Sin respuesta

Desde yo al Gobierno de Méjico y al eso de Chiapas

date : 22/08/13 à 10h00

objet : Libertad por el cura Manuel Pérez Gómez, párroco de Chenalhó

Ya las matanzas de curas en tiempos de represión de los Cristeros fue odiosa, también las matanzas de curas en Escocia en la Reforma.

Que no siga hoy aún más!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Desde yo a una diócesis vecina

date : 22/08/13 à 16h07

objet : al propuesto del cura secuestrado por "evangelicos" en chiapas, al obispo

1) Hé escrito a autoridades Mexicanas de gobierno central y de Chiapas invocando que las matanzas de curas en la Reforma de Escocia y después la represión de los Cristeros fue cosa azca.

2) Sinembargo, visto que hay hoy ciertos puntos de visto "teológicas" antibíblicas, como él de Teilhard de Chardin o él de Georges Lemaître, me preocupo que quizás algunos de esos han provocado apostasías al protestantismo.

Exemplo histórico: Guido de Bres hizo la conclusión que sea antibíblica la Iglesia Católica por le hecho que al lado de libros de Erasmo, de Melanchthon y otros, fueron quemados también Biblias o partidas de la Biblias en Flamenco y Francés. A esta época, la Inquisición Española hizo un poco más tarde Biblias en traducciones no heréticas. Peró Guido ya apostasió y más tarde fue pendido a muerte como hereje tras ser condenado por la Inquisición.

Hoy, no hay Inquisición, hay el pocadumbre de católicos que almenaza la Iglesia con la última persecución. Hay que hacer dos cosas:

• mostrar que el culto de imagenes y de santos es bíblico, como defendido por Nicea II y por Trento (y entre ortodoxos por Yaci y por Jerusalén)
  
  
• mostrar que el creacionismo y inerrantismo hasta mismo geocentrismo no son ni serán condenados como herejías por la Iglesia.

Yo quedo católico, peró no seguro que sea Francisco en Roma el papa y aún menos que Andrés Vingt-Trois sea el obispo de París.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(En otro frente de batallas: al matrimonio gay, sí, tenemos de ser contra el pseudomatrimonio entre hombre y hombre [o] entre mujer y mujer, peró de eso no resulta que personas homosexuales - psiquicamente - sean excluidos del matrimonio: hay hombres quienes pués una juventud amorosa de otros hombres son llegados al matrimonio con una mujer, como Josh Weed.

Cosa más personal: que sea por el celibado de sacerdotes, bueno, peró no me prenda por un monje, yo no busco el sacerdocio, yo busco el matrimonio, soy escritor, no pastor y tampoco profeta. Hay quienes aquí me consideran como si no tuve el derecho de casarme o de observar una chica en intención de posiblamente casarme.)

With Bubbaman about "private" discussion on common subjects

Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 17/09/13

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2013/09/three-or-ten-dimensions-with-bubbaman.html

If there is anything you like to add, feel free to do so./HGL

Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl, 20/09/13

hey dude, i am all for discussion, i think its fantastic. But i would appreciate if you didn't publicly make it available, this was a private conversation between two people, not communal. Please take it down, i don't consent to publishing of my text involved in the conversation.

Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 21/09/13

sue me

we spoke of no personal secrets, only of our positions about science and your name is not on my blog, only your username

sue me or live with it

This is on the blog too

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235, 21/IX/2013

Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Bubbaman about "private" discussion on common subjects
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/09/with-bubbaman-about-private-discussion.html

It is funny how you, a scientist, react to your science being discussed in the open.

A bit like as if you enjoy the discussion as long as you think you are winning, when you see you are not, then you give up, but take a deep breath and sigh "after all it was just in private" ... which ones of your arguments is it that you do not want to be known to the public who are interested in science?

Or is it only their confrontation with mine, to which I have the right to consent or otherwise?

Oh, by the way, this is going to the blog too soon, lack of response will show.

So will your response.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Re:Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 21/IX/2013

thank you, for your consideration.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Our discussion is now on my blog

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 21/IX/2013

You are welcome.

Debate (in short) with John Matusiak, priest of the Orthodox Church of America, on the Nature of Pagan Deities that were Supposedly Men, on Relative Reliability of Pagan Stories (except where contradicting the faith)

date : 20/09/13 à 14h20

objet : Are Krishna and Buddha Devils or Bad Men?

In Hindoo mythological theology or pseudotheology, the closest you come to the Devil showing himself as bad as he is to his worshippers would be the couple Shiva and Kali (Kali means Hell, btw). All three of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, but especially Shiva - as with Apollo (I think the tragedies where peoples' lives are ruined by his predictions or orders were preserved by the Church as a black book of accusations proving Paganism diabolic - and Apollyon is a genuine Pagan title of that "divinity" who is also called "lord of flies" and "lord of rats").

However, some deities which are the Devil insofar as wrongly worshipped, i e the worship given them is really given the Devil, are also other things. The Sun may be an angel or a piece of matter, but either way it is not the same person as who takes the worship of the Sun Worshippers.

And some Pagan Deities have had a life on earth.

I have heard of visions of Buddha and Muhammed in Hell, I was wondering if I might hear of Odin and Krishna in Hell too, seen by Asatrú and Hindoos converting. These had a carreer on Earth before going, supposedly, to Asgard or the Hindoo Heaven.

It seems some Hindoos have been upset by the words of one Archbishop Nikon about Krishna. I am not defending Hindooism, but I think Krishna might have been just a bad man before the flood (probably named "the black one" in Hebrew rather than Sanskrit, since Hebrew was the pre-Babel tongue) before Satan used the memory of him to seduce to idolatry. As with Caesar, Augustus, and a few other who were divinised.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 20/09/13 à 14h34

Dear Hans-Georg,

Thank you for your enquiry.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the perfect, final and complete revelation of God to mankind and in Whom we find the very Source of our salvation and eternal life as the only "Way, Truth, and Life" and the "Light of the world," reveals nothing concerning this, and there is nothing in the received Tradition that indicates anything of the sort concerning that about which you write.

At best, and without appearing to be flippant, we can say in this regard that that about which you write "may be, or may not be," but in any instance, it is of no consequence for those rooted in the Gospel and focused on Jesus Christ while anticipating the "life of the world to come" when He returns "to judge the living and the dead," at which time all will be revealed to us.

These matters are highly speculative; the Church does not deal in speculation but, rather, revelation alone.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 14h43

The Church as such is one thing.

Theologians are another thing. St Augustine assumed without reserve the historicity of Pagan stories. [Or rather without reserve insofar as they are human testimony.]

Can I then assume I am under no suspicion of being a syncretist because I assume the historicity of Arjuna's charioteer or Gylfi's deceiver, in their capacities of humans?

Sincerely,
Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 20/09/13 à 14h49

Dear Hans-Georg,

The Church maintains the fullness of truth -- that is, it focuses on the received Tradition, which is that which the People of God have believed at all times, throughout its 2000 year history, and in all places.

Individual members of the Church, including Augustine, may hold their own speculative, personal theological opinions. But these are not a part of the received Tradition, nor do they represent that which has been revealed by Jesus Christ since they, by nature, are "personal" and "speculative." Ultimately, theologians "speak about God" in definitive terms as He has revealed Himself to us. As such, their "function," so to speak, is to share that which Christ has revealed to His Church, His People.

