Wednesday, 4 April 2018

David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin


First version of the post had three consecutive sixes in post number. Since I changed post, I have also added some material.

David Wolcott to me
Tuesday 19:33
Hans, please remove my name and comments from your blog. If others gave you permission to share their names and comments, so be it, but you never talked to me first. Please don't do it again in the future, either.

Me to David Wolcott
Sorry, but as you are a moderator, I won't.

David Wolcott to me
So, you do not respect personal privacy?

Me to David Wolcott
The group is closed, but not secret or private.

I am also not sharing with another specific group on FB, but with the readers over the web.

That was my rationale when Matthew Hunt made a similar request some weeks ago, it's my rationale with you as well.

However, if any of the others like to have names abbreviated, that is another matter.

Do check how your colleague Daniel Quinones felt about Matthew's complaint a few weeks ago.

I do not think anything except the names are private, and yours as a moderator's isn't to me.

Precisely as Matthew Hunt's as a PhD's.

Those who would have some legitimate interest might get their names abbreviated so the initial distinguish otherwise anonymous people - but I have no request from them so far.

Ask [I asked them anyway, outside this correspondence], if he/they blocked me, they might not know of my offer.

David Wolcott to me
Why do you not know that a closed group means only members can read comments, Hans? Why do you want to put people at risk through gross social media security violations?

Me to David Wolcott
Now, if risk we talk, I am perhaps one running more.

If others are possibly at risk, I will abbreviate names on request.

David Wolcott to me
To be an honest and mature adult, you WILL ask permission before sharing other people's information first. Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators. And if you don't understand how to be respectful and protective of other people's information, then you need to remove yourself from Facebook entirely until you have educated yourself on privacy.

Hans, I have talked with Daniel. Until you remove information from those requesting you to, you have been removed from the group. As of now, Hunt is the only exception being a public profile anyway. You are free to message Daniel if you want, but I am working under him on actions taken here.

Me to David Wolcott
Wednesday 10:13
Look here.

I looked up the group.

It has 2.4 K members.

2444 to be precise.

Pretending sth posted in it is posted "in private" is ludicrous.

Pretending that YOU as one of the moderators of so many are a private person is also ludicrous.

What is not ludicrous is someone saying sth without being otherwise notable, then me abbreviating the names.

I might have done so anyway, but was just a bit stressed.

However, you have so far been the only one to request removal, after Matthew Hunt.

If others want that chance, now that you have removed me from group (just in time for when Hunt makes his OP about Heliocentrism), you take my profile and post it to each who might be concerned in a PM or under the OP where I gave opportunities to react, with greetings from me.

But those who I think are entitled to privacy as to name, well, it seems they are not so eager to request it.

"Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators."

What exact predators are you talking about?

Unlike Bill Ludlow taking sth out of context and letting a group laugh at a lady, behind her back, my "taking out" is definitely into public as public, as far as I am concerned.

Anyone had access to it and access to context, since I did NOT cherrypick tidbits which I could twist behind peoples's backs.

David Wolcott to me
12:02
What kind of arrogance let's you think you are the authority over other's information? I would expect such foolishness from Hunt.

Me to David Wolcott
14:46
Nice, but I don't think information which has already been shared in public is anyone's private such.

And 2444 persons is the equivalent of a village.

Here is my answer to someone else who thought me arrogant:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2015/04/i-was-given-advice.html


David Wolcott to me
Tell me how many posts you can see in the group now before calling it public again.

And if you really are too arrogant to ignore advice from someone who actually does understand privacy and your sin of gossip, that's your folly.

Me to David Wolcott
15:53
"sin of gossip"

You might like to define exactly whether it was calumny or detraction.

In the case of detraction, whether I was revealing Hunt's foibles without good reason (=sin of detraction) or WITH good reason (=no sin of detraction).

As to "sin of gossip" I don't find that in a Catholic Catechism on the VIII commandment.

You have calumny, detraction, lying, false witness in court of course.

So, what exactly do you mean by "sin of gossip" here?

Hunt is doing no harm OR the harm he is doing cannot in any way shape or form be combatted by my act?

David Wolcott to me
  • 1) I'm not Catholic.

  • 2) one form of gossip is spreading information you have no right or permission to spread. You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public.

  • 3) after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused.

  • 4) what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others, otherwise you are worse than him.


Me to David Wolcott
It seems you Bible has the word "gossip" in Proverbs 18:8.

Here is mine:

[8] The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels. Fear casteth down the slothful: and the souls of the effeminate shall be hungry.
[8] Verba bilinguis quasi simplicia, et ipsa perveniunt usque ad interiora ventris. Pigrum dejicit timor; animae autem effeminatorum esurient.

And the article "gossip" mentioned "lashon hara" whereof the definition is basically the same as for "detraction" : NEEDLESSLY exposing the sins of others.

That article mentions Leviticus 19:16, which in my Bible has this text:

[16] Thou shalt not be a detractor nor a whisperer among the people. Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbour. I am the Lord.
[16] Non eris criminator, nec susurro in populo. Non stabis contra sanguinem proximi tui. Ego Dominus.

As to "criminator", I think this is meant by "detraction".

As to "susurro" or "whisperer" a blog can hardly be considered that discreet.

It is more like a "closed group" where someone says about someone "I have mentioned this so often to him, until he blocked me" and then you consider this information cannot be used in a public action about Hunt's ways as an Academic, it was just for the entertainment of others in the group ... like when Ludlow posted someone's "crazy thing" or "batshit" in a group dedicated to laughing at what creationists say.

David Wolcott to me
You are like Ludlow, yes: spreading comments you have no business spreading, with complete disregard to who you hurt.

"You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public."

They are public to the present 2444 members of the group, if that is still the number.

"after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused."

I have refused YOUR and HUNT'S request.

If I have had other requests where I published, you are the one who blocked me from them.

"what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others"

I intend to hurt none except him by what has so far been published. And not for no purpose at all, but to show what modern Academia is in Europe. If you think YOU are hurt by your words being there, you might want to reconsider your own role.

And I might want to consider I need to publish this conversation, as a defense against calumniators who hold me culpable of detraction or lashon hara. Ludlow spread them where the person who originated the words could not comment on context.

I am spreading them in public, and that means the person can complain if I quoted anything out of context and can argue back.

David Wolcott to me
They are not public to you anymore, nor were they public to those who have access to your blog but are not in the group.

And your argument about the posts being public will be violated if you spread this private messaging, which will only be you posting yourself lying and breaking your own argument.

And I understand that you intend to hurt no one.

You don't care what your actions do, and what the consequences of your actions are. That's the problem.

You hold double standards, period. And you don't care.

Furthermore, Hans, your every spreading of these comments is helping Hunt, not hurting him. You are playing yourself into his hand, exactly what he wants.

Does that make you happy, to know you are encouraging him, feeding him? To know you are threatening others by association just because you don't care about the consequences?

Me to David Wolcott
How you spread a newspaper article affects how public it is?

No, I don't think Hunt is really happy, he plays happy in order to impress.

David Wolcott to me
You don't think, in general, otherwise you'd wonder why NO ONE HAS GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THEIR INFORMATION.

But no, you are just like Hunt and Ludlow: you will hurt everyone you can to satisfy your pride. You don't care about them. You don't care about truth.

You don't even care about your own arguments. "it's not private because there are two thousand members; but I'm okay to spread this explicitly private thread with only two members because I need to protect my reputation".

It's hypocrisy.

And in all of this you have tried bragging about you being willing to listen to others.

That's a joke.

Me to David Wolcott
As said, if someone except you (moderator), Quinones (obvious as moderator like you) and Hunt (as PhD) or his associates, one of them friend of Ludlow and other would seem to be a public person wants the name abbreviated to initials, they should be able to mail me, so you should post my profile in the group, under the OP about my publishing.

If you don't do that, you can pretend I am joking, when I am not.

Thanks for warning me at least.

David Wolcott to me
It's no warning. It's you directly threatening me because you have no decency, no character.

I get that you don't understand what you did, that you don't care.

I understand that you threatened to publish your own refutation to your lame excuse.

You are a threat to the public with your hatred of people by spreading what you don't have permission to spread. That's gossip. Go tell your priest, if you aren't too hateful to tell him the truth.

Me to David Wolcott
"It's you directly threatening me"

It's no threat.

I am waiting for exactly one response from people I consider more balanced than you but who are also more entitled to privacy - since I mentioned them here. [Or no longer, since I decided to settle the publication context through brackets instead.]

I don't see how this can hurt you, unless you think you argued badly.

No, I don't think I am a threat to the public, I think you are threatening freedoms which should be cherished.

And before you stamp anyone as a "threat to the public", read Manalive, by Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

As to hate, well, I do hate what Hunt stands for, I do not think this will hurt him in ways no one better than he will gain from.

I also think ... well, I'll tell you what I do hate. I do hate people calling a debate private if it is on matters of public interest, and I do also hate when someone says "you have a fixation on me".

And I think I have a right to hate both actions, even if not those making them, after what I have been through due to Protestant moralities on these matters. Pro-discretion to extremes and pro-psychiatry.

David Wolcott to me
You don't think, that's the problem. You may not care about publicizing everything in your life. That's doesn't mean you get the abuse to decide for others what you will publish from them.

You can't even have honesty in your own position, at one moment making excuses because you think a restricted group is public, and then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication.

Me to David Wolcott
"You may not care about publicizing everything in your life."

It is not everything in my life.

"then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication."

You have tried to make it "extremely private" that is one more thing I hate about Protestants.

Nope. If I think I don't deserve a certain sauce, and think it is nevertheless typical of a certain network, I think that needs adressing in public.

And I am not saying a restricted group is a public group. I am saying things were said in public within that group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me
Yes, the distinction is that they were within that group.

You took them outside of the group.

Me to David Wolcott
But not out of reach of those in it, each can still read them where I put them.

David Wolcott to me
You put it in reach of everyone not in the group.

Why is that distinction too difficult for you to grasp?

And you can quit with the "I hate Protestants" garbage. If you can't deal with my arguments, then be better than Hunt and admit it. But quit with the "they're different from me therefore they are wrong" bias.

Me to David Wolcott
Well, why should something which was public before 2444 eyes be treated as a private matter no outsider can see.

I also did not say "I hate Protestants" and then period, I said I hate them doing a specific thing.

David Wolcott to me
That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public.

Have you figured out yet that it's not public?

More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information? No? Still having problems with that?

And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you. You are worse than Hunt and Ludlow: pretending to be wise, you give them everything they want.

Me to David Wolcott
Two things are great for bullies:

  • 1) treating sth said within a group larger than a few friends or family as a private matter;
  • 2) chosing private communication and feeling ill handled if the one you try to badger into some kind of submission goes public with your words along with refutations.


So, I think a certain type of Protestant morality is wrong, because it is great for bullies.

"That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public."

Most of us didn't chose the "public" or "closed" or whatever.

Most of us were put before a fait accompli by the choice of moderators. OK, we would also have been free not to join the group. BUT most of us joining the group did not do so BECAUSE the group was closed.

