girl could certainly marry. By early 20th C. it was 18, as I read in Dummrath.

A bit later this evil change came to Russia, in the case of 18 in the Russian Revolution.

In this context, consider that while 616 is not the number of the beast, since it belongs to Nero rather than to Domitian**, it is still bad enough. How does this relate? Well, in Russian, both Vladimir and Ilich would have been very valid ways to refer to a certain Ulianov. He was quarter Swedish and in sweden his last name is spelled Uljanov. Now check IULJANOV. Even so, Czars had previous to that deviated from the Catholic standard.

This is a reason why Kentucky should not deviate from it further than they already did.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre Ul
St Francesca of Rome
9.III.2018

PS, as we today celebrate St Francesca, patron saint of Rome, widow, it may be noted that her marriage was at age ... 12. Probably with parental consent or even guidance, as she was pious, but it would not have been a legal requirement./HGL

* If I understand the blog post correctly, read it for yourselves:

Why Conservatives Objected to that Kentucky Child Marriage Bill
March 5, 2018 by Libby Anne
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2018/03/why-conservatives-objected-to-that-kentucky-child-marriage-bill.html


** How does 666 belong to Domitian? Well, if you take Latin vocative "Domitiane" and spell it DOMITIANE or French phrase "à Domitien" and spell it ADOMITIEN, you only need to add up ASCII values for each letter, there are no accented ones, especially not in the Latin vocative (French tend to omit accents in capitalisation, but this is optional), so the 26 standard letters go in upper case 65 for A to 90 for Z.

Muslims and Psychiatry


Are Muslims threatening the freedom in the West through psychiatry?

Well, look how psychiatry might seem to function in Egypt, in a Muslim country:



The Mohammad he is speaking to is a young atheist.

The atheist is wrong. But that doesn't make psychiatry right.

And while atheism is so common in France, atheists are not in any way menaced, some others, like Christians of a more radically faithful type may be (Catholicism in France is not very faithful, most of it).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Francesca Romana
9.III.20108

Source:

https://www.facebook.com/ShankhNaad/videos/1133826663423647/

Tuesday, 6 March 2018

Have I Said Sth Wrong about Soros?


I was going to go through blog after blog where a mention was possible and show screenshots of "no post found with the term Soros".

I took the blog Assorted Retorts first, and I actually found one.

Here is the post and the relevant passage:

Are Dinos Feeling Squished in the Bible?
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/09/are-dinos-feeling-squished-in-bible.html


This post - before I quote the passage - actually is a comment on a video, so 13:14 is a time signature in it and the next words in citation marks are a quote from it, giving context for my comment. The full context for those not seeing the video is, the speaker Viced Rhino claims Creationists do not make any discoveries. It is then qualified to "interesting enough to make headlines" and here is where I bump in:

13:14 "interesting enough to make headlines"

You don't know which interests own the mainstream media, right?

Soros is one of them, and he's behind next year's new Irish referendum which he hopes will bring abortion to Ireland.

Do you think HE would like such a thing to be known?

Or the four years since I started doing the research debunking geological column, as far as palaeontology is concerned, I have not been easily refuted and after that ignored, I have been NEITHER refuted NOR taken note of by the relevant specialists.

Here is a correspondence with Karoo:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html


That was 2 years ago.

Here, if you read Spanish, is one with Yacoraite:

Correspondencia de Hans Georg Lundahl : Yacoraite
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2013/11/yacoraite.html


As you can see, it is actually one letter, from me, no answer from the Universidad Nacional de Salta.


So, my point is, Soros is involved in the Irish campaign for abortion and he owns media concerns. I do not think it too likely the media he owns would publish news that even Fox News could consider a bit too controversial. If that is "paranoid," who isn't? Is Soros "paranoid" for not liking The Alex Jones Channel?

The point is, some things are by some persons weighed with two measures. If I think of Soros' media like Soros thinks of The Alex Jones Channel, only one of us is likely to be stamped as paranoid.

Precisely, as I said elsewhere, if Jews have a certain attitude about a swastika, in reference to past history, and I have that as a Christian in reference to future history (see Apocalypse 13:18) to the number six hundred sixty six, only one of us is likely to be stamped as a phobiac. You have a diagnosis called hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, but, despite the smaller word and easier pronunciation, psychologists have not bothered to involve a diagnosis for swastikophobia.

