Saturday, June 28, 2014

Kent Hovind's Lacunae on Genesis ch. 3

At the very beginning of a video on the Hovind Theory, just first ten minutes:

The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (6 of 7): The Hovind Theory
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL

Just before 7:00, notice how Hovind omits part of the Words of God to the serpent.

Basically: I will put enmity between you and the woman and between her seed and your seed. And you will sting her/his heel, she/he will crush your head.

Mary was destined from there to be Satan's enemy, just as Her Son was destined to be Antichrist's enemy. That means Mary was without sin from the first moment of conception.

"God's welfare programme is real simple: you don't work, you don't eat"

No. Not exactly. On a collective level, yes. But not on the level of every individual.

It is however "he who WILL not work SHALL not eat" - implying fasting is an alternative to work. Ιασσας, οι Ρωμαικοι! Greeks work less but also eat less than New Yorkers.

[On work:] "it is wonderful therapy"

For one taking it up, yes. Sure.

For anyone applying it to others against their will? Nimrod comes to mind.

[Note, I do not mean parents when it comes to offspring living at home.]

And as for devaluating the work that someone else is doing in order to tell him he doesn't work ... well, Wisdom chapter 5, verses 1 - 5 come to mind.

Stabunt iusti in magna constantia adversus ... et qui abstulerunt labores eorum ... ought to work on learning that passage by heart again.

It is the Epistle text for nearly any martyr who hasn't his own epistle text. In Roman Catholic liturgy. Not a martyr yet, but there sure are people who devaluate my work.

Latin and English versions interlinear:

Liber Sapientiae, caput V
Wisdom, chapter V

As for Nimrod:

[8] Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. [9] And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord.

Challoner comment:

[9] A stout hunter: Not of beasts but of men: whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord, that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived.

Genesis chapter 10

Now, Challoner was telling England this, way before Wilberforce succeeded in partly de-Nimrodising England. That is why one of his sons became a Catholic. The one whose brother debated Huxley.

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Answer from James Toupin

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

HGL to James Toupin
one question questionnaire

[This blog] ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

"Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history."

Do you, as an Atheist, agree with him? Not about me, that is less important, but in general?

If so, tell me.

This is not a multiquestion questionnaire, it is a one question essay question.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*You are free to specify whether instead of your user name (my default option, since you have already spoken up in public) you prefer the label "anonymised", when I publish the answers.

James Toupin to HGL
I do not agree with that statement at all. I may be an atheist but I believe that people have to have the freedom of belief and expression. The only problem I have with religion is when atrocities are committed in it's name and when the religious try to legislate their beliefs on others.

HGL to James Toupin
For clarification:

If a Catholic majority legislates against abortion and contraception like in Ireland and Malta, and mandates Catholic school education if any at all for those having Catholic parents (other parents being free to opt out), if on the other hand a majority of the Atheist minority (I am not sure whether Atheists are still a minority in Ireland, they could be) find it wrong that schools should provide Catholic Catechism and a duty to not only allow abortion and contraception but even provide it, would you find the Atheist minority was being oppressed under that system?

No answer.

... quibbling at Rachel Parent, loathing Kevin O'Leary

See video. Under it are my comments. First one is aboute a sound clip:

14 year old girl picks fight with bully TV host - and WINS!
Kids' Right to Know

1) One moment, Rachel's first appearance, was her last word calling O'Leary "fascist"?

I would think that is an insult to the Duce. He did some bad stuff, especially after 1938, BUT as far as I know he never gave any food company the right to use GMOs!

2) Kevin O'Leary finds she "has no flexibility in her thinking" and he finds that "not good" ... I have spared myself most pages of a certain novel involving the concept Newspeak, but I do feel a real reminder here of one Saruman (a k a Sharkey, Curunir etc. in that Legendarium).

3) He is "exploring" and worried about groups "wanting to use her as a shield" and trying to "figure out whether she really deep down believes it"?

Does he think he is God?

What groups are using that kind of not so articulate speech as a shield for their interests?

In this case, Monsanto comes to mind.

Plus anyone who hates the small farmer who grown corn that is not GM.

What groups would be using her? Well, perhaps the odd small farmer. Sounds like a far more sympathetic group to me than Kevin O'Leary who must be the shame of quite a lot Irishmen, considering they have him sharing their heritage.

