Correspondence avec René Fouquet sur les Inklings (entre 15 et 29 juillet 2015)

1) Répliques Assorties : ... à Serge Béketch, pour améliorer ses preuves pour l'existence de Dieu, 2) Et Narnia et ça?, 3) Roncalli selon le site de René Fouquet, 4) Et Tolkien?, 5) L'art de C. S. Lewis (et un peu de Blyton), 6) New blog on the kid : Quand CSL parle de "loi naturelle" ou "Tao", 7) Et Tolkien inventa des langues, 8) Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence avec René Fouquet sur les Inklings (entre 15 et 29 juillet 2015)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon dossier contre vos accusations s'amplifie:

Le dernier des messages en français, avec des liens aux autres :

New blog on the kid : Et Tolkien inventa des langues
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/et-tolkien-inventa-des-langues.html

Celui-ci est en anglais :

New blog on the kid : Why Not to Take John Todd's Testimony Against CSL and JRRT
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-not-to-take-john-todds-testimony.html

René Fouquet

http://foicatholique.me/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Ne pas défendre la vérité est coupable."

D'accord. Je serais donc coupable en ne pas défendant la vérité quand il y a des idiots qui assimilent Tolkien à des Pentécôtistes.

"Les hérétiques doivent être jugés, exposés et évités"

FORT bien, tant que ça ne dégenère pas en des campagnes de soupçons érigés en "signe de piété" à un niveau quand on risque de calomnier des innocents.

COMME je viens de constater que vous faites, TANT QUE vous ne donnez pas satisfaction sur ce point.

Quand à l'évitation des hérétiques.

• 1) Un anglicain dans la génération de CSL n'a pas eu la même culpabilité que Cranmer et Tyndale et Cromwell.
  
  
• 2) Il y a des exceptions pastorales bien antérieures à des confusions récents au principe.
  
  
  • a) quand on vit dans un pays hérétique, comme le faisait Tolkien, et comme je l'ai fait moi-même entre 1980 (date à laquelle j'étais encore "hérétique" - ou peut-être pas, mais payen craignant Dieu, car pas encore baptisé) et 2004.
    
    
  • b) en des correspondences entre érudits.
    
    Les traducteurs de Douai Rheims et de King James se sont écrits.
    
    
  • c) pour des buts pratiques.
    
    J'imagine que si vous allez à la Messe près de Montholon, vous êtes dans un bâtiment tenus par Arméniens. Or, les Arméniens scismatiques sont hérétiques, monophysites et récemment aussi sacramentaires. Mais qqn de votre paroisse a pris contact avec eux.
    
    
  • d) pour le maintien des rélations.
    
    Quand Tolkien fut ami d'un athée, plus tard théiste, qu'il voulait convertir en Chrétien, il espérait qu'il allait devenir Catholique.
    
    Ce n'était pas son devoir de ne pas maintenir la rélation quand C S Lewis le decevait en retournant à une pratique anglicane, comme dans son enfance.

Et lire des hérétiques?

Vous savez que Térence fut Montaniste, et pourtant on le lit. De Corona n'est pas une oeuvre Montaniste juste parce que c'est une oeuvre PAR un Montaniste.

CECI donc, si le point était le fait que CSL était Anglicain. Mais le point qu'il est selon certains "illuminato" n'est pas recevable. Il n'y a pas d'accusation crédible dessus. Celui de Todd ne l'était pas.

René Fouquet

Vous êtes un hérétique et un apostat fier qui niez l'enseignement dogmatique de l'Eglise et vous mentez en faisant des suppositions sorties de votre imagination, vous ne savez rien et vous dites n'importe quoi : vous préférez la religion de l'homme, ce qui n'est pas étonnant en ces temps, c'est pourquoi vous défendez l'occultisme de l'apostat et satanique auteur du Seigneur des anneaux. Vous n'êtes pas catholique même de loin et vous êtes perdu et ne voulez pas connaître la foi catholique.

Un chrétien devrait consacrer son temps à grandir dans sa foi par la prière, la lecture, et d'autres bonnes œuvres, mais la plupart des gens font plutôt le contraire, et la plupart font des déchets de leur temps avec les contes et les fables inutiles, qui occuperont leur esprit à la place de Dieu. C'est pourquoi les médias mauvais conduisent d'innombrables âmes à la damnation éternelle et tourments de l'enfer. Et c'est aussi une réalisation précise de la fin des temps des prophéties, qui ont dit que beaucoup se détourneraient de Dieu vers les fables et les contes de fées. Êtes-vous de ceux prophétisés ?

" Car viendra un temps où les hommes ne supporteront plus la saine doctrine; mais, selon leurs désirs, ils amasseront des maîtres autour d'eux, éprouvant une vive démangeaison aux oreilles : Et détournant l'ouïe de la vérité, ils se tourneront vers les fables. "(2 Timothée 4, 3-4)

L'acceptation universelle des fausses religions, la magie et l'occultisme qui était justement punie par la mort plus tôt dans notre histoire, mais qui est maintenant la norme dans les médias. On voit l'horrible péché de magie et d'occultisme dans tous les types d'émissions télé, par exemple, les films cinéma, dans les dessins animés, c'est presque «toujours» la norme,

Tous les films et séries qui conduisent votre esprit vers des fantasmes et des fables comme Le Seigneur des anneaux, Heroes, Smallville, Avatar, etc., même si nous disions pour les besoins du raisonnement, qu'ils n'ont rien en eux contre Dieu (ce qui n'est pas vrai), devraient encore être évités, car ils détournent nos esprits de Dieu pour le monde naturel dans lequel nous vivons, vers les fantasmes et toutes sortes de pensées qui s'y rapportent. Il s'agit de la principale cause si dangereuse et la raison pour laquelle tant de personnes regardent ces émissions ont des désirs ou des dépressions irréalistes malsaines. Une personne qui passe beaucoup de temps sur la recherche de Dieu, évidemment ne rêvera pas, mais passera un long temps sur Dieu et se rapprochera de Lui. En revanche, une personne qui passe beaucoup de temps sur le monde, est loin de Dieu et mort devant Dieu !

Maintenant, vous pourriez vous demander : «Puis-je ensuite regarder d'autres films ou séries du monde si l'histoire est fixée sur des choses réalistes ou la création de Dieu ?". La réponse à cette question est que cela dépend de ce film ou de l'émission que vous voulez regarder. Je dirais que l'on peut regarder des films et des séries sur la fin du monde, l'au-delà et le paranormal, etc., car cela conduit votre esprit vers le jugement et la mort du corps à venir qui est une bonne chose. De ce qui peut être entendu, cela dépend du fruit qui peut en être tiré pour commencer.

«Tout arbre donc qui ne produit pas de bons fruits, sera coupé et jeté au feu.» (Luc 3, 9)

Vous allez sans aucun doute enfanter des mauvais fruits si vous passez beaucoup de temps sur les mauvaises choses. Donc, si le film ou le spectacle est sur les choses du monde et vain, alors on ne doit pas regarder ces émissions, le fruit est vide et vain. Ce point peut être encore prouvé par l'Écriture Sainte.

