I wish He had Linked the Parts, if not indexed

Here are at least three parts in a series on Darwinism and Communism. Not sure if there is any fourth.

I came to the series from the second part, then clicked a link labelled "in this series" - and came to latest month's index on the blog.

But the three parts I found were from January 2009, as I found after looking at date.

• Darwinism & Communism, Part I
  David Klinghoffer January 16, 2009 2:24 AM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_i015641.html
  
  
• Darwinism & Communism, Part II
  David Klinghoffer January 20, 2009 5:12 PM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_ii015891.html
  
  
• Darwinism & Communism, Part III
  David Klinghoffer January 21, 2009 5:17 AM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_ii_1015931.html

I would have, in top section of each post, inserted (post factum) links to newer as well as older posts of same series.

Like this:

Darwinism & Communism, Part I · Part II · Part III

In this case, as title is identic, all posts come after it in bold letters and links are only marked "part N". In my own blogs (this and other ones on other themes) I would insert part specific titles in link, and only numerate very minutely before each part, like this:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : In Today's Article on Maxwell, CMI Linked Back to an Oldie · 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What Cusa Really Said · 3) New blog on the kid : Everything a Giant Miracle? Why, Yes!

This one spans several blogs, and therefore has a black and bold not message, but blog title before each part. This blog because I found it due to CMI for first message, Φιλολoγικά/Philologica because it is about what exactly someone in the past uttered, thus a question of philological learning, my (newest) main blog, because general theology which is not given for apologetics of itself usually comes on my main blogs.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St. John's Nativity
YooL 2016

PS, on some of my blogs, like my main one, I tend to keep an index:

Index Indicum

Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology

Dr. Eberhard Zangger, at the 50th Winterseminar on 18 January 2015, Luwian studies, mentions that excavating Bronze Age sites is difficult.

You get Bronze Age about 3 to 5 meters below the surface. You first have to go through Medieval material, Classical material, Dark Age material before you get down to the Bronze Age.

Now, in invertebrate marine palaeontology, you get a stratification close to that.

In vertebrate palaeontology, you don't get that. You don't dig 5 meters after dinos the way you dig 5 meters down to look if there is a Bronze Age city. You depend on finding what is close on the surface, because laters layers above, supposed to have been there, have eroded.

More on this topic, see my Classical (or so I hope) series on Three Meanings:

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

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

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F

On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

And if anyone wanted to know, it is nicer to write and ask me, than to use prayer or magic hoping God and His angels, or demons, shall put the topic before me, by their providence. Which however they did, one or other, hoping it be God./HGL

Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery

1) Did Catholic Church Ever Teach any Curse of Cham? · 2) Cardinal Lavigerie Fought Slavery · 3) Why Curse of Ham Became Negroes among Muslims

Here is a quote after the information on his trying to convert Algerians:

This action, however, did not meet with the approval of Marshal MacMahon, governor-general of Algeria, who feared that the maghrebian would resent it as an infraction of the religious peace, and thought that the Muslim faith, being a state institution in Algeria, ought to be protected from proselytism; so it was intimated to the prelate that his sole duty was to minister to the colonists. Lavigerie made it clear that he had come to serve the whole population of Algeria.

Contact with the natives during the famine caused Lavigerie to entertain exaggerated hopes for their general conversion, and his enthusiasm was such that he offered to resign his archbishopric in order to devote himself entirely to the missions. Pope Pius IX refused this, but granted him a coadjutor, and placed the whole of equatorial Africa under his charge. In 1870 Lavigerie warmly supported papal infallibility.

...

From 1881 to 1884, his activity in Tunisia so raised the prestige of France that it drew from Gambetta the celebrated declaration, L'Anticléricalisme n'est pas un article d'exportation, and led to the exemption of Algeria from the application of the decrees concerning the religious orders. On 27 March 1882, the dignity of cardinal was conferred upon Lavigerie, given the titulus of Sant'Agnese fuori le mura, but the great object of his ambition was to restore the see of St Cyprian; and in that also he was successful, for by a bull of 10 November 1884 the metropolitan see of Carthage was re-erected, and Lavigerie received the pallium on 25 January 1885.

The later years of his life were spent in ardent anti-slavery propaganda, and his eloquence moved large audiences in London, as well as in Paris, Brussels and other parts of the continent. He hoped, by organizing a fraternity of armed laymen as pioneers, to restore fertility to the Sahara; but this community did not succeed, and was dissolved before his death. In 1890, Lavigerie appeared in the new character of a politician, and arranged with Pope Leo XIII to make an attempt to reconcile the church with the republic.

He invited the officers of the Mediterranean squadron to lunch at Algiers, and, practically renouncing his monarchical sympathies, to which he clung as long as the comte de Chambord was alive, expressed his support of the republic, and emphasized it by having the Marseillaise played by a band of his Pères Blancs. The further steps in this evolution emanated from the pope, and Lavigerie, whose health now began to fail, receded comparatively into the background. He died at Algiers on the 26th of November 1892.

