Sunday, December 27, 2015

... against Zionism and those who think Palestine Support is New Age

Video commented on:

Enoch: Prophecy of Isis, Israel, Rapture, World War 3, Antichrist, End Times and Bible's Armeggedon
Trey Smith

My comments are sometimes introduced with quote of relevant passage of video, sometimes just with time in video.

10:50 "The Romans kicked the Jews out of Israel"
Meaning they kicked out most Christ rejecting Jews. Christians who had fled to Pella and not taken part in the war were therefore not kicked out, they were allowed to return to near Jerusalem, not quite into, at least the Holy Sites were covered with Pagan Temples.

10:58 [And the name became Palestine, from that point.]
A change of name by decree from Caesar does not change the population.

You have passed over SEVERAL centuries without ANY account of what happened in Holy Land basically from Romans defeating Jewish rebellion to English coming to Palestine. How do you do your research?

I do mine in books giving diverse informations, and some off the topic.

THE DESERT A CITY by Derwas Chitty is mostly about Egyptian monks and especially hermits and cenobites.

One chapter is about Palestinians monks.

You hear how they were discovered as being already there when Egyptian monks thought it would be cool to have monks in the land of Christ Himself.

You hear of how they were persecuted under Chosroës, who desecrated the Cross Relic publically. Some Palestinian Christians "reverted to Judaism" (Derwas being Anglican saw no difference between OT religion and Judaism) and later followed Chosroës out of Holy Land into Persia. Those who had not thus apostasised or who reverted were again Palestinian Christians.

But why "reverted"? Only makes sense if their ancestors had in any sense been Jewish : either OT religion or even for some time Christ-rejecting Jewry.

ONE indication that Palestinian Christians were not of Gentile stock.

Here is the next one. The triumph over Chosroës (in which the Cross was honoured publically, as reparation for the desecration, on September 14th), was short lived. The next invader was Omar, from Arabian Peninsula.

Now, nearly last words of that final chapter : tribes who had been Christian came to the monks and told them they had to be forced to become Muslims, but were still their friends (and were indeed friendlier than the subsequent Seldjuk invasion which provoked Crusades with its brutality against Palestinian Christians and against Pilgrims, as I know from elsewhere).

Wait, Palestinian Christians lived in Beduin TRIBES, before Ishmaelite such came from Arabian Peninsula?

Where they some kind of "Arabs"?

Well, arguably they were Beduins speaking Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus Christ!

Palestinians were only LATER adopting Arabic of the Peninsular type, like Syrians who also spoke Aramaic - but they remained the people they were except for a gradual apostasy into Islam. Only slowly did the majority become Muslim. In recent years or decades, I heard of Christians still being 30%.

So, what kind of Semitic people were these Christians?

Well, Judean, Samarian and Galilean Christians of Israelite stock certainly fits the bill!

Other reason
ALSO, I had the discomfort to hear about what a Rabbi had said in Notre Dame. I think it was then and there that I heard that Jews regard Jesus as "not Messiah" BECAUSE He "didn't fulfil" Isaiah 11.

I looked it up.

10 In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.

Fulfilled in Crucifixion and Resurrection, including Longinus admitting He was Son of God. longinus was a Gentile. An empty tomb guarded by angels is a very glorious sepulchre too.

11 - 12 resumé of fulfilment : Pentecost day.

13 And the envy of Ephraim shall be taken away, and the enemies of Juda shall perish: Ephraim shall not envy Juda and Juda shall not fight against Ephraim.

Ephraim being the tribe in Samaria, this refers to the union of Judean and Samarian Christians, when Church of Jerusalem sent missionaries to Samaria. Acts 8.

It remains true to this day, in the Palestinian Christians.

They are fulfilled prophecy. Even if they are just 30% of Palestinians and many of them also in exile, they still are so.

Next verses some way refers to end of Paganism and beginning of Christianity in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

I have no doubt. I did not get it by Ouija boards, but by Bible study, which I undertook to convert Jews to Christianity. And by the previous books I had read.

HOW THE HOLY CROSS WAS FOUND by my friend Stephan Borgehammar is also very instructive.

