...on Malthusianism and disasters

Re: The Flood
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 07:07 pm
Msg: 33507 of 33519

In Atrahasis, the Flood is sent by the gods to reduce overpopulation.
an early malthusian misrepresentation of the flood - which proves how babylonian Bertrand Russel's malthusianism is!

it would seem rather, that the flood and the reduction of longevity were punishments for malthusian perversions of filthy rich (like the fire in Sodom)

Posted as a reply to: Msg 33506 by dhux99

Re: The cheerleaders for homocide
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 02:35 pm
Msg: 33483 of 33515

"The end justifies the means informs the illogical of abortion activist murderers. Here also Catholics need to totally renouce the violence or terror used at abortion clincs."

I totally renounce the malthusian terrorist/genocidal acts committed by abortionists at abortion clinics!

Re: The cheerleaders for homocide
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 02:50 pm
Msg: 33488 of 33515

"I totally renounce the malthusian terrorist/genocidal acts committed by abortionists at abortion clinics!"

So you support a married woman's right to effective birthcontrol? That would reduce population pressure on limited resources right there.

I said I renounced the malthusian terrorist acts, which you refer to as "effective birthcontrol". Are you unable to read?

Posted as a reply to: Msg 33486 by llew32

Re: The cheerleaders for homocide
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 07:14 pm
Msg: 33508 of 33515

wrote llew:

How would you like to see the population grow in your country? Do you lean more toward letting God & Nature make those decisions or should people get consciously involved?

People should get consciously involved against malthusianism in order to make the decision to let God and Nature make the decision of HOW MANY babies, once sex starts.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 33493 by llew32

Re: The Flood
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 11:24 pm
Msg: 33561 of 33561

India provides an example of many of the problems of over-population.

Actually it doesn't. India is not over populated. New Delhi might be, but India is not.

Or one should perhaps say: the favela of New Delhi might be.

But actually it is not either. The problem is not so much the many people as the fact they are allotted no more space. And the problem is also more keenly felt by a western or filthy rich Indian visitor, complaining basically that the crowd hurts his precious nose and sense of smell, than by the people living there. One should always be very suspicious of "problems" which are more keenly felt by people looking at them than by people supposedly having them.

dhux is also trying to throw smudge on Israel of Old Testament times - because it produced the Old Testament. She is less suspicious of Jews in New Testament times who have produced the Talmud.

The Old Testament states for instance that:

• 1 what falls to the ground at harvest must NOT be picked up by owner, but belongs to the poor passing by.
• 2 after the beginning of a sabbatical year (every seventh), no debts incurred before it may be collected - a law which Hillel nullified by his newfangled tradition!
• 3 after the beginning of a jubilee (every fiftieth, after seven sabbatical years) every real estate sold returns to previous owner, unless sold to a levite.
• 4 it was expressly forbidden to take interest of one's brother, i e fellow Israelite.
• 5 if a poor man gave his mantle as surety for the loan, it was expressly forbidden to keep it from him at night.

These laws were very much lauded by the Christian theologians. Including those least friendly to the Jews.

Can you show me any Babylonian law that equally forbids the extorsion of the poor by the rich?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Posted as a reply to: Msg 33528 by dhux99

Re: The Flood & other disasters
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 11:48 pm
Msg: 33563 of 33563

Utah, where i live now, provides some illustrations too. Every time we double the population we double the demand for clean water, fertile soil and fish from the sea (or trout around here :)

The trouble is, we have less clean water, less fertile soil and less trout and even if we could (miraculously or technologically) double the amount of clean water, fertile soil and trout (which we're not doing anyway) the benefits would be wiped out when the population doubles again.

Utah is a desert, a country where Mormon robbers have raided caravans. Even so, it provides an illustration of my point: as yet it has not doubled its population far enough to cause a starvation or thirst disaster. Before it did so, the population growth would probably slow down, or people would change their lifestyle in a way which lessens the demand for fresh water: drinking beer, wine, coffee, tea - drinks where water is either kept fresh longer by alcohol or refreshened by boiling (unless people are stupid enough to remain Mormons*) AND wasting less water on washing oneself.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Posted as a reply to: Msg 33532 by llew32

*Mormons I've met are definitely included in the note below:
*Mystery of kindness

Re: The Flood & other disasters
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/18/03 01:16 am
Msg: 33566 of 33566

overfishing comes from industrial fishing as well as its waste of good fish by handling involving a lot of transport, throwing away, et c

there are however more fish in the sea than ever came out of it - the cod may have gone somewhere else, or it may in the future increase in numbers again - by geometrical population growth

we do not know

there is such a thing as trusting God, and if we are not to be afraid even when hearing of war, why should we be afraid of a rumour of overfishing?

have you ever considered that the advice of fear may be counterproductive and the trust in Providence may give very many unexpected boons?

