- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"...
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond
Friday, 24 March 2017
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Je sais, ce n'est pas exactement une nouvelle! Il a tort depuis le fait d'être Bouddhiste, consciemment!
Mais ce qui est une actualité à propos ça est que son tweet - ou un de ses tweets - vient d'être republié en Direct Matin, aujourd'hui, Mardi 21 Mars 2017.*
Je le cite:
Toutes les relgions ont le potentiel de créer de meilleures personnes - mais aucune religion ne peut clamer sa suprémité au-dessus d'une autre.
D'abord, le but de la religion, un but qui est atteint par la vraie religion chez ses adhérents vraiment observants, et qui ne l'est pas chez les adhérents observants ou pas de tous d'une fausse religion, ce n'est pas de "créer de meilleures personnes".
En fait, créer une personne, c'est un acte de Dieu, avant que cette personne aie le contact avec une religion.
Et encore, améliorer une personne (déjà créée par Dieu, comme dit) n'est pas le but ultime de la vraie religion. Le vrai but est d'honorer Dieu.
En dessous de ce but ultime, le vrai but est de sauver des âmes humains pour le Ciel, pour qu'elles puissent être éternellement unies à Dieu.
Car Dieu est mieux honoré par le félicité des sauvés que par les souffrances des damnés.
Et dans les deux buts, il peut très bien y avoir une vraie religion, et il y en a, qui conduit chez ceux qui l'observent à ces deux buts : qu'ils honorent Dieu et qu'ils sauvent leurs âmes, leur éternité.
Car, Dieu veut dire le Tout-Puissant. Vu qu'Il est Tout-Puissant, vu qu'Il s'occupe de nous, vu qu'Il connaît tous nos circonstances, Il est aussi en position de nous donner une religion qui est la vraie et qui donc a une suprématie sur les autres. Et une religion qui commençait par reclamer ceci et qui cesse de le faire, qui se met d'accord avec le tweet de Dalaï-Lama, c'est une religion qui se dénature, qui n'est plus la même religion.
Un Catholique qui est Catholique ne peut pas être d'accord avec Dalaï-Lama.
Un Catholique qui est d'accord avec Dalaï Lama n'est plus Catholique, il est devenu Apostat.
Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Benoît de Nursie
ou Mardi après
III Dim. du Carême
* C'est sur page 6, et le numéro est 2041.
Monday, 20 March 2017
Work of the writer today:
Great Bishop of Geneva! and two other :
On "Works of Supererogations"
If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ...
FR : Répliques Assorties : Sur le scandale pédophile d'Australie
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Papacy
Some well read messages on well read blogs, last 24 hours:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : The City Lights Went Out, Did They?
Creation vs. Evolution : Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists
somewhere else : Carrier on Tacitus
New blog on the kid : A Catholic Opposes Christian Zionism (Link)
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Norse Myth, Commenting on Jackson Crawford
Pageviews+today 468 : 176+104+84+81+23
Pageviews+yesterday 854 : 82+156+202+145+269
Last 24 hours, 1067 :
United+States 598 : 6+13+171+220+188
France 126 : 6 2 116 2
Ukraine 24 : 4 1 12 7
Netherlands 21 : 11 1 6 3
Germany 20 : 1 1 16 2
Russia 2 2
Spain 1 2
China 2 : 1 1
United Kingdom 2 : 1 1
1 only : Denmark, Italy, Estonia, South Korea.
Saturday, 18 March 2017
Are We Required to Give to Everyone Who Asks?
Fr. Michael Kerper March 14, 2017 on Catholic Exchange
Friday, 17 March 2017
Défendons la liberté de conscience des médecins !
Une réserve contre une seule clause de ce que je viens de signer? Pas vraiment, à part que la phrase
Et les Français n’accepteront jamais que le Parlement les adopte en catimini alors que la fin du quinquennat de M. François Hollande approche à grands pas.
me paraît un peu optimiste, mais peut-être c'est la perspective sur les Français de Paris qui me rend pessimiste ...
Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
Thursday, 16 March 2017
"If we truly desire the B-option, then let us not withdraw from modernity, for strategic retreats easily turn into routs. Let us rather engage our neo-barbarian culture by both cultivating our Benedictine identity when projecting Boniface’s strength. It is the only option."
Your "only option" has the fault of everyone having to do the same thing.
Let "us" not do this, let "us" do that.
We may need both Benedicts and Bonifaces, both Placids and Patricks.
But St Patrick didn't learn to be the missionary in Ireland. He learned it in a monastery in Gaul.
St Ansgar (bowing) did not learn to be missionary in Sweden or Denmark or North Coast of Germany, he learned it in Bec and Corbey - sorry, Bec was St Anselm.
I have been a cultural warrior in a very unsheltered position, and am inefficacious due to exasperation and lack of charity.
Any time I have sought any kind of shelter against the tides of my harassers, I have been thrown back.