A Jew was tortured by St Helen so as to reveal where the Holy Sepulchre and Golgatha were. He did. But the end of the story isn't he was tortured. He saw the miracles the Cross did. He converted and became a bishop of Jerusalem (where the Pagan temple was taken away, also on order of St Helen).

One thing more : Christian Palestinians are generally NOT the vengeful kind who sing songs about killing Jews. Did you get that?

12:07 Other than religious reasons.
Exactly. Palestinians of Bethlehem, Nazareth (which meanwhile has now recently got Muslim majority, alas), Cana, Gaza even, wanted to stay near the place where Christ and St Peter and St James formed their nation by reconciling Judea and Samaria, but more importantly, saved their souls.

Under Christian Roman Emperors, from Constantine on, official name of land was Palaestina Salutaris - the Palestine where we were saved.

12:33 "even while we watch this"
... Christian Palestinians watch both Jews and Muslims.

They are like Civilians caught in Marseille or on Sicily between two fighting Mafia clans.

Tsahal shoots on Muslims - they duck.

Hamas shoots on Jews - they duck.

They do quite a lot of ducking and taking cover.

Actually, the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi Jewry (which I don't write off totally as a contribution, but who can't be totality, since the German dialects of Yiddish obviously come from French Jewry expelled into S & W Germany and going eastward from there) have been touted by Ernest Renan, who was a secularist Christ admirer and a heretic, but a bit too early to be New Age. It has also been touted by a Jew whose father was participating in Bela Kun's communist revolution in Hungary. Arthur Koestler.

The Khazar contribution is not about acting, but about a Turkic people being adopted into Judaism when converting to it.

About the same time as the real Russians, in Ukraine, mainly, converted to Constantinopel's Liturgic version of Christianity.

They certainly honestly felt they were Jewish. But that doesn't make them as Jewish as Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, or as Palestinian Christians, as far as ancestry and traditions are concerned.

Just for the record, I am NOT New Age, I do NOT believe in Aliens. OK.

NEXT question?

Oh, and as already SAID, I have NOT picked up my views, either on Palestine or on any other matter, by speaking to Aliens under whatever guise. I have been spared "encounters of third degree", unless you count human people behaving like certain aliens, namely shrinks. And free masons.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 3) ... on Kent Hovind's Answer, Which I Link To

Dr. Kent Hovind Q&A - Genocide, Churches, Pre-Trib, Western Australia, WOE
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Before going in to the things he answers after reading part of my letter, here is the blog copy of my letter:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : To Kent Hovind on Mass Killings Ordered by God

Maybe I was in the original letter less well showing what were my words and what were those I quoted or quoted as quoted by someone, but I still think I did some of that.

Also I forgot to congratulate him on getting my first name right.

Also, if I did not use "Doctor" to Kent, it is two things: 1) if people start denying him a doctorate he nevertheless has, why call anybody doctor? And the habit has so grown on me, I forget he was the reason for it in the first place, 2) in relation to someone who thinks it is wrong to call a priest "Father", one can mention that "Doctor" is more or less equivalent to "teacher" or "rabbi".

1:32 Hi, Hans Georg Lundahl here, I am from Sweden and Austria*, but live in and around Paris*. Of course I do not endorse the qualifications that "reader John" gave Jerry Coyne on "why evolution is true" about you!

1:41 I have actually on my blog referenced a video by your son Eric and PP Simmons (I think the other guy was), I was NOT endorsing those descriptions of you, should perhaps have left them out, but was giving full quotes for context of the salient quote from you. Here is one of my blogs:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hell Fire (Yes, it Exists)

And here in the left margin** it links to:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS

[2:40 I was not bearing the false witness, I was quoting it for context and didn't bother to read all of the introductory quotes.

Unlike Jerry Coyne and his reader John, I do believe the Bible and I do believe in not bearing false witness. (Not sure the latter is a difference.)] - While I tried to change this, adding the parenthesis, I suppressed it, and in this library (Nanterre University Library) I cannot copy-paste into youtube comments. Or could not.

4:31 Now, I agree the diseases are a possility. Though NOT an attested fact. But I do not agree they constitute a complete theodicy for killing of the children as well.