St Patrick was so blind he hung his gaunts up on a ray of light - and God kept them there as if it had been a hook. He was in a rush begetting spiritual children by prayer and preaching, and making them acceptable to God by chastity and fasting, as well as prayer and alms. Some should at least be in a hurry to beget corporeal children, unless they can be chaste!

Ever heard of a poor Irish family with many children having to give up fish 'n' chips permanently? There may have been, but hardly for the reasons you suggest.

Posted as a reply to: Msg 33565 by llew32

Re: Hill, Kopp, Rudolph=pro-life martry
by: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/17/03 07:36 pm
Msg: 33515 of 33515

Likewise it seems odd to support the rights of the fetus but not a child's (1) rights to education (2), healthcare (3) and freedom (4)with even more passion. Surely being human is as important as the potential to become human; whether or not you believe that a single cell should be termed "human" it's pretty obvious that 6th graders, for instance, are humans and need our help.

• 1) once a girl can get pregnant/a young man can make a girl pregnant, they are no longer children.
• 2) educating someone to think abortion right and completing one's education more important than completing one's motherhood is educating that someone very badly - and stopping her from abortion is to give her a good lesson worth ten thousand schoolyears.
• 3) abortion is no healthcare.
• 4) is freedom from motherhood - motherhood is after all an end of one's existance as a woman - more important than freedom from school - school is after all just a means to such ends, or it was once supposed to be! - oh, no, it is not.
  
  

It's possible to eliminate an abortion by taking the girl into your home and supporting her and her child while she gets some education.

That is usually the task of her husband (or parents, if the father of the child refuses to marry the mother), and it is usually the task of a man who has made someone pregnant to become her husband.

And if he is old enough to make a child, he is naturally considered old enough to work for its support. If he can get no work, he has a duty to beg - and not primarily from such social welfare authorities which might use the occasion to stop him from supporting his family.

Anyone stopping him from begging to support his child and wife and further children is a goddam murderer.

Anyone "legislating" to stop him from working to support his wife and child is also a goddam murderer.

Anyone who "legislates" to allow his girl an abortion in order to allow him to escape those duties is VERY obviously a goddam murderer.

Anyone who "legislates" to make him dependent on social welfare, just because he is young, is at least a goddam slave hunter (I've defended slavery for SOME reasons, but not for others, and a man disliking another man's freedom and preferring his dependence on himself is, unless he is already legitimately master of him one of the OTHER reasons, the WRONG ones), and if he knows they are going to put pressure on him or her or both to either have an abortion or have birth control after that child he is a goddam murderer or malthusian pervert.

solemnly
Hans Georg Lundahl
Posted as a reply to: Msg 33489 by llew32

Answers to llewby: hglundahl (34/M/Malmö) 09/21/03 03:05 pm
Msg: 33736 of 33736

Hey Hans,
where is Malmo, if i may ask and what church you belong to? I see you are facing a different set of legislation than we are, what's going on?

Malmö is in S Sweden, we have a heavily proabortionist "legislation", I do not attend Church, because there is the New Mass - or Greek Orthodox* - or most of the time nothing.

I appreciate your perspective here, i have a friend who's trying to get me to help with some orphaneges in Africa especially for kids whose parents have died from AIDS, so i'm really open to hear how someone other than an American or European sees the situation in their country.

As said, I am European.

Are there a lot of young fathers there begging in order to support your kids?

None that I know of - except begging from social welfare. And that is the problem.

When do most young people start having children there?

In the capital, Stockholm, women are generally past thirty - which is the problem.

If they aren't begging what sort of work are they likely to be doing?

Youngsters are likely to be in school and have an abortion - which is the problem.

Why is it a woman's duty to have children right away?

So she can have more children: so each child (or grandchild is less burdened with taking care of her. Our welfare system and old age care is breaking down. The next generation or the one after that will realise that the family must take care of the old. It is already a blatant fact, but feminist/malthusian ideology is very blinding.