With regard to whether you are a syncretist, it is impossible for me to say. I can say that, while one may hold such a personal opinion, one must also acknowledge that it is not the teaching of the Church nor an aspect of the received Tradition.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 15h29

I certainly do not blaim St Ansgar for heresy when/if he refused to acknowledge the historicity of Odin, unlike (if so) later St Olaf, who reckoned him a dead ancestor (Satan appeared to him in the shape of Odin one night, the next day he told his bishop: "Now I know Odin is dead, he is spooking").

Nor do I blame St Francis Xavier for reckoning there was no historic Buddha - the Japanese accounts he heard of him had added 9000 years of diverse incarnations before Siddharta.

While the historic existence of these cannot be even as dogmatic as the historic existence of an other idol, Caesar Augustus, who is in the Gospel, and a second one, Tiberius, who is also there, I nevertheless hold St Augustine was not merely expressing a personal opinion about the non-idolised Priam and Hecuba, and that other Church Father who called Hercules "not a god, but a strong mortal", I rather hold this was up to recent times (after Voltaire and Hume and Kant ruined European educations) the usual and most straightforward way to deal with Pagan lore - accepting as historic (in best probability, without dogmatic certainty) what was not in contradiction with the Faith.

Would you consider that syncretistic?

date : 20/09/13 à 15h38

Perhaps.

date : 20/09/13 à 15h58

If so why?

Would you consider St Jerome syncretistic for believing there was a faun around when St Anthony visited St Paul the First Hermit? And possibly a Centaur too?

date : 20/09/13 à 16h04

Dear Hang-Georg,

The purpose of our Question and Answer service, as indicated on our web site, is to answer questions about Orthodox Christianity. As such, engaging in lengthy on-line dialogues is beyond our capacity.

I answered your question according to the Orthodox Christian perspective.

All I can add is the following:

If one attempts to incorporate his or her personal opinions into the received Tradition of the Church, as if one's personal opinions are on part with the received Tradition and divine Revelation, then indeed one engages in syncretism. Just because one or two or three saints or Holy Fathers holds a particular opinion, it does not mean that those opinions are reflected in the Church's official teachings.

Early on, I explained that that about which you enquired is not a part of divine Revelation, nor the received Tradition.

In Christ,
Father John Matusiak, OCA Q&As

date : 20/09/13 à 16h12

OK, I have heard a Bishop say that Evolution cannot be denied, that Creationists are bliding themselves to evidence.

He was seemingly speaking for his dioecese, of your jurisdictions.

Was he engaging in a merely personal opinion, or was he putting his merely personal opinion on par with Tradition and Official Doctrine of the Church and thereby engaging in Syncretism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What is at stake?

Of course, the answer he gave is correct insofar as the Church can never vouch for merely human histories - by Homer or by more recent writers - with the same assurance as for the Gospels. That the Church as such is not vouching for any particular story at all - except those that are part of the Church in its origin or in its historic detail.

It is also even to the point if it comes to "for him who is rooted in the Gospel" - but I have so much to do with people who are not. I am not trying to bolster my Faith against doubts of mine own, I am defending it against doubts brought up by non-believers.

My problem is when he seems to say that unless I have some kind of serious doubt of any dates in Greek history, I am thereby somehow incorporating it into the Depositum Fidei, which I am not. I have for that matter no serious doubt I was born in 1968 AD, but I am not incorporating that into the Depositum Fidei either. I have no serious doubt about either general reliability of collective memory - except when it is unrealiable for a reason than about the Pythagorean Theoreme, which I am not either doubting or putting on par with Divine Tradition either.

Time after time I have been asked or seen others asked things like "if you don't believe Greek Mythology or Hindoo Mythology or Roman or Nordic or Celtic Mythology or Egyptian or Babylonic Mythology, why do you think Hebrew Mythology in Genesis is any better?"

When it comes to contradictory accounts of same or correspoding events - Flood, Creation, Eternity of the One God or Births of Several Gods - one party in the quarrel must at least be wrong.

But no more than where he is contradicting what is right - not where he is actually confirming it (like reality of Flood being vouched for, apart from the Faith, by the multitude of Pagan flood myths beside the Hebrew one, which is not to be expected if the Hebrew story were merely an aberration of the Human mind). There he need not be wrong.

Now, the rest of this is less material to the faith, and as I explained, I do not consider St Francis Xavier a Heretic for denying the historical reality of Buddha as a human person, nor those as heretics who dispute Odin reigned at Upsala. And obviously not those who deny Arjuna had a charioteer named Krishna. But if it is not exactly indispensable to the Faith, it may still be relevant to the argument.

For once the Atheist enquirer asks how far I will take believing Pagans on the Flood, and other historic realities before the relevant writer lived, I will answer "pretty far." Without concessions to Pagan theologies. Ulysses came back to his wife, sure, no problem. He blinded a one-eyed giant on the way, ok, maybe so, it could be bragging, but I cannot deny the possibility on principle. It is when we get to the debate between Athena and her father Zeus that I say : hold it, those are not the guys who decide human destinies. That said, Homer at least is no Calvinist, he does not deny freewill nor refuse responsibility to sinners in that debate put into the mouths of things that are not, the mouths of deities originally imagined by vain men.

A similar debate did take place and somehow get known to men (probably either revealed to Moses or to the person directly concerned), about another man who could be called πολυτλας or "suffering much" - Job. Only, the debate between God and Satan was before his sufferings, not when God decided to end them.

And if Agamemnon once tried to pray that the Sun stop still in the sky until he had completely routed the Trojans, he might have gotten the idea of Joshua - even if Homer does not mention him and may not even have known him. But the prayer of Agamemnon could not have been heard, since he was vengeful for merely political reasons or nearly so (nominally the war could have been about the sanctity of marriage) and since he directed it to false gods whom the sun does not obey. Whereas Joshua - the name means Jesus and the Greek Bible actually calls him Jesus Nave - served the true Lord. Whom the Sun dutifully obeys, when shining on the good and on the wicked.

But this will not make me seriously doubt that Ulysses did come home, through Divine Providence, or that Agamemnon did try a prayer that failed him.

Still less will the failures of Pagan theology make me think the Holy Bible's stories similar to Pagan ones are just imagined stuff without factual reality or with a free and non-committing relation to it.

Now, the priest from OCA, John Matusiak, did call out against agreeing too heartily with what he considered just two or three Church Fathers (as if all the rest were supposed to be firmly opposed to all truth in any Pagan story), but Lazar Puhalo agrees with no Church Father at all when he calls Young Earth Creationism a model of reality that is blind to evidence. All Church Fathers who said anything about the subject were Young Earth Creationists.

Another thing that is at stake is this: I have defended the Gospels' reliability by the fact that the Church vouches for these being from Her own origin. But this brings up how communities know their origins. By tradition.

In this context - as far as God's truth allows - I will rather say Athenians recalled Cecrops with fairly correct descriptions than say it is exceptional for a community to know its origin. And though I neither believe Romulus and Remus were lifted to heaven after dying nor that they were born to a god named Mars, I will believe the rest of it pretty closely to how Livy tells it, except where as a Christian I have a particular reason to think the old Romans were mistaken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St Matthew
Ember Friday
20-IX-2013

Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman

Correspondence started with video comments:

Trin80ty : Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross (Part 1, disc 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10 space time dimensions ...

I hold with good old St Augustine that there are three dimensions and they are spatial. Time has no different dimensions, but three parts: present, surrounded by past and future.