It may even continue for a while, but I am sure more sheltered people are better able to pray.
Now, the option you on the one hand describe as a good thing in itself and on the other as insufficient, is not a sheltered monastery.
It is a sheltered village, with married men and women bearing thirty-fold fruit.
It can be protected by missionaries (I am not likely to be one, except very indirectly through my writings, like Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, though not as indirectly as Tolkien, who forbade himself to be openly "everyman's theologian" and was perhaps forbidden also by his priest), it can be protected by crusaders. But in order to be protected it must exist.
It is a total mistake to imagine everyman can be drawn to the faith by sheer strength of grown men who renounce shelter. Even the first 280 years of the Church, the conversion came also because of people like St Barbara who genuinely liked being sheltered. The defense of Poland was by a Black Madonna in the hands of monks whose patron Saint was St Paul the First Hermit.
And Our Lady Herself was a sheltered woman. Our Lord and His disciples and at Her burial God Himself did not want it otherwise (Her grave was of course empty, I am not saying or suggesting She is dead).
She was not totally sheltered, she was often harrassed by the Jews, but not physically, and she was given shelter from them when needed.
The Day when the Church only has defenders and no one left to be sheltered is a dark day. It is not sure she will survive for long then without Our Lord returning.
Not doing villages of crunch conservatives is also a non-defense of economic good sense, a non-return to the order you claim to want to return to, a condemnation to either very jejune life or the hectic consummation you claim is at the back of the economic problem.
It poses the little question, is your loyalty with Christ, His Church and our models in it reaching back to the Middle Ages and beyond?
Or with businessmen who don't want to feel inferior for being hectic in production, or in demands of interest on monetary loans?
Is your moral theology Roman or Americanist?
Hans Georg Lundahl
II Lord's Day of Lent
I saw a little list ... well to some people I have lived with, liking of music such as Gilbert and Sullivan, when age peers preferred ACDC and Iron Maiden and highways to hell and stairways to heaven (the latter is musically good, but doctrinally insipid).
Quotes from Thom Senzee in Italics.
Other quote, or quotes if more than one, indented. Even in relation to general indention.
Own comment straight. No more indented than the text in Italics.
I give upper case Roman Numerals (I, II ...) for those I do not agree were "queer" and lower case Roman Numerals (i, ij ...) for those I agree were so.
- I Alexander the Great
- Although historians point out ad nauseam the so-called inappropriateness of applying modern constructs such as "gay," "bisexual," "homosexual," or "queer" to an ancient king like Alexander, no serious historian doubts that history's penultimate warrior-monarch was attracted to men.
Right ... not one single indication he was committing sodomy with anyone, only that there was a per se non-sexual context in which he liked male company. An indication he was "gay"? No, an indication the writer is rabidly suspicious of contexts in which men gather together.
- II Hatshepsut
- Transgender because in Egypt "ruling queen" is expressed as "female king"? Who not "Emperor Eirene" (genuine Byzantine title of the Empress who helped defeat Iconoclasm, but in doing so was barbarious enough, though a Saint, to blind her own son, which was why Charlemagne considered East Rome had fallen into Barbarism)?
- III Leonardo da Vinci
- Acknowledgement of Leonardo' gayness is almost universal.
Almost. Especially among the sex role "fundies" who consider androgynity as necessarily homosexual.
There is a little village of unreducable Gauls, however ...
- i Alan Turing
- Without looking at text : yes, I know. He was also bright enough to feel guilty about it.
He was also non-Christian and fatalist enough to feel incapable of getting out of it. His way out was suicide.
Who but a computer geek royal would give Alan Turing as an example to set before men?
My source is of course not this gobbledigook by Thom Senzee, but straight old wiki!
- IV Michelangelo
- Before looking : let me guess, he scultured a David as a nude ... in his day that was convention.
Not quite wrong, not quite right. Pietro Aretino, an atheist, had "suggested pederasty", and we are left wondering whether the allegations of Aretino about contemporaries were true and that drove him to atheism, or whether his atheism and misanthropy drove him to allegations simply over unreasonable suspicious.
Apart from that, the University of Illinois has an expert assessment of where his erotical interests lay:
"None the less, the physical beauty of many of his monumental male nudes ... gives a clear indication as to where Michelangelo’s erotic interests lay."
OK, if he had been in love with women, all his male nudes had been ugly? Would that have made him straight or just incompetent as a workman?
"In addition, in 1532 Michelangelo met and fell in love with a young Roman nobleman, Tommaso de’ Cavalieri, described by the humanist Benedetto Varchi as possessing ‘not only incomparable physical beauty, but so much elegance in manners, such excellent intelligence, and such graceful behavior’. Tommaso married in 1538 and had two sons, but Michelangelo remained devoted for the rest of his life, dedicating numerous poems and several presentation drawings to him (e.g. The Rape of Ganymede, 1532)."