" Prenez garde que personne ne vous trompe par la philosophie et par une vaine tromperie, selon la tradition des hommes, selon les éléments du monde, et non selon le Christ ... "(Colossiens 2, 8)

Le paganisme est le culte des dieux, fausses religions polythéistes, comme le bouddhisme, l’hindouisme, etc. L’Eglise catholique enseigne que les dieux adorés par les membres de religions païennes qui rendent un culte à plusieurs dieux, sont des démons. Le néo-paganisme est un culte des dieux à la sauce moderne comme :

le New-âge,

les fadaises extra-terrestres,

les fables ésotériques et/ou occultistes à base de magie, de sorcelleries, d’idolatrie, d’êtres d’autres mondes ou d’autres dimensions comme, par exemple : Avatar, Narnia, Seigneur des anneaux, Donjons et dragons, Harry Potter, Da Vinci code, etc..

Ces soi-disant contes fantastiques sont faits de paganisme, d’augures, de superstitions, d’enchantements, de charmes, de sorciers, etc. : toutes choses en abomination pour Dieu qui sont des souillures avec les démons.

Deutéronome 18, 10-12 : «Qu’on ne trouve chez toi personne qui fasse passer par le feu son fils ou sa fille, qui s’adonne à la divination, au augures, aux superstitions et aux enchantements, qui ait recours aux charmes, qui consulte les évocateurs et les sorciers, et qui interroge les morts. Car tout homme qui fait ces choses est en abomination à Yahweh …»

Certains apostats et hérétiques (se disant chrétiens, ce que font tous les hérétiques) voient des choses se rapportant à Dieu dans ces récits fantastiques démoniaques avec des créatures magiques, des elfes, des gnomes, etc, qui sont démoniaques. Ils affirment que ces histoires PAIENNES contiennent des paroles de Dieu et des « bases » évangéliques : ce sont d’odieux hérétiques et apostats, et d’abominables menteurs.

Dire que Dieu, Sa Parole et l’Esprit-Saint sont présents dans le paganisme du diable est un acte d’apostasie.

Même des auteurs de ces histoires démoniaques sont dit avoir été chrétiens ! Lewis, l’auteur de Narnia était un anglican schismatique (non-catholique) qui s’est fait passer pour un chrétien (seul un catholique est chrétien), mais était un occultiste ; Tolkien, l’auteur du seigneur des anneaux, non-catholique (tous les hérétiques se disent chrétiens ou catholiques) mais était occultiste et sacrilège.

Le Seigneur des Anneaux est une série de livres célèbres qui présente la magie, l’occultisme, les contes de fées et les fables comme quelque chose de bon et louable, mais qui est en réalité juste une autre abomination devant le Seigneur. Malheureusement, beaucoup de « catholiques » refusent d’accepter ces faits et croient toujours que le Seigneur des Anneaux est bon ou même catholique. Vous pouvez vous tromper, mais vous ne pouvez pas tromper Dieu !

» Car viendra un temps où les hommes ne supporteront plus la saine doctrine; mais, selon leurs désirs, ils amasseront des maîtres autour d’eux, éprouvant une vive démangeaison aux oreilles : Et détournant l’ouïe de la vérité, ils se tourneront vers les fables. « (2 Timothée 4, 3-4)

Ste Thérèse a même avoué que la lecture de livres qui en eux-mêmes ne sont pas mauvais, sont encore un début de grand mal et de tiédeur. Qui a-t-il donc à dire sur les médias maléfiques, les jeux vidéo et les mauvais livres puants pécheurs ? Une personne ne peut faire ces choses sans devenir complètement tiède et froide dans le service de Dieu exactement comme c’est également arrivé à la glorieuse sainte Thérèse, que ceux qui cherchent toujours après les choses du monde diminuent en effet dans la ferveur de Dieu !

La citation suivante prouve davantage ce point pris de la vie de sainte Thérèse :

«Ce que je vais maintenant dire, a été, je crois, le début d’un grand tort pour moi. J’avais contracté l’habitude de lire des livres, et ce petit défaut que j’ai observé fut le début de la tiédeur dans mes bons désirs, et l’occasion de mon apostasie à d’autres égards. Je pensais qu’il n’y avait aucun mal à cela lorsque je faisais profession de perdre nombre d’heures si vaines jour et nuit, même si je l’ai gardé secret à mon père. J’étais donc complètement maîtrisé par cette passion, je pensais que je ne pourrais jamais être heureuse sans un nouveau livre».

N’est-ce pas quelque chose ? N’avons-nous pas tous pensé comme Thérèse, que nous ne pouvons pas être heureux sans nos médias quotidiens, nos films mauvais et séries, nos mauvais jeux vidéo ou nos mauvais livres ? Si l’effet pour cette sainte fut le début d’un grand mal, qu’est-ce donc ce sera pour vous, si ce que vous faites en comparaison avec elle est infiniment plus dommageable et dangereux pour votre âme ? Combien n’est-il pas bête et stupide de passer son temps à lire de mauvais livres du monde, quand on peut passer du temps à la lecture de bons livres catholiques au sujet de la vertu qui édifie l’âme, l’esprit et le corps ? Vous trouverez d’innombrables bons livres catholiques si vous regardez juste au bon endroit.

» Pour la vie spirituelle, la lecture des livres saints n’est peut-être pas moins utile que la prière mentale. Saint Bernard affirme que la lecture nous enseigne à la fois dans la prière et dans la pratique de la vertu. Par conséquent, il a conclu que la lecture spirituelle et la prière sont les bras par lesquels l’enfer est conquis et le paradis gagné … » Saint-Alphonse.

Brûlez tous les livres, le cinéma ou les albums de musique immédiatement qui peuvent représenter un péché, et repentez-vous, faites pénitence, et confessez ce mal. Comme vous pouvez jeter du poison dans l’ordre qui peut être en mesure de vous blesser vous-même ou votre enfant, faites la même chose ici. Pensez à plaire à Dieu en premier et non à vous-même ou à votre enfant. La vie est trop courte et l’enfer est trop long et pénible pour refuser de suivre la loi de Dieu.

Tout cela n’est pas étonnant dans ces temps d’hérésie moderniste et de grande apostasie où la foi catholique est niée par la plupart qui se damnent : En plus d’êtres hérétiques, apostats et sacrilèges, tous ces gens sont des hérétiques contre la loi naturelle.

» Or, c’est traiter la Parole de Dieu d’une manière absolument injurieuse que de détourner la sainte Écriture de son sens droit et naturel, pour lui donner un sens conforme à la doctrine des impies et des hérétiques. […]

» C’est encore déshonorer honteusement l’Écriture que d’en employer les maximes et les paroles, qui sont dignes de toute notre vénération, à des choses purement profanes, comme aussi de s’en servir dans des contes, dans des fables ridicules et vaines … Le Concile de Trente condamne ces pratiques détestables et veut qu’on les punisse « . (Catéchisme du Concile de Trente – partie 3 – Du Décalogue, Chapitre trentième — Du second Commandement § IV — Ce qui est défendu par le second commandement)

Occultisme, paganisme, ésotérisme condamnés :

L’occultisme que la Parole de Dieu interdit :

Deutéronome 18, 10-12 : «Qu’on ne trouve chez toi personne qui fasse passer par le feu son fils ou sa fille, qui s’adonne à la divination, au augures, aux superstitions et aux enchantements, qui ait recours aux charmes, qui consulte les évocateurs et les sorciers, et qui interroge les morts. Car tout homme qui fait ces choses est en abomination à Yahweh …»

Une abomination est ce que Dieu méprise et ce pour quoi Il n’a aucun respect.