If God had told Joshua to convert Canaaneans, presumably God could have cured all those diseases. The reason this was not the case was that God had just taken Hebrews out of Egypt where they had become somewhat materialistic and crude (I mean they went through an attempt of genocide under one bad Pharao, and that before they had a Torah to comfort them).

So, I am still not happy with diseases being a justification for killing the children.

Louis XV eradicated bubonic plague after the last time, by firing at innocent people who were presumed to have been contaminated. This was a public health benefit, but it was not Christian justice, it was a sinful way to acquire a public health benefit.

5:15 That ONE option is, in itself, a bad one, unless strictly subsidiary to more just ones. I have heard things about God punishing parents through their children. Assume Moloch worshippers were habitually sacrificing their own children, some chosen ones of them ... Joshua's soldiers killing a whole bunch before fathers and mothers might have awakened them to what they were doing. Joshua would still not have been right to do so, unless it had been on God's order.

5:43 sth I did study history of quarantine. It is sinful, like abortion is sinful, or nearly so.

[At least the cases where people are deliberately killed for trying to leave a quarantine, even if they could consider themselves still healthy and fear to be lost if not leaving.]

5:53 That's "common medical sense" - like abortion of disabled? Some call THAT "common medical sense" too! Of course not, it is mortally sinful!

While we are at it.

If "original fifty AIDS patients" had been killed, that would not automatically have spared us the AIDS epidemic, since there could have been undetected ones even back then. Also, it would have been unjust if even one was a rape victim, an innocent spouse contaminated by an unfaithful one, or got it through a blood transfusion. If the conspiracy theory is true, the earliest ones were indeed deliberately contaminated by the unethical doctors who monitored the virus transfer from green monkeys to man - if this were true, every one of them might have been innocent and undeserving to die. Not saying it is or that it isn't true, I don't know, I know what I suspect but also I have not right now access to Lyndon LaRouche's study on that question.

6:01 "That may be why God told them to do that?"


This comment may be why hovind (all lower case!) adds up to 666 in ASCII Code. HOVIND upper case = 474. 32 added on each upper case English letter to make it lower case. 474 + 192 = 666. A = 65, Z = 90. a = 97, z = 122.

[Go figure who has that number in upper case ... BERGOGLIO, and with a space and a French transscription, V POUTINE]

[My bad - it is Hovind with normal spelling which is the less well attested value for Apocalypse 13:18 - 616. And since less well attested, less likely and thus safer.]

6:16 Yes precisely, Peter Singer is in favour of killing babies the age killed in the massacres of Joshua ... for medical reasons. Now, if you are NOT in favour of Peter Singer, as I am not, you need to allow God had a much better motive than Peter Singer!

7:57 I am NOT blaming you for saying God told Joshua to kill all of certain nations. But I AM blaming you for making the medical reason your PRIME theodicy about this. That is NOT in the text, nor are the speculations on Canaanites being all sick with diseases.

8:00 "I'm just the messenger boy" No, when it comes for making the medical aspect the main reason, you are NOT a messenger, you are making your own thoughts about the matter and this one on this matter is sinful.

8:05 Again, the "medical reason" is NOT in the Bible. On this one you are NOT a messenger. Study William Lane Craig (also cited in Jerry Coyne's post), he's better than you, though incomplete.

Or he is incompletely quoted by Jerry Coyne, I am no longer sure if I saw more on his own page.

8:23 I consider this as a formal release.

This will be blogged, though on the other blog where I do youtube comments and youtube debates in English.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Just so you know, it has up to now 79568 pageviews since November 2008.