Now, supposing there were such a thing as space time and more than three dimensions, if space is three of them, time a fourth, what are the other six supposed to be?

bubbaman235

dimensions in which the first four dimensions operate and interact. If you try to enact more, the collapse into the first ten dimensions.

in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

(I was blocked from posting on the videos of Trin80ty):

Oh ... the three dimensions of space need other dimensions to interact?

And what do you mean by a dimension operating?

Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

I might add i'm only describing them as interacting as means of description, not that they are entities or anything. This is my description of them in lamens terms, describing them in great detail would take some time lol the three dimensions that we perceive are the first three, the dimensions we can view, and can observe. The fourth is time, in which the first three operate. The fifth and sixth dimensions have to deal with the future, and how the first four dimensions interact with each other to create possible outcome of those events. The fifth and sixth dimensions deal with the branching of each of these possibilities from the combinations of the first five dimensions, in an even higher space of existence in which these possible outcomes can become reality if given variables become actual. The dimensions 7 through 10 deal with universes. It basically states that there are several universes that each have their own progressions of dimensional reality and possible outcomes. The tenth and final dimension is actually the sum of all universes and all their possible outcomes. Anything higher than the tenth will cause it to collapse back into the first ten dimensions because the tenth dimension combines everything into a universal cover as it were. With me so far?

Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 25/VIII/2013

Well, yes.

Problem one: time is not at right angles with the three dimensions of space, so it is not a dimension.

Problem two: what acts in time is substance, material or spiritual, not the three dimensions that hold material substance.

Problem three: the future and the possible are not extra dimensions.

Problem four: there is no clear indication of a multiverse.

Thus, dimensions 4 to 10 go and we are left with three.

Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 25/VIII/2013

i think your misunderstanding. time is, as you put it, at right angles with physical things. As we perceive it, objects can only be contained with a time dimension, and thusly can only exist with a time dimension. It may be perceived else where at different intervals or at different rates, but if doesn't take away the fact of it's necessity in dimensional space time. Your second problem is stating that things that fall within the first three dimensions are not physical, which they are. You can't have a three dimensional object without a time dimension, and you can't express a time dimension without a three dimensional object within to verify it's appearance as a dimension. I don't know where you got spiritual, there isn't any proof of that lol Your third problem is just wrong, future events and the correlating possible events are dimensions of space time. They are apart from time as we perceive it because it isn't linear, yet still present, and thusly create their own presence as dimensions of space time along side time and the first three dimensions. And your fourth, it is counter intuitive. when i say that the tenth dimension is a blanket statement, and thusly covers everything, i saying that there is the possibility of a multiverse which would reside within the first nine, and it simply conjectures as to the possibility.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 26/VIII/2013

It is actually your starting point of time being "at right angles" with physical things which is the first counterintuitive point, the second being your denial of spiritual things despite the fact that you think.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 26/VIII/2013

you can't deny that time is co-reliant with the first three dimensions, if you don't think so then your irrational. My denial of things spiritual is because there isn't any proof for the claim, its a completely different argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 27/VIII/2013

I was not speaking about co-reliant.

I was speaking about "at right angles".

A lump of matter cannot think, that is the very simplest proof for spirit, that you are thinking.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 27/VIII/2013

no, physical neuronic activity in the physical brain is proof that i think, nothing spiritual. This lump of matter thinks, and it is purly physical. I still don't understand what you mean by right angles, please clarify.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

there is nothing to actually prove that the physic neuronic activity is identic with the thoughts and there is lots - once you think about thought instead of imagining you study it by studying the brain - to disprove it.

Time is not at an 90° with [any of the three] dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

um, no? lol There has been thousands of studies done on the brain which have fine tuned the fact. There is an entire science field dedicated to the study, it's called neurology. certain thought processes are active when certain parts of the brain becoming stimulated. The neuro-receptors within each neuron receive a variety of chemical molecular compounds which cause this thing that we perceive to be a consciousness to exist. Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous. You still are not explaining you thought on right angles in relation to time as well. Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd. They simply are co-reliant to each other to exist, or rather to have a perceived existence.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 28/VIII/2013

"Our cognitive process can be completely explained though science, making your claim of a mind or spirit or whatever, ridiculous."

Does not follow from any fact of neurology, nor from all of them taken together.

Whether a certain part of the brain is active at a certain thought because the activity is that thought or because it accompanies that thought cannot be deduced from the activity as studied.

Your Theory of Knowledge is faulty.

"Time is not a physical entity, but rather an aspect that physical entities posses that grant them a physical nature, you can't state that time somehow has an angle in relation to physical objects, that would be absurd."

I was speaking of right angles to the other dimensions - the three real DIMENSIONS. As you admit, it is absurd to claim it has right angles to them, so it is absurd to correlate time to them as another dimension like them.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 28/VIII/2013

I am not the one saying they are at right angles of each other. they correlate to each other because they are reliant on each other to exist. Beside the point, correlation doesn't equal right angles, i am not making that claim, your using a straw man argument. also, what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around. It would be like me saying an earth quake occurs because a town was demolished. The effect is the physical neurological stimuli, and the effect is what we perceive as thought. You can't have mental cognitive thought without the stimuli. I think you might have a slightly miscued idea of the scientific process if your conclusion is the mind and not the brains neuronic activity.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 30/VIII/2013

"correlation doesn't equal right angles,"

My point is that dimension does equal right angles. Which is why space-time is at best a misnomer.

Space contains substance (with action), time contains action (of a substance). They measure different aspects of reality that correlate in action being attribute of substance.

Future and possibility do not correlate to space and time as these to each other (or as action and substance).

"what we perceive at thought accompanies the physical stimulus, not the other way around."

That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 30/VIII/2013

future, and possibilities still measure substance within space, and actions of substance, and since time is relative, it isn't any great feat to included them as dimensions of space-time.

"That is what we perceive at perception. I was speaking of thought." right, which is physical, not spiritual. What we perceive is physical, even at what we would consider thought. If you argue that fact, then you also can't claim that the first three dimensions exist, so it would be non-sensical to amend it to your argument.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 31/VIII/2013

1) Future as future does not measure substance or its actions.

A dimension like "how long" is not "not yet". However "not yet" is a direction within time.

2) If I perceive an apple, clearly the apple is physical and exists before I see it. If I realise that 2 and 2 always make four, there is nothing physical to the "always", and there is nothing to prove this realisation is only from physical processes in the brain. If that were so, that would discredit every thought that "two plus two is always four" but also every thought of the - supposedly - fact itself or any other proven fact or any other proof.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 1/IX/2013

lets focus on one issue at a time, we can get to cognitive interpretation after our discussion with dimensions, is that ok?

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 1/IX/2013

I was ok with having first half on one and second half on other subject. And second half was not "cognitive interpretation", it was thought.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 2/IX/2013

cognitive interpretation is thought, i don't want to argue terminology lol so, basically, explain to me why you are denying that time and the proceeding dimensions do not exist.

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

I am not arguing that time does not exist.

I am arguing it is not a dimension, because it is not at right angles with the three dimensions that are at right angles with each other.

I am not arguing the future does not exist (unless you add "yet"), either.

I am arguing that it is a part of time. Thus not another dimension even if time were a dimension, which for said reason it is not.

I am not arguing there is no such thing as the merely possible unrealised.

I am arguing that as long as it is not anything more than just possible it is neither substance nor time nor space, and therefore no dimension (even if anything other than space and corporeal substances in it were dimensions).