Why?

Well, infortunately, there are some chances psychologists and psychiatrists are more often sectarian Jews than Christians (except Protestants who are close to Seventh Day Adventist in relation to Catholicism) and those who are, are more likely to get away with an abuse of position than Christians would be. If I as a Catholic threw Muslims into Mental Hospital or even damaged them ever so little socially by making a diagnosis, supposing I had been a shrink, on the basis of those Muslims disliking the Crusades and exaggerating the extent of war crimes and exaggerating the extent of recent scandals of sex abuse among Catholic clergy, I would lose the job as a shrink no time, similmarily if I did so to Jews confusing Austrofascism and Francisco Franco with Hitler. And of course, if I were to try it with Protestants like acting an Inquisitor about hersy under the guise of psychiatric totally religiously neutral expertise. But some people do get away with similar things the other way round. Because they are likelier to try? Not necessarily, but rather, there are more things they can get away with ... except perhaps when the Catholics are very up to date ones.

But what I said about Soros is very mild compared to what I have to say about shrinks - with reference to, but little difference in, exact confession. I only considered Soros unlikely to favour a certain type of news which nevertheless I think is very good if it gets out, and I consider other owners of mainstream media, the ones he is part of and some others, have similar "attitude problems" about certain truths.

Now, I showed a research on Soros as one example, but the thing is, you can get to the "search" bar in the blog, in each blog, and type a key word, and every post where a keyword with exact same spelling (if I misspelled "Sorros" for "Soros" it wouldn't show, but I usually don't do that), every such post will come up on the search, on each of the blogs.

If some people have been visiting my blogs very often just searching and searching for material they consider damning or could even use against me in courts, well, why the trouble? There is a search bar on each blog.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Perpetua and Felicitas
6.III.2018

PS, it seems Soros is doing some good too, it seems he has shown some support for Palestinians./HGL

PPS, I just tried to find out sth about Soros involvement in media ownership, independently of my cavalier and amateurish half memory of an allegation. Guess what. There is a site dedicated to Media Ownership, it is called a Monitor (of it). The countries they do monitor are: Brazil, Cambodia, Colombia, Ghana, Mongolia, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine. Not Russia, China or India, and also not South Africa or Ireland. Not Japan, no country of the Commonwealth, and not US. Only smaller and less important countries. Wonder why?/HGL

PPPS, found one possible reason. The site is funded by ... The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) is headed by the Minister, Dr Gerd Müller, the Parliamentary State Secretaries, Mr Hans-Joachim Fuchtel and Mr Thomas Silberhorn, and the State Secretary, Dr Friedrich Kitschelt. ... In other words, the countries monitored could be such where the Germans are posing money for projects, in foreign aid. That automatically concentrates on poorer countries and excludes some big ones and rich ones./HGL

PPPPS, George Soros, on twitter promoted Michelle Gallo as pronouncing this calumny against those against Gay Marriage : "The concept first gained traction in Europe, where anti-LGBTI activists and politicians in Spain and France, among others, used the term while attempting to limit the rights of women and LGBTI persons." The phrase "attempting to limit" sounds like depriving of rights already there, while it is about opposing non-rights./HGL

Monday, 5 March 2018

... against Abiogenesis


Q
Which is more unlikely: Intelligent design or Abiogenesis?
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-unlikely-Intelligent-design-or-Abiogenesis#


David Chan
former Retired Senior Exec (1985-2010)
Answered 14h ago
Abiogenesis is more likely. Intelligent Design is a scam and a con.

Read

Argument against ID
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tERPzNO8vaXxEJaT5Jb7pYRmHTv-un54Qht4iWcAYC4/edit


I would be happy to discuss this with an adherent of ID.

I answered several times
namely i to uij, each of which is open for a discussion, and most of which start with a qute from the Google document.

i
Hans-Georg Lundahl
19m ago
“Science is about making statements about reality reality that can be falsified through experiment or observation.”

Already this line, abiogenesis is not science.

If the lack of not just order but also phospholipids after Miller Urey experiments do not refute abiogenesis to you, nothing will, and so you are not scientific about it.