Supposing there was an "affair", Tommaso is proof homosexuals can marry - a thing I have been saying for quite a while.
The scientific article is not citing very precise evidence "fell in love with" is an accurate description of what happened to them.
"However, when Michelangelo’s nephew and namesake eventually published over one hundred poems in 1623, any suggestion of homosexuality was effaced by altering the gender of the poems’ subjects and addressees."
OK, so the published version has female adressees?
"John Addington Symonds‘s translation of a selection of the poems, together with his biography of the artist, sought to redress this suppression of Michelangelo’s homosexuality which, even if largely unknowable, was none the less a key aspect of his art."
I sense a lack of epistemic coherence.
If it is unknowable whether Michelangelo was homosexual, or whether something else was going on, it is also unknowable whether "his homosexuality" or something else is a "key aspect" not of his art, but of his making of the art.
You see, a work of art is distinct from the artists personal secrets about its fabrication and guesses on the latter is not a valid form of art criticism.
If his art strikes some moderns as homosexual, that may furthermore be their modern outlook, not that of Michelangelo who lived in the Renaissance.
Also, it seems we must rely on Symonds to know that original adressees were indeed men, Tommaso and others. And that they were so tender the intention must have been erotic.
I suppose the foreword of his translation does explain why he has other gender than original published adressees. If he did find these in preserved original manuscripts, that would be explained in Symond's foreword. Or footnotes or endnotes.
It is at least not explained in the page I am looking at.
"Increasingly recognized as a notable literary achievement in their own right (despite their density of language and often complex construction), Michelangelo’s poems also provide useful insights into his beliefs and aesthetic precepts such as the broadly Neoplatonic notion that physical beauty could be a conduit to transcendent spiritual beauty, for example ‘beauty … moves and carries every healthy mind to heaven’."
Fine enough, as long as he is not primarily meaning that of male nudes.
"However, while Neoplatonism was part of the culture of the Medici circle, and of Michelangelo himself, and may also have fostered an emergent homosexual identity (see Saslow), ..."
OK, why should I believe Saslow on it?
They don't even give the reference, they presume Saslow is a known name in "queer studies" or sth.
Here we should however look at the rest of the story, I'll give it in full:
"... claims that Michelangelo’s art illustrates a fully developed Neoplatonic system (see Tolnay) have been downplayed in recent scholarship. Neoplatonic influences upon Michelangelo should also be placed within a broader framework of Christian belief affecting his art, particularly from the late 1530s; indeed, the contrasting moral codes of Neoplatonism and Catholicism may partly account for Michelangelo’s ambivalent sexual feelings. In his later years Michelangelo also witnessed the emergence of the austere spirituality of the Counter-Reformation, especially in Rome, where he had settled permanently in 1534. His Christian faith was reinforced by his friendship with Vittoria Colonna, the Marchesa di Pescara, whom he met in 1536 and with whom he remained in close contact until her death in 1547. Her dedication to Catholicism strongly influenced his own devout religiosity as expressed, for example, in his sacred poetry that gave voice to a growing preoccupation with death and salvation.
In 1563 Michelangelo was elected an academician of the Florentine Accademia del Disegno and, despite his old age, he continued to work on a number of projects (principally architectural) until his death in Rome(“The Gay 100”, p68)."
- ij Barbara Gittings
- She was a lesbian and did half of a good job : 1973 American Psychaitric Association revoked its designation of homosexuality as a disorder.
Sodomites should be punished, or not punished, preferrably punished.
Cyprus had a good law up to 1998 or sth.
But Homosexuals should not be brought to mental institutions for evaluation. Especially not when the mental institutions are evaluating whether they are Homosexuals or not.
- iij "Christine" Jorgensen
- No, his name is George Jorgensen. He had fought the Nazis. He's American, not Danish, check out Jorgensen (Statten Island spelling) versus Jørgensen (Danish spelling of his ancestors' name.
Also, a Dane is responsible for committing the crime. You know, the nation which, unlike Sweden, resisted the Nazis.
He "literally became a guinea pig for Dr. Christian Hamburger, already a renowned Danish endocrinologist."
A Scandinavian medical doctor ...
- iu Sally Ride
- A proof positive homosexuals can marry.
"Although she had been married to a man until the mid-1980's, by thetime of her death in 2012, Ride had been in a 27-year old relationship with a female partner, Tam O'Shaughnessy."
"Ride only came out as a lesbian posthumously. But that had more to do with her very private nature, according to her sister, Bear Ride, than it did with a lack of being gay. Bear Ride is also a lesbian and, as an activist and an ordained Presbyterian minister ..."
Say. No. More.
This just confirms my prejudices against astronauts male and female, NASA or its counterpart in Baikonur, and against female ordination, and against Presbyterian ministers.
