Friday, October 19, 2018

... on Philosophy of Mathematics

Video I
A negative times a negative is a ... ?
Mathologer | 24.VII.2015

(... - 3)(... -4) = ... - ... - ... + 12.

But is this because -3 and -4 are numbers existing in their own right, with + 12 as their product per se, or is it because subracting from diverse dimensions (think of geometry for instance, squares, cubes) tends to make subtractions cancel out?

Your own "real life example" 4 "losses" of 3 € debts, would it be a brut and net gain of 12 in someone who owed nothing in the first place, or would it just cancel out debts insofar as they existed, like:

I owe 15 €, get rid of 12 € debt, and now owe 3€. We agree on this one.

I owe 2€, get rid of 12 € debt, and now owe nothing - but does whatever made me lose 12€ in debt automatically give me any positive 10 € if I had only two euros in debt?

If I have a prison sentence of 42 months and get rid of owing 14 of them (realistic example), if I am freed after the 28 months, do I get to keep someone in prison myself for the days or weeks I did too much? Or do I automatically get a monetary compensation for the days or weeks I spent too much in there? Or would I have to sue extra for possibly getting that too? Could I loose such a case?

2:14 Lots of ancient civilisations did very well without having recognised "zero" as a number.

Fibonacci told us how to use "zero" on the papers we put an algorithm on, old sense, like this is an algorithm*:

- 5
= 7

But he did not qualify "zero" as a number. He considered it a useful placeholder, to distinguish 10 and 100 from 1 or 105 and 1005 from 15.

Better example with this placeholder:

- 76
= 29

6:29 Very nice proof in algebra that a negative times a negative is a positive.

However, algebra has everything to do with the "just do it" approach.

This does still not prove that "a negative times a negative" even exists in real arithmetic. You know, the kind where we get 2+2=4 from.

II+II = IIII (no zeros and no negative numbers in Roman numerals).

10:36 Now you have shown why algebraically a negative times a negative should make a positive.

You have STILL not shown there are per se negative numbers.

(50-2)2 = 2304 or even just (10-2)2 = 64, we certainly can use a formula which goes a2 - 2ab + b2.

But if you really lay out 100 pebbles, this would mean, if you take that as it stands, that you are first taking away 20 pebbles, then putting back four pebbles in one end of the taken away strip and then taking away another strip of 20 the other way.

What you would normally really do is, 100 - 20 - 16.

a2 - ab - (a-b)b.

Now, a2 - 2ab + b2 is not landing you with a wrong result, but that is only bc it is algebraically equivalent to a2 - ab - (a-b)b.

13:25 "it works" doesn't prove negative numbers actually exist as numbers in their own right ...

Now the reason I keep coming back to this, is, while (-a)2 = a2 in algebra, I'd not consider it a good theorem in arithmetic.

I definitely would consider the following as good theorems:

(x-a)2 = x2 - 2ax + a2 (as reformulation of x2 - ax - a(a-x) obviously)
(x-a)(x-b) = x2 - x(a+b) + ab
(x-a)(y-a) = xy - a(x+y) + a2
(x-a)(y-b) = xy + ab - ay - bx

But in each of these cases, I would argue, -a and when occurring -b also actually refer not to any "numbers lower than zero" but to subtraction.

Why am I saying this?

Bc, numbers begin from 1. This is philosophically important. You can potentially extend numbers forward as much as you like, but you can't extend them backwards even beyond 1. And this has implications for other fields where some kind of values are added one at a time.

YOU didn't come to stand here after an infinity of past causes leading to it.

YOU are where you are bc of a finite number of causes, including but not limited to own past choices - and so am I.

A finite number of causes implies a first cause - which according to St. Thomas Aquinas everyone calls "God".

Apparently this cultural generalisation is not valid for all types of modern men, some would consider "energy" the first cause or some would consider spacetime to be it, but let's not abuse mathematics to pretend there is no first!

Video II
Root 2 and the deadly Marching Squares
Mathologer | 15.V.2015

7 / 5 = 1.4
17 / 12 = 1.4166666666666667
41 / 29 = 1.4137931034482759
99 / 70 = 1.4142857142857143
239 / 169 = 1.4142011834319527
577 / 408 = 1.4142156862745098
1393 / 985 = 1.4142131979695431
3363 / 2378 = 1.4142136248948696

x2 = 2, x = 1.414213562373095?

Nah, that is also an approximation, just a better than the previous ones.

In other words, when we speak of "square root of two" as such, we speak of an irrational which is not a number.

When we write out a fraction to represent sqrt(2) we use an approximation, which is rational.

Either way, nothing irrational has been showed to be a number, and no number has been shown to be irrational.

Why am I into this?

Well, some people have argued Medievals did not understand numbers as well as we do, bc they thought all numbers were rational.

But they actually are. If you want a real exact sqrt of two, you take one square, and its diagonal is the side of a square twice as extensive, exactly. So, sqrt of two is diagonal : side (of a perfect square).

But diagonal : side is not one number, it's not even the ratio between two numbers, it's the ratio between two lengths.

And no, just bc length is often "counted" in numbers times a unit length doesn't mean length is an actual number.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

... answering, belatedly, a tirade of Hitchens

Here's the tirade:

Christopher Hitchens Schools The Catholic Church(Epic Closing Statement)
Siddharth Sridharan | 2.XI.2013

1:13 [Where Hitch evokes Catholic Bolivia] Well, more people die, because more people live.