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

i think what you are misinterpreting is when some says "dimension", they are not talking about an entity, or a separate thing. it's all the same state of being, and time, sub-sequent events, and possible sub-sequent events are aspects of the same entity of the three dimensional universe/multiverse/what ever you want to call it. Just because possible succeeding events, and future events haven't happened yet, or when they reach us they are the present, doesn't mean that they don't exist before the reach our perceived existence. Hyperspace is very vast and complex system, and to understand it, you have to be able to look at all aspects of the three-dimensional world besides the obvious.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 3/IX/2013

My dear, time and space are separate aspects of substance. Interconnected through substance but separate.

The three dimensions of space are very much not separate. Stating any one direction pair as first dimension is arbitrary. It could have been set any amount of degrees further here or there in two dimensions of the circle, in full globe.

Setting the second dimension 90° to first is less arbitrary. Only one circle is there for alternative settings of it, in relation to the first.

Only third dimension is invariably a function of first two, what angle it is set in.

So, three dimensions are three very interconnected aspects of space.

My point is that the other supposed dimensions do not interconnect with these three that way at all.

The past and future are not places in hyperspace. An object's dimension in time cannot swing over 90° into a space dimension and get replaced by a space dimension (unless God makes a miracle, but I think He would not do that).

Present, past and future are three parts of time, and are as Trinitarian as three dimensions of space.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 3/IX/2013

That is why it is called space-time, not separate space and time. don't be condescending. The first three dimensions are interconnected as we perceive them to be, as well as time, future events and possible events, they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions. However, i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another, but you cannot simply lump present, past and future by that logic and not call them a dimension.Also, your cop-out on how God can disregard space-time, because he is God, is ridiculous. It's like saying, here are the established rules of the physical universe, but i can amend them by saying there is a magic being who can manipulate them at will, thus making any claim i make valid, even though i have no proof of this being. It's nonsensical.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 4/IX/2013

First of all, God is the Creator of Space and of Time. He made every rule and decided in advanace every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to. You will hardly claim a Christian ought to talk AS an atheist or agnostic because he is talking TO one. I was not making a cop-out, I was merely guarding myself against saying too much, like stating anything contrary to my faith.

But second, I take exception to this:

"they are simply extensions of the postulates you are stating on the first three physical dimensions."

That is precisely what they are simply not.

"i agree that they cannot be replaced by one another"

Precisely, which up-down, front-back and left-right certainly can. I stand and my head is up. I lie down on my stomach or back and my head is front or back. I lie down on my side and it is left or right.

Objects turn their three dimensions within three-dimensional space. Turning can by some mathematicians be considered or - on my view - artificially constructed as "half-dimensions" (for turns of 45°) or any other part of a dimension for any other angle of turn.

Integrating time into that is simply not possible. I cannot turn my future into my back or my past into my front. I cannot have a plane of righ-left per past-future and turn my left side into my past and my future into my right side and my right side into my past and my past into my left. Unlike what is the matter with space.

Past - present - future are not exactly as the two directions of any dimension. The difference is that for one thing the "origo" is moving - on one view every instance of it from future into past and in another way the title itself from the past into the future. That is not parallelled in the dimensions of space. And for another thing, this means that time, unlike any dimension of space, has a single direction.

But this is a difference between time and space which added to the separateness (quite unlike the non-separateness of space dimensions) makes it non-sensic as in unnecessarily imprecise terminology to regard time and space as four dimensions.

Rather, they are two different categories around substance, and time has three parts, space three dimensions.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 4/IX/2013

What proof do you have that god is the Creator of Space and of Time? or that He made every rule and decided in advance every possible exception and for whom (Himself alone, Himself and angelic beings etc) the exceptions are accessible to? Also, i am not saying that past, present, and future can be interchangeable for each other, i don't understand why you can't understand that i am not saying that. I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence. when you say that there is a linear timeline for the physical universe, that is false.

Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant, hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time. it's not imprecise to say there is combination of space and time, it's universalizing and finding a more fluent way in which the universe works. We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately. We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 5/IX/2013

You seem not to get that I was not for the moment inviting a debate about God's existence.

I was informing you that according to any view that can be called theistic, God is above these things we are debating, and that includes my Christian view.

"universalising" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology.

Number line is a scary example, leading to "complex numbers" and calling pi a number when it is a size relation (or other magnitude relation).

"Declaring absolute knowledge relative to time, or anything for that matter, is ignorant"

I am declaring ordinary knowledge. The kind you might label as "naive" or "pre-scientific".

"hence why there is the other 7 dimensions of space-time."

Complete non sequitur. Me having no absolute knowledge of the kind of space and time I believe in from experience does not equal some other guy having an absolute knowledge or even relatively better knowledge for the opposite.

"I am saying that without time relative to an object's position in space, that object will not have existence."

Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?

Either of which is of coruse false for the eternal being who created time.

But in space a point cannot exist in itself. A point is a limit between existing extensions of a line, which is a limit between existing extensions of a surface, which is a limit between existing extensions of a volume.

In time, the present - which is precisely punctual - is all that really totally exists. The future only exists potentially so far, the past only in traces.

Time and space reverse the extension / point relation when it comes to what exists.

" We don't look at a car piece by piece and then except that it could work by only looking at each piece separately."

Nor do we confound steering system with ondriving system.

"We combine them and find that the different components work together to preform a common task, or in the case of the universe, simply to exist with physical matter and energy."

I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 5/IX/2013

""universalizing" and "more fluent" tend to go hand in hand with less precise, when it comes to sci/maths terminology." No they don't, combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that. When you ask, "Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?", The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context. Both of which are valid, since, your claim that time is somehow created by a creator, is again, not scientifically accurate. You could look at it as time coming into existence at the same time that our universe did, or that if the universe is truly infinite, time would follow suite.

"I was not denying that time and space are categories around substance. I was saying that time is to space as another category and not to the three dimensions of space as another dimension." By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vice versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 6/IX/2013/2013

"combinations of foundational theorems that are already in themselves precise cannot create anything that is anything less than that."

They can. They can that by mixing apples and oranges.

" By what other means could time be when it is reliant on space-time and vic versa? the only answer is that it is another dimension of the same existence that the first three dimensions fall under."

More precisely (and more aristotelically) time (with its three parts) is another category in the same reality where also place (with its three dimensions) is a category.

"When you ask, 'Time as in time extension? Or time as in point of time?', The answer being both, neither or one or the other, sometimes lol i would need it in context."

The context was which aspect of time, punctual or extansional, that was a condition for substance to exist.

Now the aspect of space that is conditional for a corporeal substance to exist with its quantity (aka volume) is extensional. But the aspect of time that is conditional for any created substance (corporeal or otherwise) to exist is punctual, since only the point called present is at any time real. Which is one of my key reasons for coordinating space and time rather than time with each dimension of space.

We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 6/IX/2013

i'm sorry to say, but physics is nowhere near the analogy of "apples and oranges", for instance; Uniform acceleration and constant velocity are both consistently correct formulas for their respective fields of physics, yet, when both are combined and used in a different manner, behold, newtons second law of motion and uniform friction are created, and both are consistently valid. It's an example, but the idea works for most branches of physics, making precise outcomes from precise formulas.

If your going to say that it depends on the different context of time, and your claiming that only the present is real at any given time, then there would be no past and future under your definition, they cannot fade in and out of existence as you have suggested, they are absolute and finite, relatively speaking. Just because the present may be currently real, doesn't mean the other frames of time can be disregarded as something of the same dimension, they are different frames of the same dimension, sure, but they are not the same.