On a more general level, if neither is science, since first origin of biological life on earth is a non-repeatable event (except if God choses to do a miracle like that despite the pause on day six), (and of course, in a way resurrecting people and resurrecting Himself Jesus did that), the question of which is science is not qualified to decide on which is most likely.

Intellectual is not limited to science, therefore an intellectual proposal which is not science is not automatically a scam.

However, giving scientific reasons against Abiogenesis, such as Miller Urey (lack of order, chirality and suitable material for cell membranes) is definitely not a scam even as science.

ij
Hans-Georg Lundahl
18m ago
“Thus scientific theories no matter how well accepted are different from truths like “God created the Universe” which are held by believers as immutable truths.”

I hold 2+2=4 as immutable truth, does that mean mathematics are not science either?

iij
Hans-Georg Lundahl
10m ago
“My understanding of the main ID argument is that known science cannot currently account for specific things such as, the evolution of the eye, the transition from chemistry to biology etc., so the fact that such complex phenomena currently exists imply that there is an Intelligent Designer aka the Abramic God! (Note, they do not use Taoist or Buddhist Theology as an explanation but stick with the Abramic Christian one).”

There is no Taoist or Buddhist theology. Taoism and Buddhism do not have a concept of God.

Also, on the level of ID, while the proponent would culturally find the Christian God more appropriate, the Platonist one would answer to the argument as well.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in the comparison to a stage magician, since while watching, you cannot analyse what happens from every possible angle, and so you rule out explanations which actually are there, just not in the manner you thought they were.

In the case of ID, Miller Urey has been done again and again.

You find no chirality except the mixed one, no order, no matter for cell membranes, every time.

You would no doubt design another experiment to account for phospholipids, but its conditions would contradict the ones for Miller Urey.

And since cell membranes keep amino-acids from otherwise quickly getting out of order or dissolving, they are as vital as amino-acids for production of a first cell.

iu
Hans-Georg Lundahl
9m ago
“The first is a lack of imagination because the proponent of ID is lacking in imagination because they cannot imagine how such transitions can come about by natural processes.”

What if the real lack of imagination is on your side in not identifiying the problems?

u
Hans-Georg Lundahl
8m ago
“Here, when a specific issue is actually answered, they will say it is an example of microevolution which is allowed by them so on to the next issue.”

Example?

uj
Hans-Georg Lundahl
4m ago
As to the general idea of microevolution, I certainly do accept that chromosomes can fuse.

I also accept that Chihuahuas and domesticated wheat have lost abilities their ancestors had, by mutations.

By contrast, gaining abilities and gaining chromosome numbers would seem quite a lot harder, speciation or no speciation.

Oh, if you wanted to take Flying Squirrel as example of a mutation gaining abilities, you would first need to prove it is not the original Squirrel.

Also, as far as ID goes, ID is per se neutral on whether macroevolution occurs, above was not said as an ID-er but as an outright Creationist.

I did not see one single argument against ID as a proposed solution, except the bad comparison to a stage magician already answered.

uij
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Outside scope of question, ID is also supported by language.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Mark Shea and Greydanus "on Psalms"


Deacon Steven Greydanus on the Denial of Jesus by Peter
March 2, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/03/deacon-steven-greydanus-denial-jesus-peter.html


Quoting Greydanus without giving a link, perhaps from private letter, perhaps from oral context, perhaps givink link later (sorry for the pun).

Here are, however, some words:

C.S. Lewis once pointed out that something similar is true of the Old Testament in its original context and in a post–New Testament context, and noted how older Christian writers often failed to appreciate this point:

“Our ancestors seem to have read the Psalms and the rest of the Old Testament under the impression that the authors wrote with a pretty full understanding of Christian Theology; the main difference being that the Incarnation, which for us is something recorded, was for them something predicted. In particular, they seldom doubted that the old authors were, like ourselves, concerned with a life beyond death, that they feared damnation and hoped for eternal joy.” [Reflections on the Psalms]

As far as we know, no Old Testament writer, nor any Jew in Jesus’ day, had any notion of the invisible and unimaginable God becoming a human being, much less being crucified and raised from the dead. What hopes or expectations of a coming “messiah” existed were far more vague, shadowy and diverse than is widely imagined today; indeed, “the messiah” played a far smaller role in Second Temple era Jewish thought than readers of the Gospels might guess.