Just mentioning, the Swedish Church I was into for about two years after rejecting Evangelicals was close enough to these Presbyterians - among my surroundings, but not on my part. Such people tend to invoke what the Reformation was about and believe they frighten conservatives into compliance by telling them "if that is how you feel why not as well become Catholic".
- u Harvey Milk
- I am in favour of the Briggs Initiative if it was about people who openly identified as gay themselves. I am against it if it also includes people just suspected of being so.
If he was assassinated, could it be because he staved off the Briggs Initiative and gave one man the opportunity to approach one boy whom his murderer had reasons of family to care about?
- uj Tammy Baldwin
- She agreed multiple causes were involved in Orlando. Obviously her priority was about freedom for gay nightclubs, not freedom for normal people to have guns.
Or, perhaps not quite:
The focus is on legislation introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California “that would allow the attorney general to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists, including those on watch lists, if there is ‘reasonable belief’ the weapons may be used to carry out an attack,” as USA Today reports.
However, as with being stamped as gay so also being stamped as a potential terrorist.
A mental patient who would use a gun in legitimate self defense would perhaps be barred from buying a gun? Or, perhaps that is nothing new ...?
So, if she would not disarm normal people seen as normal people, she would perhaps encourage more and more discriminations about who was seen as normal and not.
How about closing down gay nightclubs, as police tried in Stonewall?
- uij Wachowski sisters (?) have come out as transgender
- Does that mean they are really Wachowski brothers?
- uiij Ellen DeGeneres
- She and Obama (on same picture) are really an incitament for me to believe that LGBT community does recruit members.
My situation seems to indicate they have wanted to recruit me, for very long. God help them to failure if so, and to seeing it quickly!
So far, they have fooled psychiatrists or had accomplices who were so, the psychiatrists have fooled Catholic Church men about me. And these have fooled girls in their parishes I had fallen in love with.
- ix Barney Frank
- Wants openly homosexual people to be not discriminated.
Do they really want to suggest he had an ulterior motive?
- x James Baldwin
- Seems to have suggested it as openly as Jonas Gardell did in Sweden. Except Jonas Gardell is blond and blue eyed. And not working class.
Much as I like reading, they are not on my reading list!
- xj Bayard Rustin
- Proof Martin Luther King was sometimes in bad company. And I don't mean because he was black.
- xij Troy Perry
- Before looking at text. The "minister" on the picture wearing a rainbow stole reminds me of the fact that God's next action about sodomites won't be a world wide deluge. Doesn't mean there isn't coming any at all.
Looking, yes, Troy Perry is that "minister", he is styled "Rev". I am not likely to visit the Metropolitan Community Church, even apart from the fact that as a Catholic I can't.
- xiij Harry Hay
- "In order to earn for ourselves any place in the sun, we must work collectively ... for the first-class citizenship of minorities everywhere."
Sorry, but Geocentrics and Gays won't work collectively for each other's first-class citizenship.
Perhaps you are too much of a Commie to appreciate that "collectively" doesn't rule every human endaveour.
- xiu "Laurence Michael" Dillon
- No, Laura Maud Dillon.
Buddhist "monk" and author of two books about spirituality ... I don't feel like emulating her in any respect.
- xu Oscar Wilde
- God grant his repentance was valid! RIP!
- V Deborah Sampson
- If she was a tomboy, that doesn't make this hero lesbian. Even though it seems she had an episode.
In the article "20 LGBT People Who Changed the World" By Thom Senzee which I am not linking to, I am glad I didn't find Queen Christina, even if the person linking to the page mentioned her in connection with the people on this one.
"This is changing now and people can read all they want about Oscar Wilde's or Queen Christina of Sweden's homosexuality."
Except, she arguably was a tomboy but not lesbian.
I'll check with a friend who is historian, just to be sure, but as I recall, her evaluation (and she did some research, since Christina of Sweden was also a post-Reformation Swedish convert to Catholicism and a very famous one) was that lesbian she was not.
I see a little problem with the list. Maria Supplisson linked to.
It seems to have the intention of giving "great men of renown" as role models for budding homosexuals. Such an idea is at least one type or degree of recruitment of homosexuals.
If I hadn't had other ideas about who the great men of renown were (see Mahabharata, the heroes of which are very renowned in India, some even accepted as gods, at least Rama and Krishna, though they were men), the compilation of such a list as this would have given me an idea, if not of who, at least of what kind.
Most of them, including Sally Ride, I had no idea about anyway. They weren't great men of renown to me.
Most of those I did know, I don't think the writer presented very credible evidence for homosexuality.
Most of them I accepted as homosexuals were nobodies before I read to me and after I read became moral equivalents of cold coffee heated without milk. I spared my readers some of the worst. If you want to read the article in full, which I don't recommend, you are free to google it.