Most, not all.

"More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information?"

Once it had been said in public in ANY context, it was not THEIR private property or confidential information any more. I'll except names, but I'll not except words.

"And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you."

If by "respectful" you refer to a certain Jewish or Muslim or Protestant or Masonic version of respect, I do feel superior to those who are different that way.

No, I don't think I was giving Hunt what he wanted, and I think Ludlow pretended to do the same thing (but did not since sharing in another, precisely closed, group) in order to revenge himself for arguing better than he on carbon dating, and showing it outside the group.

David Wolcott to me
Publishing information you never had permission to publish: bullying and gossip.

And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group.

By violating that, you only gave Hunt more material to work with.

Me to David Wolcott
"And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group."

Accepting is sth other than cherishing.

I did not pretend I did not accept it.

David Wolcott to me
You just whined about not having the choice in the group type.

Me to David Wolcott
Whined? No. I explained the group type was not WHY I joined the group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me
You explained that you don't like it and therefore chose to ignore it and do your own thing anyway.

Protesting much there, giving your theses nailed to the door?

Me to David Wolcott
Well, my theses are at least not the 41 theses condemned here:

EXSURGE DOMINE
Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm


David Wolcott to me
Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?

So yes, you joined a closed, not public, group.

You then decided, completely on your own (you know, the thing you hate about Protestants), that the rules didn't apply to you, and you could do anything you want.

Period.

Me to David Wolcott
"Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?"

I don't think so, but feel free to ask him. No, not antipope Bergoglio, but him here:

David Bawden (Pope Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1


Also, "the rules" are not the ten commandments. You tried to make it a matter of detraction, or sth like it, against commandment VIII (though you might feel it is IX). Now you are on the level of rules of a group.

David Wolcott to me
The Pope Commemorates The Reformation That Split Western Christianity
October 28, 20164:29 AM ET - Sylvia Poggioli
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/10/28/499587801/pope-francis-reaches-out-to-honor-the-man-who-splintered-christianity


You are really good at getting things wrong, Hans.

And no, I'm not saying that the group rules are the ten commandments, but thanks for getting that wrong as well.

But what does Paul say about gossips?

Me to David Wolcott
That article is wrong in classifying Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "Pope"

[link here]

"But what does Paul say about gossips?"

Name locus

Could not find 'gossip' in any verses.
[http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossip&b=drb]


David Wolcott to me
You just violated your own argument, Hans. You just publicly announced yourself a hypocrite.

Me to David Wolcott
Could not find 'gossips' in any verses.
Name locus. Book, chapter, verse.
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossips&b=drb&t=0


David Wolcott to me
Try Romans 1, though given your legalism I'm not surprised you have problems understanding the text, but instead have to limit yourself to spellcasting, expecting specific verbal formulae

Me to David Wolcott
"[8] First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

I think that is a good case for liking the publishing.

Other verse?

David Wolcott to me
Yes, you like hurting others, and finding ways to not live in peace with others. What's your point? You don't understand Scripture, plain and simple.

Me to David Wolcott
But perhaps you thought of 29 to end?

[29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention,

I don't think argument is contention in this sense, or I have been more exposed to it.

deceit,

I don't think I was deceitful, though you may argue otherwise by legalistic interpretation of what I did when joining.

malignity, whisperers,

As said, publishing before the whole world is not whispering.

[30] Detractors,

As said, speaking of someone's fault or exposing it, with intent of acheiving correction, is not detraction.

hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty,

You might think I am these, I don't.

inventors of evil things,

You might stamp some up to 1500 posts among the 6000 + as evil, because exposing those arguing badly, I don't

disobedient to parents,

You are not my parent.

[31] Foolish,

You may think I was, I hope not.

dissolute,

without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

You might consider my behaviour such, I hope there is still some excuse.

[32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death;

In that case, I don't really think I was "without affection, without fidelity, without mercy"

and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Well, I do not consent to a culture of secrecy amounting to a kind of omertà and paranoia about exposure ...

And me liking to hurt others, sometimes when I'm hurt myself, yes, but normally no.

David Wolcott to me
Oh, you really think Paul was only talking about people who go and talk quietly one on one? You are really that legalistic to think he wasn't talking about those who reveal secrets, who say what's not in their purview to say?

And yes, by sharing this private thread you are hurting me, even if you hate me too much to care.

I get that you have no respect for others.

I get that you fight to create a world of no trust.

I get that you have no clue how to love others.

And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would.

Me to David Wolcott
Whisperer certainly means exposing others in quite without exposing yourself as the one doing so.

Detractor may involve published media - but not if there is some hope of correcting either culprit or adequately warning others. I have a REASON to expose Marxist bias in Academia.

I live in EUROPE.

And no, I don't hate you, but I do hate what you are doing on a day in Easter week.

"I get that you have no respect for others."

One part of your hysterics.

"I get that you fight to create a world of no trust."

Not really. What you say to someone in front of 2444 other people should not be a matter of trust. And when you go out of your way to badger someone in a private way, you don't deserve trusting the hour he feels too exhausted to put up with it in private.

"I get that you have no clue how to love others."

I don't pretend to love you, I am not homosexual.

"And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would."

Perhaps to your culture.

In the Gospels, authors did share Pharisees arguing badly.

OK, ultimate author is God, but the human authors were not above commandments.

If it had been their duty to get permission from everyone who had called Our Lord bad things before republishing (under anonymity, which is why I also offer anonymity for people of little concern, or naming important people like Hannas, Kaiaphas and Herod and Pilate, or naming people who had given consent, like Nicodemus, who was giving consent before John was published).

But if it had been their duty, well, then they failed it. On your view perhaps on God's orders.

I don't think American / English Protestant inspired business culture is all that highest standard there is.

Or, are you sure Gorgias gave his permission before the publication of Socratic dialogues?

You are appealing to a culture, not to a commandment.

David Wolcott to me
What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust, but I see such concept is not in your hear the anyway.

And you really think Jesus was talking sexually when He said to love your neighbor? Wow.

That explains why you can't figure this out.

Me to David Wolcott
"What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust,"

You seem willing to pester me in private, but want to make it a matter of trust?

Oh, you mean the part about "love thy neighbour as THYSELF"

Well, I don't love myself in a way involving to pester people hoping no exposure if they get fed up.

David Wolcott to me
You don't love people at all given how you accused me of sexual context on something that clearly had no sexual context.

And, by the way, posting my comments and messages publicly is pestering me. I get you don't want to accept that, but it doesn't change that you have a problem.

Especially when you do so not only without my permission but refuse to take it down after I asked you to.

Me to David Wolcott
"given ... on something that clearly had no sexual context."

Words like someone not knowing how to love people do sometimes get sexual connotations.

And words with such intent about me in that context has kept me single far longer than I like.

Take it as an aside to those people. OK?

I do have a problem with people like you, yes. People who do WHISPER among themselves that I "have a problem", yes, I have one with such people.

David Wolcott to me
Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't.

And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me.

Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him.

Me to David Wolcott
"Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't."

Notice how YOU used words that are sometimes a euphemism for diagnoses. Matthew 5:22

"And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me."

How about learning to read before you bluster out baseless accusations against me?

"Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him."

Look here, I did have to confess all mortal sins, as it is up to the one Christ gave the power to forgive sins.

But me having to confess mortal sins does not equal you having to invent them for me.

Whereon
I blocked him. And as I blocked a moderator, I don't expect to be let back into that group.

Friday, 23 March 2018

Jericho and Carbon Dates


I
Me to Damien Mackey
7 February 2018 at 03:37
(Oz time, not Paris time like the rest)
Jericho
I am hesitant on whether fall of Jericho is the 2200 BC carbon date or the 1550 (1650) BC carbon date.

Obviously, Jericho fell, according to St Jerome's chronology in 1470 BC, so, which you chose gives different amounts of extra years, which means different amounts of lower carbon 14 level in comparsion with carbon 12.

You are favouring the 2200 date?

II
Damien Mackey to me
2/6/2018 at 11:25 PM
Re: Jericho
What do you mean am I favouring 2200 BC for the Fall of Jericho?
I always re-date downwards those silly, inflated conventional dates.

Jericho fell to Joshua c. 1450 BC (very approx. date).
Archaeologically, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) Israelites destroyed Early Bronze III (EBIII) Jericho and other sites.

That ought to be clear from many of my articles.

III
Me to Damien Mackey
2/7/2018 at 12:41 PM
Re: Jericho
If you had read a few lines earlier, you would have noticed I was talking about two different CARBON dates.

Apparently my leaving out the word carbon at the second mention of the 2200 carbon date made you think I accused you of considering it as a real date.

No, thing is, there are TWO destructions of Jericho on top of each other, both of which have been cast as Joshua's Jericho. They obviously have different carbon dates, as well as different real ones.

The carbon dates are, as I recall, 2200 BC and 1550 BC. The qustion I asked you is which of them YOU favour as corresponding to the real date 1470 BC (40 years after Exodus, which was in 1510 BC).

The difference is this : with the 2200 BC carbon date, you get 730 extra years in the carbon dating of Jericho's fall, with the 1550 BC carbon date you get only 80 extra years.

2200 1550
1470 1470
0730 0080

Now, the extra years correspond to how much lower the carbon 14 content was. With 730 extra years, the carbon 14 was 91.548 % of modern carbon, with 80 extra years it was 99.037 % of modern carbon.

The former leaves a less steep carbon rise for between Joseph = Imhotep and Jericho's fall, but a steeper one after Jericho's fall.

The latter leaves nearly no steepness after Jericho's fall, but a fairly steep rise in carbon 14 between Joseph in Egypt and Jericho's fall.

Hence my question. The question about 2200 is because of a recent article in which you considered EBIII Jericho carbon dated or conventionally dated to 2200 BC as the relevant layer of Jericho./HGL

IV
Damien Mackey to me
2/7/2018 at 11:29 PM
Re: Jericho
I don't deal in carbon dates which tend to be highly erratic.
I deal in archaeology, and, for the Joshua incident, that is Early Bronze III. That is dated by conventionalists to the 2000's, but re-dated by revisionists such as I to the time of Joshua.

V
Me to Damien Mackey
2/8/2018 at 9:30 AM
Re: Jericho
OK, I do deal with carbon dates, which I believe capable of giving a relative chronology, if not an absolute one.

I just read some pages of a paper in Egyptology et al. (Palestine, Mesopotamia and Nubia were taken into account too) where a certain carbon date 4027 BP un-calibrated, was considered as giving more than one "calendar date" due to wiggles in the calibration.

I found myself asking, what if these are not wiggles, if the chronology is straight, and if the reason the non-carbon chronology gave a wiggly calibration is, there are dynasties supposedly after each other which were not really so, as you tend to say.

There is an alternative for Jericho, that is the Middle Bronze Age or City IV - which by Kenyon was dated to 1550 BC.