All people who live, die.

3:23 I totally agree with Hitchens that Catholicism bans sodomy, like contraception and a few more.

It should.

Recall what Hitchens said about poor countries? "More people die".

Yes, but before that, more people live too.

1:38 Germany, Austria and elsewhere ...

Poles were indirectly participating, some of them, by delivering Jews up, by "I don't really care". Also, a synagogue burnt down with people in it ... and it had a statue of Lenin in it, and people hating, for good enough reasons, Lenin, may not have appreciated Jews honouring him with a statue.

Italy - only had camps for Jews, or one such camp, La Riziera, during Salò Republic. It only delivered Jews to Germany during Salò Republic. [a puppet régime to Hitler, for those unaware of history]

Austria involves Burgenland - formerly Hungaria, but German speaking. Some of the Nazis were from there. And Calvinist Hungarians like Gyula Gömbös* were far more directly involved in formulating Nazi accusations against Jews.*

Most Calvinists in Austria would be, I would either say from Burgenland, or from Burgenland and Vienna.

Austria and South Germany have two things in common - more dislike for Jews than North Germany, and more dislike for Hitler too.

In Berlin I heard 70 % Bavarians but 90 % in Berlin voted Hitler in 1933.

Why? Bc Hitler was progressive.

Now, what were progressives doing those days? Two states in Canada and two states in US were forcefully sterilizing people. Jews were not one of the targetted ethnicities. Sweden and Norway were sterilising Lapps, and Denmark was sterilising Esquimaux on Greenland. I think they were also sterilising tinkers. But they were not doing it to Jews. Hitler targetted a similar backward minority same way, namely Gipsies, and one hard proponent for his line was a Burgenlander, whom the Austrofascists put in prison. Portschy. [Still no English or French version of that wiki, for some reason.]

Now, Hitler did not only do it to Gipsies, he did it to Jews too. This means, 1945 there was a reaction.

Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Alberta and British Columbia and two states in US continued ... bc their victims were not Jewish. Early to mid seventies this stopped, bc someone came up with "hey wait, seems a bit like what Hitler was doing to Jews and Gipsies". In mid eighties Jews started the policy (on occasion of Catholics comparing abortion to Holocaust) of saying "never compare any other crime to the Holocaust, it is unique". Perhaps they did not want abortion banned? I don't know.

I do know that Spain while not very pro-Jewish in mentality, while certainly honouring not only the teaching on Jews participating in the guilt of the Christ-killers, but also honouring a child martyr killed by Jews, actually was one country of refuge to Jews, at least if Sephardic, during WW-II.

* (footnote to previous)
I searched for a forgotten reference, seems Gömbös was Lutheran, and I could not find the reference for what I recall as "Gömbös thesis," so I might have thought of some other man's or place's thesis, with a Hungarian name including ö.

I also looked up Béla Kun, who in 1937 looked very close to Hitchens.

"Béla Kun 1937, Official mug shot made by NKVD after arrest 1937 - original: Центральный архив ФСБ России"

2:16 Has it occurred to you, (ok, not Hitch, he is dead, but you other guys) that covetuousness, while a "thought crime" is one not punished directly by the Jewish authorities?

You have rules on when to stone a murderer, on when to stone an adulterer and on when to stone someone committing perjury.

You have rules on how much to pay back on when you have stolen without violence (4 times original amount, that is why tax collectors St Matthew and Zacchaeus both resolved to pay back 4 times over whatever they took too much).

You do not have any actual penalties for this thought crime.

You do, however, have a collective and family ritual of reciting this ban on those thought crimes at home, to your children.

Could it be somewhat educational? Could be. Could this have stopped some adulteries, thefts, and actually through either of them, murders? Could be.

Was there anyone involved to actually round up offenders on these thought crimes? No, and that is why Ten Commandments is not 1984.

Enterprise and emulation are not forbidden.

We are forbidden to covet what already belongs to someone, but not forbidden to want as much, gaining it by ourselves, without taking it from him in any way.

Unless it's him volunteering to, of course.

2:33 "though it lumps in are your women folk ..."

Deuteronomy 5:21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Note very well, wife is taken before possessions.

In other words, sexual illicit desire is worse than all others.

It seems that LXX readings of Exodus 20 have the same arrangement.

So, no, women are not just lumped in with possessions here.

3:00 What does "cardinal" Bernhard Law have to do with Catholicism?

3:34 If BL would not tell Hitchens, I can tell, for all or most of 15 years, Stephen Fry was in a state of mortal sin:

"Fry was in a 15-year relationship with Daniel Cohen, which ended in 2010."

Barring of course the "possibility" of madness or dementia making him irresponsible for his actions.

The modernist excuse for "not judging" being that "overriding passion" is comparable and therefore absolves from responsibility, but presumably Stephen Fry was not the victim of "overriding passion" for 24/24, 7/7, 365/365 except leap years when it would have been 366/366. Presumably he had at least some clear moments, meaning if in those he decided to stay in a relationship involving sodomy, he committed mortal sin.

"it's a form of love and deserves our respect for that reason"

However laudible it may be that two persons love each other in some way, it is not and I mean not ever laudible that they "love" having deliberately infertile sex with each other.