"We can get back to discussing whether substance, time and space are created by a God above them, when you have shown some precision of terminology about space and time, and about dimension and category." Do you know what i do for a living? and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking. Get over yourself.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 7/IX/2013

"Do you know what i do for a living?"

U R a Phycisist? Might make you biassed for your paradigm.

"and implying you didn't just google that five minutes before we started talking."

Google what? I am not aware of anything I would just have googled, and if you think otherwise, provide me with key words of plausible search and with the relevant passage.

"Get over yourself."

Sounds like a cop out from serious discussion to me.

Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from Bubbaman to : Hans-Georg Lundahl 8/IX/2013

You're right, i am. Does that give me a bias on the matter? no. I have a good understanding of how the mechanics of the universe work, and with that knowledge and with given evidence, it would seem more plausible for ten dimensions to exist rather than your standpoint, i'm not giving any special pleading for any view. When i said you googled "that" in five minutes, i was referring to the terminology and physics principles you are using to support your argument, and i am not copping out of anything, but being rude and condescending by saying i need to obtain a more broad set of terminology and understanding before we continue a discussion, is no means for good discussion., that's all i was implying.

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:Objet :Re:in follow up question to your kind answer

Sent from HGL to : bubbaman235 8/IX/2013

I was maybe condescending, but I was not asking you for a broader terminology, rather for a more precise one.

A distinction between category and dimension (the latter being a feature of category quantity=volume, category place - closest you come to space in Aristotle, category situs=sitting, standing, lying, standing on your head, and of course, with time as other relevant category, of either action or passion involving movement). So as to understanding what I mean by it being more precise to say that time and space are correlated categories, but time is no more a fourth dimension of space than an eighth colour of the spectrum (category quality, subcategory visible quality, sub-subquality directly per se visible quality = colour) or a thirteenth half tone to the octave (also quality, this time audible).

And I was not implying you needed that before doing your job, just before we discuss whether there is a God who created time and place, body and action, and is above all of these and can do whatever he wants with all of these.

Now, before the quarrel, if you like to call it that, you said something of time not just existing in the present, but also in past and future - i e you are implying that in a way the past and the future are as real as the present.

You may want to argue how this follows from your view of mechanics.

If all you mean is that if the past ceases to exist by becoming the past, then why is it relevant for present and future, I sympathise with you, I even submit there ought to be an ideal world in which past, present and future are all eternally present. But that is not the material world in which we live, that is only the mind of God.

If God could nowise already see the future as we see the present, then the only way the Biblical God could foretell the future would be by programming it and knowing how his programme will work out. I disagree, God created us free, and if He still knows our future, it is because He sees our future decisions as in an eternal present. As we make them, not as he calculates from His programming it.

Actually the idea of space as independent of body - in Aristotle place means "surrounding bodies in relation to a body" - as a kind of empty coordinate system was born of a purely theological debate - the conclusion of which was not that such a space actually exists, but that God could make it exist by moving all of the material universe sideways - by leaving behind the mere coordinates of the places where the part was that moves inward and by moving it into the coordinates of the places moving outward to the other side and creating new coordinates for the further strech on that outer side. St Thomas Aquinas and Avempace (Ibn Bajja) both answered that to Averroës who had denied that even God Himself could (if He bothered) move the Universe out of its place.

Were you saying the coordinate system (in the sense of St Thomas Aquinas, Avempace and Newton) has to exist before bodies can be created by God in it, or were you saying it has to exist before they can form in it without any God, or were you saying because it has to exist, time has to be a coordinate just like the other three of space? And future and possibilities two more on top of time?

Sorry, how would you convince a Theist of either of these?

I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

Sent to : Oblationem, mhfm1

4/IX/2013 St Moses

I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy but what Pope would have me do so at present?

As to logic, here is a partial defense of them:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Answering Dimond Brothers about Eastern Orthodox
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/09/answering-dimond-brothers-about-eo.html

Sent to : Hans-Georg Lundahl

12/IX/2013

Re:I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

Actually, when you were not honest about the geocentrism matter, and the import of Benedict XV's words, it became clear that it would be fruitless and a waste of time to continue with you. Until you admit you are wrong and conduct yourself more honestly, that is. If a person is dishonest, you cannot help that person.

Obviously you also need to reject 'Orthodoxy' and become a true Christian.

MHFM
www.vaticancatholic.com

Sent to : mhfm1

14/IX Holy Cross Feast

Objet :Re:I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

You are treating the words of Benedict XV like as if a Pope as cautiously as possible merely suggesting - not defning or teaching - but suggesting an admission of a possibility of Earth not being the immobile centre of the Universe as if that meant a clear and infallible teaching this might not be so.

Popes are infallible when they sneeze? No, but when they clearly and authoratively teach something.

The one thing which IS very clear from that encyclical about Dante's Divina Commedia is that a theological novel is possible and that its theology being right is not dependent on its cosmology being right. A clear defense in advance of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, Akallabêth, Lord of the Rings - but very poor on the subject of whether heliocentrism has become licit.

The second clearest thing from that encyclical is that if Dante was great it was not for writing De Monarchia but for writing Divina Commedia.

The third clearest thing is that parts of Dante's Cosmology are very possibly incorrect, but when he gets to the subject of geocentrism, the Pope is less sure and more cautious about that than about the whole complex issue in itself. That is why I do not agree there is a "clear teaching" heliocentrism is a theologically valid possibility.

I am not sure at all about the details of the historical context of that encyclical, except that it was a jubilee of Dante's birth or death or writing Divina Commedia or something. I guess, though I am far from sure, that someone presented the Dante Jubilee to the Pope in similar hopes as those of the Pharisees at certain points "is it licit to pay tax to Caesar" and such.

Either - they may have thought - he will be against De Monarchia and against Dante, and so he will be an uncultured Barbarian. Or, he will admit to being for Divina Commedia though it is "discredited" (or so they thought) from modern cosmology. Or, finally, he will be forced to admit De Monarchia as a work of genious. Which it is in a diabolic sort of way, because it preaches laicism "king over priest = religious peace" basically. Or perhaps rather "king over priest = religious humility of priests". In all of the encyclical Pope Benedict XV avoided mentioning De Monarchia as scrupulously as Jesus avoided to mention sodomy while nevertheless condemning it implicitly along with divorce.

Vita Nuova, though not as diabolical, is in some ways an erotic work, and if Benedict XV had mentioned Vita Nuova, they could have said "oh you read that stuff".

Of course, if the Pope had taken up a minor work of Dante's like De Vulgari Eloquentia they could have asked him "is it true that Latin for yes is 'oc'?" Actually I think Dante in the enumeration of neolatin languages included Occitan and called it Latin because "Ladino" is a dialect of it and the only way to put that name into Latin is calling it Latin - because Ladino is a word that means Latin (as opposed to German in neighbouring villages).

But, no, on that encyclical I feel no guilt of dishonesty, rather I feel you could merit to ponder if you did not possibly want a clearer teaching condemning Geocentrism (which was the position of the Church for 1500 years and a bit longer, and of to me known Israelites before the Church too) so as not to feel any obligation toward the decision of 1633. Because, it is not only Dante but also Galileo that is on the list of "great men of renown" these days.

If you do wish to honour Galileo, why not do so for something he was not even an instant condemned for? Telescope at Milky Way, Moons of Jupiter, non-astronomical issues? That way you would follow the example of Benedict XV.

So much for my supposed dishonesty!