I was asking if you oreferred the 2200-dated destruction over the City IV one./HGL

VI
Damien Mackey to me
2/9/2018 at 12:18 AM
Re: Jericho
1 Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so, and that alone invalidates the method. Massive variations have been found. Furthermore, all the assumptions that are made for the other radiometric methods essentially apply here, and these make all radiometric dating methods doubtful as scientific tests.


It follows naturally that if the scientific method cannot work in the past and conclusions about the past must rest on assumptions, then there is not today a dating method that can be scientifically substantiated as being correct, for every method will have built into it an assumption. Now when we come to the practical application of this theory we discover in fact that this holds true.

Dr. John Osgood

His reference
A Better Model for the Stone Age
DR A.J.M. OSGOOD
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_88-102.pdf


VII
Me to Damien Mackey
2/9/2018 at 12:42 PM
Re: Jericho
" Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) dating in particular assumes that the influx and outflow of carbon-14 atoms into and out of the biosphere is in equilibrium. This simply is not so "

For the past 2000 years it has been so. (Give or take some)

Osgood is wrong on that one.

There is a time before the past 2000 or 2500 years in which carbon 14 was rising.

That is the time in which I am doing tables, how much was the carbon 14 ratio in relation to the present one at such and such a time?

THAT in turn is why I am very interested in whether it is the carbon date 2200 BC or the carbon date 1550 BC which should match the real date of 1470 BC.

Because it would give different carbon 14 levels for 1470 BC and also different rates of carbon 14 rise both between Joseph / Imhotep as per 1700 BC carbon dated in the case of Djoser's coffin to 2600 BC and fall of Jericho on the one hand, and on the other hand between fall of Jericho and 500 BC.

VIII
Me to Damien Mackey
2/9/2018 at 12:44 PM
appendix on carbon dating
Three articles from my blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Tony Reed on Dating Assumptions, Answered
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/tony-reed-on-dating-assumptions-answered.html


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Dating, Quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-dating-quora.html


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Carbon 14 Halflife, quora
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/on-carbon-14-halflife-quora.html


IX
Damien Mackey to me
2/10/2018 at 2:01 AM
Re: Jericho
It's totally confusing, isn't it?

X
Me to Damien Mackey
2/10/2018 at 10:38 AM
Re: Jericho
No, I have two options.

Depending on which carbon date you or others favour for the real date.

For Göbekli Tepe which I consider the "Babel" of Genesis 11 (but politically same as the Babilu further SE, 5° and some either cardinal direction) the carbon dates are given as 9600 BC at beginning and 8600 BC at the end.

This needs to be checked to 2551 and 2511 BC, if Babel started getting built 5 years after birth of Peleg and if it lasted 40 years and if St Jerome's chronology is for post-Flood patriarchs up to Abraham LXX without the "second Cainan" which sets Peleg's birth in 401 after Flood rather than 529 after Flood.

You can of course do other timeslines than St Jerome's, but beginning and end of GT is set as to carbon dates.

With fall of Jericho, there are two levels that have been identified with the advent of Joshua, and which carbon date you pick depends on which of them is the right one.

So, I'll have to used both options in parallel ... I guess.

But "two options" and "totally confusing" are two very different things./HGL

XI
Damien Mackey to me
2/11/2018 at 2:08 AM
Re: Jericho
Let me make it very simple for you, monsieur, while you go and dust off all of that messy carbon.

The nomadic Middle Bronze I people of archaeology are the Israelites led by Moses and Joshua.
They walk like them, carry Egyptian artefacts like them, occupy the same places like them, find their way eventually from Transjordan into the Promised Land and conquer the cities there - the Early Bronze III cities (Early Bronze IV in Transjordan).

Just as the Pentateuch tells.

There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this.

[This may be the mail I should have read better.]

XII
Me to Damien Mackey
2/11/2018 at 2:46 PM
Re: Jericho
"Just as the Pentateuch tells."

I totally believe the Penteteuch. However, it does not mention the term "Middle Bronze I".

"There is only ONE appropriate Jericho scenario for this."

I had heard of two ... here is the other one:

"During the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was a small prominent city of the Canaan region, reaching its greatest Bronze Age extent in the period from 1700 to 1550 BC. It seems to have reflected the greater urbanization in the area at that time, and has been linked to the rise of the Maryannu, a class of chariot-using aristocrats linked to the rise of the Mitannite state to the north. Kathleen Kenyon reported "the Middle Bronze Age is perhaps the most prosperous in the whole history of Kna'an. ... The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period" and there was "a massive stone revetment ... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218).[35] Bronze Age Jericho fell in the 16th century at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the calibrated carbon remains from its City-IV destruction layer dating to 1617–1530 BC. Notably this carbon dating c. 1573 BC confirmed the accuracy of the stratigraphical dating c. 1550 by Kenyon."

Wickipeejuh : Jericho # Bronze Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Bronze_Age


Total destruction + inoccupation for some centuries after that = seems to fit the Biblical bill.

That is why I wondered if - and why - you prefer the layer conventionally dated to 2200 BC./HGL

XIII
Damien Mackey to me
2/11/2018 at 11:11 PM
Re: Jericho
Where are your incoming Israelites in that scenario?

Middle Bronze Jericho was the Judges era. Eglon of Moab.
For a total picture, see my:

Really Digging Jericho
https://www.academia.edu/32898565/Really_Digging_Jericho


XIV
Me to Damien Mackey
2/12/2018 at 10:00 AM
Re: Jericho
"Osgood’s next level at Jericho he thinks could have been Hittite (rock-cut tombs). Wikipedia: "In Genesis 23:2, towards the end of Abraham's life, he was staying in Hebron, on lands belonging to the "children of Heth", and from them he obtained a plot of land with a cave to bury his wife Sarah. One of them (Ephron) is labeled "the Hittite", several times. This deal is mentioned three more times (with almost the same words), upon the deaths of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph".

Then we get to the Neolithic phase that Osgood has connected with Ghassul, which is Abram’s era. Abram as a contemporary of Late Chalcolithic En-geddi and Ghassul IV is one of those clear signposts (refer back to Part One) now, thanks to Dr. Osgood."

I agree Abraham is contemporary with late Chalcolithic En-geddi. As per Genesis 14.

I agree he was contemporary, either with Narmer, or with a son of Narmer, or with the pharao in Buto previous to Narmer. As per Genesis 13.

Ghassul IV - ends in carbon dates 3 C. before Narmer at least, still possible for earlier life of Abraham.

If carbon 14 level is rising, beneath 100 % modern carbon, earlier samples will be more misdated than later ones. For instance, Göbekli Tepe being Babel would have been, if I interpret St Jerome's chronology well (Christmas martyrology doesn't per se mention Babel) 2551 to 2511 BC. If in this time carbon 14 ratio to carbon 12 rose from ... I'll cite my own article here:

Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/07/how-fast-was-carbon-14-forming-during.html


"Then 2551 BC dates as 9600 BC, 7049 extra years = 42.626 pmc being original level of carbon in the objects at start of GT. And 2511 BC dates as 8600 BC, 6089 extra years = 47.875 pmc being original level of carbon at end of GT. In the atmosphere and in the objects, of course."

Here I do not agree:

"A further suggested identification is here made, that is, to equate the most dominant archaeological culture in Palestine of this era, namely, Natufian - PPNA-PPNB (suggestion of continuity after Moore5:16-23), with the Bible's most widespread southern groups - the Hivites (see Genesis 36:2,20; 14:6 Horites = Hivites; also later in Palestine, Genesis 34:2)."

I look up Natufian.

"The Epipaleolithic Natufian culture (/nəˈtuːfiən/[1]) existed from around 12,500 to 9,500 BC in the Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean."

The Wickipeejuh : Natufian Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture


To 9,500 BC? But that is beginning of Babel! Centuries before Abraham!

Carbon date 9,500 BC = 2551 BC (in my now take of St Jerome's chronology). Genesis 14 is in sth like 1935 BC. This corresponds to carbon dates like 3000 - 3500 BC, not to such of 9,500 BC!

Now, your article on Jericho mentioned a destruction in 1470 BC which you identify with a layer carbon dated (by others than you, perhaps indirectly even) to 2200 BC.

It also mentions a rebuilding of Jericho in the time of Achab, real times on diverse daters:

"William F. Albright dated his reign to 869–850 BC, while E. R. Thiele offered the dates 874–853 BC.[3] Most recently, Michael D. Coogan has dated Ahab's reign to 871–852 BC."

The Wickipeejuh : Ahab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab


I'll add Syncellus: 930 / 926 BC Achab of Israel (start of reign, thus up to 908 or 904 BC).

Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/03/about-5300-years-ago-there-was-world.html


Now, this rebuilding, if it is in the 800's period would be close to carbon dated in the 800's period.

Was there an intermediate rebuilding by Eglon and destruction after that? Or was Eglon simply camping in a waste where Jericho had been? You see the problem?

In terms of carbon dates, we are dealing with more carbon years than real years (as I suppose you already figured out), and this means we have options on what carbon year to identify a real year with.

For the real year 1470 BC, death of Moses, taking of Jericho, we have an option of carbon years c. 2200 BC or carbon years 1630-1570 BC.

What I am asking you for is motivating the option of 1470 BC = "2200 BC" rather than "1570 BC". Or, in other words, why you take it as "Early Bronze Age III" level rather than as City IV.

By the way, if you DO give a good motivation against City IV (say, city IV could refer to a destruction after Eglon? I am rusty on history of Judges), and for 2200 BC, it would not be unwelcome. It would simplify the task I have been setting myself for quite some time now:

Creation vs. Evolution : Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/06/comparing-three-roads-from-seven-cows.html


Oh, by the way, when looking up the link I gave, it seems Jericho was reoccupied, which would mean the 1570 carbon date could be 1185 BC ... the hitch is, there was some gap between invasion by Joshua and the rebuilding by Eglon, but this seems not reflected in any gap in the material.

That could of course be explained by carbon 14 temporarily going down instead of up. If carbon going up can exaggerate a time span, a wiggle with carbon going down can of course obfuscate its existence./HGL

Sunday, 11 March 2018

With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galileo and the Church (quora) · ... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella · With Zarrella et al. on Geocentrism · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Anthony Zarrella on Metaphysics of Science

On quora mail. "Last Tuesday" is so on Friday 9.III.2018, meaning it was 6.III.2018.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Tue
If you like to add more to the debate, there will of course be updates on this:

... on Whether Geocentrism is Obliging? Debate with Anthony Zarrella
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/on-whether-geocentrism-is-obliging.html


Anthony Zarrella
15h ago
Richard Muller's answer to What evidence can prove the Earth actually orbits the sun? It seems very unrealistic.

Thoughts? I suppose this is a much more complex version of St. Robert Bellarmine’s “saves the appearances” solution, but it does seem to be a solution that allows both of us to be more or less right.

See, my insistence on heliocentrism is because, due to the way gravity works, the Sun pulls the Earth towards it with more relative force than vice versa (I’m speaking very imprecisely from a physics perspective—technically the forces are exactly equal, but an equal force affects a lesser mass far more than it does a greater mass). So, if we use a coordinate system and frame of reference that allows for an elegant formulation of gravitational effects, then it leaves us with the Earth orbiting the Sun.