I don't mean involuntary infertility, like old couples continuing to have sex, though stopping after menopause is laudible, and I also don't mean foreplay as not being fertile of itself, if emotionally directed to a coitus which potentially is.

But I do mean anything not even allowing an ejaculation to result in a pregnancy.

If Fry and Cohen had been a dynamic duo, with no sex (which is how Bob Kane imagined them), well, best wishes with keeping chaste.

But apparently, this was not the case.

3:51 No, he should not have been proud to have Fry as his babysitter.

Nor should anyone now, as long as Fry and Spencer are "married".

3:59 I don't think a priest would have agreed to babysit for Hitchens anyway ...

I did read of an actor converting, and that after finding out how people trusted Catholic priests.

"While serving in the Royal Navy, Guinness had planned to become an Anglican priest. In 1954, while he was filming Father Brown in Burgundy, Guinness, who was in costume as a Catholic priest, was mistaken for a real priest by a local child. Guinness was far from fluent in French, and the child apparently did not notice that Guinness did not understand him but took his hand and chattered while the two strolled; the child then waved and trotted off.[43] The confidence and affection the clerical attire appeared to inspire in the boy left a deep impression on the actor.[44] When their son was ill with polio at the age of 11, Guinness began visiting a church to pray.[45] A few years later in 1956, Guinness converted to the Roman Catholic Church. His wife, who was of paternal Sephardi Jewish descent,[46] followed suit in 1957 while he was in Sri Lanka filming The Bridge on the River Kwai, and she informed him only after the event.[47] Every morning, Guinness recited a verse from Psalm 143, "Cause me to hear your loving kindness in the morning".[48]"

Ah ...

And, yes, I would have been proud to have Alec Guiness as a babysitter, even despite this:

"In his biography, Alec Guinness: The Unknown, Garry O'Connor reports that Guinness was arrested and fined 10 guineas (£10.50) for a homosexual act in a public lavatory in Liverpool in 1946. Guinness is said to have avoided publicity by giving his name to police and court as "Herbert Pocket", the name of the character he played in Great Expectations. No record of any arrest has ever been found, however."

Especially as there is a serious doubt about the guilt:

" Piers Paul Read, in his 2003 biography, suggests "The rumour is possibly a conflation of stories about Alec's 'cottaging' and the arrest of John Gielgud, in October 1953, in a public lavatory in Chelsea after dining with the Guinnesses at St. Peter's Square." [41] This suggestion was not made until April 2001, eight months after his death, when a BBC Showbiz article related that new books claimed that Guinness was bisexual and that he had kept his sexuality private from the public eye and that the biographies further said only his closest friends and family members knew he had sexual relationships with men.[42]"

Hope those rumours were untrue, though.

My sources about Guiness and Fry being:

4:30 [people saying] "slavery is evil, but the Church wouldn't agree"

On slave hunt, that is hunting down free men to make them slaves, the Church definitely did agree.

It is evil.

Even slave trade was banned by Gregory XVI.

Now, keeping slaves who already are so? No, I do not think that is always evil.

For one thing, in many societies, that is precisely how people get their livelihood. For another, some people in legal formalities free were at some times worse off than slaves, bc of how wage earners were treated in Chicago, for instance, at the time of the Civil War.

This is not meant to excuse the racialism of ex-slave holders as evident from certain Southron attitudes to blacks post-bellum.

I particularly abhor what happened in the two states which allowed forced sterilisations - which slaveholders ante-bellum had not been allowed.

I recently learned, 1920, women all over the US got rights to vote. In the South or parts of it, this was only white women.

If this is true, this is the kind of reform which really makes things worse.

1865 - 1920. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, one vote, the man.
1920 - 1963. A black couple, one vote, the man, a white couple, two votes, the man and his wife.
1963 - present. A black couple, two votes, a white couple, two votes, either of them, the man and his wife.

And soon after 1920, two states had forced sterilisations running.

And soon after 1963, they stopped it.

But prior to 1865, as far as I know, sterilising blacks by force was not allowed.

However, psychiatry started out (and this was probably not too well known in Rome) those decades with diagnoses like "drapetomania" - a slave running off is considered a "sick man".

Precisely as certain modernists would consider Fry not just a guilty man, but a sick man.

No, I don't think Pius IX was gravely wrong in 1860-65.

I do think Pius XI was definitely spot on in Casti Connubii, condemning forced sterilisation.

Some have pretended "Mit brennender Sorge" was the encyclical in which Nazi eugenics were condemned. No, "Mit brennender Sorge" condemned rulers disregarding Christianity like Hitchens does.

It was already known since 1931, date of Casti Connubii, that forced sterilisations are against the ten commandments.

4:45 God did already reveal to Moses that slave hunting was wrong.

While in NT slaveholders are not considered as criminals, per se, slavehunters are.

For the one, Ephesians 6: [5] Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ:

[6] Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, [7] With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. [8] Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free. [9] And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him.

For the other I Corinthians 6:10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

For the last category, the Latin has "rapaces". It seems to mean or include slavehunters.

Even clearer, I Tim 1: [9] Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [10] For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,

Menstealers? Did you get that? Other name for them : slave hunters.

Whether Kunta Kinte ever said "toubab fa" meaning "death to the slavehunters", St Paul did say sth meaning that.