Two homosexuals I do like, despite this, Oscar Wilde (who I hope is where such things are no longer relevant, beyond Purgatory, in Heaven) and Gittings. Her fight against psychiatry was a good deed, if not totally without ulterior motives. Not because homosexuals are specially good, but because psychiatry is too bad even for them.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Second Lord's Day in Lent
Normalement, ça serait davantage normal de célébrer les 450 ans, du début du Concile de Trente en 1547 ou de sa fin en 1563.
En 2013 j'étais à Paris et je n'avais pas l'impression que la fin du Concile de Trente en 1563 intéressait tellement que plus tard (aussi à Paris), 2015 les 50 ans depuis la fin du Concile de Vatican II ou plutôt Concile Brigand de Vatican d'Eux. À moins que c'était en 2012, les 50 années depuis son début en 1962.
Bon, en 2017, c'est quand même 470 ans depuis le début du Concile de Trente. Et à Paris et en Angleterre, donc dans la plupart des États-Unis comme en tout Canada, exceptés juste les états qui s'appelaient Flórida, Téjas, Nueva Méjico, California la Alta, on a un jubilée des 740 ans depuis le syllabus de l'évêque Tempier.
Je viens déjà de donner un lien à propos ceci.
Les textes du Concile de Trente sont davantage accessibles sur internet que ceux de l'évêque parisien.
Parfois, quand même, un canon a besoin d'une annotation. Ce que j'ai fait il y a quelque temps:
New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
Aujourd'hui, j'ai eu occasion de m'y référer, puisque j'ai fait une observation sur ce que dit le "KatéKisme de l'église Katolique", KKK (bon, on abrège aussi CEC en français, mais ça serait d'orthographe correcte pour une œuvre très incorrect : KKK c'est l'abbréviation suédoise : "Katolska Kyrkans Katekes").
Je ne l'avais pas noté avant, puisque j'avais rejeté ce Bestellwerk de Ratzinger déjà les premier paragraphes, quand il dit qu'on ne peut pas avoir une preuve scientifique de l'existence de Dieu.
Aujourd'hui, oui, un hispanophone nous a quasi bravés, à nous catholiques, parce que nous ne comprenons rien dans la Bible si nous ne sommes pas pape ou évêque, paraît-il.
Or, il avait très mal compris Trente, et il avait encore assez mal compris même l'erreur exact en §85 de KKK:
HGL's F.B. writings : Magisterio de Todo Tiempo o Magisterio Vivo?
I saw a little passage on CMI, which seemed to suggest that, including a Bible quote which late Westerners are perhaps not the best equipped to understand.
- Gary Bates
- Now, the point of this article is not to say that these ideas are in themselves necessarily right or wrong. Some might actually be very good at initially meeting people’s needs, or overcoming the perceptions of old-fashioned stuffy churches, and thus, be relatively successful at getting heads in the door. But one often finds that if this becomes the ‘main’ focus of the church, their teaching ministry tends to lose emphasis. For example, many churches (whether conservative or charismatic) have huge choirs or a contemporary band with correspondingly many musical items. This reduces the usual teaching or sermon time—meaning that the focus is not on teaching.
The reality is that many large churches, in particular, suffer a high exodus rate and many leaders have honestly told me the struggle to keep their youth once they start college/university. That is, there is an ongoing turnover. An entertainment-driven focus can obviously help people to feel good about coming to church. It can be fun and give them a bit of a ‘spiritual high’, but we all know that such highs don’t last. Once it becomes the norm, the tendency is to move on to somewhere else to try and experience the next ‘high’. In fact, the Bible has warnings about following the heart too closely. Jeremiah 17:9–10 says:
- “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways … ”,
In context, Gary Bates is suggesting that Jeremiah is describing emotion as deceitful.
But Jeremiah does not say "emotions", he says "the heart".
This is in Biblical language a wider concept than emotions - just as emotions is a wider concept than passions, if anyone should cite St Thomas Aquinas against "giving emotions free reins". No, one should not give passions free reins, but they are not the whole substance of emotion, this latter also includes the reason and will which is reining them back from certain things.
And reason in St Thomas is not what 19th C. describes as "cold reason" or "sober reasoning" either.
Certainly, a syllogism should be unclouded by any passion of individual love or hatred or anger which sways the judgement on the truth of premisses.
This is especially true about history, where partisan moods are likely actually to achieve the swaying of good judgement, from time to time, which is why Thukydides or if it was Herodotus used a phrase which I think it was Tacitus who translated as "sine ira et studio". Without being angry at Nero or rooting for Agricola ... not sure if he achieved that.
It should not be "unclouded by emotion" as if the premisses or methodology were likeliest to be truest and surest which have the least emotional appeal.
Mathematics should not be shunned, even if they have little emotional appeal to many, but prior to mathematics, there is a judgement on what one is to count about.
After being displaced as temporary teacher of Swedish and German at a school for 7 to 9th graders, I was given hours in maths.