* Born in Austria, Vienna, of Swedish parents, lived most of childhood in Austria and Germany, and most of life in Malmö, Sweden, now homeless in Paris. ** Left margin : 1) Eucharistic Miracle probable proof Ordo Missae of Paul VI is valid (link), 2) Sister Blog in French: Répliques Assorties (link), 3) Other issue: somewhere I had written something about Kent Hovind possibly having tax frauded as laws now are. Here is what his son has to say about it: [linked to video above in this message], 4) Labels (co-authors, boards or label reconsidered positions) [Kent Hovind Official appears "under K", eight posts before this one, which will make it nine], 5) Loyal readers (3 so far, including myself), 6) Blog Archive (the one that goes by year and month), 7) Marital Age, Catholic Sources Thomas Aquinas, Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII. Marital Age, Catholic sources. Cited by Hans Lundahl (Hans_Georg1) on Antimodernism MSN Group. (link here too, to backup :, Russian Orthodox sources from same time (under Lithuanian supremacy or under the Czars) would have given similar age limits. And 8) Resist Meta-Man! (Also still available on this link: here, le même jacobite : Resist Meta Man).

Appendix on ASCII Code Gematria:

L76Y89 32I73

Other appendix:

He did finally say, though I missed it after the words I took as a release, he did not know why God ordered, but that this theory was only one seeming reasonable to him. It is not quite reasonable in Christian morality, but thanks for caution. Belatedly.

Monday, December 7, 2015

... against an Anti-Catholic Rant and Critical of Annett's Work

First video commented on:
The Scary TRUTH About The Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Jesuit Pope Exposed Full Documentary)
SoulJa Of GOD

3:04 two problems

  • 1) death to the heretic is not canon law as per current code, even the Medieval code did not say "death", but "punishment by the appropriate authorities", even when death was the most severe punishment of the scale;
  • 2) not only Catholics but also all non-baptised cannot be heretics.

In cases where Baptists do not count as validly baptised, that also means they cannot count as heretics.

Btw, in case you wonder, heresy means treason to your baptism if you are baptised and it means treason to God. Whatever punishment, spiritual (like excommunication) or secular (from death during certain times to merely being incompetent to hold certain offices) comes with it.

Defeating heretics at ballot box ... would that be in some part of Australia where this could be done, because Catholics were majority there? You mean this Gilroy, I presume:

Btw, would you mind giving a link to a good - i e Catholic, not Protestant Fundie or Masonic - source for Gilroy's speech?

And I very much doubt that he can have said a phrase like "Protestants, Jews and other heretics". Loosely speaking, Jews are heretics insofar as they have texts of the Revelation of God and nevertheless reject important parts of it - like Jesus being the true and promised Christ, and true God - but in more strict speech they are not heretics since they reject ALL of NT and therefore are a category between Christian heretics and Pagans.

"Gilroy enforced strict discipline in accordance with the Code of Canon Law on his clergy, who had grown lax under the elderly Kelly."

A canonist - therefore very unlikely to class Jews as heretics, since that is neither canonical nor liturgical.

5:19 And a link to this Lincoln speech, if genuine, is also in order. That said, Pope Pius IX did recognise the CSA, since the Constitution had not yet the Lincoln amendment of forbidding a going out of the Union. Or a leaving of it.

5:50 If Lincoln said that, he was very badly instructed. Since he was a "self made man", that is of course still possible.

7:15 Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were indeed all baptised as Catholics while small children. Of these, Hitler and Benito (but not his equally fascist brother Alessandro) were as adults neither believing nor practising. Whether Stalin, Hitler or Polish ambitions on Danzig (which had a German majority back then) were most responsible for WW-II, certainly neither Mussolini nor Franco were. I support Franco, as far as the War of Spain is concerned. That is indeed a Catholic position and it was openly endorsed by Pope Pius XI (after he had failed to endorse the Cristeros in Méjico, alas). But I will certainly not give him the blame for either racialism in Nazi Germany or collectivism in Soviet Union or the war between these, after they both warred against Poland (and the Nazi measures there were excessive, even after Danzig provocations!). Not Franco, nor the Pope that stood behind him. Before you go on, the Landesbischoff of Saxony was not a Catholic bishop, it was kind of a successor to Martin Luther. Who then was a Nazi and now is a woman. The office still exists.

7:38 The terrorism in IRELAND is the Vatican's handiwork? Like Black and Tans and Ulster Freedom Fighters are agents for the Vatican? More like agents of British Crown and Ulster Scots Orangist Freemasonry!

If you meant IRA, they are excommunicated. Even Eamonn DeValera was part time under excommunication for fighting under unrecognised armies (so were the Cristeros). But unlike Eamonn in his days in IRB, today's IRA is usually more likely to be Marxist than Catholic, even if recruited exclusively from Catholic ethnic group there.

