Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Me and Zarella on "qui loquutus est per prophetas"


... Geocentrism, Social Reactions + Try at Debate · Me and Zarella on Quora on Heliocentrism and Joshua's Long Day · Me and Zarella on "qui loquutus est per prophetas"

Q
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit speak in the New Testament like the Father and the Son?
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-Holy-Spirit-speak-in-the-New-Testament-like-the-Father-and-the-Son/answer/Anthony-Zarrella


Anthony Zarrella
Lifelong Catholic and avid student of theology
Written 22h ago
He does.

Every word of the New Testament (and the Old) is the Holy Spirit speaking.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
So is every word in the Old Testament - including the ones spoken by Joshua …

Anthony Zarrella
13m ago, 1 upvote by me
You’re confusing the sense.

Every word is inspired, but not every word is itself representative of the mind of God. The authors were inspired to include the quotes of others because it was important that we know that they were said, not because their content is guaranteed to be representative of divine truth.

If this logic suffices to show that every (recorded) word from Joshua’s mouth is attributable to the Spirit, then it would equally canonize the words of Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Caiaphas, or Judas, or Simon Magus.

[For those reading this and confused, this is a follow-up to an ongoing debate we’re having elsewhere. Hans is a geocentrist, and cites the fact that Joshua told the sun to stand still as proof.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1m ago
You are forgetting the very different moral status of a wonder worker on God’s behalf (like Joshua) and a very abject sinner.

A wonder worker’s words which make a wonder happen are very strictly God’s words through the person, just as the power is God’s power. And the words adressed to Sun and Moon were NOT his prayer to God (as Agamemnon erroneously thought when he tried to pray to Helios on a similar occasion), so they were instead his words inspired by God after praying.

However, I don’t think there is any word in which Joshua was reprehensible. But his other words are not on the same level as this or as his words or gestures at crossing of Jordan.

... on IE unity, again with Crawford


Overview of the Indo-European Languages
Jackson Crawford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l-iq0uqUmc


I
Hans-Georg Lundahl
0:52 Linguists have reconstructed a language ... Contestable.

For each word recurring in more than one branch, you can reconstruct an ancestral form, no problem.

But did all the ancestral forms belong to the same language?!

marconatrix
I see what you're getting at, something equivalent to the way many different European (and other?) languages have borrowed many of the same words from Latin or Greek, but done so independently.

Such a corpus will usually stand out as having particular characteristics and correspondences all of their own.

E.g. the way the sounds of the source language were adapted to the system of the receiving one.

Of course it helps if the source language is well known independently, borrowings from an unknown common source might be hard to detect.

Do you have any particular historical scenario in mind?

E.g. Iron-working terminology, or horsemanship words etc. might have been borrowed along with the skills/techniques from neighbouring peoples more advanced in these things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Such a corpus will usually stand out as having particular characteristics and correspondences all of their own."

If the borrowings are much more recent than the other relationship presumed to be genetic. For instance, Swedish and Low Saxon fairly certainly have a common ancestor, or if not, Germanic languages have been coalescing to commonalities for very long. However, a possible Proto-Germanic is c. 500 BC, at near AD, Proto-Norse is already separate, and the Low Saxon a k a Low Dutch or Low German vocabulary enters Swedish from 1200 - 1500 AD. Sure enough, any *IE kt > *Proto-Gmc xt is different, depending on which way it came into Swedish. "Natt" is Swedish-Swedish. "Prakt" is German-Swedish, from Low German pracht. Indigenous xt > tt, Low German xt = xt in Low German, > kt in Swedish which lacks the ach-laut since the earlier sound shift.

But what if the presumed "language group corpus" is in fact just such a corpus? It will of course have correspondences "of its own", but these will be taken for "native correspondences" by whoever misconstrued what happened.

Suppose we had not had the correspondence "natt" / "Nacht", but we had had instead "yö" / "Nacht"?

We would not have had an earlier correspondence to compare "prakt" / "Pracht" with.

Also, perhaps more to the point, if either language of the two had been starting as non-IE, non-Germanic, theoretically the earlier correspondence "natt" / "Nacht" could have been a loan from an earlier stage of the contact instead.

"Of course it helps if the source language is well known independently, borrowings from an unknown common source might be hard to detect."

As would mutual borrowings, if Celtic is an areal features commonality. Something Barry Cunliffe has suspected very recently, after a century of Celtic studies presuming we deal with languages all branching out nicely from a Proto-Celtic which came from an Italo-Celtic or directly from PIE.

I actually tend to think that if there was any original language giving more than others, it would have been some kind of Anatolian. Last year or so, a Finn was reconstructing a PIE vocabulary with one laryngeal, which looked suspiciously like Nesili (a k a Hittite).