Latin for menstealers "plagiariis," and it doesn't mean using some writer's character in your own work without asking, calling that what is now known as "plagiarism" is simply a joke between authors, to begin with, it means in classical latin hunting someone down to make him a slave.

This is the rationale for Gregory XVI as well as for Casti Connubii.

Obviously, a state sponsored actor who forces someone to submit to getting his cojones cut off at some point is while doing so treating that person as a slave and therefore has previously to doing so stolen that person, treated him as a slavehunter treats the free men wanted for slaves.

How come Vatican was so much more clearsighted between 1931 and 1971 than four states in US and Canada?

Well, being commissioned to preserve God's revelation vs being a Protestant and secularised state may have sth to do with it.

5:16 Half a chromastone away from a chimpanzee? Or half a chromosome?

Subtitles say the first, but the subtitles are erratic.

Whichever thing Hitchens said, he disqualified himself from speaking on human origins.

It should make even Evolutionists squirm.

On the closing statement, I'll add that Fry and Spencer would need a firm purpose of amendment, soon.

From Fry's biography references:

The Brauns were members of Vienna's 200,000-strong Jewish community. Stephen paid an emotional visit to the house in which they lived, and was startled to see a plaque commemorating the house's inhabitants, among them Rosa's parents - Stephen's great-grandfather and great-grandmother - Berta and Samuel.

They had remained there until 1942, at the height of the Nazi terror, when they were deported to a ghetto in Riga, Latvia, along with 65,000 other Viennese Jews. Only a small number of those sent to Riga survived. The others, Berta and Samuel among them, were killed.

1942 - after Austrofascist had been exchanged to Nazi, in government of Austria, then Ostmark.

Friday, October 12, 2018

... on Bible Versions

Main theme in here is good, Lex is explaining that there is very little significant variation in Bible manuscripts (English translations being another matter):

Why are there so many different Bible translations, and which ones should we use?
UNLEARN the lies | 11.X.2018

Several things to say on this one, Lex is wrong on detail in more than one place:

"During the first 1400 years of Christian history, all Bibles were handwritten copies ..."

I suppose you mean up to Gutenberg*, says this quibbler.

In fact, the very first decades, I don't think there were any Bibles, since a scroll is too small, by physical necessity to have more than one book.

For instance, if "Samuel" and "Kings" are now two books each, it is partly bc writing all of Samuel from "There was a man of Ramathaimsophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elcana, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliu, the son of Thohu, the son of Suph, an Ephraimite:" to "And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel," on one single scroll would be cumbrous.

While a book like Genesis has that size, about, a Torah scroll in a synagogue is set in a cask to make scrolling columns easier.

So, up to when there were codices, there were even no single volume Bibles.

However, this doesn't make your comment untrue, as you were not saying they existed all of the first 1400 first years of Christianity.

However, 0:53 "that were written and copied by hand, and most of the time, these copies were not made by scribes."

I thought the first writer in the NT era was educated as one. St Matthew was a Levite, and a Levite who was not serving in the temple at the least was a scribe, by training, even if he was doing tax collecting some time instead.

So, why would most of the time the copies NOT be made by precisely scribes?

Why would the Catholic Church have preferred amateurs over proper training, when starting out with at least one properly trained among the first disciples?

1455 is actually 1422 years after Christianity was founded - and as mentioned above we didn't have any one volume Bibles for more than just two decades, as far as I can see.

5:06 I was just thinking of Corpus Caesareum the other day.

Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and a few more (not sure if all are considered his).

One manuscript from a 10th C or so manuscript in Gaul, or France as it could begin to be called, because the Bellum Gallicum was of relevance to them. Plus later copies usually of it.

6:29 "For example, Matthew 17:21 is missing from the Critical Text."

Have you checked Matthew 17:20? Douay Rheims has this:

Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 17

[20] But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

This doesn't mean any verse content is missing, it means there is one division between verses less added.

You see, outside psalms, verses were added very late for reference. St Thomas Aquinas didn't have them, and only recently before him came the chapters.

In Matthew 17, the part when the father speaks has just one verse in DR, while KJV has one for fact of his speaking, other for what he says.

8:26 "In this verse, the majority text makes it clear that God was manifest in the flesh, but the Critical Text using the pronoun He leaves it unclear if it was God or someone else"

Textus Criticus would have been somewhat ... based on Codex Sinaiticus, right?

I have heard that the circumstances of finding the codex were such, that the monastery itself did not really care to call it a Bible (and the researchers concluded they were ignorant, who didn't know a Bible) and I have also seen JW (Watchtower Society) value Sinaiticus.

I suspect that it could be an Arian copy, and that it was tucked away in a lowly place in a monastery once the controversy was over. And that therefore, the monastery was not sure whether it could be called a Bible or not, as some would not qualify New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as a Bible.

And that this is why it was preserved so long, because so little used.

12:09 "the Greek text says"

[already visible, Greek text plus] "purifying all foods"

Now, this does not mean that NIV gets it right.

Why? Because the manuscript has no quotation marks. This means, Greek doesn't show whether "katharizon" (ending in omega nun, not omicron nun, that is important) refers to Jesus talking or to a masculine noun Jesus has mentioned while talking.

NIV takes a position and says it's about a masculine noun in the discourse of Christ. Bc, "purifying all foods" in the English language refers to what went immediaterly before, while this is not a Greek rule.

Now, is there a masculine noun in that discourse?