But as Prof. Muller notes, it is possible to construct a consistent model in which the Earth is wholly immobile… it simply requires a lot of convolutions in the models and equations that aren’t necessary if we allow a moving Earth.

The one thing I’m waiting to hear back from him on is whether the equatorial bulge can be explained without positing a spinning Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
7h ago
You can hear it from me : if the ether spins around earth, equatorial bulge could result from that or be preproduced by God to fit that.

As to gravitation, it is a somewhat ambiguous topic.

I thought that Earth orbitting Sun for 4 . 5 billion orbits would be ridiculous, since I looked at the experiments of another orbitting, that one due to static electricity, I was then beaten in a debate on the two body problem Earth and Sun, but for one thing, it was only for 4 . 5 billion orbits, not for an eternity of them and also, it was only for a two body problem - it seems a several body problem has no fixed solution, Chinese just showed that.

A l s o … as Christians we believe in God and in Angels.

St Thomas believed the daily movement to be one of the whole heavens, under the Empyree, and it is produced by God. He and Riccioli agree more or less the yearly movement of the Sun around the Zodiac is produced by whatever angel is moving it (for St Thomas : the angel moves the Sun in relation to its sphere which is moved by God via some other spheres, “slowly,” eastward, for Riccioli, the angel moves the Sun through the void, westward, much faster, just a bit slower than each angel moves each star of the fix stars westward).

This means, we need not expect the outcome to depend only on gravitation, since we don’t expect a football match to be played by gravitation of ball and earth without any players either.

Anthony Zarrella
1h ago
As for ether, I’m trying to see if the system can be made to work without requiring a radical revision of known science (also, not really sure how ether would cause an equatorial bulge—the present explanation has to do with the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth, not anything pulling it externally).

The same goes for divine special intervention—yes, of course I believe that God could create an equatorial bulge directly, but…

  • Why? Unless it’s His goal to make us think the Earth is spinning, why bother to make it an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere as most ancients and Medieval scholars thought?
  • As I’ve said before, I believe that God gave us reason in a rationally explicable world. Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. (Again, not at all because He can’t but because it doesn’t fit with what I believe He would do.)


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.

St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
“Therefore, “God did it Himself” is an ill-fitting explanation in cases where there is no particular salvific or revelatory purpose apparent. “

Non sequitur.

Semi-Deism.

Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.

St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.

“I even regard it as wholly plausible that there are angels tasked with effectuating every one of the natural laws of the universe”

That was not the point.

In case you missed the football parallel, a ball is not moving across the plane for only reasons of gravitation and inertia between earth and ball. It is moved by freewilled agents.

My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.

“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.”

The ball moving across the field as in a match is precisely NOT an empirically deducible physical law about effects of ball + earth + intertia + gravitation.

No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.

“St. Thomas was the most gifted theologian in history (and the patron of my own Sacrament of Confirmation)—but he was no more than an educated amateur (at best) in the sciences.”

Dito for you.

That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.

So, what is your point?

Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?

Anthony Zarrella
1h ago
“Paley believed in a watchmaker - he only touches the watch to rewind when wound wrong or things.

St Thomas believed in a God who first made and then is running - directly - the universe, like a man can be first instrument maker and then musician.”

Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.

“My point is, to St Thomas and to Riccioli, God assigned freewilled agents to precisely move celestial bodies in a way only freewilled agents can do. Not as mere secretaries of blind laws.”

With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.

I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws. Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics? Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.

“No event ever occurred moved by a physical law. They only shape what other agents are doing. Get that basic, and miracles are no intellectual problem.”

Sure, in some sense I agree.

But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement.

Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid.

If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will.

To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation.

“That said, he was the pupil of the most gifted scientist of his time, St Albert the Great.

So, what is your point?

Scientists today have another ideology? Fine, I know that. Is it Christian?”

A good point—though I’m not sure it gets you where you’re going.

Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise.

And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form, the quest to use our God-given reason and intellect to learn of the mind of God through His creation. The only “ideology” is that empirical and testable observation is the cornerstone of new knowledge (which seems to me eminently reasonably, given that general revelation has ceased).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
30m ago
“Yes, but even a pianist who first crafted his own piano then allows the hammers to actuate the strings and the foot pedals to deploy the stops—he does not reach under the lid and pluck the strings by hand.”

Harpist may be more appropriate.

Also, if God so constructed the universe, outermost part of turning aether is one part He “plucks by hand” and celestial movements are what angels “pluck by hand” and God by their obedience.

Note, when God moves most things through “secondary causes”, let’s not forget the most noble of those are freewilled creatures and the most noble in nature of those are angels.

“With all respect to St. Thomas, that fails to account for the precise regularity observed across times and places.”

Not at all, if you refer to that of stellar movements.

Angels don’t fumble.

“I can accept free-willed angels carrying out God’s laws, but the data before us suggests that, free will notwithstanding, they are constrained at least by obedience to move the celestial bodies only in accordance with strict laws.”

You are confusing “data” with “conclusions by scientists”.

They are simply NOT synonymous.

The laws which would govern a ball if only Earth’s mass and its own mass are relevant cease to be the main thing (for spectators at least) when players come into play.

You have no datum whatsoever proving a celestial body is moved by gravitation and inertia exclusively and not by any freewilled movers, that is ideology, not data.

“Is it possible that someday a situation may arise that may prompt an angel moving a planet to deviate from his course in defiance of all known celestial mechanics?”

Celestian mechanics are not a known, they are an ideology.

“Sure, it’s possible. But all we can say for the moment is that it appears to have never yet occurred in all of human history.”

You are forgetting two OT Solar Miracles Joshua and Hezechiah, the Son going dark without a Moon to eclipse it over Calvary and the Sun dancing over Fatima.

Four times equal never since when? You are repeating a ideologeme from an atheist who denies all four occurrences, no doubt, but doesn’t tell you so, he doesn’t like you to know all of his premisses.

"But if every event is a willed miracle, then we live in an inexplicable world, in which we may never understand nor rely upon any natural phenomenon at all, much less exploit it for human advancement."

Not at all.

First, I did not say all events not caused by natural laws are miracles.

Second, a set of natural laws are very fine for our earthly uses of manipilating our environment, both in accordance with "mandate" and because of Adam's curse, but since God, angels and the things they manipulate are not what we manipulate, theoretically, they could even be not even describable according to natural law. Obviously, even if they are on some level describable as such, this doesn't mean God and angels need to observe merely human limits in how they are manipulated.

"Even if you prefer to cast “natural law” as nothing more than, “systematic observation of the consistent divine actions which our faithful Lord has given us leave to rely upon,” it comes to the same basic idea in my mind—that it is God’s will that the universe conform to patterns and laws that we can discover and presume valid."

In that sense, Tychonian orbits, God moving the aether and angels moving celestial bodies (stars, sun, moon, planets, comets) within it breaks exactly no natural law which we can rely on as being valid.

"If we discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature, then we’re left to presume a capricious God—one who might “pull the rug out from under us” at any moment. I know that’s no God you believe in—we both believe He is ever-faithful to His promises, and constant in His will."

So? I have never said I "discard the scientific presumption of universality and consistency in nature". You are giving me a false dichotomy between such a discarding and bowing down to "then it is celestial mechanics that decides solely where celestial bodies are". Tertium datur, ego dedi and you are ignoring it.

"To me, it is no more problematic to posit that God will consistently will that two masses attract one another in proportion to their mass (whether immediately willed or via divine command to angelic ministers) than to posit that God will consistently will that a valid act of consecration will effectuate transubstantiation."

Nor is it to me that God also consistently wills that freewilled agents can interfere with the course gravity would give a body if not interfered with.Have you played volleyball? The goal is to keep the ball off the ground while it is on your half of the course. This is directly contrary to the course given by Earth's gravitation to the ball.

AND you somehow see now problem with volleyball being played, but see a problem with angelic movers doing celestial movements not determined fully by celestial mechanics ... where exactly is your consistency?

"Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise."

I am sorry, but you are once again repeating an ideologeme having no relation to the facts.A body of its own could on his view have a tendency to rise (if light) or to fall (if heavy). This due only to its nature and environment. If this were all, celestial bodies would stay in their spheres, since that is where they are balanced with surrounding bodies ... if sun sank to orbit of moon it would rise as a balloon you dip into water, if it rose to stars it would sink as the balloon went down on the water. This does NOT explain either daily nor yearly movement and is NOT mediated by angels. The movements are over and above the natural tendency and mediated as to daily one by God and as to yearly one by an angel.This does very much NOT equate to the angel just executing the sun staying in its sphere.

How come with changed physical details suddenly this metaphysics of celestial movements is inacceptable to you?

Also ... "Albertus Magnus pioneered the basics" no way, José!

Aristotle did that more than thousand five hundred years earlier.

Also ... "of what we now call the scientific method—a means of inquiry which relies upon the presumption of constancy of physical laws, whether those laws be mediated by angelic action or otherwise." No way again!

He said what he said, he did not mumble what supposed successors want him to have said but they said it more clearly.

"And no—some modern scientists may have an anti-Christian ideology, but when I speak of principles of “science” I am referring merely to science in its best form,"

No. You have very consistently used a "method" which either is atheistic or anangelic or reduces the role of God and angels to merely executing what scientists with atheistic and anangelic methods have "predicted".

If that is NOT anti-Christian, I don't know what is!


It may be noted that due to a glitch on computer access (deliberately arranged on Nanterre University Library, where my popularity is moderate at best?) deprived me of seeing the last message had been sent, and so I kept sending it over and over again, and Zarrella may think I was overinsisting against him, when I was overinsisting against the computer./HGL

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

Dubia directed to Pope Michael and one of his priests


Me to David Bawden and to Fr Francis Dominic
25 Janvier 11:02
[Intro]
Domnum Ioannem Clementem Colson sacerdotem repperi anno millesimo nongentesimo trigesimo octavo (1938) ordinatum, ideo revera sacerdotem et hoc dioeceseos Sancti Deodati, triginta annos post ordinationem scripsisse librum francogallice intitulatum L'Énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait hoc est aenigma de discipulo quem dilexit Jesus. Hic liber autem anno millesimo nongentesimo sexagesimo octavo (1968) recepit ly nihil obstat et ly imprimatur, hoc ab episcopali vicario Aemilio Berrar (eodem anno ac domni Colson ordinationis ordinatus) et illud ab Andrea Guitton, superiori provinciali Sacratissmi Sacramenti Congregationis quam fundavit Petrus Julians Eymard. Sequenti anno liber publicatus est editoribus Beauchesne et ses Fils, Paris, Rue de Rennes, 117.

De huius libri contenta habeo aliquot dubia. Item et de aliqua correlativa ad ea contenta.

Primum dubium est,
utrum licite iudicaverit de decisione pontificalis commissionis biblicae anno millesimo nongentesimo septimo magis importare evangelium quartum esse de fideli teste et minus eum esse examussim filium Zebedaei. Ita ut licite potuit eum iudicare alium quam filium Zebedaei, eo autem pacto ut hoc et de traditione firmaret, non solum de biblicis argumentis.