On the other hand, Nesili, like Finnish and Turkish and Slavonic, also formal adress in Gothic, but that could be a loan, has an Atta gloss instead of a Pater gloss.

So, IE commonalities cannot have been all derived from Nesili as we know it.

"Do you have any particular historical scenario in mind? E.g. Iron-working terminology, or horsemanship words etc. might have been borrowed along with the skills/techniques from neighbouring peoples more advanced in these things."

I have more than one in mind, actually. Perhaps not all mustually exclusive.

  • Failed Esperanto attempt after Tower of Babel, possibly a conlang by Nimrod himself;
  • Second failed Esperanto attempt, the first by Nimrod being Sumerian, branching out to Fenno-Ugrian (with Hattili) and one kind of Caucasian and Bantu, this second one being more between Fenno-Ugrian (cfr verb endings) and Semitic (cfr Ablaut);
  • International sacred language of an IE religion, like that in which the Lithuanian Krive was a kind of Pagan Pope - there may be religious reasons for keeping liturgic terms for head and hand separate but those for knee and foot common, for lungs separate, but for heart and liver common;
  • International language of commerce and diplomacy.
    • a) Kinship terms involve much regard for inlaws, which would be natural in international diplomacy.
    • b) Cereals do not have common terms, beyond perhaps some meaning generally "cereal", which would be natural if traders were not cultivating grain themselves, but just linking between those who were. Horses and wagons have common terms, which would be natural if horse trade were part of the original trade role they had.


Actually, if I look back at my original comment, it is more like, pater gloss and attas gloss obviously came from different languages, the mater, frater, thygater glosses from same as pater and same as Greek comparatives in -ter or Latin pair pronouns in -ter - soror and sunus may have come from same family as suus, se, but the whole classic list of relatives could therefore be a composite, from more than one lang.

For each of the words, there is an ancestral form, but the ancestral forms at their most ancestral need not be all from same language.

As I evoked horse traders as one historic scenario for Indo-Europeanisation of diverse languages, let's recall a more recent tribe of horse traders (one could imagine they were the same, even!) are also known to be word traders.

Romani is likely to give Greek words - in non-posh form, not like learned loans - to whatever language outside Greek they come in contact with, and vice versa.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:11 If PIE=Nesili (Hittite, not Hattic) or Luwian, the hieroglyphs hiding some of the finer points of PIE phonology (like labialisation of q series) ... how do you refute that theory (supposing you do refute it)?!

2:34 And here is the exact reason why a Creationist might be wary of the theory.

3500 BC = before Flood, before Tower of Babel. + some of the divisions supposedly of originally unitary IE, of PIE, were already in place just after Babel, in some shape.

Madanites arguably spoke sth related to Medo-Persian.

Iavanites arguably sth related to Ionic Greek.

And Ludites of Anatolia (the Semite Ludites) probably sth related to Lydian.

Hence the interest of Balkan theorem. "Areal feature" as you put it.!

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Very Early Contact?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/03/very-early-contact.html


III

Ihme Jakki
A similar video for the Uralic or just the Finno-Ugric languages would be very interesting!

Jackson Crawford
I'm a little leery of moving too deep into that territory since I have little professional experience with the Uralic languages, but I do have a short video contrasting Finnish with the Scandinavian languages that discusses Uralic somewhat: https://youtu.be/HpfcAyTNsHw

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Did you mention how funny it is Uralic and IE share personal verb endings, if not for mediopassive, for active, present?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
on IV - VII:

IV
3:12 I was reading the work about our ancestors on the steppes.*

I can fairly well imagine that the people living North of Black Sea were in a position to act like horse traders (and sometimes trading cereals to new colonies of whatever other peoples needed the first grain for sowing, sometimes trading it to regions with bad crops, but only rarely, and that therefore they were less familiar with cereals).

But at the same time, the IE community can have common vocabulary also from whereever they traded with. Also, Anatolia is very interesting (as one major other source), because:

  • Anatolia is next to plains of Shinar, and if Göbekli Tepe was the city with the Tower of Babel, it is technically in both regions, since East of Euphrates;
  • on Anatolia you have several Noahic tribes coinhabiting same area : Gomerites in Cappadocia (they also went to Celtic West, afterwards), Semite Ludites in Lydia and around, Iavanites across Aegean, Caphthorim on Crete : they may have needed a lingua franca after Tower of Babel, they are known to have in historic times spoken IE langs, especially if Linear A Cretan was an Aryan language, related to Vedic and Avestic, as has been suggested;
  • it is next to another "areal features area" which remains so to this day, Balkans - the IE langs of the Balkans are IE langs for which areal feature has enhanced commonalities, and this could have been true of IE langs to start, as of Balkan langs to start.