Also, if a girl cannot keep her chastity till 21 (most of them cannot under modern conditions, you know), she ought to marry.

Couldn't she help her children more if she got a few years of education, say until she was 21 or so, before she began having children?

That should be the father's concern. If the mother goes working, she cannot have as many children as she should, for the people's, the family's, her own and their own sakes.

You know, so she and her husband could get some income producing skills before they had kids.

Why should a man have to study till 21 to get a decent work to support his wife on? Do you need secondary highschool to be a good sailor, truck driver, hairdresser, cook, et c? Obviously not.

And finally, how would you like to see things change for the better? Any ideas on what to do to make that change happen? And what would you like to see America or Europe do, if anything, to help out?

Follow the good example of Kentucky and Tennessee as they were back in 1995 and possibly still are: a 12 yr old girl should be able to marry, a married wife should be able to quit school, however young she were. Have you noticed that the school gun killings, like in Columbine high school were NOT in those states, though they have many guns there?

just wondering, thanks for your patience

Thanks for YOUR patience, waiting for my answer so long!

*now I am Roumanian Orthodox myself

...on accusations by PhoenixCNA

While I was no longer with the Popes of the Vatican and not yet Orthodox:

PhoenixCNA wrote:

[[Hans:I will still read your posts and repond to some of your ignorance, stupidity, apostacy, heresy, blasphemy, consummate arrogance and willfullness in the way you treat your fellow RCs. Get yourself up to date in the current teachings of the Holy RCC. If I was your Bishop, I would have you excommunicated for the lies and distortions you spead in the name of the RCC.

You are a noeNazi, lover of torture, war and crime against humanity. You would revel in the death and destruction of the grossness of The Crusades.

You are a very mentally deranged individual. Someone has taught this singing pig (Hans) to sing - out of tune. Myself I prefer "Prancing Ponies". They are more intelligent, logical, and treat humans with greater respect.

PhoenixCNA.]]

Did you say apostasy, heresy and blasphemy? They are on your side, not mine.

You actually said I should get updated with the CURRENT teaching of the "Holy RCC". Well, according to Pope Gregory XVII, the Church is NO LONGER Roman, since Rome has lost the Faith. People who speak of CURRENT teaching, as if Catholicism were as shifty as secular science and included guesses because it was in SEARCH of truth - such people cannot be said to have the Faith or to be Catholics.

The person you call "my bishop" has recently succeeded a certain Hubertus Brandenburg (from Germany, and NOT Bavaria or Austria), whom eight months before I became Palmarian (provisorically, at least) I denounced to "Cardinal" Joseph Ratzinger for his ecumenical heresies and blasphemous lies about St Bridget of Sweden. When he "was Bishop of Stockholm" he shielded a certain Pierre Aupy "OP", who had concelebrated "Mass" with Lutheran laymen usurping priestly titles and wages. The Vatican could have checked the facts, it could have condemned him or forced him to recant in both cases - but didn't. What respect do I owe such traitors to Holy Faith? Such intruders into a see once Catholic?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Envoyé : 15/09/2002 13:32

Reconsiderations before the following:

a) if Lateran IV is not an Ecumenical Council no one needs approve the burning of heretics

b) if Florence is not an Ecumenical Council, one may hope that some people may be saved without open, conscious conversion, if they are faithful enough to what they do know about God

c) as to the Crusades, there were lots I did not know when writing the below or thought of as individual incidents as to Crusades: I knew the massacre of Jerusalem (Ist Crusade) and the sack of Constantinople (IVth), but not the generalised near colonial ambition in some areas, like Teutonic Order in the Baltic: even when writing this, I did not believe in Crusading against merely peaceful Moslems, unless they had oppressed or enslaved Christians. I have had two minds about Moslem Arabs in Palestine between the arrival of Moslem armies and the Seljuk takeover; on the one hand they were generally rather friendly to Christians, on the other there had been forced conversions to Islam, forbidding of conversions to Christianity, penalty taxing of non-Moslem "peoples of the book".

Envoyé : 16/09/2002 14:07
Message 10 of 10Subject:

Re: "RCC NOW & HANS' ERRORS"Msg # 67666

Date: 9/16/02 7:08:51 AM EDT

Author: H G Lundahl

I object to the title of this thread, and put it in inverted commas.