Secundum dubium est,
utrum dici possit Sanctum Irenaeum malum interpretasse Sanctum Papiam quem puer vidit, de duobus vel unum Ioannem et de quemnam Ioannem Papias audiverit.

[dicere debui, sanctum Polycarpum, quem puer vidit]

Tertium dubium est,
utrum Papias distinguit filium Zebedaei de altero Ioanni, eum autem presbyterum et - dictis Polycratis et Epiphanii - forsan et sacerdotem Aaronicum fuisse.

Quartum dubium est,
utrum filii Zebedaei ambo martyrio mortui sint, hoc autem non dubitari iudico possim, respectu dictis de "eodem calice" et de "eodem baptismate", necnon diversis veteris martyrologiis quae Ioannem et Iacobum martyres enumerant, quamvis non romano quod extat.

Quintum dubium est,
utrum discipulus quem amabat Iesus potuerit esse hospes, ille cuius in domo cena habita est magis quam filius Zebedaei. Hic ideo erit qui cum Maria iuxta crucem aderat, filius Zebedaei autem fugam petiit cum omnibus praeter Petrum, hic qui cum Petro vidit sepulcrum sine Jesu mortuo et qui credidit resurrectionem.

Sextum dubium est,
utrum temporalis sit inversio inter capita vigesimum et vigesimum unum, hoc ultimum more appendicis adiectum, et quod primam visionem omnium apostolorum de resurrecto Jesu narrat, et quae narratur ubi Jesus dat decem sed nondum Thomae potestatem absolvendi esse octavam dominicae resurrectionis, vel et post octavam, solum cavendum ut sit dominica die.

Sep[t]imum dubium est,
utrum licite poni potest Domitianum duo homines coxisse, primum filium Zebedaei in aqua, deinde discipulum quem amabat Jesus in oleo, eum iudicans esse eundem et velle eum penitius coquere, et discipulus quem amabat Jesus non mortuus esse de oleo.

Octavum dubium est,
utrum dato quod filius Zebedaei iam martyro mortuus sit, esse discipulus quem Jesus amabat qui in Patmo exul apocalypsim recepit. Et de quo, per Papiam, habuit Irenaeus quod numerus bestiae est revera sexcenti sexaginta sex et non alius numerus.

Nonum dubium est,
utrum apocalypsis est examussim eadem lingua ac loquutus est discipulus quem Jesus amabat, evangelium autem miraculose adaptatum ad auditorum lingua magis graeca et epistula et per secretarios graecos esse scriptas.

Decimum dubium est,
utrum ab eo, posito quod sit sacerdos veteris testamenti antequam novi, ecclesia habuit usus omnium librorum septuaginta interpretorum et non solum ea quos habeunt Pharisaei ab Esra, qui exul collegit eos quos in exilio potuit habere et id ante scriptos libros Maccabaeorum.

Undecimum dubium est,
utrum examussim quia fuerat sacerdos veteris testamenti ei Jesus dixerit de Iudaica secta vel de parte eius quod non sunt Judaei sicut coelestis Jerusalem interpretat hoc nomen, sed synagoga Satanae.

Duodecimum dubium est,
utrum examussim quia erat sacerdos veteris testamenti ei Jesus potuit confidere matrem, de vindicta fratrum ut dicuntur nondum fidelibus protegendam.

10 février 15:30

Tredecimum dubium,
posito quod discipulus quem amabat Jesus, autor quarti evangelii erat sacerdos aaroniticus antequam discipulus, potuitne esse idem sacerdos antequam se praesentavit leprosus qui factus est purus?

Vel potius, quia leprosus secundum Marcum debuerat praesentari ante principem sacerdotum quisnam adstans ei?

13 février 13:09

Quartumdecimum dubium,
utrum Domnus Iohannes Colson fidelis erat iuri iurando contra modernismum, viso quod noluit palam infidelis esse erga decisionem Pontificalis Commissionis Biblicae de anno 1907, sed interpretavit, et quia nihil affirmavit de Iohanne Presbytero non filio Zebedaei nisi quod credidit a certis patribus et indirecter et martyrologiis firmatum.

Francis Maria Dominic
a quitté la conversation.

Me to Pope Michael only
dim/Sun 15:22
Quintumdecimum dubium,
utrum ideo Sanctus Ioannes Theologus vidit viginti quatuor seniores, quia Sanctus Ioannes filius Zebedaei, unus ex duodecim, iam martyr erat, an, posito quod idem erat ac ille, potius se ipsum vidit in gloria sua futura?

David Bawden
[or Pope Michel]
a quitté la conversation.

Sunday, 25 February 2018

Correspondence with Pope Michael


As I publish
I am on a Sunday enjoying the fruits of someone's good prayers for my comfort (except for a good night's sleep). I am also wondering if Pope Michael could have sth to do with that. I am however reluctant to have my life run on bases that make publishing of my blogs on paper - republishing - and family very hard to get, if he's praying for that too.

Other item, I am publishing before parsing urlfor most links, so, be patient while I update, please!/HGL

I
Pope Michael to me
10/10/2017 at 3:11 PM
Frater's sermon
Frater Francis Dominic's Sermon

Sermon for the 18th Sunday after Pentecost

Fasting and praying for our Priest, our Parishes and the Church.

The whole movement of Israel FROM BABYLON TO JERUSALEM was born and carried forward by men who were selflessly concerned for the furtherance of God's work. For this they fasted and prayed. This is how it is going to be in the Church to day. Those who seek the honour of God's Name, the coming of His kingdom and the fulfillment of His will on earth as it is in heaven, will fast and pray and thus accomplish God's purposes.

Daniel was a man who frequently fasted and prayed. Ezra too was a man who knew how to fast and pray when leading a group of Israelites from Babylon to Jerusalem ( I Esdras 8:21).

Nehemiah wept and fasted and prayed when he heard that Jerusalem was broken down and its walls burnt with fire (II Esdras 1:4). He didn't criticise the Israelites in Jerusalem for being lazy or selfish. No. He fasted and prayed for them. He was so burdened that even the king noticed his grief. Finally, Nehemiah gave up his position and his comfort in the palace in order to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

Have we ever been grieved like Nehemiah, because the work of the Lord is not progressing? Have we ever fasted and prayed like he did, because we saw that things were not going well with the church? Do we ever pray for the Pope and the clergy the way we should?

I wonder if we realise that those who serve God and preach His Word faithfully are targets of Satan's wrath. They are high on Satan's hit-list. Let me recommend that we be careful about criticism we might give about them, for Satan can do that job quite well, without our help! Instead pray for them a little more in the coming days, that they will be preserved from the attacks of the enemy.

As in Israel 2000 years ago, so it is in today's world, many of the Lord's sheep are scattered here and there, without shepherds to care for them. Many are the hirelings in our land who capture there souls. Few are the shepherds who are willing to lay down their lives for the flock. No-one has the right to preach God's Word to God's flock if he has no burden for the sheep, and if he does not pray for them regularly.

Matthew 9:36-38: And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd. Then he saith to his disciples, The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth labourers into his harvest.

Jeremiah 3:15: And I will give you pastors according to my own heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and doctrine.

Pray that the Lord of the harvest will give us shepherds after His own heart into the harvest at this time.

Our Comments

Dom Gueranger comments: “The Holy Ghost, Who has guaranteed the infallible purity of the doctrine taught officially from the apostolic Chair, has not pledged Himself to protect in a like degree from all failure either the virtue, or the private judgment, or even the administrative acts of the Sovereign Pontiff. In order to promote this marvelous union which the Creator made to reign both upon earth and in heaven, our Lord, when He founded the society of saints upon the authentic and immutable basis of the faith of Peter, willed that to the prayers of all should be confided the charge of completing his work by obtaining for the successor of Peter such preservative graces as do not of themselves spring from the divine constitution of the Church.”

To effectively discharge Our duties as Pope We need the support of your prayers.

Pope Pius IX said on one occasion: “Give me an army to spend its time on the battlefield of prayer and I will conquer all those who oppose me.” The greatest battles won over the powers of darkness have been gained by the praying army of the Church. We can preach and teach, but without the support of fervent prayer We cannot succeed. Remember God softens hearts and opens them to receive His Word. We are merely a transmitter of these truths to the hearts God has opened.

Our prayer must have several qualities.

After the Ascension and before Pentecost we read: “All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” And Jesus told the Apostles: “But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13) The first quality our prayer must have is perseverance. It took Saint Monica eighteen years to bring about the conversion of her son, Augustine.

We must have faith that God will fulfill all of His promises and provide us with all that we need. “And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you.” (Luke 17:6)

We must also be thankful for all of the many graces and benefits God has bestowed on us. God has blessed us to enable us to be a blessing to others. This we do through prayer and good works.

“Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42) We must pray and be in the will of God.

“For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.” (James 5:16) And finally we must be just. Job (18:9) says: “And the just man shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger.” We must be clean and this is where we may be failing, which is why our prayers are not being answered.

In the matter of conversion we desire for another person what we do not truly desire for our own self. We are content with giving God 99% of our self, but hold back a portion for our self. Let's take a gallon of chocolate chip ice cream and stir in an ounce of mouse droppings. Do you want a bowl? And yet what we would not eat our self is what we are offering Almighty God. We want to keep our pet sins, rather than desiring a complete change of our customs and habits. We are content with half measures rather than a complete conversion. We must give up everything and conform our self completely to His holy will. He will then clean our hearts and our prayer will become effective.

Saint Peter advises us: “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.” (II Peter 1:10) We need to examine our conscience and make sure we are truly where God wants us and that we are holding absolutely nothing back. This is especially true, if our prayers are not being answered.

And so, let us ask God to purify our hearts and then let us pray,

+Michael pp

II
Me to Pope Michael
10/10/2017 at 4:31 PM
Re: Frater's sermon
Your Holiness, II Peter 1:10 will come handy when continuing this tomorrow:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/10/cmi-strays-into-protestant-hagiography.html

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2017/10/what-luther-got-wrong-more-pt-2-of.html

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2017/10/was-bible-for-or-against-luthers-work.html

That said, some support for my getting things printed and sold would be appreciated.

My Swedish benefector who sends me 100 € / month got a booklet not yet folded which he could have reproduced before folding and sewing, and, since it was recondite Creation Science (on carbon dating, a kind of limit for how fast and slow the carbon build up between Flood and basically times of Abraham could be). He seemed less interested in ANY reproduction. While I am not against his reprinting my poetry at all, I got a vague impression he could have meant I should make a poetry collection myself.

I am basically a writer more than a printer.

http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2017/06/on-campus.html

III
Pope Michael to me
11/3/2017 at 5:18 PM
Help
Dear friends in Christ, We are working on a project to prepare a book, which covers why we held a papal election 27 years ago. We would like your input and questions to help Us cover all important points. As We prepare thing We will post them here http://pope-michael.com/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/

We have already posted a great deal, as much is already written and merely needs editing and in some cases expansion. We look forward to your input and help.