One student (a good young man, but not very apt for studies, and I love having participated in giving him hours off from schoolwork and to be spent as apprentice cook, hope he is a chef now) had failed to get the answer right on a problem involving the area to be painted on a rectangular door with a round window. I suppose he simply didn't like the idea of counting that, since in common life, he would not need to, he would have so much paint to start with and if anything was left after the door was painted, he would save it for next task.
Or he could have been tired. Not for me to figure him out, that is for God and for his wife (hope he's married now). I am suddenly afraid I even cofused two different students, one who went chef, one who was in that class, but I don't think so, even if it is 20 years ago. Well, perhaps doesn't matter. I am not teacher there anymore.
Anyway, he got the answer wrong : he asked, I looked at his work, and saw the problem.
Say the door was 7 ft 6 in by 4 ft 8 in. Say the window had a radius of 4 in.
(7 ft 6 in * 4 ft 8 in * π) - (4 in * 4 in).
What is wrong here?
He has calculated first the area of an elliptic object with narrower width 9 ft 4 in and wider width 15 ft. Then he has deducted from that the area of a tiny square, 3.14 to 3.15 times smaller than the round window should be.
What he should have done was of course:
(7 ft 6 in * 4 ft 8 in) - (4 in * 4 in * π).
I don't think it is very emotionally exhilarating to figure that out in the first place, but there is some emotional high in pointing out what he had been calculating.
Does this emotional high mean I am likely in the least to be wrong in saying that the "* π" belongs to the round and not to the rectangular simpler area, before he makes a complex one by deducting one from other?
Of course not.
Well, I may get a much higher kick out of pointing out the intellectual errors of Heliocentrics and Darwinists than of pointing out his. There may even be an obvious reason for this, those things being proned by people making a living out of proning these things, while he is certainly not making a living out of painting elliptic giant doors 15 ft by 9 ft 4 in on occasion with very small square windows of 4 in * 4 in. And if on occasion he does gain sth from painting a door 7 ft 6 in by 4 ft 8 in with a round window 8 in across, he probably doesn't need to calculate the amount of paint in advance, since he can save what is left in the tin for next time, which in that area is probably soon.
Now, that I am getting this emotional high from proving "learned men" or men who should have been learned wrong, does not prove I am reasoning wrong about the matters on which I think them wrong.
Nor is that the case for the fact that I prefer reasoning before calculating rather than accept the reason behind someone else's calculation just because he calculated right : he could have reasoned wrong, and calculated on the wrong things, as calculating the wrong type of door surface.
Nor does the fact that the conclusions I come to are more exhilarating than materialism. I am not sure which materialist, it could have been Hume, said that in order to support his philosophy he had to cease thinking about it and play backgammon instead. C. S. Lewis made a remark about philosophies which are so terrible they can only be supported by increasing doses of backgammon ...
The intellectual appeal of heartlessness in science "not letting emotion get in the way" is a false one.
Because, what the 19th C. would have called a heartless man, Jeremiah would have called a man whose heart is currently being actively deceitful, not just generally and habitually so. And in Jeremiah, "heart" includes the kind of calculations even in pure mathematics which you believe in.
Lest I be deceitful about credits, here is the article by Gary Bates:
When the emotions are gone, what’s left?
Engaging the mind as well as the heart is vital
By Gary Bates | Published: 16 March 2017
As I just explained, Jeremiah is using heart and mind as synonyms, and not as the antonyms Gary is used to from modern culture.
The actual point of the article is more about another matter, on which I will be shorter. Evangelicals have not quite understood "thirty-fold, sixty-fold, hundred-fold fruit" of the "good soil". To Catholics "thirty-fold" means married and using marriage in a Christian way. Sixty-fold means widowhood (St Thomas shows a typological reason why this number should have been chosen, in Beda's hand one finger is oppressing another in the sign for sixty, and widowhood is oppressive). Hundredfold means virginity. This latter part is probably the most unwelcome one to Evangelicals.
As a result, their way is that all should be married, but all should have as un-fun lives as widows (there may be a security related reason for saying they are right if not in general at least perhaps about last century), no wine, no secular music, hospitality is allowed, but who sneaks off with whom is supervised, the marriages are as supervised with them as the priesthoods with us Catholics.
And, as a result, Evangelical life is more like signing up for, if not being a monk, at least being a Franciscan Tertiary, than simply signing up for being a Catholic. It puts tough pressure on the will, and a will that does not get sufficient emotional support will probably break.
He is right that the mind should be armed against heresies like Old Age and Evolution, he would have been right if adding against Heliocentrism as well, because it gives a highway to the distant starlight problem, but he might do well to consider what the exact demands are Evangelical "Churches" puts on Evangelical Christians and ask if this is only what Christ actually demands of every Christian. I think not, that is why I rejected Evangelicalism even as an option at age 14.
One of the reasons this is so is perhaps the misreading about "heart"="emotion" and "emotional highs"="deceitful heart".