Dieu interdit l’occultisme, donc l’ésotérisme, comme des souillures avec les démons.

Pape Léon Ier, lettre Quam laudabiliter, 21 juillet 447 : [L’impiété des priscillianistes] a surgi même dans les ténèbres du paganisme, en sorte que par les pratiques secrètes et impies des arts magiques et les tromperies vaines des astrologues, ils fondèrent la foi de la religion et la règle des moeurs sur le pouvoir des démons et l’effet des astres. S’il était permis de croire et d’enseigner cela, la récompense ne serait plus due aux vertus, ni le châtiment aux vices, et toutes les ordonnances, non seulement des lois humaines mais également des commandements divins, se trouveraient dissoutes ; car il ne pourrait plus y avoir de jugement, ni sur les actes bons, ni sur les actes mauvais, si une nécessité du destin poussait le mouvement de l’esprit vers chacun des deux côtés, et si tout ce qui est fait par les hommes ne relevait pas des hommes mais des astres. …

C’est à juste titre que nos pères… ont agi avec fermeté pour que cet égarement impie soit chassé de toute l’Eglise : les princes du monde également ont abominé à ce point cette folie sacrilège, qu’ils ont abattu son auteur (Priscillien) par l’épée des lois publiques, en même temps que la plupart de ses disciples. Ils voyaient en effet que le lien des mariages serait entièrement défait, et que de même la Loi divine et humaine serait subvertie, s’il était permis à de tels hommes de vivre avec une telle profession en quelque lieu que ce soit. Pendant longtemps cette sévérité a profité à la douceur ecclésiastique, laquelle, même si elle se contente du jugement des prêtres et évite les peines sanglantes, reçoit néanmoins l’aide des décrets sévères des princes chrétiens, puisqu’on voit parfois recourir au remède spirituel ceux qui craignent le supplice corporel.

Pape Léon X, Vème concile de Latran, Session 9, 5 mai 1514 : « Les rituel, au moyen d’enchantements, la divination, les superstitions et l’invocation des démons, est interdite par les lois civiles et les sanctions des canons sacrés ».

Pas de salut hors de la foi et de l'Eglise :

Pape Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 novembre 1302, ex cathedra (déclaration de la chaire de Pierre infaillible et obligatoire à tenir sous peine d’hérésie et d’excommunication automatique) : «… cette Eglise en dehors de laquelle il n’y a pas de salut ni rémission des péchés … En outre, nous déclarons, disons, définissons et proclamons à toute créature humaine qu’ils ont la nécessité absolue pour le salut d’être entièrement soumis au Pontife romain ».

Pape Eugène IV, Concile de Florence, «Cantate Domino», 1441, ex cathedra (déclaration de la chaire de Pierre infaillible et obligatoire à tenir sous peine d’hérésie et d’excommunication automatique) :

«… aucun de ceux qui se trouvent en dehors de l’Eglise catholique, non seulement païens, mais encore juifs ou hérétiques et schismatiques ne peuvent devenir participants à la vie éternelle, mais iront « dans le feu éternel qui est préparé par le diable et ses anges » … personne ne peut être sauvé, si grandes que soient ses aumônes, même s’il verse son sang pour le nom du Christ, s’il n’est pas demeuré dans le sein et dans l’unité de l’Eglise catholique».

Pape Eugène IV, Concile de Florence, Le symbole d’Athanase, Sess. 8, 22 novembre 1439, ex cathedra (déclaration de la chaire de Pierre infaillible et obligatoire à tenir sous peine d’hérésie et d’excommunication automatique) :

« Celui qui veut être sauvé, doit avant tout tenir la foi catholique, à moins que chacun la conserve intègre et inviolée, il périra sans aucun doute pour l’éternité».

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"c'est pourquoi vous défendez l'occultisme de l'apostat et satanique auteur du Seigneur des anneaux"

Vous êtes un menteur.

Quand à locus biblique que vous citez juste après, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien a lui-même beaucoup mis en garde, notemment en Akallabêth, une réflection selon la lettre quasi sur l'Atlantide, selon la morale pourtant sur "comme dans les jours de Noé" de Mathieu 24.

"qui niez l'enseignement dogmatique de l'Eglise et vous mentez en faisant des suppositions sorties de votre imagination"

Accusation lourde qui devrait être substantiée.

Ou encore mieux, RETIRÉE.

"Un chrétien devrait consacrer son temps à grandir dans sa foi par la prière, la lecture, et d'autres bonnes œuvres,"

Ce que je fais aussi.

La lecture de Tolkien et de CSL étant parmi les pistes qui m'ont conduit à l'église.

Si vous voulez dire "la totalité du temps", vous parlez comme si juste les religieux pourraient être sauvés, ce qui est faux.

"et la plupart font des déchets de leur temps avec les contes et les fables inutiles, qui occuperont leur esprit à la place de Dieu. C'est pourquoi les médias mauvais conduisent d'innombrables âmes à la damnation éternelle et tourments de l'enfer."

Vous dites assez correcte sur des "fables amoureux" que je viens de délaisser au temps de ma conversion catholique, avec peu de rechutes.

Quand à Tolkien et C S L, les fables ne sont ni amoureux dans le sens pornographique, ni autrement inutiles, mais au contraires pleines de bonnes leçons.

Vous dites assez correct aussi sur des choses vraiment ésotériques, comme Deep Space 9 (que je suis heureux de ne pas avoir eu occasion de voir, continuation de Star Trek), comme Charmed, comme Harry Potter - dans la mesure précise que ça conduit des gens à des pratiques occultistes qui, malgré une apparence "innocente" pour les non-chrétiens, sont en soi des péchés mortels.

Narnia et Seigneur des Anneaux ne sont pas de cette farine.

"Le Seigneur des Anneaux est une série de livres célèbres qui présente la magie, l’occultisme, les contes de fées et les fables comme quelque chose de bon et louable"

Vous mélangez les pommes et les poires.

Les contes de fées ne sont pas blâmables, parfois même, avec une bonne morale, louables.

La magie et l'occultisme, en tant qu'action par des hommes de se procurer des pouvoirs et des savoirs surnaturels ne sont pas présentés comme ni bons ni louables dans le Seigneur des Anneaux.

Demandez à un "Tolkiendil" ce que Tolkien dit sur les Nazgûls - il s'agit des hommes ayant fait des contrats faustiens. Ni bons, ni louables.

"Ste Thérèse a même avoué que la lecture de livres qui en eux-mêmes ne sont pas mauvais, sont encore un début de grand mal et de tiédeur."

Pour une âme religieuse oui.

Si la tiédeur il y risque d'avoir de toute façon, autant lire une bonne chose qui au moins n'éloigne pas de la bonne doctrine.

Deutéronome 18, personne en Seigneur des Anneaux fait des choses pareilles sans que l'auteur montre qu'il souffre du dommage à son âme (ou qu'il ait déjà perdu son âme).

St Léon I très clairement condamnait l'astrologie comme déterminisme, privant les hommes de leur libre arbitre - en fin du compte une forme de proto-Calvinisme. Rien de ces inepties Priscillianistes chez Tolkien ni chez CSL.