+Michael pp

This is an act of Catholic Action, encouraged by several Popes, including Pope Saint Pius X. We all have a duty to Almighty God. http://pope-michael.com/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/duties-of-catholics-to-the-church-and-to-the-members-of-the-church/catholic-action/

IV
Me to Pope Michael
11/3/2017 at 6:30 PM
Re: Help
Important points:

  • if certain cardinals could have been bona fide, were they contacted (thinking specifically of Cardinal Stickler
  • how many in the Catholic resistance were contacted.


V a
Me to Fr Anthony Cekada
On Sep 25, 2017, at 8:36 AM
traditionalmass.org | INFORMATION REQUEST
On Una Cum English monarch: http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2017/09/una-cum-rege-nostro-n.html

V b
Fr Anthony Cekada to me
Monday, September 25, 2017 at 2:42 PM
Re: traditionalmass.org | INFORMATION REQUEST
Dear Mr. Lundahl,

Thanks for the link!

Fr. Cekada
St. Gertrude the Great Church
4900 Rialto Rd • West Chester OH 45069

------------------

NEW! NEW! NEW!
To donate to our work...
And for articles,videos, bulletins, news,
Mass intentions, webcast Masses and more:
www.SGGResources.org

V c
Me to Pope Michael and Fr Anthony Cekada
11/16/2017 at 3:37 PM
Re: traditionalmass.org | INFORMATION REQUEST
Here is another one, on St Gertrude's day!

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/11/no-paul-price-no-pastor-kim.html

VI
Pope Michael to me
12/2/2017 at 3:59 PM
Internet Radio
http://www.viecatholicradio.com/

Dear friends in Christ,

With the beginning of the ecclesiastical year, we are launching our internet radio station.

Many other things are moving forward slowly here. We ask your prayers, especially in Advent, which we should observe as a little Lent. May God bless all of you and We extend Our Apostolic blessing as we enter this holy season.

+Michael pp

p.s. What are you getting for Jesus for His birthday this year?

VII
Pope Michael to me
12/25/2017 at 2:10 PM
Blessed Christmas
Dear friends in Christ,
We will be praying for all of you this Christmas season, that has just begun. This has been a very busy year for us, which is why We have not written as much. Let us all bring the gift of our heart to Jesus on this, His birthday.

At the beginning of Advent, we launched our internet radio station here. Check it out. https://www.viecatholicradio.com/

May God bless you this Christmas season,

+Michael pp

VIII
Me to Pope Michael
12/26/2017 at 3:48 PM
Re: Blessed Christmas
same to you, Your Holiness!

IX
Pope Michael to me
12/30/2017 at 4:40 PM
New Year's Resolution
Oremus,

Dear friends,

We do not ordinarily ask for or make resolutions for the beginning of the New Year. This year We are making an exception. Let us make 2018 the Year of Prayer.

The Church runs on prayer. The success of the Pope in accomplishing his task depends not on the abilities and talents God has given Us. No, it depends on the prayers of the members of the Church. Your prayers are essential to the Church.

We would like to quote from one of Our staff: “God is looking for men and women even today in our land, who will stand in the gap for the Church - selfless people, who are not taken up with just their own needs, but who are concerned about God's work. Many believers think that sanctification means just the refinement of their personal conduct and behaviour. But true sanctification makes a person selfless like God is - or in other words, like Jesus. …

“Many are willing to deny themselves and take up the cross if that will bring them some benefit - perhaps some spiritual benefit such as a place in the Bride of Christ finally - but still something for themselves. But if we were to ask ourselves, what we have denied ourselves solely for the benefit of others, we may discover that the answer is, 'Almost nothing'.”

There is never a time to ask: “what is in it for me?” Instead we should say: “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6) As we pray for the needs of the Church; let us also ask God what He wants us to do to help His holy Church.

And so, let us pray,

Oremus,

+Michael pp

X
Me to Pope Michael
12/30/2017 at 6:58 PM
Re: New Year's Resolution
you know, being able to pray has sth to do with material situation

XI
Pope Michael to me
1/1/2018 at 3:58 PM
As we begin to pray
Dear friends,

We woke up this morning to the following from Francis Dominic:

"And I sought among them for a man that might set up a hedge, and stand in the gap........ and I found none." (Ezekiel 22:30).

God has many tasks he desires to have accomplished in this world, and all of them are not as equal in how hard they are. For some tasks, He may use anyone. But for the harder task, the tasks that take more work and sacrifice, not everyone is prepared to do. For such vital tasks, God has to have a person who has been tested and proved through many trials and testings. And if such a person is not immediately available, then God will wait until such a person IS available. God does not do His work with the best available person, as men do. He will wait to do the work when he has someone perfect for the job.

We should never therefore desire to be merely used by God. We should seek to be valuable to His work. If that sounds strange to the ears listen to What Saint Pauls has to say to Saint Timothy:

"But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth: and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work." (2 Timothy 2:19-21).

A man may use vessels of different materials in his work. But he will not value the earthen pots and the wooden crates as much as he values the gold and silver vessels. In the same way, although all who are Christians may be equally children of God, every child of God is NOT equally useful to Him in His work. Although there is no partiality with God, yet every vessel is not (in the words of Saint Paul), a sanctified,profitable, useful vessel. God prizes only very few, because they alone seek His will and His glory wholeheartedly.

This is why we must cleanse ourselves constantly from "all filthiness of the flesh and spirit" (in other words, from everything that is unlike Christ within us), if we are to be valuable vessels to God.

"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God" (2 Corinthians 7:1)

Once a person becomes a valuable vessel, God will depend on him greatly for His work. If such a man fails God, God's work will be halted temporarily, until God can find another man whom He can use. Or take the vessel of silver or Gold that is unusable and melt it down and purify it in the fires until it is moldable for His use again.

In the history of the world, of Israel and of the Church, we see a number of examples of how God has very often been dependent on just ONE man in a particular situation to accomplish His purposes. But one man with God is always a majority.

And We would like to comment as we begin praying this year. Someone receiving this email is called to make an act of total self-sacrifice, because the person God calls is called to a life of selflessness. The rest of us are called to back you up in every way possible.

Oremus,

+Michael pp

p.s. Frater, We would like more inspirations.

XII
Me to Pope Michael
1/1/2018 at 5:18 PM
Re: As we begin to pray
parlando di questo, santità! normalmente un papa è vescovo di Roma

normalmente un vescovo di Roma reside a Roma e no a Avignione o a Topeka

supposto che su santità è il vero papa, tosto o tarde Dio va far una possibilità per residere a Roma

su santità è preparato? gia parla italiano, al meno un poco?

(I am sorry, I can only write it, not sure even if it is "a Roma" or "in Roma" for Italian, "a Roma" could be a gallicism).

La risoluzione di apprendere italiano al meno è fatta, santità?

XIII
Pope Michael to me
1/2/2018 at 2:43 PM
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, end the Great Apostasy
Dear friends in Jesus,

Over seven yeas ago, someone recommend that all of us pray regularly: “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, end the Great Apostasy.” As we celebrate the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, let us consider how powerful this Holy Name is. This is what inspired someone so many years ago to write this prayer.

We are asking Jesus to end the Great Apostasy. Let us ask Jesus to begin by ending the spirit of apostasy in our own hearts. Saint Augustine says: “Heresies are only embraced by those who had they persevered in the faith, would be lost by the irregularity of their lives.” If we go back seven decades and look at the lives of the average practicing Catholic, we find that there were faithful to Mass on Sunday, fish on Friday and five bucks in the collection place. After that their lives were quite irregular. They already had the spirit of apostasy in their hearts. This worsened in the 1950's. Catholics had become lax minimal Catholics. Yes, they avoided the worse sins in the main, but they were lax, especially in their entertainment. Much could be said on this, but rather let us look at our own lives.

How worldly are we? Saint Paul tells us: “And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) The word ecclesia, which is where we get the Latin word for Church, means called out ones. We are called out of the world unto sanctification. We are called to live differently than our worldly neighbors.

Jesus, help me to remove the spirit of apostasy from my own thinking and from my own life,

Oremus,

+Michael pp

XIV
Me to Pope Michael
1/2/2018 at 4:26 PM
Re: Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, end the Great Apostasy
" This worsened in the 1950's. Catholics had become lax minimal Catholics. Yes, they avoided the worse sins in the main, but they were lax, especially in their entertainment. "

Let us put it like this.

1920-30's Catholics had to become, if not Puritan, at least vigilant about cinema. There was much smut back then.

Then came the Hays' code, and Catholics thought the establishment had taken over the duty of vigilance, which means a legitimate softening, except for doctrinal matters.

However, at the same time Hollywood is often portraying its version of Christianity as having Catholic externals (Dracula is of course a bit unusually specific in confessional matters, since the consecrated hosts were obtained from Old Catholics with the mention Catholics refused to provide them for that purpose).

This means, one is not exactly either in an atmosphere where Catholics need to watch anti-Catholic slurs in entertainment (very unlike the work of for instance Victor Hugo, where Paris in 1482 - ten years before Columbus - is portrayed as having a very corrupt bishop who is simply not to be identified historically, very unlike the work of Voltaire, in which Candide shudders at Spanish Fanaticism, I am not sure if there was any film version this era of Washington Irving, but if so, I think Hollywood might have softened the AntiCatholic bent of Columbus compared to original novel).

Sherlock Holmes may be an Atheist, but he is not of the Dawkensite type. A Catholic viewer of cinema or television would be spared some of the anti-metaphysical side, and what came through could be considered as a weakness in a person one would pray for (in my fan fic on mainly Susan Pevensie, but also some others, I have Sherlock Holmes dead when the story starts, reconciled to the Church by Father Brown who is also a friend of the Doctor Watson who testifies Susan is not mad).

In other words, I don't think the lack of specific vigilance would be really the equivalent of laxism.

It seems St Pius X was more laxist than some Spanish bishop - that one seems to have forbidden dancing, while the holy Pope allowed one couple to perform a tango and concluded "I don't think it is a mortal sin, but it is less pretty than the Furlana".

It is also possible, the tango as performed before the Pope was downtoned and less evocative than what was going on in Habana (tango being a developed Habanera) or in Argentina (Buenos Aires being the home of tango proper). If so, this may or may not mean tango as danced now, normally has been influenced by what H H Saint Pius X could accept in laymen.

I can't totally exonerate entertainment, but more because it was, in the past century, overwhelmingly taking certain non-Catholic tenets for granted. This is a thing which can be avoided. Songs with dubious content can be replaced by instrumental music, which is what I am usually composing. Entertainment, both as song and as film and as written form story can instead take Catholic values for granted, or even better, defend them against a fictitious opposition which matches the real one (see Father Brown, see Tolkien and CSL)./HGL

XV
Pope Michael to me
1/4/2018 at 4:00 PM
Two important questions
Dear friends in Christ,

A century ago a Bishop sent out two simple questions to his clergy. We would like to ask all of you, who We are in contact these same questions:

  • 1. What is your own practice of prayer?