After checking Nestle Aland, no. All nouns from when He says to them in verse 18, all nouns He mentions Himself, are neuter nouns. They could not be qualified by "katharizon" ending in omega nun. He himself as saying this could be so qualified.

My dear, lear a little more about Greek grammar before recommending NIV (and I'll be watching if you actually do that ...)

Sorry, NKJV.

No, they do not have a bias only, they have a knowledge of the fact that grammatical context cannot be limited to the verse, since these divisions are very late and sometimes do cut through sentences, and that katharizon ending in omega nun, which is the masculine singular nominative ending for a participle like this, needs a masculine singular nominative behind it.

This can be the understood "he" within a verb form, but it cannot be any noun in the discourse Christ gave, so it must refer to Himself. If however it had been the whole process actually purifying, well, that nounless purely verbal "subject" would take a neutre participle and it would have been "katharizon" with omicron nun.

But in Nestle Aland, I find the ending in omega nun : καθαρίζων.

In Douay Rheims, I find Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

In the wider context of the Vulgate:

Et ait illis : Sic et vos imprudentes estis? Non intelligitis quia omne extrinsecus introiens in hominem, non potest eum communicare : [19] quia non intrat in cor ejus, sed in ventrum vadit, et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas?

Now, in Latin "purgans" could be masculine, feminine or neuter. It could theoretically be, rather than the subject of "ait illis", the subject in previous sentence, namely, "omne extrinsecus introiens".

However, since "omne extrinsecus introiens" would be the "escas" themselves, and they are not purifying themselves and here they reappear in feminine plural.

Therefore, they could more properly be understoof of subject of "ait illis", namely Jesus.

However, if you would say that "since it could be neutre, it could refer to the process", no, in Latin that would be a gerund, not a participle (both are translated as present participle in both Greek and English). A gerund would be "purgando".

So, Vulgate also favours this as being a participle in masculine singular nominative, referring to Jesus.

Obviously, you should have a translation approved by the Catholic Church.

Douay Rheims.

The Reformation happened for a reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, there is a devil down in Hell, that is a reason ...

What's that supposed to mean?

Also, the Devil isn't in hell. He's very much in our midst, as he is the master of this world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is he still the master of this world?

I'd say that title was taken from him on Calvary.

He's roaming in our midst, as are his minions, but his permanent adress is Hell.

What it is supposed to mean, is, that I think the Reformation was the Devil's work.

I'm Catholic and I went Catholic after studying the Reformation.

Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth. That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism. The idea that Satan rules the underworld is pagan, not Christian or even Jewish.

Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth."

The supersession is of NT over OT.

"Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell"

Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?

"That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism."

Your idea is Islamistic, in so far as it states that Christian truth in its fulness was lost to the nations the Apostles were sent to very soon after they even started obeying Matthew 28:16-20.

If it was how come you can't take Muhammed as well as Luther or your latest Judaising parody of him?

Bc Muhammed contradicts the Bible? But so do you as far as Matthew 28:16-20 says sth about the Church.

Also, we certainly do not believe Satan rules all of the underworld, as for instance his only gain in Abraham's bosom was the righteous souls being kept out for a while from the Heaven he had been eternally cast out from, he couldn't touch them. Also the souls in Purgatory are righteous and he cannot touch them. When I said "Hell" I meant Gehenna, not Sheol.

"Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?"

I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question. A church MUST be accountable to the Bible. Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell), or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon). Do you not see the danger of such a view? This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word.

Galatians 1:8-9(YLT) "but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be! As we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!"

That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree. Accountability is not authority. Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends.

Colossians 2:8(YLT) "See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,"

That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church).

Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before.

The Bible is the truth. I will never give spiritual credence to anything else. The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question."

I note, instead of giving even one Bible verse saying "all teaching must be directly and clearly backed up by a Bible verse", which is what I defied you to do, you gave two Bible verses which say sth other AND give a reasoning, which, if I accepted it, I would be accepting a teaching without (so far) one single Bible verse to back it up.

"A church MUST be accountable to the Bible."

Once again, no Bible verse exactly saying that either.

"Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell),"

No, this is not the "Catholic Church in a nutshell" since the Catholic Church is accountable to Bible and Tradition.

If you tried today to make up a doctrine which was not given by tradition from back at the Apostles, you would meet opposition from Catholics since it is not traditional.

For instance, Anti-Pope "Paul VI" defied aspects of Tradition in Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes, that is why there are Catholics rejecting his "papacy" as a non-papacy.

And his sending pills to nuns raped in Africa during a revolutionary war defied good morals, meaning calling him a saint also defies Catholic tradition, that is why there are Catholics rejecting the "papacy" of "Pope Francis" as a non-papacy.

"or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon)."

Not with Catholics, since through the clergy all Catholics are accountable to Bible and Tradition. It is Catholic dogma that revelation is closed. No new content can be added after the last Apostle left the earthly life. A "truth" can be upgraded to "dogma" (a truth which all Catholics must believe), but a novelty can't be upgraded to dogma.

"Do you not see the danger of such a view?"

I even see a danger with saying anyone can interpret the Bible, since this gives free room for inventing new understandings of Bible verses, or for that matter of mistranslating the Bible.

That is the precise rationale on which the Catholic Church condemned Protestantism.

"This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word."