PhoenixCNA wrote:

[[Fellow Board members:I could no longer tolerate Hans' distortions and lies about the current teachings of the Holy RCC. He professes to be a RC. I say OK, but one of and on the lunatic fringe. He is the equivalent to a Christian Fundamentalist, but worse in my view for the damage he does to the image of his own Holy RCC.

Facts about Hans versus facts about the Holy Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

First Hans declares "If you understand him, it would not be God" (St. Augustine, Sermo 52, 6, 16: PL 38:360 and Sermo 117, 3, 5:PL 38, 663). ** (# 1 Ph 230) Zen Buddhist Masters: "If you say, you do not know. If you know ("enlightened") you do not (cannot) say." - Buddhism

This is no different than what I have known personally for years – that God is incomprehensible. Buddhism states it similarly – "enlightenment" is attained through "unknowing".]]

HOLD IT, Phoenix!

To a Catholic it is GOD who is incomprehensible, to a Buddhist it is reality "as a whole", all the truth there is, including created reality.HGL

[[St, John of the Cross, unlike the Zen masters, explains how to go into "unknowing" by the method of "dark contemplation". Thus one "allows" the Holy Spirit to enter the person's spirit and cleanse the soul to prepare it for "Ascent to Commune with God". A person in the state of mortal sin cannot be in commune with the perfect and divine God.]]

Agreed.

[[Hans claims we are always in commune with God.]]

I have never claimed ANY such thing. I HAVE however claimed we did not LOOSE communion by being created as individuals or by being born in the flesh, as the gnostics and manicheans claim. On the contrary I hold for certain that we are created without communion with God, but only by being created can fulfil the conditions of gaining it. Hence union with God is not reunion, except for those of us who have committed mortal sins: thus NOT for a newly baptised child, NOT at any time for Ste Terese of the Child Jesus and of the HOly Face, et c et c. Union with God is only accidentally, not essentially reunion.

[[He is in error because when we are in a state of sin we are essentially rejecting God and replacing God with the thing(s) and sin of this world – the thing(s) we place first ahead of God.]]

Correct - but make that a state of mortal sin, as venial sin does not constitute any state, just slacken the state of Grace.

[[To attain "complete" commune, one must be "perfectly free of all sin" and in total inordinate attachment to all things of the world. For anybody (even St. Thomas Aquinas – who also says we can know God by what He is not – is logical fallacy.) to then immediate make statements about God and how God works, or to know the mind and will of God is self-contradictory, false logic, arrogant and perhaps even blasphemous.]]

No: the Faith is the true faith, even if it is a dead faith, even if one is in a state of mortal sin. It is not by being in the state of Grace, but by believing what the Church teaches as revealed by God, that I make statements about the Blessed Trinity - or rather NOT make them but repeat them as made by others.

[[Secondly Hans states that the times before Martin Luther (the Dark Ages and The Crusades) were "great times", and that RCs that do not applaud the Inquisition are heretics and apostates. And, that Martin Luther was an Apostate heretic as well.]]

I do not demand applause for the Inquisition. But I do demand respect for it. Its motto was justitia et misericordia - with justice and mercy - and it lived up to it. The "worst" inquisitors were the Spanish, but even in Torquemada's time only a tenth of all the cases it tried were handed over to secular authorities for burning. After the Albigensian Crusade, the "sternest" Inquisitor was Raymond de Toulouse: he handed over one in nineteen to secular authorities for burning and the liberations from Inquisition prisons (c.100) alone are more numerous in his c. 900 judgements as an Inquisitor than the burnings (45 or 48 or something). Phoenix is more or less speaking as if the Inquisition were regularly run by the false judges condemning St Joan of Arc or the Knights Templar. Which is not the case. An example: St John Capistrano was inquisitor in Vienna and had Hussites burnt. Will Phoenix deny his sanctity?

[[The RCC is the nearest in reconciliation and ecumenical reunification with the Lutheran Church than any other church. In fact, the Holy RCC has essentially admitted it errors in the unfortunate Martin Luther affair, and is in the process of, or has essentially already completely "rehabilitated" Martin Luther and its stand against his "apostasy".]]

If that is the case it can no longer be the Roman CATHOLIC CHURCH. Pope Leo X did not err in condemning Luther, far from it. Nor was he hasty, rather he was prone to slackness and didn't act until Luther had already done great harm. Have you even read the horrible 95 theses?