A Slavic and a Romance language on Balkans have more in common with each other than a Slavic and Romance language outside them, if we compare on the one hand Romanian and Bulgarian and on the other hand Spanish and Polish.

The deep commonality of IE langs can be an areal features commonality which has had time to deepen before geographical splits or even after, through overlapping areas, as in Balkans it very certainly has deepened much more recently too.

* https://books.google.fr/books?id=lqRMKsDie6oC&pg=PP28&lpg=PP28&dq=nos+anc%C3%AAtres+sur+les+steppes&source=bl&ots=zYpDQFm_lM&sig=ymIAnUOtideQG5jJEuhwX_kv8xo&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiq8tKh7sHTAhXFWBoKHa5VDhYQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=nos%20anc%C3%AAtres%20sur%20les%20steppes&f=false



V
12:20 automatic subtitles are sometimes hilarious. Germanic languages have been now termed both "dramatic" and "traumatic". Faroese has been redefined as "fairways".

14:07 And guess what Tocharian came out as? Carrion and Korean!

VI
13:16 While Lithuanian is indeed very archaic on nominal declinsion, verb tenses are poorer than Latin, Greek, Sanskrit and with Latin also Romance. Not to mention Celtic.

Both Semitic and Uralic languages get along with basically two tenses only: a non-past and a past one, which also could, especially in Semitic, serve as non-perfective and perfective or progressive and simple.

The more complex system further south [as compared to Lithuanian and Germanic] could have been born out of a deliberate conlang à la auxlang mixing Uralic and Semitic features. Semitic tense use at its most idiomatic may have made some conscious that the distinctions mentioned are not the same, and therefore given rise to a more complex system with in each major time tense, a distinction between progressive (present, imperfect) and punctual (aorist, future) or perfective (perfect, pluperfect, future perfect).

Note that if IE arose just West of Tower of Babel, it could have gotten Uralic traits from Hattic, which would be one of the Chanaanean tribes, while not a Phoenician speaking one, and Semitic ones from Ludites - or, Uralic traits from Sumerian and Semitic traits from Akkadian.

But I think the structure would have only arisen by some deliberate effort, as is also evidenced for the Romance Futures and Conditionals. So, this could tie in either with a Sprachbund or a Conlang/Auxlang scenario for IE origins.

Germanic totally (up to contact with Latin / Romance) and Lithuanian mainly missed out on the finer shades and stayed with a two tense system.

VII
13:51 Nesili was once as widely written across language borders as Church Slavonic was and nearly is more recently.

Church Slavonic is not pronounced the exact same way by a Serbian and an Ukrainean bishop in liturgy. On the contrary, it is adapted to how Serbian and Ukrainean pronounce certain letters.

Generally speaking, of course, an orthography and a pronunciation are the same thing - but here we see a distinction : the orthography for Church Slavonic is the same, as far as the letters for each word and ending, in each text, whether in Serbia or in Ukraine, but the other component of orthography, pronunciation of "each letter" varies.

If this happened in Nesili, various groups in Anatolia could have borrowed words from each other via written Nesili - with the effect of innstant sound change.

If written Swedish borrows a word from Scanian, if the book is read in Westerbotten, a Scanian word will reach Westerbotten in a perfectly Norrländsk sound correspondence, not because word was preserved between Scanian and Norrlandsmål since Proto-Norse, but because Swedish writing has served as a kind of "instant sound change applier". Like we see for more limited purposes in all neologisms on -tion, -sion, -tor, "-arium" when they spread across European languages.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

... on Coming Out as a Catholic (quora)


Q
How do I come out as being Catholic?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-come-out-as-being-Catholic/answer/Alex-Pismenny


My C on Q not mine
I’d very much like to know the answer too.

In school, which was a boarding school, I naturally came out as a Catholic as the discussions led me there.

With my mother, I was spending years explaining to her why Catholic Mariology is not idolatrous.

Now it seems my father’s side of the family is hoping it is a passing phase or some kind of mental illness they hope will heal.

I decided conversion at age 16, converted at age 20 - minus some months - and am now 49.

Alex Pismenny
Pax vobiscum
Written 1h ago
“Come out” indicates that you expect a hostile reaction.

Depending the disposition of whoever you are disclosing your faith to, there must be one of the other set of errors that causes them to reject Catholicism. So speak to that set of errors. There are too many for me to anticipate, not knowing your situation.

To a Protestant I would say that the foundations of Protestantism are recent (about five centuries old) and they are false: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not biblical doctrines, yet they claim to only follow the Holy Scripture.