Friday, June 13, 2014

... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate, Second Half

Duplet: ... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate 1) First Half, 2) Second Half

To Kent Hovind (speaking about the Flood)
Psalm 104:5 - one of St Robert Bellarmine's proof texts in the 1616 Galileo trial. (It is numbered 103 in Catholic Bibles).
To Jaymen Dick

There was a time at which the official teaching of the Church ...

  • "... was Flat Earth" - No. That is bad history.

    Church men saying Columbus could not sail were not arguing he would "fall off the edge" but that certain zones were unsurvivable to man and therefore impossible to travel through.

    In the direction south it was though human life was not reaching as far down as the Equator, because there it was too hot. Even black man would cease to be able to survive before one reached it. This was before Stanley and Livingstone.

    This was not official teaching of the Church men, it was their secular scientific erudition. In the West, the obstacle was thought to be strong winds.

  • "... was Geocentrism." - Yes. And this has never been reversed.

    One can possibly say Geocentrism is [since the Settele case, 1822] no longer obliging as after 1633 trial, but not that the reverse has become obliging.

1:14:37 "Major leaders of the Church who were right on many Theological issues - Calvin and Luther for instance ..."

Major leaders of a totally illegitimate secession from the Church. And wrong on many Theological issues, as one can expect of children of Korah.

Here are some Haydock commented chapter links refuting among others these two:

Great Bishop of Geneva!
Does Haydock - OT - take into account what Beza and Calvin wrote? And others?

Does Haydock - NT - take into account Beza and the Reformers?

And the Catholic Church definitely did not make a flat earth part of its teaching.

To Kent Hovind
The earth - 1:15:55 - may be centre of the universe, but not of the solar system.

Am I hearing some Tychonian cosmology here?

To Tycho Brahe, I am not quoting, but giving him in a moment a snappy formulation - the Earth is still and centre of three diverse daily orbits: Moon, Sun, Stars. (With the lagging behind of inner orbits, making Stars double the Sun every year and double the Moon every Month).

BUT there is a solar system, of which the Sun is the centre. Earth is in it, but not of it. It is moving, Earth is still, but only one body in it is moving directly around the Earth and all other bodies in it are moving around that body, moving around the Sun.

This is obviously what St Robert Bellarmine was scientifically defending against Galileo's conclusions. [1616 trial, he had died before the 1633 trial.]

To Jaymen Dick
1:22:49 The 40 other methods are all more accurate than C14?

How do you even accurately assess a half life with them?

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term


"It is easily demonstrable in a lab ..."

Sure. I am not denying decay of atoms.

Problem is the unjustified transition between atoms decaying at an observable rate like for very rapid decay, at a calculable rate as with smoke detectors using Americium 241 which has a decay rate of a half life of 432.2 years, to Carbon 14 where the decay rate is more deducible than directly calculable from observed data on same sample (it has the half time of a half life so long ago that historical datings from back then are less than certain) and from there on to decay rates probably much less certain and certainly less directly observed. AND on top of that from there on to assumptions about initial states that we cannot know (except insofar as knowing by the word of God we have a short history and certain assumptions must be wrong since giving us too long a history).

I have a feeling Jaymen Dick is making himself stupid so as to avoid seeing atheist scientists using Uranium or Thorium based methods as the kind of real stupid they actually are.


Geologic column accepted by ALL the major disciples of science? What has a doctor got to do with it? What has an electrician go to do with it?

What have zoologists and botanicists, excepting the palaeo-versions of the sciences got to do with it?

Do palaeo-zoologists really support the Geologic column as much as they accept it?

Check out this miniseries:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
[Use links within, just under title, to get from that message to others in same series.]

To Kent Hovind

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not bee erected first."

And Hovind, just before that, had given the column too much of its due. I e more than it.

In GC it is palaeozoic, palaeozoic, palaeozoic layers up to nearly the top where there are cenozoic ones. Not yet sure if that means top above palaeozoic ones, or if it involves a move sideways too. I nearly think that latter is the case.

Certain fine adjustments within the palaeozoic field may have gotten their names from GC. "This must be Carboniferous and this Silurian, in GC one of these index fossils was found a mile above the other."

BUT saying Permian and Cretaceous fossils have different dates because where they were in the huge pile called GC is not even true. There are no Cretaceous fossils in GC, as I recall, and if there are Permians ones that would be Permian shellfish just as GC has Silurian and Carboniferous shellfish.