Except that The Word Made Flesh told us to rely on His clergy. Several times over in fact (including my favourite proof text against Protestantism, Matthew 28:16-20).

Galatians' quote - note "different from what we did proclaim to you" ... St Paul was not limiting this to what he had written only.

Note also "anathema let him be!" - St Paul was speaking in a Church able to anathemise people, which we also see from a more purely disciplinary matter in Corinthians.

Roman Catholicism, with its rivals Greek Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians, makes the claim to be that Church still around. Yes, there are only five confessions you can get by "symmetric" anathema. Bishop against bishop (even if Pope against bishop involves an assymetric relation in anathema too).

"That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree."

Catholicism perfectly agrees.

"Accountability is not authority."

Accountability implies authority. This means, if you have one hundred Christians in a parish who all together are accountable, whether to "Bible alone" which is as un-Biblical as it is un-Traditional, or to Bible and Tradition, the Biblical and Traditional solution, there must be someone within them having authority to tell the others how to live up to this. Especially if an "anathema" is involved. The 100 Christians presumably involve some toddlers who have just learned to talk and some teens and some of them not even married yet, and it would be somewhat irrational to put all on an equal footing in this matter.

"Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends."

As far as I could see what happened in Reformation, that is exactly what English and Swedish and Genevan reformers actually did, which is why the warning was for them.

Colossians again does not speak of Bible alone, and Reformers owed lots of their understanding of Bible passages or of what constitutes idolatry to the "rudiments of men" called Humanist Renaissance learning.

"That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church)."

I didn't see "traditions" in your quote.

"Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before."

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Gehenna as the landfill was where Christ got His nickname for what we usually call Hell. All resting to resurrection is a teaching we condemn.

"The Bible is the truth."

Yes, read correctly.

"I will never give spiritual credence to anything else."

Even if the Bible requires us to do so?

"The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete."

Which doesn't mean that NT books are quite as complete a guide to them as the totality of Catholic tradition.

I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian. I don't mean to be rude, but equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy. You are putting your faith in men, not the Word. You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry. If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you. Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went. Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination. You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians.

Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings. As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites. I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn.

Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man. Stop performing your pagan rituals. Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath. Stop forced priestly celibacy. Stop counting your prayers on a rosary. Stop fetishism.

Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian."

Thanks for showiing yourself narrowminded and incomprehensive, deliberately set on misinterpreting Catholics.

"I don't mean to be rude, but"

We have some more important issues here than who is rude.

"equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy."

I agree. As long as the tradition in question is MAN-MADE, that is POST-APOSTOLIC, it clearly is heresy.

That is the precise reason why I reject both more Classic Protestantism, starting some 14 - 15 Centuries after the Apostles, and the even more recent Evangelical tradition, which you clearly belong to, which started out sth like after Freemasonry even (that is after 1717).

"You are putting your faith in men, not the Word."


I am putting my faith in the Church which was founded by the Word as the Church of the Living God.

"You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry."

Neither nore, I am implying that the written part of the NT would be incomplete without Apostolic tradition. But as the Apostolic tradition is there, Christ did not fail.

If you had been right, if we had to piece together original Christianity from Bible alone, Christ would have failed the promise given in Matthew 28:16-20.

"If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you."

I am not asking you to, and you have more problems than helping me out, like helping yourself to not twist peoples actual words into whatever accusation best suits your defense for the indefensible reformation.

"Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went."

I totally agree on that one.

I also agree with the promise He gave them which implies one strand of clearly identifiable Apostolic tradition would last to the end of days.

Clearly identifiable means, it has to pass the test of Apostolic succession.

We cannot have one single day between Ascension and Doomsday, therefore not between Ascension and now either, when the Aposles did not have successors passing on exactly and precisely what they were supposed to pass on.

However, we can have Apostles not confiding every detail to writing (like the sign of the cross or the fasting on wednesdays and fridays), and we can have apostles confiding things to writing in such a way that some and even many would need tradition to know exactly what it meant, and that tradition would be necessary in order to get all of it right.

"Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination."

Too bad you have too little imagination to see a very obvious point.

"You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians."

Ah, you are conceding that the words as written can be misunderstood without tradition from those believing rightly?

Well, if so, who of us has a tradition going back to the Apostles? You or I?

"Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings."

We are not within the same Church.

If the Catholic Church is what Christ founded and I belong to, feel assured, you are outside it.

"As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites."

Yes, he specifically called one Jewish sect such, or even two (Pharisees and Sadducees are two different sects).

"I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn."

Did you miss the point that St Paul was speaking about people keeping the old law and even considering it a matter of salvation?

"Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man."

Would you mind being precise about where in the Bible you get that admonition from?

I am neither getting it from Apostolic tradition, nor from any verse in the Writings of either Testament, as it is understood by the Catholic Church.

"Stop performing your pagan rituals."

I am sorry, but no verse in the Bible calls Catholicism Paganism.

"Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath."

Even if Christ told the Apostles to use it as the new Sabbath?

"Stop forced priestly celibacy."

Never was all over the Church and Pope Michael already did.

"Stop counting your prayers on a rosary."

What verse do you get that from?

"Stop fetishism."

Where in the Bible do you find a definition of "fetishism" and how exactly do you apply that to Catholicism?

"Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest."

I would probably need to for my sins, but being too plagued by Protestants like you whenever I set my nose on the net, I do not find peace to do so.