"Tous les films et séries qui conduisent votre esprit vers des fantasmes et des fables comme Le Seigneur des anneaux, Heroes, Smallville, Avatar, etc., même si nous disions pour les besoins du raisonnement, qu'ils n'ont rien en eux contre Dieu (ce qui n'est pas vrai), devraient encore être évités, car ils détournent nos esprits de Dieu pour le monde naturel dans lequel nous vivons, vers les fantasmes et toutes sortes de pensées qui s'y rapportent"

Ma consommation de Seigneur des Anneaux comme de Narnia est surtout en livres.

Après, on ne peut pas comparer les deux avec:

• Smalville, qui contient des Extraterrestres (notemment Kal-El/Clark Kent lui-même) et les peint comme ayant des pouvoirs surhumaines parce qu'ils sont "adaptés à un monde plus lourd sous un soleil plus rouge" - ce qui est évolutionnisme
  
  ou
  
  
• Avatar ou un homme est présenté comme transmettant sa conscience dans un autre corps appartenant à une race d'extraterrestres, et ceci dans un context quasi religieux de panthéisme écologisante, genre "théorie de Gaea".

Ces choses là, je les évite. Surtout Avatar.

Pape Léon X, Vème concile de Latran, Session 9, 5 mai 1514 :

« Les rituel, au moyen d’enchantements, la divination, les superstitions et l’invocation des démons, est interdite par les lois civiles et les sanctions des canons sacrés ».

C'est la différence entre Narnia et Seigneur des Anneaux, où les choses magique ne sont pas décrites avec une forme d'exactitude rituelle, ne peuvent pas être abusées comme livres d'instruction de la magie, et Harry Potter que j'ai évité, parce que l'auteur de l'article que j'ai lu avait noté que les formules données verbatim dedans s'approchent trop près à ce qu'utilisent réellement les sorcières et les enchanteurs.

Les formulations qui ont inspiré le Feeneyisme n'ont que peu à voir avec le sujet.

C'est possible, si le Feeneyisme est correct c'est une conclusion logique, que CSL serait à l'enfer pour ne pas s'être converti. Ça ne fait pas de ses livres, ni des fables, ni de ses livres d'apologétique, à part quelques peu de passages qui expriment ses erreurs, sans trop d'emphase, des livres mauvais.

Quant à Tolkien, il ne se disait pas "catholique" dans le sens que Luther et Calvin disaient "ce sont nous les catholiques, vous, vous êtes plutôt papistes" - il était un catholique qui détestait Henri VIII et l'anglicanisme et qui était en deuil quasiment pour l'apostasie de son fils Christopher et qui refusait à assister au mariage de CSL parce que c'était quelque part un remariage de la mariée (après, je ne suis pas sûr du tout que le premier mariage de Joy Davidman avec Gresham était valide : ils étaient athées et elle de famille juive, donc non-baptisée probablement - est-il devenu un mariage valide après sa conversion? Je ne sais pas).

Tolkien était aussi un catholique qui n'était pas pour Vatican II, ni pour la Réforme liturgique, même si sa réaction était plutôt confusion et tristesse qu'un clair rejet.

Ceci sont des fait biographiques indéniables.

Opposite morality

I do not hold that novels are factual or have to be. If they were, they would not quite be novels. They might be biographies close to novels or they might be monographies close to novels. Or they might be "novel versions" of reality. But to be a novel, a tale does not have to be factual. I do however hold that the connexion to real life should hold in the morality of a novel. A novel hero may exhibit traits which the author does not share, but he should not be admired for things that the author would in real life despise.

Hence the question of morality of any given novel - or shorter story.

Here is a correspondence between me and a writer on that topic. I considered that one tale of his had made bad morality. And that the bad morality was the exact inverse of the good morality of Clive Staples Lewis in The Silver Chair.

Me to Dominic de Souza

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:11 AM

[Dominic de Souza] Silver Bound Serpent

Do I sense a reversal of moral as compared to the Silver Chair, here:

http://catholicauthor.us/blog/the-silver-bound-serpent-a-catechism-tale/

Dominic de Souza to me

18/06/15 à 15h52

Re: [Dominic de Souza] Silver Bound Serpent

Hi Georg, can you please clarify?

Thanks, and have a great day,

Dominic de Souza
Arboriad Design
Your Visual Design Consultant

Me to Dominic de Souza

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:41 AM

Re: [Dominic de Souza] Silver Bound Serpent

In Silver Chair, a human figure was chained, and given the benefit of the doubt and freed - and killed a real serpent (which had not been chained).

In your story, a human figure is killed on blind faith it is a serpent. Even if it is, the killer ought to have had some proof before going on with the killing.

This is of course irrespective of the allegorical meaning of the serpent - but if it was meant as allegory, there should be some indication that what was meant by the thing to be killed was an interior thought ("blessed is he who dashes thy small ones their heads against the wall, oh Babylon" in usual Christian exegesis referring to refusal of first initial temptations to any sin), since as it stands, as an adventure story, it gives too much room for mistreating obviously human looking creatures on blind faith.

That is what I meant./HGL

Dominic de Souza to me

19/06/15 à 12h06

Re: [Dominic de Souza] Silver Bound Serpent

In the Silver Chair, the human figure was never identified as the serpent, and was possessed by it. When freed, he destroyed both the chair and the serpent to free himself from further evil. In the context of my story, the difference is that all know that an incarnation of evil is chained up, capable of mutating form. As an allegory for rooting out evil regardless its face. Obviously we are dealing less with physical evil and more metaphysical.

Still not sure I understand your point. Have a great day.

Thanks, and have a great day,

Dominic de Souza
[etc]

Me to Dominic de Souza

19/06/15 à 13h16

Re: [Dominic de Souza] Silver Bound Serpent

Same to you, but we have a little problem with epistemology:

"all know that an incarnation of evil is chained up, capable of mutating form."

How does "government says" become "all know"?

In the Silver Chair, Rilian says himself (while enchanted and before going to be chained up) that if HE were to be freed, while "the fit" lasts, he would, lamentably, turn into a serpent.

Rilian gave Eustace, Jill and Puddleglum lots more reason to suspect his request for liberation than the hero of your story had./HGL

Yes, when I said that morality has to be the same in a novel as in real life, I do include epistemology. And in my book, relying on particular information on particular persons (or monsters) because "everyone knows" is not quite good epistemology.

That is why I recommend a rereading of:

The Silver Chair (The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 6)
Paperback – 1 Oct 2009 (or earlier versions)
by C. S. Lewis (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Silver-Chair-Chronicles-Narnia-Book/dp/0007323093

rather than reading, unprepared, The Silver Bound Serpent which I linked to above.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Paulinus of Nola
22-VI-2015

Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

To give some South African atmosphere, here is the intro to "vi i femman" - the melody is from some Afrikaander folk song (probably the time of the Great Trek):

Vi i femman - Intro (1981)
erikbe99
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNLQSBubosE

As the internet detective I am, it would be ridiculous of me not to be able sooner or later to identify the source for Janne Lucas, namely Bert Kaempfert's A Swingin' Safari. He was German, but inspired by African pop/kwela. Here it is, and much more African than what you may just have heard:

Bert Kaempfert And His Orchestra: A Swingin' Safari
Patricia Rosa Viola
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bsoyT86LE

Of course the Swedish dialogue after intro is just an extra. Now to the correspondence.