To an Atheist I would say that you examined the collective evidence of the Church, contained primarily in the Gospels, and found it compatible with the proposition that death and resurrection of Christ are historical events. You then chose to follow that belief logically and it led you to the Catholic Church.

This might help:

Alex Pismenny's answer to Which is the true Christianity: Protestantism or Catholicism?

Alex Pismenny's answer to Do you believe in Christ?

God bless you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
And how would you go about with a set of mixed Protestants and Atheists who seem to be all very Masonic (or more or less Masonic) and who refuse to speak to you?

Alex Pismenny
1h ago
1 upvote (by me)
If there is no conversation possible, a simple declaration would do. “I have examined what various religions and irreligions propose for my salvation and I decided to join the Holy Catholic Church. If and when you have questions about the Church I’ll be happy to answer”.

... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two or Three (quora)


Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

Q
Does Apostolic succession give the Catholic church any special consideration?
https://www.quora.com/Does-Apostolic-succession-give-the-Catholic-church-any-special-consideration/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
Jesus said to Peter he was the rock upon which He would found His church, and the Pope is supposed the be the descendant of Peter over the years, but their greed and flamboyance were totally against everything Jesus taught. Did the Catholics high jack their power for Earthy gain & ignore the word?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Written 2m ago
"Does Apostolic succession give the Catholic church any special consideration?"

Very definitely any Church which has Apostolic succession is likelier to be the Church Christ founded than one which totally lacks it and cannot be the Church of Christ.

Without Apostolic succession, your pastors cannot be taken as a unity with the eleven to which Christ adressed the final words of St Matthew's Gospel.

"Jesus said to Peter he was the rock upon which He would found His church, and the Pope is supposed the be the descendant of Peter over the years"

Heir, not descendant by physical sonship.

Here we can note, apostolic succession is about TWO kinds of succession:

  • 1) succession within a see, of one bishop succeeding another bishop as bishop of that see : in this persepctive the See of Rome, as the third and final see of St Peter is privileged over other sees, since St Peter is privileged over other Apostles;
  • 2) succession of ordination and consecration, of one man having episcopal orders laying hands on another man first to make him a priest and then (together with two other bishops) to make him a bishop : in this perspective all sees and all bishops who are not even bishops of a see are equal as to the sacramental effect, but when it comes to jurisdiction, only ordinations and consecrations made in communion with Rome are licit.


"but their greed and flamboyance were totally against everything Jesus taught."

Do you mean the greed of popes? Even if some were greedy, what does that matter for the apostolic succession of all the rest, or even for their own apostolic succession? A greedy Pope is still a bishop, and can still lay hands on another man to make him a bishop. A greedy Pope does not make all and every other bishop in the world greedy.

If you mean EVERY bishop throughout the word was grasping for personal riches, you are way out, and even most popes can, while being described as having resources (though not as many as a US President, over history), not be described as greedy.

So, most Popes are not what you describe, but perhaps you imagine you know history better than those who actually read about it in other sources than Jack Chick tracts and similar. As to bishops, did you know that Bishop Nicolas Steno, a Dane, when converting(*) in Florence, decided to become priest, and was on his last days DYING on roads where he slept with no shelter, due to inhospitality of Protestants in North Germany? In Denmark, Catholicism was not even legal at the time.

And what exactly do you mean by "flamboyance"?

Could it be so simple that you take the precious garments used only for liturgy as a sign of homosexual flamboyance? What kind of idiotic prejudice are you into? Has it not occurred to you that heterosexual men who are modest as to their own persons (and who dress very soberly outside liturgy, not very different from Reformers for most bishops, and Popes differ by using white instead of black) might not share your prejudice and therefore not think it is homosexual flamboyance or in any way opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ to take on for liturgic acts garments involving linen, silk and gold threads spelling out letters where they aren't in red or white threads?

"Did the Catholics high jack their power for Earthy gain & ignore the word?"

I don't see any kind of earthly gain in using fine garments during liturgy, since these are taken off and hidden for all acts outside liturgy.

And I don't think men who are reading Bible readings (at least two, of which one from Gospel and other from other Bible books) each Holy Mass and also often enough reading the Bible over and over again in lectio continua can be accused of ignoring the word!

Also, I don’t see a realistic occasion on which Catholics could have hijacked the power, nor a realistic unit for where any clearly Protestant Church could have survived such a hijacking outside the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ has had to survive from then to at least now, according to Matthew 28), and also not a realistic case on either Biblical or other grounds for early Church being Protestant rather than Catholic.

(*) Steno was not a bishop before converting. He was raised to bishop after having been a priest and volunteered for priest despite a good carreer as a layman.