I can't pray a rosary, and it's not the Hail Mary, except perhaps the "now" in the final part, it's more like "as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Protestants of some sort (perhaps ranging to Freemasons and Jews) have surrounded me, as to my internet activity, poking at me when I simply discuss matters, and the fact that I am in a Church you count as a trap for my soul is no reason to be impolite and play the father confessor to me. But also my readership is very well organised, my blogs getting around 600-700 readers per day, and youth being carefully kept away from them where I am.

Protestants are in a position to organise things like that.

You are losing the discussion or debate on the arguments, and you play the one "concerned for my salvation". That is a trump card you have no right to and that is real hypocrisy.

[+ Notified DMW of the fact this is reblogged. Sorry, DNW.]

When it comes to dynamic translations, I think very many of them have Genesis 11:4 with a tower which reaches heaven - or even so tall it reaches heaven.

Word for word, no tallness is mentioned, and it specifically mentions that it is its top which reaches heaven. One could perhaps also translate the Hebrew word for "top" as "height", i e tallness, but both LXX and Vulgate have words meaning top.

And, I think this is significant.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Did St Augustine Deny "Antipodes"? If So, in What Sense?

Antipodal Points - Numberphile
Numberphile | 22.VIII.2018

1:44 I take it the antipodal points of Milan and Carthage are right in the middle of the sea?

This has a bearing on a historical point.

St Augustine was in one moment actually denying there are "antipodes". He did not mean "antipodal points" he meant people walking with their "feet" exactly "opposed" to his own. Now, "feet opposed" is what "antipodes" literally means. Using it as short for "antipodal points" is secondary.

His reason had nothing to do with denying Earth is a globe, he just figured if they had crossed the Atlantic westward, they would have come back too, and humanity has only one origin. So, I am intent for the mathematical part on antipodal points ... since I recall a few years ago, I calculated in my own amateurish way that the antipodal points of the two mentioned cities (where St Augustine lived) are in the sea.

12:59 and Pampena is done.

Here is my proof.

Milan 45°28′N 09°11′E
AP 45°28′S ?W

Carthage 36.8528°N 10.3233°E
AP 36.8528°S ?W

180 180 170°60' 170.0000°
-09 -10 -00°11' -00.3233°
171 170 170°49' 169.6767°

So, we go to 45°28′S 170°49'W and to 36.8528°S 169.6767°W.

But instead of looking it up on google maps, its easier to confirm by going back to the antipodal map earlier in the video.

6:25 It so happens, the overlapping transparent map looks really transparent both in Tunisia and Italy.

To get to their antipodal points, then, you take a shop from Australia past New Zealand, and ... when you get there, you'd better stay aboard ship if you want to be an "antipode" to people in Italy and Tunisia. That is, walk with your feet exactly against theirs.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Trish Regan's Comment

FBN's Trish Regan addresses commentary on Denmark
E D | 23.VIII.2018

Just before 3:13, I am from Sweden, very close to Denmark - my part of Sweden even used to be Danish, up to 26. februar 1658 (checked Danish wiki for the Roskilde peace treaty, and in the then Scandinavia, as in the then England, this was still Julian calendar).

Studying for free ... I don't think the Danish study loan system is all that different from the Swedish one.

Checking Danish wiki:

"SU-stipendier skal i modsætning til SU-lån ikke tilbagebetales."

This means, SU (States' Educationsupport) usually comes in loans. As in Sweden.

I mentioned this drawback in this post, and "dissed" doesn't mean he said something worse about Trish Regan than the known FB post, it is my analysis of that one.

Anyway, here is my blogpost:

New blog on the kid : Jon Arskog who Dissed Trish Regan

I'd have liked a debate with Arskog on what socialism "for the needy" is doing to the needy, how much legal kidnapping (a k a CPS) and a few things like that. He declined, as Danish speakers can see from my quote from his letter.

"there is no political debate about the welfare system"

= victims of CPS, psychiatry, abortion, in Sweden, but not Denmark compulsory nearly always public school do not get any voice in politics.

If we aren't grateful for the resources spent on us, we are presumably too dumb to understand anything about politics and therefore can't do politics.

There is a broad unity about that one in Sweden, Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Centerpartiet, Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna too, I presume, and in most questions also Vänsterpartiet (Commies) and Miljöpartiet (Green / Ecologist). These are the political parties in Sweden. In the parliament, that is. All ninth party voting is considered as useless as third party voting in US.

Btw, in Sweden kings are not elected, prime ministers are basically elected by parliament, though formerly kings had a say, and parliamentarians come from circumscriptions with several elective places, so, first party with majority gets a place, then its voters are reduced to half, then there is the competition for next seat, whoever gets that has its voters reduced too ... meaning, voting small parties makes more sense "here", but even "here" not too small ones.

Since Social Democrats have often had coalition governments with Commies, and Commies have often wavered around the 4 % limit, many convinced Social Democrats have voted Commie to make sure their governement gets its normal coalition partner. It's known as "comrade 4 %".

Guess how friendly SD governments are to Christian schools? But the patriotic party, like Sverigedemokraterna being in some ways like Tea Party (esp. about immigration) is NOT a whit better in this respect.

"Socialism is not the way"

Hear, hear!