[[Here is the position of the ... RCC regarding Islam and the Muslim faith, and other non-Christian religions.Page 185 – Ph. 841 "The Church’s relationship with the Muslims." "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day." ** # 2]]

If this means they can be saved without becoming Catholics, this is heretical. If it means less, it suggests more than it means.

[[Ph. 842 " "The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:All nation form but one community. This is so because ....." ** # 3]]

Rather they form TWO communities: the City of God - Holy Catholic Church - and the City of Earth - meaning state, world, nation, et c. And that second city is divided since the tower of Babel and it is also divided into members belonging to the state of God and such that belong to the state of the Devil.

[[Ph 843 "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things, and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." " ** # 4]]

A preparation for the Gospel was certainly found in pre-Christian paganism - but in post-Christian paganism there is also a resitance AGAINST the Gospel.

[[Now why is it I already knew all these things without having studied the Catechism? Because I read about the other faiths and religions and concluded for myself, after "seeing" the similarities in beliefs that all were trying to seek my same God in their own way.]]

There is a difference between "trying to seek" and actually finding, isn't there? And if Mahomet perhaps actually sought for God, this doesn't make the majority of today's Mahometans seekers, as they are obliged to be since they haven't found the truth. But which we Catholics are forbidden to be, since we already have the truth.

Furthermore you cannot say a [Theravada] Buddhist seeks for God, since he is an atheist and since seeking for anything is what he tries and seeks to avoid.

[[Also that there were many, many similar truths and beliefs. Furthermore, God, being greater, wiser and more merciful than I, would surely love, understand and accept them even more readily than I have.]]

This presupposes that your delight and acceptance of them were really merciful: rather it is cruel to them, and to Christians and would-be-Christians that they oppress and force, as far as they can into apostasy, to be that sentimentally accepting of the false religions.

[[As for Hans’ delight in the wars and crusades against Islam, I offer the following: Avoiding War:Ph. 2307 "The fifth commandment forbids the intentional (the Crusades were intentional) destruction of human life." ** # 5]]

The V Commandment allows the killing of people who deserve it under three different conditions:

• 1 Death Penalty
• 2 Just War
• 3 Just self-defense.

At least if only the defense is intentional and the killing unintentional. This restriction does not apply to just sentences of the state, including laws authorising even intentional killing in just self-defense, if the attack cannot be beaten back in any more merciful way.

[[Ph. 2309 "The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision ...." ** # 6]]

The rigorous considerations have already been made by St Augustine and repeated by St Thomas Aquinas - and after half a millennium of Mahometan violence and oppression of Christianity, these considerations were amply met, when Pope Urban II said: God wills it.

[[** #1,: From Paragraph 230, Page 59, Catechism of the Catholic Church.** # 2, 3, & 4, Page 185, Catechism of the Catholic Church.** # 5 & 6, Page 471 and 472, Catechism of the Catholic Church.]]

This new Cathechism is not Catholic.

[[Applaud the Inquisition and the Crusades if you will evil one Hans.]]

Be against them if YOU will evil, Phoenix.

[[The RCC was in error then, and it admits it now with its New Catechism.]]

The Roman and Universal Catholic Church was right then, and whatever "admits" the opposite right now is not Catholic.

[[All war, except in clear self-defense is evil and in violation of natural and divine law.]]

So one has not the right to defend one's neighbour? Or the honour of God, the rights of his Church, the princes protecting it? Love god above all things is outdated to you? Love thy neighbour as thyself is outdated to you? WE FIGHT FOR THE LAW OF GOD AND FOR OUR SOULS (Maccabees) is outdated to you?

[[ Your idiotic, ancient, out-dated and distorted pronouncements on this subject are clearly outside of the RCC "current" teachings. It is you Hans who is the "APOSTATE" and heretic. By clutching onto the old and outdated RCC, you refuse to embrace the new divine truth of LOVE.

PhoenixCNA]]

I certainly do refuse to embrace any new "truths" purportedly revealed to the Church after the death of the last Apostle. One is not an apostate for refusing new doctrines but for rejecting old ones. The Pope himself has only got his powers as far as doctrine is concerned to defend and expound faithfully what has been handed down to him from his predecessors, not to add any novelties.

Hans Georg Lundahl

And the last Apostle, before dying, told Christians to love one another (see his Epistles).