Scott Robnett
Amateur theist
Written 2h ago
It is Peter's confession of who Jesus is that the church is founded upon, not Peter himself. Belief in who Jesus is is what makes a Christian:

John 1:12,13- But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The only person that could be described as foundational to the church is Christ Himself:

1 Corinthians 3:11- For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

No, there is no Apostolic succession, and Catholicism should have no special consideration. Christians are to have Christ as their king. No earthly man, no matter how holy, can measure up to Jesus Himself. The office of Apostle died with the original Apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ. No one today can make that claim.

As Christians, we should be:
...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith - Hebrews 12;2

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
You said : “The only person that could be described as foundational to the church is Christ Himself:”

1 Corinthians 3:11- For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Note that here St Paul is speaking of a foundation other than Christ, not about other persons than Christ belonging to the foundation which is He. How do I know this?

Ephesians 2:20 - Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

In other words, both prophets of Old Testament (due to writing most of the Bible) and Apostles (due to Apostolic succession) belong to the one foundation which is Christ, or, as said here, of which Christ is the main corner stone.

Scott Robnett
19m ago
You bring up a good point (and thank you for your comment! :) ) The original Apostles were part of the foundation of the early church, and their writings and examples continue to speak to us today.

However, this does not establish Apostolic Succession.

Paul (the Apostle) said in his letter to the Galatians that the gospel that he taught them should not be changed:

Galatians 1:8- But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

When decrees from the top were made for forbidding priests to be married, veneration of saints, infallibility of the Pope, etc., these were changes not found in that gospel preached once for all time, and qualify as 'a different gospel'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
"The original Apostles were part of the foundation of the early church"

Correct, so far.

"and their writings and examples continue to speak to us today."

What writings?

NT is written by 8 men, of whom 2 are evangelists but not apostles and one apostle not one of the original eleven. Leaves 6 apostles [five of the eleven] as NT writers, where are the writings of the other ones?

Not quite comparable to most OT named prophets also being OT hagiographers, is it?

And what examples, if most Apostle lives are not in the Bible, but in lives contained within Church Tradition and belonging to Veneration of Saints category?

The other names OT prophets, like Nathan, were at least given as examples. By showing how they were exemplary.

"However, this does not establish Apostolic Succession."

How not, in consideration of Matthew 28?

"Paul (the Apostle) said in his letter to the Galatians that the gospel that he taught them should not be changed:

Galatians 1:8- But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

Fine, if a Church actually contradicts the original message, and it can be proven, it is not the Catholic Church.

You still have to account for where the Church is which has the Apostolic succession.

"When decrees from the top were made for forbidding priests to be married,"

St Paul probably in the proof text you are referring to meant that the candidate had to be married before becoming a married priest. Not excluding celibacy volunteers or widowers from priesthood.

He certainly meant the priest must not have MORE than a single wife.

"veneration of saints,"

Is there in St Elisabeth venerating the Mother of the Lord.

Also, St Gabriel venerated her. Even before She was pregnant with Him. So, found in original Gospel, not a novum.

"infallibility of the Pope,"

Infallibility of Pope is limited and infallibility of Apostles (with successors, these including the Pope) is implied in Luke 10:16 - He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Said by Jesus to a selection of Disciples from which the twelve apostles were selected.

Not a novum.

"these were changes not found in that gospel preached once for all time, and qualify as 'a different gospel'."

Not these, no, except "etc." which is not sufficiently specific for judging.

I notice however that you are not judging on what Apostolic Succession means, since you are instead DODGING the question.

... on a Situation Common for Homeless (quora)


Q
Why do some homeless people prefer cash over food when offered?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-homeless-people-prefer-cash-over-food-when-offered/answer/Emily-L%C3%BCtringer


Emily Lütringer
Written Mar 7, 2016
Upvoted by Tilman Ahr, trained chef with a borderline obsessive interest in food history and science,
Elizabeth Penrose, and 4 others you follow
When I was homeless, free food was easy to find. Dumpster diving for overcooked pizza (but otherwise perfect and untouched) and 2-day past expiration date from the grocery store, asking for the stale donuts at the end of the night, walking up to drive throughs at 3am, or just before they are closing and asking politely, soup kitchens, food banks, wild foraging (apple trees were the best), etc.