Cardinal Charles Martial Allemand Lavigerie (31 October 1825–26 November 1892)
on The Wickipeejuh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lavigerie

Obviously, the same Pope who had written and indulgenced the prayer about God taking away the curse of Cham from the hearts of men (unless it was written by Lavigerie and indulgenced by the Pope) was also one of the Popes who supported Lavigerie and therefore also the efforts of ending slavery in Africa.

Other note, Lavigerie only joined the support of the Republic (il s'est rallié seulement) after the Comte de Chambord, the Legitimist pretender to the French throne, who should have been Henri V, had died without direct heirs.

Also, his opponent about mission to Algerians, Patrice de MacMahon, Duke of Magenta, has been at least considered a Freemason.

In this "dictionary of Freemasons of commune of Paris", I find the entry:

Patrice de <Mac-Mahon, comte de Mac –Mahon, duc de Magenta (1808-1893) :

But I find nothing after the colon, unlike other entries where I do find:

Bernard Pierre Magnan (1791-1865) : Franc-maçon. Maréchal de France. Il est un des principaux organisateurs du coup d’Etat du 2 décembre 1851. En 1862, alors qu’il n’est pas franc-maçon, Napoléon III le nomme Grand Maître du Grand Orient de France, pour écarter le Prince Lucien Murat. Il fut initié et reçut le 33 degrés en 48heures.

So, if there was more specific information about MacMahon being a Mason of such and such a lodge, as for certain others, this was deleted for some reason.

Anyway, it seems Lavigerie was not a Mason.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen
31.V.2016

PS, H/T to Dymphna for the article:

Blessed Mary Theresa--- someone you should know
from Friday, July 12, 2013, on Dymphna's Road
https://dymphnaroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/blessed-mary-theresa-someone-you-should.html

If Mary Teresa Ledochowska fought slavery, it was because of Lavigerie, which is why I found him./HGL

And Not Adam and Steve ...

1) Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender · 2) And Not Adam and Steve ...

Believe me: Steve Tempier* of Paris would heartily agree on this one.

Another one from Suzanne DeWitt Hall**:

So let’s put the whole thing together. If Adam and Eve are THE model for marriage, any Christian who demands a literal interpretation of scripture must conclude the following:

Marriage should be between genetic twins, should not involve choice of partner, should not require civil or ecclesiastic involvement, and should result in dysfunctional dynamics.

• "Marriage should be between genetic twins" - Adam and Eve differed by a Y, and as to other aspects of genetical closeness, mutations that are deleterious had certainly not set in, so avoiding genetical closeness in order to avoid double copies of mutations that are bad was not an issue.
  
  Marriage should be between people having variations of the genome of Adam and Eve.
  
  
• "should not involve choice of partner," - make that need not involve own choice of partner, can simply be involving the consent to a choice already made for one.
  
  By God or by someone representing God.
  
  
• "should not require civil or ecclesiastic involvement," - In this case, the ecclesiastic involvement was by God, whom the priest represents in marriage.
  
  
• "and should result in dysfunctional dynamics." Their marriage was not dysfunctional per se, it became so when they listened to the serpent.
  
  So, lesson is rather that whatever good man has in himself can be destroyed if you open a door to the devil. Or at least set aside for a very important moment.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix I, Pope, Martyr
30.V.2016

* If you know Latin, you don't need to take my word for it:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Stephen Tempier organised his condemnation of "a certain tendency" as a list of propositions which he condemned. The chapters 1-5 in this, missing here and where I found it, as I recall, are how the subject is introduced. The chapters 6 - 22 are reorganised by a copyist, and error number such and such within chapter such and such corresponds to an error number other in the original, less systematic list. Example, chapter 6:error9 = error 34 on original list.

Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere.

I call this "the Narnia clause".

That Stephen Tempier wore pink liturgic colours when publishing the syllabus from the chancel does not make him transvestite, in France at least the South, men will wear pink because they like the rosé wine.

** From: H : THE BLOG : A Note to Kim Davis About Adam and Steve
09/08/2015 09:24 am ET | Updated Sep 08, 2015
by Suzanne DeWitt Hall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-dewitt-hall/a-note-to-kim-davis-about_b_8094218.html

Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender

1) Neither Eve Nor Christ Transgender · 2) And Not Adam and Steve ...

A somewhat befuddled woman considers Eve had exact same genome as Adam and Christ exact same genome as the Blessed Virgin.

I'd suggest something different.

The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.

Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.

Then along comes Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, and yet trans-formed into man.

Quoted via : NowTheEndBegins : Huffington Post Blasphemously Declares That Jesus Christ Is The ‘First Transgender Man’
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/huffington-post-blasphemously-declares-jesus-christ-first-transgender-man/

The solution is pretty simple, neither Eve nor Christ were genetically identic clones, but both differed by a Y chromosome.

Possibly angels were guarding the Y chromosome of Adam which was not kept in Eve's genome (or one item, presumably several genomes there in that rib) and giving it to God so He could give the exact same Y chromosome to Jesus Christ, as new Adam. Anyway, Eve differed by being XX instead of XY, and that means the Y was taken away and X doubled to XX.