I spelled there "here" in quotation marks, bc I am expatriate. I live in Paris. Region. On the streets and in libraries, so to speak.

FBN's Trish Regan Took a Shot at Denmark [UPDATE] Not so Fake after all
E D | 15.IX.2018

3:22 "this is a real problem, because they are heavily in debt"

Sure, and part of the debt is study loan debt. The payback rules are generous and as having no taxable income, I should not be charged yet, BUT, Swedish study loan system is counting in French tax system accepting my declarations of no income, if I have none, while French tax collectors have the attitude "you have no income, don't bother us with a declaration", and therefore are not gving me any documents I can show the Swedish study loan system.

MEANWHILE some freemasons are over here (for real, in France) spreading rumours of my quitting Sweden to avoid paying back. That's not exactly what would have happened, if I had remained in Sweden, my paying back, I would have gone from one statistics category not paying back (those studying, often accepting more study loan) to another (those taking the dole). Bc I would have had to ask social services for a new appartment after missing my share in ma's (which she lost) after hesitating too long over applying for study loan and therefore getting the accepted application (not yet money) too late.

BUT, as they do that, they successfully block my carreer as a writer.

And I think, after having been an eternity student, so to speak - five years' and one week worth of studies and exams in seven years' actual presence at university, I think getting some money for what I write would be better than getting back to prolonging once more the "eternity student" situation.

And either would be better than get an low qualifications and ill paid job, after what I spent at university.

4:52 Back in 2016 the paper Politikken wrote, video team provided a translation to English "Academics in Copenhagen are at high risk of becoming long-term unemployed. New report shows that 60 percent of the unemployed [academics] are at risk. Among the newly educated, it is up to every third who is out of work."

I added "academics" ... and there are about 5000 unemployed Academics in Copenhagen.

6:23 Are you aware that this world socialist party sounds eerily like a Danish freemason, Martinus?

He wrote among other things, in the world socialist state, unemployment would not exist, everyone would be allotted work and studies in their free time, by the governing élite (who are of course exclusively an élite because of their personal virtue and integrity). Of course your talents and interests will be taken into account - by those in the élite deciding what job you get and what you are to study in your free time. So far, from memory, one page in Martinus.

It made me vomit (figuratively speaking) when I was 13 and I don't like it better now, I recently had opportunity to recheck that.

Now, get me right. In Sweden and Denmark you have Conservatives - accepted as such by their countrymen - supporting this idea.

If "Conservatives" are that socialist what will the Socialists be like?

For my part, I like Chesterton. Government should be able to limit profits (like so management and workers aren't all working too much for a bunch of shareholders and banks) and company sizes.

But property should remain private and not be overtaxed.

Chesterton argued, fiscal socialism likes big business, bc those can afford paying more taxes.

So, smaller and more business, less taxes.

Tuesday, October 2, 2018


Wanted Adventure | 10.VI.2018

3:15 Z - did you see any with the basic shape of a 3, but flatter top?

I grew up partly in Austria. I would tend to see Z with a line and z without a line as modern, and 3 with flat top as more archaic, and I do both.

4:27 I personally do the long line a bit shorter, but I suspect it coming all the way from bottom is the original, denoting how it comes from handwriting, attachment to previous numeral.

5:00 I write my seven with a line in the middle. So it can't be confused with a 1 where the short line is swinging too far to the left.

[This functionality, she noticed too.]

Generally - in Swedish school, I was barely taught handwriting before I left after second grade, in Austria, I had to relearn handwriting, and it so happens, the Swedes have really changed over generations, the one I learned in Austria is much closer to what my Swedish grandparents wrote. And they were not even very fluent in German, unless they were hiding something.

German / Austrian older ... what I was learned in school in Austria is called Latein-Schrift, meaning it is the handwriting corresponding to Antiqua print. They also used to have "deutsche Schrift" one version of which is called Sütterlin, of which I have taken over some of the easier things, like ...

  • d is like a 6 backward (or like an Icelandic eth without the distinguishing line)
  • n, u and ü risk getting confused, for ü you get out of it by adding two dots (like a backward tilde in handwriting, which wouldn't work in Spanish), but for u you use a hook above the letter. If you do write u and n very similar, which I do, this hook is a very good way of keeping u and n apart
  • letter z looking like a 3 with a flat top.

Then there are some of the harder things, which make "deutsche Schrift" even harder than blackletters, to which they correspond, and those I don't use (e looking like a narrow n, r looking like i r - without the dot over i, h and s going below the line so an s looks like an f without the line, k looking like a t with some bubbles on the top, other s looking a bit like a 6 - tied in from previous at center and not tying forward ...).

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

... on Appreciating Work Ethic in Diverse Venues

Some Roofers Offered This Homeless Guy A Job, And He Soon Showed Them His True Colors
watchjojo | 17.II.2018

Let's put it like this.

If editors - I tend to call them "paper editors" since I am my own internet editor - had had the same response to a homeless writer with work ethic as roof contractors to a homeless worker with such, I'd be off the streets long ago.

I wonder if some wanted me to see the video to show me what could happen if I "showed work ethic" like John.

Well, the problem is, they want work ethic in the venue of workers' works. I'm showing it in Academic type works.

And some Academics just don't like my work ... because it contradicts theirs.

That said, I congratulate John and definitely the roof contracters at Murray's as well!

Jolly good show, as I think some Brits would express it!