I

Me to Johann Neveling

01/06/15 à 11h50

I take it that in Burgersdorp you find some Triassic fauna ...

... have you found Permian fauna straight below it?/HGL

II

Johann Neveling to me

01/06/15 à 15h53

RE: I take it that in Burgersdorp you find some Triassic fauna ...

Hi

Yes, Triassic fossil fauna has been discovered in the Burgersdorp Formation, which outcrops extensively in the Burgersdorp district. But there are no Permian fauna directly below that. The Katberg Formation directly below the Burgersdorp is still considered to be Triassic and to get to the Permian one has to go lower still to the next formation, the Balfour Formation.

Regards

Johann

III

Me to Johann Neveling

02/06/15 à 13h03

RE: I take it that in Burgersdorp you find some Triassic fauna ...

OK, but has anyone tried to look for fossils in the Balfour formation where it is locally below Katberg and Burgersdorp?

I mean, are fossils only searched for and found where a formation outcrops so there is nothing above it, or has anyone tried to dig deeper in a place and found fossils like Triassic ones from Burgersdorp and Katberg formations and Permian ones from Balfour where it lies below them?/HGL

IV

Johann Neveling to me

02/06/15 à 15h04

RE: I take it that in Burgersdorp you find some Triassic fauna ...

Yes. The best chance to find fossils is where you have a bit of relief and erosion – in the Karoo the hills are normally good areas. There are no localities in the Karoo where both the Burgersdorp and Katberg formations are preserved above the Balfour Formation, except in northern half of the basin (where all the formations are much thinner). But there are several localities further south where exposures of the Balfour Formation is overlain by Katberg Formation rocks; and where people looked for and found fossils. These discoveries are reported in the work of (amongst others), James Kitching, Andre Keyser, Roger Smith, Gideon Groenewald, Bruce Rubidge and Jennifer Botha-Brink.

Johann

V

Me to Johann Neveling

02/06/15 à 15h38

RE: I take it that in Burgersdorp you find some Triassic fauna ...

Any of these online?

I'll have a look at any rate!

Wonderful thanks!

VI

Me to Bruce Rubidge and Jennifer Botha-Brink

02/06/15 à 16h12

You have both dug in both Katberg and Balfour formations, right?

Have you ever done this: started digging on top, with clear Katberg/Triassic fauna of fossils and dug down to Balfour levels, same hole, and got Balfour/Permian fauna?

I ask you, because you are on a list given in a reply by Johann Neveling. Here are his words:

"But there are several localities further south where exposures of the Balfour Formation is overlain by Katberg Formation rocks; and where people looked for and found fossils. These discoveries are reported in the work of (amongst others), James Kitching, Andre Keyser, Roger Smith, Gideon Groenewald, Bruce Rubidge and Jennifer Botha-Brink."

I skimmed through parts of what I could find of your workslists, as well as Kitching's, which I somehow lost. Only one work seemed to imply both sides of Permo-Triassic frontier and that was on a beast found on both sides of it.

Feel free to contact the others as well.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VII

Bruce Rubidge to me.

02/06/15 à 18h26

RE: You have both dug in both Katberg and Balfour formations, right?

Dear Hans

I really do not understand your question. To simply dig down from the Katberg into the Balfour in the hopes of finding vertebrate fossils is a senseless exercise as you have to dig through rock and it is hard work. I doubt whether anybody would do that.



Sincerely

Bruce

VIII

Me to Bruce Rubidge

03/06/15 à 09h28

RE: You have both dug in both Katberg and Balfour formations, right?

In other words, when you dig in Balfour, it is where there is no Katberg (or anything else) straight above?

And that is true for the other superposed layers too?/HGL

IX

Bruce Rubidge to me.

03/06/15 à 09h45

RE: You have both dug in both Katberg and Balfour formations, right?

Dear Hans



There are many outcrops of Katberg immediately overlying Balfour Formation so one can trace the entire stratigraphic succession. It is not necessary to dig from the Katberg to the Balfour to expose rocks.



Sincerely

Bruce

X

Me to Bruce Rubidge, cc Jennifer Botha-Brink and Johann Neveling

03/06/15 à 10h52

RE: You have both dug in both Katberg and Balfour formations, right?

That I very much thought was your idea of it.

My point is that with this idea in mind, you haven't ever doublechecked by digging down from Katberg surface into Balfour depths.

Did I get this correctly?

By the way, sorry for an impertinence, but you do take it with some sense of humour to share the name with this fellow*? Was it your father who codiscovered it with Broom**?

No, reason I ask is - to get serious - that if you never did, that is exactly what my hypothesis predicted. Namely that all land vertebrate fossils ever found and classified (as opposed to fossils still firmly hidden in the ground) are from what in a particular sense amounts to "one layer" - the one layer "near surface" where you do dig.

In other words, if all are from the Flood, the areas where you mark out "limits" between Permian and Triassic are exactly speaking limits between Permian biotopes and Triassic ones from before the Flood.

This is the interest I have in asking, and this is also where I find it interesting that one hasn't dug down from Katberg into Balfour lower in ground because it "isn't necessary".

Here is what I have hypothesised, and some discussions I have had on it:

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed.

Howard F was just contradicted*** by you, Bruce, and I think you other guys, Johann and Jennifer, should get this answer too.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Back up to Rubidgea atrox: http://www.webcitation.org/6Z9nyDDY8

** It could of course have been grandfather or uncle or ... here is backup to Broomicephalus: http://www.webcitation.org/6Z9o8TUjK

*** Insofar as he wasn't just once again "lowering the rib" for my criteria. That is.

Update after correspondence:

For readers beyond those I wrote to, or for these if they consult the blog, there is a part 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F.

At Cross Purposes with Academia

Chuck Missler, whom you may have heard of, considers Hebrew has a somewhat "magic" or supernatural property. Aleph (by virtue of being an ox-head, but also of letter heading the alphabet) means head. Beth means house. Aleph Beth spells Ab, which means father, and the father is the head of the house. Add H into a word, and you get the spirit of it. So, for exemple, insert an H into Ab, you should get sth which is the spirit of fatherhood. And Ahab, meaning love, has that quality.

I am not at all certain the rabbis from whom Chuck Missler have this could keep this principle going through a longer wordlist. Even as long as a Swadesh list. If they could, it would at least be very helpful for Hebrew students, as memory help for words. I am surprised that I can even make some headway with two words I happen to know. Dabar means word, apparently. Daleth-Beth-Resh. The pauper of the house that is a head? Well, words do tend to get thrown out of the heads like paupers out of houses! Tell means hill. Tau-Lamed-Lamed or Tau-Lamed plus gemination sign. Sign of ... and let Lamed stand for Lamek, mourning or despair, not sure which, we get ... sign of mourning. Some hills are that. They are grave hills. In some pagan cults these grave hills were really signs of despair. When a chieftain gets a grave hill where he is buried with favourite wife (whose throat is cut so she can be sacrificed in a grave offering), his favourite servants (dito) and favourite horse (dito), that kind of grave hill is a sign of despair. Some less evil ones are at least signs of mourning, like the tumulus after Hector or Beowulf.