7:31 "En septiembre de 1939 se inscribiría en el Colegio de Dolores, de los jesuítas, también en Santiago de Cuba."

Yes, Fidel Castro was Jesuit trained in 1939 and a few years hence. Like certain boys in England are "Eton trained". THEN he joined the university and became a commie.

Voltaire, who so loved it when Madame Pompadour got Louis XV (with whom she had an adulterous affair, he was married to the Queen, Marie born Leszczyńska) to expel Jesuits, was also Jesuit trained. Does that make him of all people a Jesuit agent in your eyes?

9:12, blaming Leary on the Vatican ...

"Leary was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, the only child in an Irish Catholic household. His father, Timothy "Tote" Leary, was a dentist who left his wife Abigail Ferris when Leary was 13. He graduated from Classical High School in that western Massachusetts city."

OK, he was Catholic as a child.

"He attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts from September 1938 to June 1940. Under pressure from his father, he then accepted an appointment as a cadet in the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York."

West Point? A very Catholic place, right? No. One can be certain he was pressured to apostasize from Catholic Faith, if not on paper, at least as to real beliefs. I was during my military service.

"In the first months as a "plebe", he was given numerous demerits for rule infractions and then got into serious trouble for failing to report infractions by other cadets when on supervisory duty. He was alleged to have gone on a drinking binge and to have failed to "come clean" about it. He was asked by the Honor Committee to resign for violating the Academy's honor code. He refused and was "silenced"—that is, shunned and ignored by his fellow cadets as a tactic to pressure him to resign. He was acquitted by a court-martial, but the silencing measures continued in full force, as well as the onslaught of demerits for small rule infractions. The treatment continued in his sophomore year, and his mother appealed to a family friend, United States Senator David I. Walsh, head of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, who conducted a personal investigation. Behind the scenes, the Honor Committee revised its position and announced that it would abide by the court-martial verdict. Leary then resigned and was honorably discharged by the Army. Almost 50 years later, he said that it was "the only fair trial I've had in a court of law"."

And this means he was in a position in which such pressures could be put on him. So, did he really remain a Catholic?

"To the chagrin of his family, Leary elected to transfer to the University of Alabama in the fall of 1941 because of the institution's expeditious response to his application. He enrolled in the university's ROTC program, maintained top grades, and began to cultivate academic interests in psychology (under the aegis of the Middlebury and Harvard-educated Donald Ramsdell) and biology, but he was expelled a year later for spending a night in the female dormitory, losing his student deferment in the midst of World War II."

If the University was to the chagrin of his family, I bet it was not very Catholic. If he spent a night in the female dormitory, he was not very practising (unless all had clothes on and were talking). In other words, whatever you can say about Leary, it cannot be put up to openly Catholic influence on his doings, from then on. You can of course claim SECRET obedience to Vatican, but then how do you check these secrets really happened? What are your sources, except your bias against the Vatican?

10:35 Much as I have come across people who seem overenthusiastic about pseudo-Pope pseudo-Francis, alias Bergoglio, Papacy is not what Catholics worship and Catholic Church is one over all the world in obedience to the Words of the WORD made flesh.

This still remains true to some extent among Bergoglio-accepting Catholics, though it might be changing.

11:01 Since the Temple of God is the Catholic Church, Bergoglio does not need to get to Jerusalem or wait till an OT Temple is rebuilt in order to fulfil these words.

I have a suspicion he did that when "canonising" Roncalli and Wojtyla in 2014. Or when phoning Buenos Aires to say an adulteress living in an invalid adulterous marriage should even so receive Communion. Less than a week away from canonisation. A "Crucifix" like the "creepy crooked cross" carried by Wojtyla and perhaps Montini, but more than life size, fell down and crushed a man to death between the dates of these acts where he flouted God's law.

12:28 How do you know Judy Byington is a good source about Bergoglio? She references a process by Kevin Annett whom I have not found trustworthy in the past.

[Hence my interest in next video.]