False, as far as we know, the tradition of the priests, prophets and kings (and Christ was born in a royal family, related to a priestly one) did very much include knowledge of Trinity and Incarnation, probably also Crucifixion and Resurrection, since that was predicted more than once.

Did the explicitly believed articles increase, those believed by everybody? Yes:

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Ezech.) that "the knowledge of the holy fathers increased as time went on . . . and the nearer they were to Our Savior's coming, the more fully did they received the mysteries of salvation."

I answer that, The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). On like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Hebrews 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.

Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 6:2-3): "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob [Vulgate: 'I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'] . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them": David also said (Psalm 118:100): "I have had understanding above ancients": and the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5) that the mystery of Christ, "in other generations was not known, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."


Second Part of the Second Part : Question 1. Faith; Article 7. These articles: are they of faith for all times?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article7


But next question has two articles which are also relevant, and which are among what CSL referred to as "older Christian writers" (note, Reflections on the Psalms is one book by him I did not buy and liked a lot less than others when reading it borrowed).

Question 2. The act of faith : Article 7. Is explicit faith in Christ always necessary for salvation?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7


On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii; Ep. cxc): "Our faith is sound if we believe that no man, old or young is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 5; II-II:1:8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.

But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (II-II:1:7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.

After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (II-II:1:8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.


Article 8. Is it necessary for salvation to believe in the Trinity explicitly?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8


On the contrary, In the Old Testament the Trinity of Persons is expressed in many ways; thus at the very outset of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity: "Let us make man to Our image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Therefore from the very beginning it was necessary for salvation to believe in the Trinity.

I answer that, It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."


Now, what did CSL get wrong in his Reflections on the Psalms?

He got wrong that he believed someone more learned than he was in theology on that matter, but an Anglican, more learned in a sham and stunted theology, just as traditionally Judaism most of last 1900 and more years is sham and stunted Old Testament theology. This person was then deducing what faithful Hebrews during the Old Testament believed, only from the written text of the Old Testament.

Or worse, from written text plus tradition of those rejecting Christ.

The Hebrew tradition split into two. On the one hand you have a LXX Old Testament, a New Testament, Church Fathers. On the other hand, you have a Masoretic Old Testament, Mishna, Gemara. Those traditions are not the same, even if they both have claims of coming from the Hebrew, Old Testament, root. On the tradition of the Old Testament, we are bound to listen foremost to that of the early Christians. That is, to those whose tradition is preserved to us in the Catholic Church. (Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians or Nestorians have more or less rival claims of being the continued early Church).

This means, the enemies of Christ understood some points of the prophecies about him better than His disciples, especially those who were fishermen from Galilee. Much of what Christ revealed to the twelve during the 40 days, about His death and Resurrection (that would involve an allegoric reading of Genesis 22, where His carrying of the Cross was predicted in Isaac carrying the firewood for his own sacrifice, but also a deal about the woman and her seed being a prophecy about the Blessed Virgin - some things they could not publically preach while She was alive, so She should be protected from persecution). Much of that - sorry for anacolouthon, I woke early this morning - Caiaphas and Hannas understood better than the disciples, until Christ revealed it to them. Or than some of the disciples. And we do know some representative, perhaps more than one, of the temple's tradition, was among the disciples, sooner or later. The beloved disciple was known to the High Priest. Someone present in the temple when the veil was torn from top to bottom must have told the very first Gospeller this. So, we can take it, the tradition of the Old Testament, as represented by Christian tradition, has been validated by people knowing the Old Testament tradition in great detail, in greater detail than the Pharisees.

This means, through Apostolic Tradition including Christ's exegesis and through whatever Cohen or Levite was among the disciples confirming this was (at least in part) already known, we can know better than the Jews what the people like Abraham or King David really believed.

Now, some of the other points are in fact true. Jesus reveled Himself as the Messiah in public five days before He died on a Cross. And that only one day after some of his enemies had already decided to kill both Him and Lazarus, so He knew He had nothing to lose, He was going to be killed anyway, even if He didn't. And since some of the Messianic prophecies of political type - I notably think of Isaiah 11, the verses from "and His sepulchre shall be glorious" to the end - were post-mortem, this did not deprive Him of opportunity of fulfilling them.