  • 2. What are you teaching others about prayer?


Obviously this second question will vary, depending on your state of life. For the single, there may not be much to say. For married people, especially those who have children, how are you teaching your spouse and children? And of course, for the clergy, what and how are you teaching your flock about prayer?

We await your answers.

+Michael pp

XVI
Me to Pope Michael
1/4/2018 at 4:22 PM
Re: Two important questions
  • 1) I used to pray 5 to 15 decades a day, but worldly worries have brought me away from this (when I have time by being awake very early, I am too tired and angry to pray)
  • 2) I recommend the Rosary and the Jesus prayer.


You may be interested also in what I had to say about alpha state (a k a hypnotic state) and prayer:

http://hgl-hypno-journal.blogspot.fr/2017/03/viii-quora-what-do-islamic-99-names-and.html

I wonder some why a question originally posed to clergy is here being posed to laymen, though ...

On the other hand, the second question is a fair one for a writer.

When Protestants of certain brands consider that Rosary / Jesus prayer etc is "praying like gentiles", I definitely reccomend them to take a look at last words of a then and there Gentile, Velleius Paterculus, whose Roman history breaks off in 16th year of Tiberius, about the time when Our Lord spoke His teaching, and where his books ends with a prayer to the Pagan gods.

It does NOT look like meditative types of prayer./HGL

XVII
Pope Michael to me
1/4/2018 at 6:04 PM
Publishing books
Dear Hans,

I recall you making a comment on Facebook about my never publishing your book for you.

There are several reasons I publish books. The first is if I believe that people need this knowledge, especially to advance in their spiritual life. The second is to provide good Catholic books in general. And the third is that I like to have a place to lay my head and to eat a couple of times a day. Proverbs says that all things obey money.

Now I need money to promote the work of the Church, such as running the website and the internet radio station. In fact, I have taken a part time job helping a handicapped person in order to raise more money to move Church work forward.

Let us look at the book you want published. First of all, in its current format, it will take a lot of work to complete. I simply do not have the time to publish this particular book, unless I am being paid. Scripture also says that the laborer is worthy of his hire.

Consider the work that needs to be done. The various parts need to be copied into a Word document and formatted. Then I need to proof read the book as well as study it before issuing an imprimatur. I wonder what the Church charged for the work of studying books for issuing imprimaturs?

After all of this, corrections must be made. The final interior file must be prepared. Also a book cover needs to be made. Ask Frater how long that takes him to do.

Createspace charges $300 for up to 10,000 words and three cents a word after that for editing.

A cover costs $400.

And so you see a minimum of $700 and we have not allowed for the imprimatur work.

Now you could cut costs by getting the book formatted in Microsoft Word, which will cut this time. You could submit for imprimatur. And finally you could learn how to design your own cover.

Self-publishing books takes time and money. I know, I have done many books in the last few years.

And the prospect for making money? For Christ the King Library I am making $1.30 per title. True some have never sold, while others make pretty good money. The good news is that once a title is published, it remains available forever and continues to make money, since this information is timeless.

We republished a book seven years ago: “The Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine Of The Earth's Movement”. It has sold nine times, so there may not be much interest in this subject.

If you wish to proceed, get to work and compile the book into a single document and send it over for consideration and an estimate on what it will cost to move forward with this project.

+Michael pp

XVIII
Me to Pope Michael
1/4/2018 at 9:07 PM
Re: Publishing books
Answering several points severally:

"The first is if I believe that people need this knowledge, especially to advance in their spiritual life."

In my case, I am not trying to advance someone's spiritual life, as St. Francis of Sales, I am not a bishop.

I am a layman, and like C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton I am an apologist.

"The second is to provide good Catholic books in general."

I am neither trying to provide a bad nor an un-Catholic one.

"And the third is that I like to have a place to lay my head and to eat a couple of times a day."

My precise most pressing reason for not being quite content with having the blogposts just on internet.

"Now I need money to promote the work of the Church, such as running the website and the internet radio station. In fact, I have taken a part time job helping a handicapped person in order to raise more money to move Church work forward."

In so far as I want to get paper published, I am of course considering the person doing the physical job as getting a deserved part of the money - as he is adjudging it. My conditions say voluntary and that means percentage etc. at discretion royalties. I believe 10 % is customary, and it is about what I expect from a professional publisher. (French computers are forcing me to do extra work because capitalising unduly by spellcheck "Professional Publisher" and "Under" and some more. As "Learning" below. Or "Xerox" - but that I leave as correct.)

That would leave between retailers and yourself 90 %, and your part to be divided between the work you are needing to do the edition and keep it going, and the work you want to get done with money you earn.

"Let us look at the book you want published. First of all, in its current format, it will take a lot of work to complete."

Not so sure of that. It could be tome one of several (there is at least as much material on).

"I simply do not have the time to publish this particular book, unless I am being paid."

I think it would pay you.

"Scripture also says that the laborer is worthy of his hire."

My point about wanting to get an income from the writing I am doing anyway.

"Consider the work that needs to be done. The various parts need to be copied into a Word document and formatted. Then I need to proof read the book as well as study it before issuing an imprimatur. I wonder what the Church charged for the work of studying books for issuing imprimaturs?"

The thing I sent you already went through a word document and formatting. It can be easily copied double face A4 copies, folded, sewn and cut in top to make a readable volume.

This would give you comfortable time to study it while turning pages.

IF you are then interested in a better thing, technically, you could of course put same blog posts onto a word document of yours.

And format it as you like. In such a case you could also include blog posts for my foreseen part II.

However, learning the technique of reproducing in this format by Xerox copies may be a great asset if ever you need to go through a persecution where you need to replenish book stocks in smaller scale and discretely.

"Then I need to proof read the book as well as study it before issuing an imprimatur."

Why not study and issue imprimatur first before any labour on proof reading?
"I wonder what the Church charged for the work of studying books for issuing imprimaturs?"

Presumably nothing, for two reasons :

  • 1) some authors were Capuchins and Minims who could pay nothing;
  • 2) bishops had incomes through tithes (in Swedish Middle Ages the grain tithe was divided into 1/3 for parish priest, remaining 2/3 divuded in 1/3 bishop, 1/3 Church and 1/3 poors - except coastal areas where there was a fish tithe divided otherwise, and minor tithes to parish priest only, like the Cheese tithe).


"After all of this, corrections must be made."

Such as? I foresee having left very little to correct.

Obviously, if I spell British, I don't think you need to respell American. You may speak American in US and pronounce the R and all that, and pronounce "ego non sum" as "I ain't", but that involves no obligation to spell labour (from Old French labour, later labeur, from Latin accusative laborem) as if "labor" came directly from Latin nominative.

As for an order of a certain president of yours, I am reminded of the saying "Caesar non supra grammaticam". Such an order was totalitarian in nature, and I am opposing a similar one about Swedish, also from 1906.

As to corrections in content, that would involve commenting under the original blog posts, since the first publication of all content in that book is on my blogs. If I accepted one, I would obviously in the post be saying "I have changed in obedience to Pope Michael" on such or such point.

"The final interior file must be prepared. Also a book cover needs to be made. Ask Frater how long that takes him to do."

If I went to a traditional publisher, all of this would be at the publisher's charge, and one way of the author contributing is waiting for royalties until all of that is paid. $700? Get that before paying me anything, then!

"and we have not allowed for the imprimatur work."

And you should not, since charging for that would be simony.

"You could submit for imprimatur."

I practically already did that. Some time ago, [and I got] neither imprimatur nor condemnation of content.

"And finally you could learn how to design your own cover."

If you didn't notice, my page i (not 1 which is further in) IS a cover.

I designed it.

"Self-publishing books takes time and money. I know, I have done many books in the last few years."

I have done so too, but it takes one thing more for doing so commercially (on artisan or industrial scale) : stocking space, the one thing a homeless man has not. Hence the scale has been domestic, sending out examples to relatives and friends and for at least one book to you.

"If you wish to proceed, get to work and compile the book into a single document and send it over for consideration and an estimate on what it will cost to move forward with this project."

But I did : printed out on top of that!

"We republished a book seven years ago: '(The Pontifical Decrees Against The Doctrine Of The Earth's Movement'. It has sold nine times, so there may not be much interest in this subject. "

Some of my work might rekindle interest.

You remind me of Thorin Oakenshield, some, Your Holiness!

Hans Georg Lundahl

XIX
Me to Pope Michael and Fr Anthony Cekada
1/9/2018 at 6:25 PM
On Continuationism vs Restorationism and Ecclesio-Imperfectionism, and Protestants being mostly shilly shallying between the latter two
Link:

http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2018/01/restorationism-is-consistent.html

XX
Pope Michael to me
1/11/2018 at 4:07 PM
I die daily...
Dear friends,

Frater Francis Dominic has posted several good things on Facebook about dying to self and dying daily. We recommend that you go over and read these things, of ask for a copy.

"I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord."

[1 Corinthians 15:31]

How many of us are truly dead to self and totally conformed to the Will of Almighty God?

The spiritual life is actually quite simple: All Thee, Almighty God, and no me. Let us pray that God will kill off our self-sill and replace it with His holy will, as we pray daily: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” May God's will be done in all of us/

Oremus,

+Michael pp

XXI
Me to Pope Michael
1/12/2018 at 10:53 AM
Re: I die daily...
Your Holiness, have you considered that St Paul who said these words was as an Apostle obliged to Apostolic perfection.

The faithful come in three batches, called in a parable 100-fold, 60-fold and 30-fold fruit.

On the single issue of sexuality, one can describe them as virgins, widows, married. That St Thomas does.

In more general terms, one can describe them as religious, devout laymen and laymen trying to keep the commandments.

Before you say "but the best way to keep the commandments is to be devout", note, the best way to be devout is to be religious. But not all faithful are required to be religious. Therefore too not all faithful are required to be devout.

Again, lifelong virginity and widowhood are not the normal means to matrimonial happiness.

The Catholic Church is Catholic, not a club for the most devout.

Some things you say would have been very appropriate from St Francis of Sales to Jeanne de Chantal (not sure if she was cannised or just beatified, but he made her holy, by his direction).

He would not have tried that on her nieces.

After a sermon against immodesty, he caught her nieces showing locks beneath the headgear. They blushed. He gently adjusted the locks into the headgear and, from their blushing, probably, concluded what he told them "I don't think God is too displeased withy you."

XXII
Me to Pope Michael, Fr Anthony Cekada and Luka Popov
1/14/2018 at 3:52 PM
"fruit of the earth and work of human hands" - which is more damning?
See my update on the post on Liturgy of Paul VI probably (from Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires) having been valid in certain cases:

http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/p/ordo-missae-of-paul-vi-per-se-valid.html

Cain can't have sacrificed wheat if Göbekli Tepe is Babel - since wheat that is cultivated is from a mutation occurring near Göbekli Tepe./HGL

XXIII
Me to Pope Michael and Father Anthony Cekada
1/20/2018 at 1:49 PM
On Imprimatur question
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2018/01/some-lessons-on-imprimatur.html

XXIV
Me to Pope Michael
2/20/2018 at 6:09 PM
saw the video on special vocation
I hope I am not one you are guessing about.