Money is so much more valuable for everything else - a bit of gas money to give a friend to get you to a doctor appointment, medical supplies and medicines, hygiene items, clothing/blankets/stuff to keep you warm at night, etc etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1m ago
For my own part, if I ask for sth in or outside a library, I ask for food, so as not to have to go away and buy it, but when I beg, I agree with you, for a reason you did not mention : what if you already have eaten food (bought, offered, asked for at library before getting there), are moderately full, and the even more food you are getting is threatening to:

  • make even drinking a beer with the meal impossible, due to your already having too much sugar;
  • make you feel overfilled and drowsy;
  • make you get acid reflux;
  • make it likely for you to wake up before a full night’s sleep and hard to get back to sleep;
  • give you an arousal when you have no sexual partner (and when the food you already ate was chosen with a moderation specifically on this purpose;
  • make you more prone to get the pants dirty from next time you have to shit or pee, due to stronger pressure and less ability to keep tight up to toilet, fully;
  • AND not pay the washing machine for restoring your clothing after such a story.


Mary McEvoy
Jan 7
What a really good perspective and makes such sense. It is hard to know the best approach to help. I would often buy a sandwich and a coffee but it is mostly met with a disappointed but thankful nod and usually not touched, and you know they would much prefer money.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
For my part I always take that - nearly.

When not, I usually grin politely about already being full. Which is usually true.

Other comment on the affair
For some reason, I looked up her profile, she had written nothing more recent than this answer on March 7th 2016, the link to her FB page was a broken link, her profile is no longer there.

I get the impression someone may have put pressure on her to keep away from social media. I wonder if she is alive and in freedom.

... on "Pope Francis" quote, Quora


Answering Less Than Half of WLC's Diatribe Against YEC · ... on "Pope Francis" quote, Quora

Q
Was Pope Francis misquoted when he said "God is not a divine being or a magician, but the creator who brought everything to life"?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Pope-Francis-misquoted-when-he-said-God-is-not-a-divine-being-or-a-magician-but-the-creator-who-brought-everything-to-life/answer/Joshua-Engel


C on Q
Or does it mean that he denies God's divinity?

The full, possibly misquoted, quote goes:

"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

Joshua Engel
worked at The Rude Mechanicals
Written Oct 30, 2014
Upvoted by Anthony Zarrella
Well... yeah.

Of necessity, it was translated for Americans. Francis spoke in Italian. And what he actually said was:

E così la creazione è andata avanti per secoli e secoli, millenni e millenni finché è diventata quella che conosciamo oggi, proprio perché Dio non è un demiurgo o un mago, ma il Creatore che dà l’essere a tutti gli enti.


From an Italian-language newspaper ("Il big bang non contraddice la creazione")

Which Google translates as:

Thus, the creation has been going on for centuries, millennia and millennia until it became what we know today, because God is not a creator [second choice translation: demiurge] or a wizard, but the Creator who gives being to all entities.


"Divine being" is not a particularly good translation. "Creator" is obviously not good, either, since it contradicts Creatore later in the sentence, though it is at least a literal translation of the Italian. "Demiurge" is better, since it's the meaning Francis intended, a Platonic idea of a subordinate creator who is explicitly not the montheistic deity. It is a divine being, but it's stupid to translate it as "divine being" in the same way that it would be stupid to translate "Josh is not a banana" as "Josh is not made of matter" just because bananas are, in fact, made of matter.

In other words: apparently #ihatesciencewriters applies beyond just science writers. It seems that journalists of all stripes are prone to writing obtuse bullshit for clicks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
23h ago
“ "Demiurge" is better, since it's the meaning Francis intended, a Platonic idea of a subordinate creator who is explicitly not the montheistic deity. “

If “demiurge” is explicitly not the monotheistic deity, why need there be any misunderstanding about the monotheistic deity being a “demiurge” in the first place?

But as a matter of Greek, I think demiourgos means sth like “craftsman” (but my Greek has been dormant for 20+ years, don’t just take my word for it) and God is explicitly compared to a potter in Jeremiah.

So, while in Plotin’s Neoplatonism specifically Demiurge is not the High God, it can be used as a synonym to Creator.

Problem with sentence is not merely this inclarity, but also continuation, in which it seems to imply that a Young Earth Creationist idea about how God created would somehow reduce Him to “demiurge” (?!) or “magician”. Why?

Joshua Engel
19h ago
The problem with the translation is the part that says “God is not a divine being”, as in “God is not any sort of divine being”. That would be a pretty outrageous thing for a Pope to say. Except that it’s not even close to what he said.

Even in the translation, which says “not a divine being or a magician”. It would be hard to read that as merely denying the divinity of God. Exactly what it would imply is unclear. But it’s certainly not what the original sentence meant.

The Pope’s original sentence is clear enough: God is greater than a mere mechanic. The implication is that Young Earth Creationism focuses on the mundane parts of creation, which are better explained by evolution and other scientific disciplines. The Pope is trying to focus attention on ensoulment, or some other aspect of life that goes beyond the mere nuts-and bolts atoms-and-molecules things that the Young Earth Creationists demand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2m ago
OK, but in that precise case he is setting up a very vile strawman about Young Earth Creationism.