He is not an appointed judge of any state, the court has no legal standing, the accused have not been brought there by police and if innocent can say "why should I attend?"

It is an improvised court. Therefore, the "in contumaciam" sentence, and this is what I think it is, is not a very convincing argument.

12:44 I left Bergoglio's sectaries, those [even just] accepting him as Pope, after I heard the canonisation was done, or so called canonisation. I am not leaving Roman Catholicism. That is another question.

13:41 Christ gave authority of Priesthood to his Twelve Disciples and to all they should "lay hands on", themselves or through successors whom they had laid hands on. Or eleven, the twelve minus Judas. But St Matthias replaced him. Since some of these priests, both St Peter and St Barnabas, not forgetting St Paul, came to Italy, obviously Italians can be priests. Note well, not after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec.

13:53 Melchisedec was a Gentile and not from the tribe of Levi.

13:58 No, THIS is not what shows even occupied Vatican of today to be unscriptural. You misread the Bible. You are heretics.

14:01 Jesus became the only High Priest, in His own Right, but the Apostles He had made priests by participation.

Found four more
of my comments, which I did not find when collecting them before publication.

6:53 I have a very hard time believing Jesuits were involved in killing JFK. In my book, they are more likely to play around with all the heretics and pagans, not forgetting Jews in between these, that they seem to consider automatically and collectively all of them so unaware of the truth that they cannot be blamed for not being Catholics.

7:20 Funny, Hiroshima bomb depicted when you pronounce RC "cult" ... The US President who ordered that bombing was not a RC. And the one connection Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs have with Catholicism is that on one of these places a house sheltering three Jesuits was alone spared, while they prayed the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and they did not get sick from radiation either.

8:49 all these things, that God hates, the dvilish Vatican is, you say. But you have not shown it. You are calumniating truly Catholic Popes, supposed predecessors of Bergoglio and for that matter Wojtyla and Ratzinger, pseudo-popes - over anxious, at least overtly, to do the opposite of that last thing, by their ecumenism, which has become a syncretism or at least a shared culpability in pagan idolatry and Mahommedanism, in Judaism and in Heresy (David Palmer was a heretic).

9:48, tracing your Lincoln quote:

My Gospel Workers : I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome – Abraham Lincoln

which links to Google Books:,+the+colleges+and+schools+of+the+Jesuits,+the+convents+of+the+nuns,+and+the+confessional+boxes+of+Rome%22&source=bl&ots=I_d6fqidD1&sig=ZNpFTL7v2RmLhU3qa3_QHXuvQqw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=70c6UNHVLuiq0AHg-oC4BQ&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22It%20is%20with%20the%20southern%20leaders%20of%20this%20civil%20war&f=false

Which is the title:

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome
Charles Paschal Telesphore Chiniquy
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1886 - Canadians - 832 pages
on p. 714

NOT a standard work on Abraham Lincoln, but it IS a standard work, no doubt, of Anti-Catholic Propaganda.

Other video:
Child Sacrifice and Trafficking in Holland An Eyewitness speaks out Introduction)

"the vicar" is not a Roman Catholic title of any current parish priests. [Correction, a "vicaris" can be the replacement of a parson, while he is absent or not yet named.] The normal title for a parish priest is "curate" [or parson, in Dutch pastoor], back in late Medieval times (perpetuated in France which did not totally obey Trentine Reform, and in England among Anglicans), the curate might sometimes not yet have been ordained a priest, but be a noble who got a Church prebend, and then the "vicar" would do his work, in theory up to his ordination, in practise often for more long than that. In Holland, as far as I know, Catholic Parish Priests have not been called Vicars for Centuries.

Will she later say how she "knew" it was the vicar or was Annett satisfied that "she knew it"? Because, if she was tricked, her telling how she knew is important for realising that.

So, the House Doctor was givng her pills after the ritual - meaning he was involved - but somehow the Medical Corps is NOT being charged in this so called International Court?

A bit like how a scary number of doctors had been involved in the camps, but only twenty were charged and only one or two condemned to heavy punishments at Nuremberg.

Ah ... for the freemasons.