Without the Rosary, I have survived as a believing Catholic, but hardly as having charity toward God and Neighbour or Forgiving my Debtors.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Second Lord's Day of Lent
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
À Paris, ça fait 740 ans depuis le syllabus de l'évêque de Paris, Étienne II Tempier.
Tard en 1276, puisque avant le 25 mars (dans ce système nous serions encore 2016), ou tôt en 1277 (selon notre système).
Le dimanche de Laetare.
Je viens de faire il y a quelques ans, une version annoté, d'après une version d'Angleterre sur les propositions qui sont "interdits à Paris et en Angleterre" (c'est à dire dans tous les diocèses d'Angleterre, d'après la condamnation à Paris des mêmes thèses, ceci bsr à l'époque quand Angleterre était catholique).
Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
Et 470 ans depuis le Concile de Trente./HGL
New blog on the kid : A Yogi was Very Sure of "Science" · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Two Quorans answering "What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?" (quora, obviously) · New blog on the kid : An Unpleasant Debate with a Scandinavian · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Other Answers, Where I do Arguing on Matters Not Persons, Crossing words with Iñaki Rodriguez under Two Answers
- What is the best answer to someone who says the universe is only 6,000 years old?
- Vidar Øierås
- Written Mon
- You can tell them that Moses and his followers was not astronomers and that they was wrong and modern science is right.
However, some people believe in things that is obviously incorrect. You can’t change them. Because, ignorant people has throug their childhood learned and accepted incorrect information without questioning any obvious mismach between reality and what they have learned.
Such people are mainly called religious or crackpots. Religion and common sense is sometimes far, far apart.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You can tell them that Moses and his followers was not astronomers and that they was wrong and modern science is right."
Moses was probably as good at planar astronomy as any Egyptian nobility.
If he wasn't, that does not change God spoke to him.
The rest of your diatribe reminds me that your country's school system produced one Breivik's disrespect of Fundies and thereby exaggerated his appraisal of disadvantages with having Pakistanis in your country (one of them was pulled out of your country some time ago by his father and then killed the mother in law of a shrink).
The rest of your diatribe in other words reminds me to be thankful neither to be in Sweden nor with "søte bror".
- Vidar Øierås
- God spoke to him? How do you know that?
Reading the Bible doesn’t enlighten our knowledge about the age of the universe.
God is a man made idea that has for thousands of years been used to control primitive people. It has been learned through generations. And more people has been killed in the name of God than any other reason.
If the bible told you that 1+1=3 because God told us so, would you deny that 1+1=2?
The universe is older than 6000 years. The Bible is wrong, science is right.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "God spoke to him? How do you know that?"
- 1) He said so, Israelites heard him;
- 2) If he said so, he was lying, or delusional or speaking the exact truth;
- 3) If he had been lying or delusional, God would not have made miracles for him;
- 4) God did make miracles for him, all the way from the Burning Bush to the last piece of mannah;
- 5) Therefore it is true and a known truth (reasonably) that God spoke to Moses.
"Reading the Bible doesn’t enlighten our knowledge about the age of the universe."
It doesn't enlighten Breivik’s or yours, but that is because you are not the most reasonable men in the world.
Both of you look like bad "Norge-vitsar", he has more dignity as having been unduly mistreated in prison.
Note, if he had been executed, as death penalty, that would not have been undue mistreatment, but isolating him simply to break him down is undue mistreatment.
"God is a man made idea"
If mind is prior to matter, how does that not spell out "God is"?
If matter is prior to mind, how can mind produce ideas like "God"?
"that has for thousands of years been used to control primitive people."
Apart from the fact that primitive people are sth you look down on, what exactly does the phrase even mean?
"It has been learned through generations."
Yes, like A, B, C, like 2+2=4, like water is wet, grass is green, heaven is blue ....
"And more people has been killed in the name of God than any other reason."
You forgot that Marxism and other versions of evolutionism (National Socialism was arguably more pantheist than strictly atheist) has killed more in a century than men have killed in previous five or ten centuries put together.
"If the bible told you that 1+1=3 because God told us so, would you deny that 1+1=2?"
If the Bible told anyone 1+1=3 (apart from fertility, man plus woman equalling three in the first pregnancy and similar), it would not be the Bible.
"The universe is older than 6000 years. The Bible is wrong, science is right."
You seem to believe that if I believe the Bible I have no mind and no sense of believing anything except what I am told, and so telling me that sufficient many times might get me around to evolutionism. No, I am not that and it will not and your manners are odious.
- 1) He said so, Israelites heard him;
- Vidar Øierås
- Just have in mind that the Bible was written by humans. Humans makes mistakes all the time, and still people believe in them. If God still exist, he would have no problem making us 100% sure he is present outside our own imagination.
Hearing voices is a diagnosis. It’s called schizophrenia.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Just have in mind that the Bible was written by humans."
Physically written, yes.