And in Christ's case, one may suppose the Blessed Virgin had two identical X chromosomes, and one item of them was kept, the other replaced by a Y.

So, Eve was not genetically male, Christ was not genetically female.

Neither of them was transgender. Neither of them was any kind of counterexample to the words of Christ in Mark 10:6.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Not male and semifemale/semimale.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Felix I, Pope and Martyr
30.V.2016

PS, the site I am quoting is not linking to original post. As far as I can see. It is however describing the author as "if saved at all, a Laodicea type" or words of that effect. As coming from part time Lutheran state Church, I'd say she is simply a modernist. Which of course equates with apostate./HGL

PPS, I am sorry I did not look very sharply. They did link:

H : THE BLOG Jesus: The First Transgender Man
05/18/2016 02:45 pm ET | Updated May 18, 2016
by Suzanne DeWitt Hall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-dewitt-hall/jesus-the-first-transgend_b_10006134.html

History or Myth ... how do YOU describe a "story which really happened" but has "mythical" coherence and greatness?

1) Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?, 2) And Mark Shea bungled Mythical with Allegorical ... *sigh* ... 3) History or Myth ... how do YOU describe a "story which really happened" but has "mythical" coherence and greatness?

Link to CMI

Is the Torah historical?
Published: 28 May 2016
http://creation.com/torah-historical

Timothy M, United States

MODERN distinctions like “history” and “myth” didn’t seem to exist 3500 years ago. So why make the distinction NOW?

Lita Cosner

Of course ancient people did not define historiography the way we do today. That doesn’t mean, however, that they didn’t have categories for “things that happened” versus “things that didn’t really happen”.

Hans Georg Lundahl

But the stories we call myths were back then usually put in the category of things that did happen.

A Baal worshipper was as convinced (usually, until late sophistication crept in) that Baal had fought a monster and created the world and men from its carcasse as a Hebrew then or a Christian now that God had created Heaven and Earth in an instant and their embellishments in six days, reposing on seventh from creating new kinds of things, and as convinced as Oparin that molecules had come together and formed early life, while more complex life had developed from it.

The three stories contradict (or the mid one contradicts the others) but nevertheless each is putting his story (rather than those of the others) in the category of things which did in fact happen.

Later Greeks became ashamed of the behaviour of certain gods and explained THOSE myths away by saying they were only meant symbolically. But that starts with Plato. It is about as irrelevant to Homer as Anglican "Bishop of Woolwich" John A.T. Robinson, is to the Gospels.

Lita Cosner

I agree, the modern distinction of religion vs myth did not exist in the past the way it does today, perhaps partially because they didn’t have the distinction between religious vs secular.

Hans Georg Lundahl

The distinction exists since Plato.

Now, there is another reason.

Some things which moderns consider "mythical" in the sense of "did not happen and does not happen" are not really so and the ancients were not so ideological as to take them as such.

Baal creating world after killing a monster, using a carcasse? Sure, that is a "myth", that is, it is a fake Genesis account. Oparin is also a fake Genesis account, would you call his theory "a myth"?

But Greeks starting a war against Troy over Helen? No, I think the account of Homer is basically true.

It leaves out the reference to Hittite Empire which contemporaries to it could not have missed. It is perhaps the prequel to that Hittite Civil war which ends in a siege of Hattusha and both parties finally agreeing to dissolve the Empire.

Homer is a sequel of both events, including a deal probably made among Hittites to later identify as whatever else but not Hittites.

Or Hercules and Ulysses defeating giants? I think there too the accounts at least could be true. Though both men were prone to swagger of one kind of another.

So, if not true, at least a lie which could have been true.

People disagree on whether the account of Anne Frank's diary is true or a forgery. But no one is calling it a myth in the sense of what one does with the fake Genesis of Baal worshippers.

And that, controversial but possibly true autobiography is where I would place Ulysses telling his story to princess and king and queen of the Phaeacians or Hercules telling in Greece how he had fought Gerion between Gibraltar and A Coruña.

So, the "distinction" is in these days exaggerated, because moderns tend to throw in the wrong items into the category (ill defined on top of that) of "myth".

And, not seeing ancients make same exaggeration, moderns think ancients were unaware of it. In a sense they were, insofar as the imprecise categories used by Robinson are such that there is very little to be aware of, and the ancients were not too prone to strain gnats (before the Pharisees at least).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Augustine of Canterbury
28.V.2016

And Speaking of Inconsistent Exegesis ...

1) I was going to make next post on Plato, but today's article in CMI posed a simple question to my mind · 2) And Speaking of Inconsistent Exegesis ...

Why will some who do, correctly, believe that God the Son made Adam and Eve fruitful on Day six by speaking and it was so, and also that, having taken Manhood, He told a leper "I will, be thou clean" and it was so, nevertheless not believe Christ also spoke about bread and wine, calling them His Body and His Blood, and it was so?

That is why I am Catholic, not a Protestant.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Corpus Christi
26.V.2016