If you are sure Vatican I is a real Ecumenic Council, you need to accept that St Peter has perpetuos successores, and that these are not just any bishops but Popes and so there is a Pope now, there is no way the Holy See has been vacant since 1958 in that case. Sedisvacantism (properly speaking) and FSSPX both work - on the Orthodox view of St Peter's successors. Is it Francis I or Michael I or Alexander IX who is currently Pope on your real Christian view?

Kabbalistes dans le clergé? [St Étienne du Mont sur le formulaire]

Je viens de faire référence à kabbalah dans ce message:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Et vous, Juifs, êtes spirituellement des Babyloniens
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/09/et-vous-juifs-etes-spirituellement-des.html

Citat rélévant:

Et je me vois matraqué par des réponses que tel ou tel aurait pu donner à moi - en ignorant l'essentiel de mes mots. Ce qui peut paraître paranoïde, mais les occurrences sont trop fréquents pour le nier. À moins, biensûr, que les réponses ne soient pas à moi mais à ceux qui seraient tentés de croire mes argumentations. Quand à la bibliothèque Buffon, il y avait exposé un tas de livres sur l'évolution. Comme si, pour y croire il ne fallait qu'étudier la littérature, comme si personne pouvait avoir une quelleconque critique là-dessus. À Georges Pompidou je trouve à mon entrée vers la cafétéria des livres sur Einstein. Sur FB je trouve un audio sur l'opinion qui, selon Descartes, est un obstacle au savoir. Mais personne qui commente ouvertement mes textes contre l'évolution, contre l'héliocentrisme et la rélativité, pour que ce soit ces choses là plutôt que géocentrisme et créationnisme jeune terre avec chronologie biblique qui sont des opinions en obstacle au savoir.

Et si c'est par kabbalah que j'ai été amené à voir ces choses plutôt qu'aller à côté, la magie est souverainement une pratique babylonienne, interdite par Moïse comme par St Paul. Et en dernier ressort par Dieu.

Mais si on prétend que l'expo là était juste coincidence et que les livres à Georges Pompidou l'étaient aussi, et le lien vers une leçon de Descartes aussi, alors c'est notable que certains font des efforts pour prétendre que l'évolution et l'héliocentrisme avec rélativité soient des savoir exactes scientifiques, et qu'on défend la raison humaine en ignorant le géocentrisme (pourtant bien attesté par les yeux) et la chronologie biblique (pourtant bien attestée par la tradition) soient des leurres. Et alors on se demande à quoi ils réagissent tous.

Fin du citat.

Bon ça se passait (et aussi des gaffes d'orthographe qui me passent jusqu'à maintenant) après avoir serré la main du prêtre samedi 7/IX/2013, donc samedi passé, au petit-dejeuner derrière votre église.

Je me demande ce que vous faites. Je sais par exemple qu'au début de "Benoît XVI" j'étais prêt de le reconnaître comme pape et donc d'accepter la liturgie de Paul VI. Je revenais à FSSPX après avoir entendu à St Jean de Malte à Aix-en-Provence une invitation à un cours d'introduction à la kabbalah. Et je viens de le reconstater après aussi.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Courte correspondence avec Vincent Reynouard, sur Oradour et Wajsblat

HGL à Vincent Reynouard

Envoyé le : Jeudi 26 avril 2012 16h04

Objet [constant]: j'avais écrit sur Oradour selon la thèse officielle, voici qu'un commentaire donne le lien vers la votre

deretour : Oradour sur Glane et Christianstad, pourquoi je suis Catholique
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2011/02/oradour-sur-glane-et-christianstad.html
____________________

Vincent Reynouard à HGL

jeudi 26 avril 2012 18h33

Cher Monsieur,

Un grand merci pour votre message.

Je suis agréablement surpris d'apprendre qu'une personne qui me paraît neutre me cite. Votre honnêteté intellectuelle vous honore.

Avec toute ma sympathie,

Vincent Reynouard
______________________

HGL à Vincent Reynouard

jeudi 26 avril 2012 19h44

Neutre n'est pas trop dire.

Je suis à peu près à cheval entre les deux thèses. Les arguments chimistes me convainquent (jusqu'à bon argument pour le contraire), mais je respecte aussi les témoignages (celui de la résistante est autre chose, elle avait à protéger ses camérades et n'était pas retorse de noircir l'ennemi).

J'avais considéré la possibilité que des meurtres réels y compris par gazages ont été perpétrés comme snuff-movies (vous connaissez le mot? c'est quand les morts dans un cinéma ne le sont pas que sur le film) entre des meurtres prétendus et menaces le tout arrangé pour rendre les prisonniers plus dociles - et le but réel étant "pédagogique", à changer la mentalité juive.

deretour : YOU do the mathematics.
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2010/04/you-do-mathematics.html

deretour : pie xii face aux nazis (livre)
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2009/03/pie-xii-face-aux-nazis-livre.html

Regardez par exemple les témoignages (récemment parus) de Joseph Weissmann et de Jozef Wajsblat: il me semble qu'on ait arrangé qu'ils survivent et qu'ils se croient les deux issus d'un danger mortel très imminent. Ainsi ils ont été à l'époque plus dociles. L'horreur cité sur les pages 213 et 214 du livre n'a pas été la routine avec tous les prisonniers. Mais il y a eu ça aussi. Et ainsi de suite avec une grande créativité de variation, entre tueries réelles et "ils ont été tués" sans substance.

Petit j'ai rencontré sur un train vers Prague (entre Suède et Autriche, changement de train et une journée de tourisme à Prague) un homme ayant été tatoué avec un A-et des chiffres - il me disait qu'à Auschwitz "on tuait les gens" et je ne crois pas forcément qu'il mentait, mais on a pu le tromper délibérement.

Ça vous parait fou?
_________________________

Vincent Reynouard à HGL

vendredi 27 avril 2012

Cher Monsieur,

Un grand merci pour votre message.

Si j'ai bien compris ce que vous avez écrit, vous me soumettez l'hypothèse que les Allemands auraient commis quelques crimes à très petite échelle et auraient volontairement laissé des témoins pour que ceci parle aux autres, ce qui aurait eu pour effet de calmer les foules juives.

Cette thèse n'a rien d'absurde, évidemment. Est-elle vraie ? Personnellement, je ne le crois pas. Il est évident qu'un certain nombre de "survivants" (comme Jo Wajsblat) ont affirmé être sorti d'une "chambre à gaz". Dès juin 1945, la presse a parlé d'un petit enfant, Lazare, qui aurait vécu une histoire semblable. Cette histoire en a inspiré beaucoup d'autres après. Wajsblat est cependant un menteur car il prétend montrer aux enfants un savon "fait de graisse humaine" avec l'inscription allemande "bonne graisse juive". Or, tous les historiens aujourd'hui s'accordent à dire qu'il s'agit d'une simple rumeur. Je pourrais citer d'autres exemples, mais ce n'est pas important.

Que les Allemands aient fusillé de nombreux juifs, notamment à l'Est dans des actions de représailles et d'intimidation reste évident. Mais cela n'accrédite pas la thèse du génocide et des chambres à gaz.

Avec toute mon amitié,

Vincent Reynouard
______________________

HGL à Vincent Reynouard

vendredi 27 avril 2012

"Wajsblat est cependant un menteur car il prétend montrer aux enfants un savon 'fait de graisse humaine' avec l'inscription allemande 'bonne graisse juive'. Or, tous les historiens aujourd'hui s'accordent à dire qu'il s'agit d'une simple rumeur."

a) À supposer qu'il s'agit absolument d'une mensonge, Wajsblat peut en être dupe. Il ne dit pas qu'il se limite à montrer ou raconter ce qu'il a vu lui-même en fonction, que je sache.