I am surprised I could even make headway with "dabar" and "tell". But I am essentially not a Hebraist. However, I would merely on general linguistic probabilities not bet this goes through the language, if it does it is a marvellous thing, I am too little versed in Hebrew to judge this. Even if it went all through the nouns without touching the verbs, or even if for each verb only one of the forms (sometimes a passive or a causative) would fit, it would be a very marvellous thing, but I am not in a position to know that.

However, there is an application of this to Christian prophecy in Old Testament. This is where I came to debate with one Academic friend, and, asking Heiser, got a little lesson in linguistics, how languages work, which me being a linguist, I found a bit on cross purposes with what I had actually asked. These applications are that crucifixion is thus prefigured in the letter hieroglyphics of the Tetragrammaton and of the word Bereshit (excepting that Beth Resh are not taken hieroglyphically, they are taking as the word Bar, Aramaic for Son).

Me to Michael Heiser

07/06/15 à 14h52

this is not about Zitchins*

It is about the Tetragrammaton and Bereshit.

Can the tetragrammaton be read as "hand - praise - nail - praise"? If you like to see it as "hand praises so much the nail praises too" (which is good Catholic Theology about instruments of the Passion, by the way)?

Can bereshit be read as ber - eshit, ber = bar (aramaic for son) and the rest "[of] first - destroyed/consumed - by hand - on cross"?

Reason I ask you is I asked a fb friend of mine, and a colleague of you, he considered it moonshine.

He considered I could just as well have taken a phrase [not recalling it but hwere each initial of each word was a letter in bereshit]. "in Rome I shall keep the law".

I retorted to him we ware talking of two different procedures : in the one case of pictogrammatic treatment of the Hebrew letters, in the other case of treating Bible text as an acrostic to get words filled in according to fancy of interpreter.

Plus that in his chosen case, this phrase would acknowledge the fact (he's also a Roman Catholic) that Christ HAS kept the Law in Rome, through the papacy (not meaning He's doing so through Bergoglio, that's another story).

In other words, these interpretations which are profusely given by Chuck Missler and Trey Smith, is there some kind of kabbalistic procedure which is often acknowledged going on, or is it their own very personal fancy?

Note that by "kabbalistic procedure" I mean a procedure in use among kabbalists, like gematria (a very obvious one, and which NT specifically endorses for one purpose in 13:18 of Apocalypse), and do not mean "based on the doctrine of [e. g.] Lurian kabbalah" (I consider the latter a very false metaphysic).

Hans Georg Lundahl

M. Heiser to me

08/06/15 à 19h59

Re: this is not about Zitchins

It is about the Tetragrammaton and Bereshit.

Can the tetragrammaton be read as "hand - praise - nail - praise"?

** absolutely not; this is utter nonsense. It comes from trying to take the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, asking what original *Egyptian* sign they derive from was, and then taking that *object* (or something like it in function or appearance), and then using that object for the "meaning" of the letter. No language in the history of human speech works that way (spoken or written). The Hebrew Bible (not to mention thousands of lines of epigraphic Hebrew) utterly incomprehensible. It's another failed (and stupid) attempt at a Bible code (encrypted knowledge). It's garbage.

** Hope that's clear enough, And yes, you can quote me.

If you like to see it as "hand praises so much the nail praises too" (which is good Catholic Theology about instruments of the Passion, by the way)?

Can bereshit be read as ber - eshit, ber = bar (aramaic for son) and the rest "[of] first - destroyed/consumed - by hand - on cross"?

** ditto the above - more nonsense.

Reason I ask you is I asked a fb friend of mine, and a colleague of you, he considered it moonshine.

** it is.

Mike

Me to Michael Heiser

08/06/15 à 20h21

Re: this is not about Zitchins

The question was not whether the language** worked that way, but thanks anyway, and thanks for the clarification.

Language also does not work by gematria, as far as we know***, and yet it is for one specific purpose clearly enjoined./HGL

Note that I was not at all asking whether this reading of bereshit or of the name of God was a normal grammatical procedure, as a normal way of grasping the meaning of the text. I was totally aware it was a question of encrypted knowledge or Bible code. His considering these in general failed is nothing to my point. And yet an academic seems to think it is his duty to really take distance from that. Which was not so back in the days of Athanasius Kircher, obviously. Not that I mean his readings of Egyptian texts are better than Champollions - as basic grammatical readings, as extraction of immediate linguistic content.

* I meant Z. Sitchin, Zecharia Sitchin ... of course. I somehow trip up on his name.

** See part of my original letter: In other words, these interpretations which are profusely given by Chuck Missler and Trey Smith, is there some kind of kabbalistic procedure which is often acknowledged going on, or is it their own very personal fancy?

OK, profusely is an unnecessary word. I should have said they were very sparing about the theme, giving basically only what

*** It is for instance certain that a subject and a predicate make sense as language because of the concepts they are, not because of having a same or product of number value. And yet a gematrist will test the truth value of subject and predicate by seeing if they have same number value, or, if not, number values one of which is double the other and things. Still, for one thing (Apocalypse 13:18) we are asked to use gematria.

Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

I

Me to Dwight Longenecker

24/03/15 à 16h22

Any answer will be blogged on this one

Just so you know in advance, and no bad surprise to you.

The Terminator – Will the Machines Take Over?
March 23, 2015 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/03/will-computers-take-over-from-humans.html

"I’m talking about all the things human beings do that really have no use at all. Here’s a list:"

Where is:

• Translating
• Evaluating an argument
• Evaluating linguistic style and influence from another language
• Evaluating a definition
• Understanding what oneself is actually doing?

Computers can't do those things.

Google translate can give sth which has most words, in short sentences even all words, if lucky, in common with a real translation.

But it cannot translate, since it cannot relate to meaning. Translating means:

• grasping meaning of text x in language y
• reproducing same meaning as text z in language w.

Google can exhange words from word pairs and even treat syntaxemes like words. But when a Spanish poem about the Blessed Virgin contains the word "graciosa" and Bing (competitor of Google) gives meaning after most common use of "gracioso, -a", namely "drôle" in the French translation, you might perhaps understand what a computer can never grasp : they have no grasp on meaning.

How about your saying what you should have said, namely that Wozniak lacks a proper grasp of metaphysics and even has lost some of the grasp on meaning. He idolises his products and has become like his idol in that precise respect.

How about trying to tell him R2D2, C3PO, Terminator, Tobor, Scrameustache, CHAPPiE (and I might add a computer from HHGG too, the one that answered 42, without realising that 14*3 from Abraham really is the answer) - all of these are either in film or text impersonated by human minds who unlike what they are portraying actually do have a grasp on meaning?

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme Badness of Google Translate (Copy Pasted both texts)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/extreme-badness-of-google-translate.html

[Note, title does not mean Google Translate is generally extremely bad, but that this badness was extreme for Google Translate. However, this extreme may be counted on as regularly occurring.]

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme badness of computer scanned text retype
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/extreme-badness-of-computer-scanned.html

basic english blog : This will be. Easy.
http://writingthisinbasicenglish.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-will-be-easy.html

basic english blog : I was wrong.
http://writingthisinbasicenglish.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-was-wrong.html

[was : blog readability test, is :] The requested URL could not be retrieved
http://www.criticsrant.com/bb/reading_level.aspx

See what I mean?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Not answered, so far.