I have given the explanation of Isaiah 11 before, but we cannot fail to notice, in a clear fashion the prophecies were fulfilled, even if some had their eyes wide shut to this fact. The first two Churches in the Church are Jerusalem and Samaria - in Judah and in Ephraim. But those related to trampling on the serpent, which both Christ and His Mother did on Calvary, that was fulfilled first. Genesis 3 was the tradition of mankind till it split, and then after Babel, of the Hebrews. It is not a minor prophecy about our domestic relation to snakes (as animals to get rid of, because dangerous), and was not taken so by "the learned" between Adam and St Joseph the Most Chaste Bridegroom either.

Now, let us differentiate between what Greydanus said and what someone else said.

Peter had been there days earlier on the mountain when Jesus was transfigured in glory and spoke with Moses and Elijah. Perhaps now he would be transfigured again, would become like the glorious “son of man” described in Daniel 7, riding clouds of heavenly glory and claiming dominion over all nations and peoples, beginning with those who foolishly thought they could arrest him.

Imagine Peter’s cognitive dissonance when Jesus himself not only told him not to resist, but allowed himself to be taken away. What followed must have been a descent into unthinkable horror: Jesus the wonder-working prophet, Jesus the expeller of demons, Jesus whom Peter himself had dared to pronounce the messiah, was suddenly a helpless victim in the hands of Israel’s great adversary.

All their hopes were turning out like the followers of all the other would-be messiahs who had ended in shame and failure on Roman crosses. Instead of reigning at his side, the Twelve themselves might be crucified with him, and that would be the end of the story.

None of this excuses Peter denying Jesus, but it helps us understand the psychological state in which he did so.


Sounds fairly correct. Cognitive dissonance, anguish, sure, why not (btw, one reason to resist those taking these as symptoms of mental illness, and thereby push psychiatric diagnoses too far : the ones chosen by Christ were healthy, physically and mentally). So far Greydanus.

However, here is Pacelli:

Prior to his elevation to the papacy, for instance, the future Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, shed light on the Blessed Mother’s warning, writing in part:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul … A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.


If he was quoting the Blessed Virgin, so be it. But if he was paraphrasing, saying his own thing, we do at least not have textual evidence that Peter actually doubted. There is a difference between doubting and doubting what something means. There is a difference between doubting and hesitating. There is a difference between doubting whether one will sink or swim and just being irrationally afraid of sinking. I wonder how many went to swim school (not sure that is the word they use in English, I translate the Swedish term) and who know the feeling. And as St Peter himself was a fisherman, he must have known it too one day, and therefore known the difference.

For this quote, see:

akaCatholic : “The Church will doubt as Peter doubted…”
Louie June 17, 2015
https://akacatholic.com/the-church-will-doubt-as-peter-doubted/


Wait ... the words of Pacelli would seem not to involve the denial, of akaCatholic gives the right context:

Peter replied, “Far be it for you, Lord!”

To which Our Blessed Lord responded, “Get behind me, Satan!”

There’s quite a bit to discover in this scene about the nature of Peter’s doubt; for one, his doubt is two-fold, in a sense.

On the one hand, he doubts that Jesus is to suffer and die. This much is obvious, but it’s important to note that in doing so, he is precluding the very possibility of, or we might say doubting, the resurrection.


O ... K ... I thought the words meant sth else, my bad, but O ... K ... can the whole Church, on Earth, docens and docta doubt this way? Even one day? If Pacelli was referring to a secret of Fatima, and if Our Lord has said "every day" in Matthew, it would be a very short doubt, seconds or an hour. And in order for all of the Church to have it in the same time, it would need to be very small indeed, perhaps five persons in a single room or so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Marinus and Asterius
of Caesarea, Martyrs

Caesareae, in Palaestina, sanctorum Martyrum Marini militis, et Asterii Senatoris, in persecutione Valeriani. Horum prior, cum accusatus esset a commilitonibus ut Christianus, et, interrogatus a Judice, se Christianum esse voce clarissima testaretur, martyrii coronam abscissione capitis accepit; cumque Asterius corpus Martyris, capite truncatum, subjectis humeris et substrata veste, qua induebatur, exciperet, honorem quem Martyri detulit, continuo et ipse Martyr accepit.