Il ne dit par exemple pas avoir vu un gazage réel, juste d'avoir été dans une chambre à gaz. Sauvé par le fait que Dr Mengele se fâchait et le sauvait avec les 49 autres. Il ne dit pas avoir vu comment les 600 étaient gazés. Mon propos est que "Mengele" se fâchait 13 fois ce jour, laissant à chaque groupe de 50 l'impression d'être les seuls survivants.

b) "Tous les historiens" partent du constat que ça ne se soit pas fait à grande échelle, car alors on aurait trouvé des traces importantes matérielles ou dans les mémoires des impliqués: selon mon hypothèse ils ont pu faire ça (et aussi brûler des gens vifs dans les crématoires comme le rappelle Wiesel, et aussi varier l'étoile jaune pour un J jaune et aussi laisser mourir lentement un bloc en typhus en les empêchant de se faire l'hygiène) à petite échelle, précisement pour cet effet d'horreur et pour plus surement pouvoir manipuler les captifs.

"Tous les historiens" c'est à peu près les mêmes gens qui nient telle ou telle horreur faite à tel ou tel martyr, puisque ce n'était pas la peine prévue: dans les deux cas ils partent de la présomption d'une routine suivie assez de près. Une présomption qui ne vaut pas forcément pour les Romains encore payens avant Constantin, Théodose et Justinien, et qui ne vaut pas forcément pour des néopayens parmi les nazies. Car il en avait.

Notons que par petite échelle j'entends suffisemment petite pour que tous les allemands impliqués dans les camps ne soient pas pleinement au courant. Un bon catholique a par exemple pu être tenu vers la garde d'autre prisonniers à garder intacts (tels qu'à Dachau Kreiski, Schuschnigg, Nikolaj Velimorivic) ou aux opérations militaires.
_____________________

Vincent Reynouard à HGL

vendredi 27 avril 2012

Cher Monsieur,

Un grand merci pour votre message.

1/ Sachant que les "chambres à gaz" n'ont pas existé et que c'est une impossibilité physique, Wajsblat reste un menteur. L'affaire du savon humain en graisse humaine est un simple bobard de guerre dénoncé depuis longtemps par les révisionnistes avant les historiens.

2/ Si cela vous fait plaisir, vous pouvez croire que, à petite échelle, les Allemands ont fait des atrocités. Brûler des gens dans des crématoires, laisser volontairement des gens mourir de faim, etc. Personnellement, je n'y crois pas. Qu'il y ait eu des crimes et des abus, je pense aux expériences sur des cobayes humains, c'est indéniable. Mais cela reste sans rapport avec un génocide planifié à grande échelle. Personnellement, c'est tout ce qui m'intéresse : il n'y a pas eu de génocide des juifs planifié à grande échelle. Le reste, savoir si ici ou là, il y a pu y avoir des exactions ponctuelles, cela ne m'intéresse guère.

Avec toute ma sympathie,

Vincent Reynouard
________________________

HGL à Vincent Reynouard

samedi 28 avril 2012

Je ne crois pas non plus à un génocide à grande échelle. Sauf peut-être contre recalcitrant vis-à-vis rééducation et de la suite un peu la même chose contre Palestiniens.

Une chambre à gaz est une impossibilité physique pour ce qu'il y a de réutiliser cinq minutes ou une demi-heure après, ou alors on aurait du brûler le gaz restant, mais pour ce qu'il y a de faire démonstrations de pouvoir par gazages isolés, ce n'est pas démontré impossible, et encore moins pour faire rentrer des gens qui croient qu'ils vont être gazés mais qui de la suite ne le sont pas - comme en occurrence Wajsblat. Après, il a peut-être trop peu de critique envers ce qu'il a entendu dans le camp, ça ne démontre pas qu'il ment sur ce qu'il a vu.

Ma théorie est qu'il a cru que juste cinquante ont été sauvés par une colère très spontanée, inexplicable, irrationnelle de Dr Mengele, tandis que celui-ci ou autres jouant le même rôle (essentiel pour qu'un seul puisse être bouc émissaire) ont "sauvé" d'un menace tout fictice de gazage les treize fois cnquante en se mettant treize fois dans une colère théatrale.

Wajsblat serait alors de bonne fois.

Vrai but: refaire "un peuple fier de ses sages" ou "de ses marchands"* en "un peuple fier de ses guerroyers"* ou "de ses paysans", fonder quasiment le tsahal et les kibbutzim (oui, les Nazies et les Zionistes ont eu de la collaboration). Aussi - vu que Yad Vashem ont une liste longue de 3.400.000 de "morts" - plutôt "morts ou désapparus" - parsemer l'Occident avec crypto-juifs.

* tv-tropes : Proud Merchant Race
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProudMerchantRace
_________________________

Note:

quand à la courtoisie, il a trouvé que chaque mail constitue une lettre qui doit être signé, moi qu'on était en train de faire quasi une conversation et que chaque message constitue une replique - donc pas besoin de se saluer à chaque fois. J'espère ne pas lui avoir exaspéré par là. J'espère aussi que Wajsblat ne soit pas trop fâché du fait que je le crois trompé sur des choses.
_________________________

Autre note:

Bernard Antony hier:

L'AGRIF propose donc que soient désormais unis dans la même mémoire et la même repentance les souvenirs d'Oradour-sur-Glane et des Lucs-sur-Boulogne.

Un petit hic: avec les Lucs-sur-Boulogne 28 février 1794 on ne peut pas prétendre que les Vendéens aient pu se mettre un accident de dynamite dans une église pour ensuite noircir la mémoire de l'adversaire en leur endossant la culpabilité d'un massacre - car telle est la thèse que Vincent Reynouard porte sur Oradour. D'un côté la dynamite n'était pas encore inventée, d'un autre les Vendéens n'ont pas été victorieux et si le massacre est connu c'est ... je laisse le mot à un article de la wikipédie:

Le déroulement du massacre fut contesté par plusieurs historiens. Le dossier a été rouvert par l'historien Jean-Clément Martin, spécialiste de l'histoire des guerres de Vendée et surtout de la persistance de la mémoire du drame depuis deux cents ans. Pour lui, non seulement il paraît difficile d'affirmer qu'il n'y eut qu'un seul massacre, mais tout permet au contraire de penser qu'il y eut une multiplicité de combats entremêlés sur toute la paroisse des Lucs durant plusieurs mois de 1794. Les victimes mêlent à la fois femmes, vieillards, enfants et combattants tombés les armes à la main.

Il explique qu'aux Lucs, la « liste dressée en 1794 comptabilise manifestement l'ensemble des habitants tués depuis 1789, alors que toute une tradition veut la voir comme le résultat d'un massacre unique commis en deux jours de février 1794. Les conclusions sont évidemment fort divergentes selon la lecture adoptée ».

Il a été suivi dans cette voie par Paul Tallonneau.

De son côté, le professeur de littérature Pierre Marambaud, appuyé sur différentes archives (paroissiales et des armées), ainsi que certaines lettres émanant de soldats présents lors des faits, soutient la thèse d'un massacre unique le 28 février 1794. Il considère que ce massacre englobe non seulement les Lucs (qui à l'époque comprenait le Grand Luc et le Petit Luc où s'élève la chapelle commémorative), mais aussi les hameaux et métairies des alentours.