II

Me to Dwight Longenecker

31/03/15 à 18h09

et lux non loqui or lumen non loqui

In a FB group called Latinitas, yesterday, I was confronted with the question how to translate the phrase "et lux non loqui" into English.

I suspected it might have become as garbled Latin as it was by the fact of being a google translate from another language.

So, I tried the English phrase:

"and the light not to speak"
in the English left box of a google translate
and find in the Latin right box:
"et lux non loqui"

Google translate for phrase
consulted at 18:02 Paris time, Tuesday holy Week
https://translate.google.com/?hl=fr#en/la/and%20the%20light%20not%20to%20speak

Mystery resolved, as far as content was concerned.

Someone had wished or prayed for someone to get yadayada "and light not to speak". Like in demanding a sense of what I gave the Latin dictionaries as "homeritatem" (omertà in original).

Someone has also taken the trouble to get this phrase into Latin.

THEN someone (else? or same?) had posted question about meaning of "et lux non loqui" in Latinitas (which is a closed group, so only group members saw this).

I gave the answer yesterday, I also made the connexion with demanding or praying for "omertà". In pretty Classic Latin (if you do not count using "homeritatem" as a total barbarism). I mentioned someone had been hoping I get something "et lucem qua non loquar" or "et lucem ut non loquar", I might even if I had continued gotten into "et lucem non loquendi". But it was definitely idiotic as far as Latin is concerned to trust the translate on "et lux non loqui".

Today I wanted to get the discussion (anonymising the merely private persons in discussion) onto my FB mirroring blog.

It had disappeared, apparently someone had more omertà than I had.

Now, apart from the question if I (known to be a Latinist) could be the guy asked for omertà, this illustrates the point I made in an earlier letter: computers have no grasp of meaning.

Feel free to reply, but feel sure there is no omertà either asked or offered about this correspondence. If I take the trouble to debate with you (not that I mind debating, but even debating gets tiring if one is woken up at too early hours after eating too well in the evening before), I want for that trouble the unquestioned right to use the discussion on my blog - which is of course requited. You can use it on yours.

The scenario of Terminator is not an imminent danger, it is an impossibility. That is the point of my previous letter, as of this one.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Not answered, so far.

With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Four Corners Revisited

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Hans Küng is Lousy in Ecclesiology. · 2) What Utter Stupidity in Exegesis, This Modernism! · 3) Stacy Trasancos Gets Condemation of 219 Theses Wrong · 4) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 5) Creation vs. Evolution : Dominic Statham and Reijer Hooykaas Wrong on Christian - Pagan Divide · 6) Correcting CMI on Aristotle

I

Me to James Hannam, per contact form

On 30 March 2015 at 09:01

Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

[Quoting his page] This is interesting because the Bible itself implies the Earth is flat (for example at Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles) and most of its writers (certainly those of the Old Testament) probably thought so. Clearly, belief in the complete scientific accuracy of the scriptures against known facts was not upheld by the early or medieval church who were happy to accept a figurative interpretation. [End quote.]

Daniel 4 is a dream given to a pagan, which dream is physically impossible (a tree cannot grow larger than the continent it stands on, or even as large).

That a dream might be inaccurate in physical detail and have only its symbolic significance might have been realised even by Daniel.*

If you mean the "four corners" passages, well, any map including Americas etc which is Round Earth shows four corners, NE Sakhalin/Japan, SE Singapore/New Guinea/Australia, and for SW and NW, either you consider the two Americas the two largest islands and Cape of Good Hope and Scandinavia/British Isles/Iceland will do or you consider the Atlantic the largest inland sea and it becomes Cape Horn and Alaska instead. But the well known map of Flat Earth society is three corners : South corners of Americas, SE Asia and Oz, and of Africa.

Daniel lived among presumably Flat Earth believing Babylonians, but he had been born in Judea close enough to presumably Round Earth believing Phenicians.

So, OT Judaism unlike the Rabbinic version, may very well have been as neutral on the question as St Basil.

Hans Georg Lundahl

(click link in signature before responding, here it is again:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html)

* Who, being in Heaven, will realise my sarcasm implied in word "even" was at you, not at him!

II

James Hannam to me

31/03/15 à 15h27

Re: Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your email.

Of course, the language could be figurative. But I suggest the reason we have the language in the first place was because it wasn't always figurative. Also, note that the Greeks were not committed to a spherical earth until after 500BC. Many pre-socratics were believers in a flat earth of some description.

Finally, re-reading St Basil, it is clear he knew perfectly well what the shape of the earth was and could reel off the standard arguments from Aristotle and Ptolemy. He just didn't think it mattered much!

Best wishes

James

III

Me to James Hannam

31/03/15 à 16h14

Re: Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

My dear James,

The dream (Daniel 4) is a dream and as such hardly lays claims to physical exactitude.

Where exactly am I claiming figurative language for anyone or anything? Apart from that dream, of course.

My explanation of the four corners clearly mean they are literal such. There are four corners and stepping off of them means you fall or wade out into the sea. You get wet. Meaning of course, they are not he kind of corners where ships would tip off the edge of the sea. Check out meaning range of Hebrew erets and Latin terra.

St Basil citing the arguments of Aristotle does not necessarily mean he believed them.

1) Lunar eclipses could theoretically be due to some other body than Earth.

Vedic astronomy which IS tied to flat earthism has a special planet Rahu with the sole function of explaning eclipses. Solar and Lunar. Accepting our explanation would involve admitting it was Earth's shadow on a Lunar eclipse. Hence, Rahu.

Though St Basil might nowhere have shown knowledge of this theory, he might have been no great astronomy buff, he might nevertheless have considered the argument from Lunar eclipses insufficient.

2) Experiment of Eratosthenes and sightings of objects crossing horizon (in aparent motion parallactic to a ship motion or in own motion if object was mast and hull of a ship) certainly suggest Earth is bent, but not necessarily a full globe.

3) Geographic argument was strongest when Aristotle considered Straits of Gibraltar to be on other side of Ganges, but before the time of St Basil this might already have been debunked as the misidentification it was, while he wrote about a thousand years before Vasco da Gama supplied real best argument (which has since been redocumented in the Vasco da Gama form time after time).

So, he may well have been exactly as undecided himself as he considered one should be.

To resume:

* Biblical authors were as far as expression goes and as far as it could be taken before modern geographical discoveries undecided;

* St Basil remains undecided.

In other words, there is not the kind of discrepancy you describe between Bible text and Patristic take on it.

Best wishes for Holy Week
Hans Georg Lundahl

PS to correspondence:

I could have added here as I did elsewhere that any Father who believed the Earth to be flat thereby declared he disbelieved Greek Philosophers, which means in its turn there is not ANY Patristic CONSENSUS for crystalline spheres, which St Basil at least mentions. Therefore, it is good news for upholders of definition of Trent on reading Bible according to Patristic Consensus, that some Church Fathers, though not all, were either explicitly Flat Earth or at least Box Shaped Universe, since that is a cosmology which is not involved with the Crystalline spheres of Greek Philosophers.

PPS

If St Basil was not a clear upholder or admitter of Round Earth, St Augustine was.

With Dwight on Definition of Fundies

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

I

What I commented on :

Standing on my Head : Is Religious Enquiry Reasonable?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/04/is-religious-enquiry-reasonable.html
and Is Religious Enquiry Rational? / Continue Reading
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/is-religious-enquiry-rational

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 15h56

Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

[Quoting:] Very often along with a highly subjective and emotional form of religion, fundamentalists adopt an intentionally non-rational and anti-intellectual stance.