"Bernardus Johannes Alfrink (5 July 1900, Nijkerk, Gelderland – Nieuwegein Utrecht 16 December 1987) was a Dutch Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as Archbishop of Utrecht from 1955 to 1975, and was elevated to the cardinalate in 1960."

That is, by Roncalli. A k a John XXIII. A k a Pope of the Vatican II Council. A k a "Saint John XXIII", since a "canonisation" by Bergoglio in 2014. If she was seeing Alfrink in this prank which was cruel, while he was already a Cardinal, this happened after death of Pius XII in 1958.

Added next day
First a response about "dock". It may be, rather than "duck", "dog". German and Polish certainly, Dutch possibly too, uses Auslautverhärtung : g > k, as here, or d > t, or b > p.

Then a pertinent question in general.

Freemasons are CERTAINLY involved, if this testmony is genuine.

A house doctor is, same observation.

Why is the court enquiring just about "Church and State" and not about "Freemasons and Medical Practitioners" too?

Would a crime committed by a parson who was also a freemason in your book be a crime by masonry infiltrating the Catholic Church - or a crime of the Catholic Church?

In my book, it is a crime by Masonry infiltrating it.

Saturday, December 5, 2015

... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …, 2) Assorted retorts: ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

1) ... on Several Matters, Including Carbon Dating, Canaaneans, and Ape DNA, 2) ... on Second Half of the Hovind video

"sometimes the opponent won't allow that for some reason, they don't wan't to look stupid"

Hear, hear!

How lawabiding of you! I blog debates I have on internet without release, and IF they sue me, I have planned to use that argument.

They might get me in jail, they might get a blog down, but they would make publicity for my arguments. And if they try "it's for your sake", I call that bluff. Have been doing so for more than ten years now, and have never been sued.

However, if their problem is not wanting me to get money from a post they contributed to, that is alreay arranged on my part: my general licence is such that THEY can make an edition and earn money of it themselves before sending me some.

Never one who did that either, as far as I know.

ONE possible exception : I heard a Calvinist geocentric claim that the best book he had read on Geocentrism, technically, was by a freewillbeliever, he maybe even specified Catholic, and "set as fictional dialogues". Meanwhile, the debates I had put up on MSNGroup Antimodernism had gone down in February 2009, most of them, along with all MSN Groups. So no one could check on internet if the texts were there. I did not get a penny of that book, which was perhaps not needed even IF it was my work, and I have not found the video again, so I can't ask the speaker for specifics on that one.

BUT, I have never been sued yet!

Lying and bearing false witness against one's neighbour are related, but every small lie is not a big sin against that commandment.

One I recall "I am Norwegian" - before end of conversation I had admitted I am Swedish and only quarter Norwegian and know very little about Norway beyond what Swedes usually know, which is Flåklypa and Flexness, and I wasn't asked about them.

I think that is the kind of sins one can be freed from very easily, simply by saying sorry to God, or, in this case, "thanks for not succeeding in the sin".

Now, how about exact quotes from Habacuc next time you speak about alcohol?

There are cases when rape is not punished by death.* In certain cases, the victim had an option of taking culprit for husband. In such a case, divorce was impossible (women never divorced husbands anyway under old law, and husband was specifically forbidden to do so if marriage had such a background).

*Even under old law, when by divine mandate some rapes were so punished.

And for the very few with no author precisely known, it seems there was collective and consecutive authorship. Judges was probably written like Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - writer after writer taking down current events, and these writers being believeable people in their community, in the case of Judges probably kohanim (or people screened by them) and in the case of ASC, monks.

"it wouldn't matter who's the author is God wrote it"

Well, wrong.

Now, we know God is ultimate author BECAUSE we know (with some approximation, as in case of Judges) who the human author was and BECAUSE human author believably to the Church of God (Patriarch families in Genesis, Israel in OT times, earliest Catholics in Acts and Gospels) made that claim and was the kind of man, witnessed by that Church, who would not have made it unless it were true.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

... on Religion, Brain Damage, Magic in Entertainment Literature of Fantasy Genre

Video commented on:
Why Religion causes brain damage

My first comment:
3:51 Thought patterns may indeed cause changes of the brain.

However, how do you argue religion, and especially all of them are causing the wrong ones from neurological perspective?