Les notes 4 - 7 se trouvent sur cette partie de l'article:

• Jean-Clément Martin, Le Massacre des Lucs, Vendée 1794 (en collaboration avec Xavier Lardière), Geste Éditions, La Crèche, 1992
• Jean-Clément Martin, Violence et Révolution. Essai sur la naissance d'un mythe national, éditions du Seuil, 2006
• Paul Tallonneau, Les Lucs et le génocide vendéen : comment on manipule les textes, Hécate, 1993
• Marambaud 1993, p. ?
  =Pierre Marambaud, Les Lucs, la Vendée, la Terreur et la Mémoire, Éditions de l'Étrave, 1993, 228 p. (ISBN 2909599124)

Ah bon ... si, Bernard Antony avait raison. Il y a eu une controverse sur les Lucs aussi. Vincent Reynouard à sa contrepartie en Jean-Clément Martin!

À Menzingen, pour présenter mes distances de "La Question"

Sans attendre la réponse ...

... ce que fait de ce mail à Menzingen une lettre ouverte, simplement. Ajoutons qu'ils m'ont tellement souvent manqué de repondre, que je ne leur dois plus la politesse d'attendre la réponse.

date : 04/09/13 à 12h57

objet : Du blog "la question" vous devez vos dissocier en le condemnant, ou autrement en suppléer l'autorité qui lui manque ...

... vous pouvez biensûr dire que leurs prétentions d'être un tribunal de l'inquisition sont soutenues par votre autorité, que cette équipe se trouve sous votre autorité comme Pierre de Castelnau sous celle de Rome.

Mais alors vous n'aurez pas juste arrogé le droit de faire une Rota, mais aussi celle de faire un tribunal de l'Inquisition. À différence de Monseigneur Lefèbvre, qui avait jurisdiction ordinaire à Dakar et puis à Tulle, vous n'êtes que Weihbischöfe, évêques sans jurisdiction ordinaire.

Entretemps, on aimerait savoir avec quelle autorité - ou manque de telle - on à l'affaire. Moi, je viens de prendre mes distances:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : La Question - un blog collectif
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/09/la-question-un-blog-collectif.html

Trois mail à Yves Chiron, écrivain publié au journal PRÉSENT

sujet général: John Knox démocratique ou juste tyrannique?

date : 31/08/13 à 11h55

objet : Ah, je me souvenais quand même bien que vous êtes publié en PRÉSENT ...!

C'est pas vous qui avez écrit l'article incorrecte qui attribue une position démocratique à John Knox?

Comme un de vos lignes correctes dedans notait, il disait que le pouvoir devenu néfaste peut être déposé. Son exemple était évidemment Jéhu déposant les héritiers d'Ahab, et comme le résultat de cette déposition était une monarchie absolue, l'idéal de John Knox comme plus tard d'Oliver Cromwell était loin de démocratique, très absolutiste et très oligarque et aristocrate. Le résultat immédiait des révolutions de Knox étaient que des aristocrates calvinistes éduquaient le futur Jacques VI & I qui était un roi très absolu.* C'est Jacques VI & I qui est l'excuse absolutiste pourquoi certains protestants se reclament de King James Version. C'est lui qui avait des controverses avec St Robert Bellarmin.

Entre les trois, je dirais que le plus démocrate était St Robert Bellarmin, non sans Suarez.

Mais de nos jours il parait que les héritiers de Jean Madiran préfèrent la désinfo à la bonne information. Ou votre manque de compétence à ma compétence.

Bon, pour que vous sachiez la raison pourquoi j'ai regardé votre blog, c'est que je viens de vérifier quel nombre de visiteurs il a. Vous pouvez cnsulter mes réflexions dessus sur ce message ci de mon blog "republié depuis FB":

HGL's F.B. writings : GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2013/08/gp-tries-it-again-after-attacking.html

Bonne lecture!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

date : 01/09/13 à 15h15

objet : Je n'ai pas encore lu si vous avez rectifié samedi ou non, mais, entre John Knox et Filippe II, qui ...

... était le plus démocratique?

Comme dit, John Knox ne prétendait nullement abolir toute monarchie, seulement les anticalvinistes, et il arrangeait pour qu'entre la captivité de Marie Stuart et l'ascension de son fils calviniste Jacques VI & I au pouvoir, ce pauvre prince Jacques soit éduqué par une committée de Seigneurs très hauts et très calvinistes. Quand à Filippe II, regardez un peu les pièces El Alcalde de Zalamea et La Fuente Ovejuna. L'aristocratie espagnole apprit par là très bien qu'il ne fallait pas traiter les filles ou fiancées des routuriers comme des jouets ....

Rectification déjà faite ou à faire?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

aussi à d'autres

date : 01/09/13 à 17h48

objet : Ma réponse au blog La Question

Lien:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : La Question - un blog collectif
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/09/la-question-un-blog-collectif.html

*Je viens de qualifier Jacques VI et I comme calviniste. C'est vrai qu'il préférait que la Réforme Protestante émerge par édit royal (comme en Angleterre, Suède-Finlande, Danemark-Norvège d'où il prenait sa femme et maintes principautés de l'Allemagne, dont la Saxe native de Luther), et c'est vrai qu'il aimait le rituel anglicain mieux que le puritanisme. Exemple, ses Cinq Articles de Perth, qu'il essayait d'imposer à l'église d'Écosse:

Communion à genoux, baptême privé, communion privée pour les malades, confirmation par un évêque, célébrations de Noël et Pâcques.

Néanmoins, avant ce genre de démarches, il avait été élévé dans la secte établie par Knox et la haute Noblesse, et il n'a pas imposé une lecture catholisante, plutôt alors une lecture calvinisante des 39 Articles de l'usurpatrice Élisabeth. Les articles en tant que tels permettaient une lecture qui, pour ne pas admettre la transsubstantiation permettaient au moins la présence réelle. Ce qui sera repris par Keble, Pusey et Newman, avant la conversion du dernier, et qui est restée une option théologique depuis. Mais une génération ou deux après Jacques I (comme il est d'Angleterre), croire la présence réelle n'était pas en pratique une option pour l'anglicanisme. En témoignent deux femmes converties au Catholicisme pour pouvoir croire à la présence réelle et pour pouvoir recevoir le Bon Dieu - après confession - par un prêtre qui y croyait également. Je viens de citer la première épouse de Jacques VII et II (petit-fils de Jacques VI et I) et la Sainte Élisabeth Anne Seton, Veuve et Religieuse-Fondatrice, première indigène des États-Unis d'être canonisée (quel que soit la valeur des actes de Jean Paul II, je ne doute pas de celle ci! - Oh pardon, c'était Paul VI - un peu moins suspect, quand même. Quoique le discours ne faisait pas allusion à la raison précise pouraquoi elle dut quitter l'anglicanisme.) Et pardon encore, elle n'était pas une génération ou deux après Jacques VI et I, mais plutôt après l'autre convertie. Elle décédait la vie terrestre un peu avant le Tractarianisme de Keble.

Si, en dehors de la Liturgie, Jacques VI et I voulait l'Anglicanisme assez calvinisante, c'est qu'il voulait unir la Kirk of Scotland avec la Church of England. En ceci il se montrait césaréopapiste et en insistant sur la communion à genoux sans la croyance en la présence réelle, il encourageait l'artolatrie, ce dont à tort accusent les Protestants nous les Catholiques.