A religious faith that is rooted in subjective emotionalism combined with a no-compromise fundamentalism will remain shallow and untenable for the ordinary person who wants to think things through.

This is the religion which the typical contemporary atheist or agnostic rejects, and I reject it with them. They are right to reject it.

Both rationalists and fundamentalists therefore view religion and reason as incompatible. Etc. [Which is where I ended the quote.]

My excuses, but would you in that case classify Kent Hovind, the YEC team on CMI and a few more as "fundamentalists"?

They may have about as unreasonable an attitude on Church History as other Protestants, but they very clearly do not view reason as incompatible with faith in the domain (that would rather be the Non-Overlapping-Magisteria view proposed by a Liberal Jew of unhappy memory, Stephen J. Gould), they view, exactly like St Thomas Aquinas, Reason as subordinate to Faith. Since human reason is handled by fallible and fallen beings and Faith has some kind of reference which is above it: Bible-Tradition-Magisterium or "Paper Pope" as a Calvinist obligingly referred to his incomplete and partly mistranslated Bible as.

Is it honest of you to be perpetuating strawmen about Fundies?*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* or of us, the Catholic counterpart, Integrists, by implication, since we would usually be referrable to as "Catholic Fundies"?

II

Dwight Longencker to me

20/04/15 à 15h57

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for your email.
I guess it depends on your experience of fundamentalists.

I am writing from the American south.

Fr DL

III

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 16h56

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I guess you know Kent Hovind at least in the American South too.

Thanks for the response! And even more if you care to elaborate.

You know this blog where I like to put correspondence, just languishing for your response, meanwhile it has quite a little debate with mainly Sungenis and sometimes David Palm too.

Oh, wouldn't you call Sungenis a Fundie too? And his pal Rick DeLano is certainly calling his blog "Magisterial Fundies" ...

Would you consider ANY of these people as considering faith and reason incompatible?/HGL

[I just noted, the words were not “faith and reason” but “religion and reason”]

IV

Dwight Longenecker to me

20/04/15 à 17h24

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I’m so ignorant!
I’m afraid I don’t know Hovind.

I am familiar with Sungenis, but don’t know DeLano.

Sorry!

Fr DL

[Was the irony lost on me, because I was tired this morning - see new date for next mail? - or was I rejecting it because I thought it heartless about a man who is in prison since ten years? I hope I wasn't taking it at face value! Even with too little caffeine inside, this morning!]

V

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 09h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Ignorance is, at least up to Alzheimer, which I hope you have not, nor will have, a repairable state.

Rick DeLano is the guy who as filmmaker collaborated with Sungenis for The Principle and his blog is Magisterial Fundies.

We fell out over parallax measures applicable or not in Geocentrism and over angelic movers vs "naturalistic" causes (angels are as natural and as created and as secondary as we or as naturalistic causes, but they are NOT "naturalistic" in the sense of being included in causalities Naturalist Monists accept):

HGL's F.B. writings : New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis, same blog : Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)

More recently, he was included in a mail exchange where he endorsed the discretionist behaviour of Christopher Ferrara:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry

That would be Rick DeLano.

Now, Hovind ... he had a debate with Hugh Ross, on four videos, which I commented on, and now the videos are no longer available, here are the comment debates I had under these videos, alas not including Kent Hovind himself:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos

In same series of blogposts, there was also some other links to Hovind videos, let's see if they are still there:

same blog: ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind

Yup, video still up, an intro is given by Kent's son Eric:

Kent Hovind: The Age of The Earth
channel : JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBNRCwdQwU

In this blog post: same blog again : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)

... I include a few comments on this Hovind video, which I link to in it:

Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 1
JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSDb7iBTg70

(attribution, you know, some say it's sadly lacking on the internet, but not on my blogs, it isn't)

He is of course a bit off when he's occasionally speaking of Church History instead of repeating Dom Augustin Calmet and added scientific knowledge in defence of historic sense of OT. Like here:

Oh, seems the video is gone again, but my comments remain:

same blog again : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject

But the exposé on Kent Hovind would be incomplete if it weren't for some comment on his being unjustly in prison:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
channel : ppsimmons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y

As I took up ppsimmons, seeing some other videos from him kind of partly makes your point, he is very emotional, but one can say he is so for a purpose, for rallying before the beheadings that might be coming on ... nevertheless, Kent Hovind is as much a Fundie as ppsimmons, and Kent Hovind does NOT fit your description.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 12h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thank you for your email.
All of this is seems rather arcane to me, but more grace to you for engaging in such debates!

Fr DL

VII

Me to Dwight Longencker

21/04/15 à 12h20

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

If Fundie lore is arcane to you, why are you giving an evaluation, overall, of Fundies?

If you want to say they are very emotional in Liturgy, first of all, the Liturgic choices go, I think, across the board from Fundie to Liberal Theologian, and second, having an emotional liturgy (or what takes the place of liturgy) says nothing on presence or absence or even relative place of Reason in relation to Faith (or what passes as such).

The Apologetics given by Dale and Elaine Rhooton in Can We Know? have the same take on Resurrection as Lane Craig (David Lane Craig?) and nearly all of the book has followed me all of my life, except the part where YEC question is written off as a kind of red herring, as sth one need not at all believe the Bible said, and except the parts of unkillable Bible section claiming Catholic Church "tried to suppress the Bible".

But believing the false History, more of Foxe than of Magdeburg Centuries, means at least caring for history and for history as a kind of proof.

They may be attending or have been attending (I don't know if they are alive or dead) a very emotional liturgy, for all I know, but it does NOT show in their book.

So, if you admit the intellectual side of Fundies is arcane to you, why go out with such a brass bold statement about them, and involving it?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 13h58

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Our definition of fundamentalist is different


Best wishes

Fr. Dwight Longenecker
[adress removed as per request]

IX

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 14h23

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Your definition of Fundamentalism, if excluding Dale and Elaine Rhooton, if excluding Kent Hovind, if excluding Creation Ministries International, can hardly be objectively adequate.

Every concept or term has a definition describing its "intention" and also a thing called extension, namely what other terms, sometimes concrete individuals rather than concepts, it refers to.

An extension of Fundamentalism not including above is impossible, Kent Hovind is a good friend of Jack Chick - by the way, though I heartily dislike the Chick Tracts, I do not find your description of Fundamentalism fits them. About Catholicism, he is more like an envenomed and over bitter intellectual than like an emotionalist leaving reason to second place.

So, giving the word Fundamentalism the intention you give it is misinformation about these people.

In Moral theology it is "objectively calumny" - though I am of course not presuming to judge beforehand on your subjective guilt of it.

In fact, asceertaining that through your words was the reason why I sent you a main about it in the first place.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, if you write a post of retraction, DO tell me, please!

X

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 14h52

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for taking time to write.


Have a great day,

With best wishes,
Fr DL

At this point

it becomes very clear he does not wish to be bothered about trifles like exact definitions of words bandied about about the people he takes a dislike to and so on, so I am not writing a reply.

Which does not stop me

from giving a link to you, readers:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Great Link : 6 Early Christian Controversies That Protestantism Can't Explain
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2015/04/great-link-6-early-christian.html