It is namely NOT limited to atoms and molecules, it involves primal creation of mass and matter and energy quite as much as ensoulment of persons, both human and - if one can speak of “ensoulment” there - angelic ones, as much as the correct putting together of atoms and molecules into inter alia bodies capable of being more or less ensouled.

Also, why would the “mundane parts” be better explained by evolution?

Is God too fine and spiritual for piecing together genitalia? Did He invent evolution as an intermediary so as not to “get His hands dirty”? Well, if that is the reason, whoever thinks that is Gnostic.

Or if it is that evolution has better evidence than special creation, Young Earth Creationists beg to differ, at least as far as the kinds go.

And how would differing on it be to reduce God to a magician?

Even as to Demiurge in Platonic sense, even a Demiurge would not be a magician merely reshuffling with miraculous quickness what was already there, since in Platonism it is precisely the Demiurge who creates matter - but not the ideas which are reflected in it.

In Christianity, as understood by St Thomas Aquinas, God creates both, He thinks through the ideas in His eternal wisdom as well as creating matter and embodying the ideas in it.

Joshua Engel
6m ago
I’m really not sure why you’re picking an argument with me about creationism. The question was about a matter of translation, and I answered it. I have nothing polite to say about young earth creationists and do not wish to be baited into violating Quora’s BN/BR rule.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"right now"
It has not occurred to you that my follow up question was not by the original questioner and that I for my part was got it what was wrong with the translation and was interested in quite another topic?

If so, it is perhaps true you have nothing polite to say about Catholic Young Earth Creationists, and I would for my part not have squealed about any infringement on your probable level on the Bunny Bear policy.

Update:
Since yesterday when I posted it, some of above comments were deleted for violation of the Bunny Bear policy, and when I was going to appeal (which I did, exchange may be a further update or own post), I obviously looked at the question again and saw another thing.

Comment
on original Q, not under Joshua's answer.

Joaozinho Martins
Oct 31, 2014
Actually, the Pope stated: "L'evoluzione nella natura non contrasta con la nozione di Creazione, perchè l'evoluzione presuppone la creazione degli esseri che si evolvono= Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because the development requires the creation of beings that evolve". I don't think the Pope by 'evolution' here meant 'evolution of man from monkeys' but rather his focus was on human development: 'l'evoluzione presuppone la creazione degli esseri che si evolvono". Right? Next, the Pope stated: " Quando leggiamo nella Genesi il racconto della Creazione rischiamo di immaginare che Dio sia stato un mago, con tanto di bacchetta magica in grado di fare tutte le cose. Ma non è così. Egli ha creato gli esseri e li ha lasciati sviluppare secondo le leggi interne che Lui ha dato ad ognuno, perché si sviluppassero, perché arrivassero alla propria pienezza= When we read in the Genesis account of Creation we are in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he does not. He created beings and let them develop in accordance with the internal laws that He has given to each one....". Here again, I think the misunderstood Pope was focusing on the 'evolving nature' of the human development and not on the so-called Darwinian evolution of men from some imaginary fake anthropoid ancestors! I don't think the Pope, in his message, has discredited BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH given to us in Genesis 1 nor did he say we should not take Genesis account of creation literally. Anyway, the reader can check for himself by reading the whole text of the Pope's original Message in Italian by visiting: [second of below links].

[Links to:]

Barnes and Noble : BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH
by JOAOZINHO da S. F. A. MARTINS
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/biblical-creation-truth-joaozinho-da-s-f-a-martins/1109442897


alla Pontificia Accademia delle Scienze. . "Il big bang non contraddice la creazione"
lunedì 27 ottobre 2014
https://www.avvenire.it/chiesa/pagine/big-bang-non-contraddice-intervento-dio


Hans-Georg Lundahl
1m ago
“ I don't think the Pope by 'evolution' here meant 'evolution of man from monkeys' but rather his focus was on human development:”

Disingenious, if so he would not have been talking about “evolution in nature” but of “development of man”. The following words are totally compatible with his meaning very small cells developing to pluricellular beings, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, land animals, mammals, primates, monkeys, apes, men.

Also, he very much is polemising against a straightforward and patristic reading of Genesis:

“ When we read in the Genesis account of Creation we are in danger of imagining that God was a magician, complete with a magic wand that can do all things. But he does not. He created beings and let them develop in accordance with the internal laws that He has given to each one...."

What exactly would the “magic wand” reference be about if NOT making for instance man, directly, rather than slowly evolving from sth else?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now / 6 min ago
“I don't think the Pope, in his message, has discredited BIBLICAL CREATION TRUTH given to us in Genesis 1 nor did he say we should not take Genesis account of creation literally.”