XXV
Pope Michael to me
2/21/2018 at 12:17 AM
Re: saw the video on special vocation
What is stopping you from giving your life entirely to God and His work? IF you think it means you, then God may be telling you He has a job for you to do.

XXVI
Me to Pope Michael
2/21/2018 at 9:28 AM
Re: saw the video on special vocation
If I think YOU meant me, then God might have been telling me that you are trying to exchange the job God has given me as a writer (which is compatible with layman) to another status.

Now, if instead God really and truly does not want me to marry, why has He not yet ended my life?

I asked Him one day to end my life or give me a wife.

Some people's prayers may have interferred with mine.

I am very sorry I disobeyed God when I lie down weeping on the road to St James and talked to that couple, I later found out she is a Bulgarian shrink, and told them what I felt.

This means, some people may very well have heard of this in advance. I think "John Paul II" prayed for God not to hear my prayer, and as I had given God one year, Wojtyla died within one year. Later in 2005, I came to villages where more bells were ringing death knells than marriages, and where more marriages were sounded by Muslims paying a limousine than by Church bells. This happened within a year of my prayer.

I told you, if you had prayed for me to remain single, that could be the reason why God took away your brother in cancer.

Keep guessing like that, and God may damn me, because His Church refused to give Him honour for making me happy the way I wanted.

XXVII
Me to Pope Michael
2/21/2018 at 9:40 AM
Re: question
"What is stopping you"

Apart from a general will to marry and to get paid for my work as a writer, which I think is a godly work if not a sacred one requiring monastic or clerical status, I am caught between two girls, both "nominally Catholic."

One who has fallen away to Buddhistic or Atheistic non-Theism is the one I have known longer and desired longer. / email withheld from public /

The other, whose problem is "technical schism", is practising in a Novus Ordo parish. / email not published /

As I am not paid for writing, which would be feasible and has been so for years, except some have blocked, I do "extra work" mornings, evenings and sometimes even nights, not to mention weekends to survive. I panhandle with usually my blog urls as "recompensation", a bit like a song was so, back when I still had a voice. I stood in market places and sang, now I sit with a cardboard stating:

NOV9BLOGG9.BLOGSPOT.COM
Something to read in English
Un peu à lire en français

B u t the morning coffee of some parishes (and for morning coffee that is usually Novus Ordo, I used to go to an evening soup at St Nicolas du Chardonnet too (FSSPX parish you must have known about in Winona) spares me some of that extra work, and that is where I met a countrywoman, a fellow Swede.

Both know I am somewhat torn between them.

XXVIII
Pope Michael to me
2/21/2018 at 4:26 PM
Re: saw the video on special vocation
Hans,
You are in no condition to get married. Writing is at best a sideline. If I had to live off what my own books have made in the last seven years, I would starve. Altogether I have made less than $500.

Basically you want a good living delivered to you without much work. Sorry, but this will not happen. If you want to get your books out, prepare the documents in Word format for submission for editing and then submit to publishers. As for Imprimatur, send something that is near ready to be published.

If you want a wife, get a full time job that you can support a family with. Otherwise, you are in no condition to even consider marriage.

I pray you do God's will. And yet, you want your own will.

Enough said

+Michael pp

XXIX
Me to Pope Michael
2/21/2018 at 7:01 PM
Re: saw the video on special vocation
"Writing is at best a sideline. If I had to live off what my own books have made in the last seven years, I would starve. Altogether I have made less than $500."

Nice, but you cannot compare, since your books have at least been published on paper and sold.

Mine haven't, your presumption is, mine would sell as poorly as yours, which is not necessarily the case, they might instead boost yours.

"Basically you want a good living delivered to you without much work."

If you knew how much time I spent writing, you would simply not say that.

THis post is a documentation of harrassment from computer admins here. But it also serves to document how much I work, how much work an article of mine is.

First time signature on first screen shot says 9:56. While last say 14 sth, that is from a PS, after I had already published it, but here we get 11:06 on second to last.

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/12/bu-de-nanterre-harcelement.html

A normal post of mine can take about an hour. True, screen shots are not much words, but they take time too, and that is about what the article would have taken if same space had been only words too - or perhaps even longer.

This I published today:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/02/against-abokhansa.html

The finishing touches today may have been about half an hour, and the pre-work of listening to the video of that Muzz was probably one hour first hearing and half an hour final one yesterday, and I even heard some this morning just to be able to comment on his peroratio.

This one has had update after update since I came into a debate with Robert Sparling:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/01/nor-that-isaac-asimov-is-excellent.html

The debate with him has been partially tormenting, I thought I owed him as one would owe a biology specialist, and only today I found he was actually in psychology.

Psychology students have a heavy Dunning Kruger effect when it comes to biology (his case), linguistics (the case I think of was a paramedic, next three links or four) and some more perhaps too:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/dave-robson-and-me-on-darwins-children.html

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/continuing-with-dave-robson.html

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-posed-question-on-quora-if-god-had.html

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/02/anthony-zarrellas-answer.html

AND I am behind on material already debated, but not added in updates or separate post on that debate, which was more harrassing (the parts with him, first and second link) than the one with Robert Sparling.

If you think this is when I am unusually active, I took these four links from the appropriate page:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2018/02/13i-13ii2018-autres-blogs-other-blogs.html

Between Octave of Epiphany and February 13, I published on blogs other than this main one 70 articles.

And except for one, connected to another of those given that link list, I did not even post the ones I made on my main blog up to its 19th index in each of French and English, since mainly given on those ones, here they are:

https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/02/index-xix-eng-immaculate-conception.html

https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/02/index-xix-fr-immaculee-conception-2017.html

Me wanting anything "without much work"? You are joking. Any father confessor telling me such a thing is a licit reason to stay away from confession, if I can't get a better one. I do NOT need sacrilege with a man who takes the occasion of confession to bully me with lies which can destroy my life since he builds his admonitions around them.

Next detail of your sentence; you speak of a good living, I am in fact content with a living. As per now, I work full time as writer, and overtime to live.

You are treating my production much like the Muslims over here do. There are so many both Trads and Prots who wonder why I don't say more about Muslims, well, why should I if said people give me less bread but equally bad credit for my writing as the Muslims do.

I have compared Mohammed and Joseph Smith as having equally bad claims to have gotten the true religion by revelation, with each other and with Hesiod's Theogony revealed by Nine Muses, and with Numa Pompilius receiving his divinatory arts from the nymph Egeria.

I have also more than once called aboKhansa on above video (see the link within the second link), with his claim St Paul wrote 82 % of the Bible either liar or a nincompoop trusting liars.

So, Muslims have some excuse for treating me as if my work didn't matter, it is perhaps their way of finding an excuse not to kill me. What is YOUR excuse? You heard an SSPX priest in US, who heard Écône, who heard St Nicolas du Chardonnet, where last time I was told I was not well off to marry was more about "instabilities in the faith" as I had just come back from the Orthodox. But there too you have guys who won't touch my blogs with pincers, partly because they are so trusting in Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique which encourages old earth and not taking the Flood as global and is from before the death of St Pius X (1911), partly because they have a similar attitude to Geocentrism, but even more because I recognise you, when you were not elected in an as yet upcoming conclave by Cardinal Burke et al, but even most of all, because well off people in that parish, old timers, people who have been around for 20 years or more, go to a café across the street, which is run by Muslims who think they do right to treat me as a drunkard. So, you are treating me as the Muslims do in this respect.

"If you want to get your books out, prepare the documents in Word format for submission for editing and then submit to publishers."

A publisher should respect that:

  • 1) my blogs are the first publication, same as if I had published previously in a paper before publisher collects articles from it
  • 2) I am willing to submit either word or pdf (seems more popular here) if publisher first is willing to look at my links and thoroughly respect point 1
  • 3) I am not willing to spend an hour making a pdf if I don't know in advance they have looked and I have some kind of at least primary approval.


"As for Imprimatur, send something that is near ready to be published."

Did. You missed it. Or rather, it is already published, but so far printed on a non-commercial scale. Here is the link to the printing sheets once again:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/07/published-online.html

"If you want a wife, get a full time job"

Already have that : writing.

"that you can support a family with."

That is where I have been failed by enemies who are basically doing the Muslim's work for them. Including so far ... never mind ...

"I pray you do God's will. And yet, you want your own will."

Sure it is not God's, just because it is my own?

"Enough said"

Nope, I am still waiting for a sensible word from you - if you are sensible.

A Pope's position is supreme judge over the Church Militant, not that of a too grumpy father confessor with too much bourgeois attitudes towards a man who is homeless. If you want to sign with pp after your papal name, earn the respect which comes with papacy, not the loathing which Aramis had for the Jesuits in "20 years later" (which I read before being a Catholic and without knowing it was on the Index).

Hans Georg Lundahl
given from Nanterre University Library on the feast of St Severian of Scythopolis in Palestine.

XXX
Me to Pope Michael
2/22/2018 at 9:37 AM
oh, by the way
In case this sermon displaying on FB was on your prayers, I consider YOU as providing the tares and thistles.

Here is the sermon:

Sermon
The devil approaches the God-man with temptations.
Who among men is free of them?

He who goes according to the will of the evil one does not experience attacks, but is simply turned more and more toward evil. As soon as one begins to come to himself and intends to begin a new life according to God’s will, immediately the entire satanic realm enters into action: they hasten to scatter good thoughts and the intentions of the repentant one in any way they can.

If they do not manage to turn him aside, they attempt to hinder his good repentance and confession; if they do not manage to do that, they contrive to sow tares amidst the fruits of repentance and disrupt his labors of cleansing the heart.

If they do not succeed in suggesting evil they attempt to distort the truth; if they are repulsed inwardly they attack outwardly, and so on until the end of one’s life. They do not even let one die in peace; even after death they pursue the soul, until it escapes the aerial space where they hover and congregate.

You ask, “What should we do? It is hopeless and terrifying!”

For a believer there is nothing terrifying here, because near a God-fearing man demons only busy themselves, but they do not have any power over him. A sober man of prayer shoots arrows against them, and they stay far away from him, not daring to approach, and fearing the defeat which they have already experienced.

If they succeed in something, it is due to our blundering. We slacken our attention, or allow ourselves to be distracted by their phantoms, and they immediately come and disturb us more boldly.

If you do not come to your senses in time they will whirl you about; but if a soul does come to its senses they again recoil and spy from afar to see whether it is possible to approach again somehow.

So be sober, watch, and pray—and the enemies will do nothing to you.

+ St. Theophan the Recluse, Thoughts for Each Day of the Year

My own words
What I said was NOT a temptation, it is my longstanding resolve.

God may continue to block it out of respect for your prayers, for some time, BUT if you continue to pray for me to "encourage" me to get "back" to a resolve which is NOT mine, you are in fact continuing the unjust persecution of my work. OK, next question?