That study?

Gundam Z
+Hans-Georg Lundahl i know religious fanatics, both Muslim and christian ones. and i tell you sometimes you just get the feeling that the religion is messing up their minds. an example is i know someone who refused to allow her kids watch harry porter bcos she claims it's demonic and a work of satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
My dear, I would not want my own children to watch Harry Potter.

If "in book" the magic is a natural though rare talent, the way it is studied is very close to how magic is studied in the real world (excepting farce, like riding on owls or playing quidditch) and that study is indeed demonic.

By contrast, I would like my children, once I shall have such, to read Lord of the Rings and the Narnia Chronicles.

As to the Puritans who claim THAT is satanic (when no good character is tudying magic anywhere in the books, and the study of magic is stamped as evil in more than one place in them), I think they are wrong.

About as wrong and about as Puritan as the person on the video who thinks religion messes up the brain of people.

Puritanism can exist without religion, and it is rather morals than brains that it messes up.

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Since magic and religion are both man-made fantasies, how can you say the study of magic is "demonic"?

In the Lord of the Rings, while no good character is depicted as "studying magic", Gandalf is a practitioner of magic. Why do you have a problem with the study but not the practice? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Since magic and religion are both man-made fantasies, how can you say the study of magic is "demonic"?"

Because they aren't. Man made fantasies, that is. Even a false religion is not totally man made, it is usually at least partly demonic.

"In the Lord of the Rings, while no good character is depicted as "studying magic", Gandalf is a practitioner of magic."

Not in the same sense, since he is an angelic being and was given the powers at his creation, unlike a man who studies to get them.

"Why do you have a problem with the study but not the practice?"

I have a problem with any MAN practising (look how Gollum ended up just by using a ring, look at Angmar the Witchking), but not with a real angel like St Raphael or a fictional one like Gandalf having per se "magic" powers and taking a human form (Tolkien overdid the "incarnation" part of him and Sauron as "incarnate" angelic beings).

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl You are presuming that demons exist.

If birthright is your deciding line, then you should have no problem with Harry Potter. The wizards and witches, went to Hogwarts to learn how to control their inborn magic. No muggles were allowed to study there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You are presuming that demons exist."

A man who presumes opposite is no Christian.

"If birthright is your deciding line, then you should have no problem with Harry Potter."

Angelic beings are not BORN.

"The wizards and witches, went to Hogwarts to learn how to control their inborn magic. No muggles were allowed to study there."

  • 1) The distinction between "wizards/witches" and "muggles" being one between people all the same actually born like human babies, this is not the same as the "non-muggles" being angels AND it endorses a kind of superstitious differentiation between people (much like New Age concepts, say of Indigo Children) AND it is a false explanation on how some people get magic powers, the real one being demons;

  • 2) Angels never had to study for using their in-created powers, they were created adults, like Adam and Eve. If any angel needed to study anything, it is presumably fallen angels who study their victims and their personalities before choosing approach.

TheO c casionalAtheist
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Aren't you a bit old for fairytales?

Adam and Eve never existed, nor do angels. A man who presumes demons do not exist is called a "grown-up".

There's no "god", no heaven, nor hell. Here I thought you were arguing the abstract, but you really believe in this bullshit?!? LMAO


Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Aren't you a bit old for fairytales?"

Lucy Barfield, when The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came out, was probably so. Author predicted she would be even older and old enough to read fairy tales again. Which I think happened.

"Adam and Eve never existed, nor do angels."

Atheist claptrap.

"A man who presumes demons do not exist is called a 'grown-up'."

More like ignorant. Your definition of "grown-up" makes it a synonym of Atheist. Worse, since it implies that the Atheist was not such when a child, it implies Apostate.

Are you an Apostate or are you a childhood believer in Atheism?

In the latter case, you should know better than claiming to have been a Christian when a child.

"There's no "god", no heaven, nor hell. Here I thought you were arguing the abstract, but you really believe in this bullshit?!? LMAO"

Enjoy your laugh.


I actually do, when I am confronted with obvious temptations against Christian virtues. Or should be doing it.

However, not by looking over the shoulder.