No, the Pope has not discredited Biblical Creation Truth, but Bergoglio by trying to do so has discredited himself as “Pope”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Btw, I just looked at the link Biblical Creation Truth and saw it was to a book by yourself. If that book included taking Bergoglio for Pope, I think that interview discredited that part of the book.

Also, what exactly do you mean by human development?

... on Four Mainly Genesis Questions (quora)


Q I
Does a new Bible need to be written to coincide with today's attitudes?
https://www.quora.com/Does-a-new-Bible-need-to-be-written-to-coincide-with-todays-attitudes/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Written 17h ago
Not from God’s side, at least!

[I think you may guess from whose side this might seem more desirable.]

Q II
When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, what type of knowledge was it? Was it knowledge like science, or was it something else?
https://www.quora.com/When-Adam-and-Eve-ate-from-the-tree-of-knowledge-what-type-of-knowledge-was-it-Was-it-knowledge-like-science-or-was-it-something-else/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Written just now
It was probably acquaintance knowledge and acquaintance knowledge with evil and how it differs from good.

Acquaintance knowledge with good, as such, they already had by walking with God.

But don’t take my word for it, look it up in the Church Fathers, and if they say sth else, well, stick with them, not me.

Q III
Did Adam and Eve die on the very "day" they ate from the "tree of the knowledge of good and bad" (Genesis 2:17)?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Adam-and-Eve-die-on-the-very-day-they-ate-from-the-tree-of-the-knowledge-of-good-and-bad-Genesis-2-17/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Written 13m ago
Yes, in two distinct mannners.

  • they died spiritually the moment or even before the moment when actually eating the apple, and that is within the same day, normal calendar day sense;
  • they died physically same millennium as they had done so, and to God “a thousand years is like a day”. Dying within same 1000 years = dying same day.


[On this latter, I was not submitting to Church Fathers possibly saying the contrary, since I recall well that BOTH the ways I mentioned are suppported by some Church Father, the former I think by Chrysostom and the latter by Justin, both Saints, both Church Fathers : so I have nothing to worry about.]

Q IV
Why are we taught that the teachings of the Bible are original when so much of it is borrowed from the mythology of previous religions?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-we-taught-that-the-teachings-of-the-Bible-are-original-when-so-much-of-it-is-borrowed-from-the-mythology-of-previous-religions/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


C on Q
The original pair of human beings, the fall from grace, the Great Flood, the Ten Commandments, the notion of good and evil, the Messiah, etc. can all be traced to earlier Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian cultures. How does this effect my Christian beliefs?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Written just now
[a different "just now" from II]
If you are a Christian, you should NOT be saying any of these derive from other cultures.

  • The notion of good and evil derives of our nature, and Adam and Eve had both as very clear notions from when they ate of the fruit, but only of God, and therefore of good, a clearer notion before it.
  • The Ten Commandments belong to our notion of good and evil, and no exact same list, both as exhaustive and as to the point with nothing superfluous is before or after it. Notable, the ban on other gods than God or on idolatry cannot derive at all from a Pagan culture.
  • The Great Flood happened before humanity of the post-Flood world divided into Hebrews and Gentiles, it is not the least surprising that Gentiles also should have notions on it. Note that Babylonian notion of it differs mostly in theology and that Greek notion of it seems to be mixed with less open Greek references to Abraham and Sarah (a childless old couple of great piety, visited by three superhhuman beings who were warning of a disaster) and to Lot and his daughters (who after disaster were worried about how the world should be repeopled). The Inca version involves replacing Ark with Andes and making the survivors a borther and a sister who married - as later on also, Inca dynasty had sibling marriages.
  • The Messiah as “seed of the woman” was promised to us (literally posed as a threat to the serpent) when man fell, 2242 or 1656 or sth years before the Flood and hence before the division between Hebrews and Gentiles too, so it would not totally be surprising to find such a notion among Gentiles either.

    Note that Gentile prophecies, like the Sibyl, may be so unclear in concept that they point both to the true Messiah and to Antichrist. This is not the case with Hebrew prophecy, where “seed of the woman” and “seed of the serpent” are two diverse things. As a comparison, it seems the Hindoo figure of Bharat resumes both the Biblical Henochs (the Cainite Empire or City Founder, at least honorary such while his father did the founding and the Sethite very pious man who was taken up). Likewise, Gentile prophecies would tend to confuse certain theological issues, though the Church can of course make proper use of what is true in them. The Sibyl also foretold the Day of Judgement. See Dies Irae.


Hope this may help!