Sometimes however dictated by God (as with Moses part time, as with St John on Patmos) or given by automatic writing (as with St John's Gospel).
"Humans makes mistakes all the time, and still people believe in them."
Humans making mistake include scientists. If they made mistakes "all the time, everyone, everywhere" we would have no reason to believe scientists either.
If "all the time" either is "someone some place" or exaggerated, that is no argument the Bible would be mistaken.
"If God still exist, he would have no problem making us 100% sure he is present outside our own imagination."
He won't make it troublesome at all on Doomsday.
And He didn't make it troublesome to Israelites witnessing Moses' miracles in the thousands.
He didn't make it troublesome to Christians, those witnessing St John's miracles either.
"Hearing voices is a diagnosis. It’s called schizophrenia."
If Moses or St John had been delusional, God would not have validated their claims to other people in their presence by miracles worked for them.
I don't believe the diagnosis either.
Some cases of "hearing voices" involve no actual hearing of sound where no sound is there physically, but involve emotional relevance of imagination to someone answering loud.
That is not delusion, it is a neurosis of solitude, as with Benn Gunn. A diagnosis of schizophrenia would usually make solitude worse and thereby turn on a vicious circle socially.
Some when a person is really and truly convinced of having someone speak to them is God, other times the Devil. Too bad for them if the Devil can have shrinks of the modern type to punish such a man for even being honest.
And some cases are fever.
There is really no need to posit a diagnosis like schizophrenia, but it keeps money rolling in from tax payers to medical institutions, and pharmaceutic companies.
Have Women at Work Lowered Men's Wages, or Men's Relatively Lowered Wages Driven Women To Work? (quora)
It could be both:
- How could 1950s families afford to have only a working father, but a stay-at-home mother?
- Dakota White, B.S. Psychology & Biochemistry, Southern Illinois University Carbondale (2016)
- Written Mar 5
- How could 1950s families afford to have only a working father, but a stay-at-home mother?
- Robert Horvick, Principal Engineer at MaxPoint Interactive (2015-present)
- Written Mon
- Valid points
- Dakota White
- First off, I’ll compare the differences between minimum wage then and now. In 1950, the average income per year was $3,210. Since the minimum wage was $0.75 an hour (on January 25, 1950), people working the minimum wage the average number of hours a week (43) made $1,677 a year. So, by working the average number of hours and making the federal minimum wage, you could make 52% of the average wage. In 1950, The estimated price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. was $1,510, less than what minimum wage workers made a year. In 1950, a new house cost $8,450. So, if you never spent a penny of the money you earned, it would take roughly 5 years at the federal minimum wage to save the amount equal to that of a new house.
In 2015, the average income per year was $55,775. Since the minimum wage in 2015 was $7.25 an hour, people working the minimum wage the average number of hours a week (34) made $12,818 a year. So, by working the average number of hours and making the federal minimum wage, you could make 23% of the average wage. The estimated price of a new car sold in the U.S. in 2015 was $33,560, roughly 3 times the amount made by federal minimum wage workers in a year. The average sale price for a new house in January 2016 was $365,600. So, if you never spent a penny of the money you earned, it would take 29 years at the federal minimum wage to save the amount equal to that of a new house. Do those seem equal to you?
Secondly, in the 1950s, productivity meant more money went into workers pockets. Here are two graphics from the Economic Policy Institute.
[Graphs on his post. As well as continuation.]
- Valid points
- Robert Horvick
- If the cost of housing and education is so much higher relative to income, then isn’t the problem that pay is too low?
Well sure - making more would be great, right? But that doesn’t address the other side of the problem.
Today we own 2 cars instead of one. Our houses are twice as large, education cost substantially more and more than twice as many people are paying for it.
Our spending growth has outpaced our income and instead of slowing down, we look back on the past with nostalgia and wish things were like they used to be.
Except we don’t actually want to live like we did in 1950.
We don’t want to have only one car. We don’t want to live in a smaller home. We don’t want to tell our children that we won’t take on debt for their education. We want a 2017 lifestyle on a 1950 budget.
It doesn’t work that way.
[Some previous explanations to his post.]
- What Both Miss
- Feminism has driven women into the workplace.
This means that some women have driven others into the workplace too.
This also means they have been driven to university studies and families have been driven to having two cars.
This also means they have been driven out of homes where they were experts of thrift.
I think a certain "Friend" was right when she share the meme "women at work, lowering men's wages since" (whatever the year, but I think it was 1950).
Losers have been people on minimum wage. Winners have been shareholders.
And women in typical modern high status female works, often financed by the state.
- A point
- "This video covers the income inequality that really got rolling in the 1976." (dixit Dakota White)
This Is The Income Inequality Video CEOs Don’t Want Americans To See
The Young Turks
1976 was the year when my grandpa died. He was a syndicalist.
Too bad that The Young Turks are also promoting atheism, but that is not on this video./HGL