Where you get to Permian land living fossils, they had no place or depth in GC.

Karoo is very instructive, it has both Permian and Triassic fossils. Not one place where the Permian ones lie beneath Triassic ones. Everywhere it is differnet assemblage zones - side by side in a huge area.

Probably reflecting where herds of different beasts - Moschops is a funny looking one, perhaps less funny in reality while it lived - herded together in the wake of the Flood that surprised them.

To Jaymen Dick

Here it is already clear where Jaymen Dick stands.

In Edgar Andrews' book From Nothing to Nature BOTH views are presented. I got it as a twelfth birthday present. Ma knowing I was going up against Evolution theory being taught in school.

I immediately preferred the more strict interpretation of the days - meaning Sun, Moon and Stars did not even exist till day IV. I saw no problem at all with God providing visible and lifegiving light before creating light sources.

The problem comes with Heliocentrism.

Earth rotating could in pure theoretical possibility have been the reason why the light gave night and day ... but what does it then mean that God divided the darkness from the light? Of course, God could have withdrawn light from one half of the Earth, the one opposite Jerusalem (or where it would later stand), where He created Adam.

The real problem is the annual orbit. How would earth for three days be involved in an annual gravitation motorred orbit around a heavier object not yet in existence?

So, obviously I had a motive for Geocentrism. Narnia was good, but even better, since not flat earthed, Middle Earth by JRRT. A certain paragraph in his Letters made an impression.

New blog on the kid : A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien

Years later I read St Thomas Aquinas, saying basically the same thing as Tolkien had stated in Silmarillion and in that letter to Naomi Mitchison.

Some years after that convinced me there was no optical evidence for Heliocentrism either.

Meaning there is no problem left with the Genesis account as it stands. AS WELL AS disposing of Distant Starlight Problem.

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism


There is much meaning in Death and Resurrection of Christ that is not apparent at first glance. True, indeed enough for a lifetime, to those who study it with their whole hearts.

BUT no new discoveries during adulthood contradict in the slightest what appeared at first glance.

Do you see the difference?


I agree, for once, totally with Jaymen Dick. Evolutionism is totally inept at backing up the Abiogenesis Theorem and at least very important parts of the Evolution Theorem.

I am not seeing any chance of Kent Hovind disagreeing either.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Abiogenesis and Evolutionist Ideology
[Again a miniseries, this time straddling two of my blogs, links within, as stated above.]

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
[Miniseries, linking to accompanying letter with links to its parts.]

Creation vs. Evolution : Pidgins are no more Primitive Languages than Robinson Crusoe had a Primitive Culture


"Every new discovery they make points to a Creator, not away"

Lots of new discoveries are also substantiating Geocentrism, if you really look at them.

And therefore God as an active upholder of the Universe continuously, not just a Creator in the distant past.

BUT the Heliocentric formulations given by astronomers do tend to point - at least to the careless - away from the Creator.

Though I did have a hard time believing gas would consolidate through gravitation and form a star at age 8. But I was not immediately asking if God did it. I was rather later much more satisfied intellectually with God did it than with Laplace's Hypothesis.

To Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind cites Jacques Monod.

Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex organisms … the struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected ; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.

[Jacques Monod, The Secret of Life, interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Company, June 10, 1976.]

I agree, of course. In the main. On a very general level. I agree that "natural selection" is a physical evil. That deliberately using it in an unfallen world would be a moral evil. He got some things a bit wrong, though.

Note that Jacques Monod abused the phrase "natural law" to mean "law of the wilderness" or what Locke called State of Nature.

St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle meant something quite other by the words Natural Law.

He is also using the words "our modern ethics" to mean partly what Natural Law would require or at least approve in protection of the weak, and partly, perhaps, though it is not made directly apparent here, pushing "non-selectivity" too far. As well as other selected items from the Natural Law. Too far meaning at the expense of other aspects of the Natural Law. Which not only states that the weak, as in children, should be protected, but also that it is with very few exceptions the family that should do so.

To Jaymen Dick

"These are generations, these are indefinite long periods of time."

This is reading "generations" as it is often used contextually, when saying "generations later" as in great grandson of great grandson later. But there it means generations of human beings.

Generations both in that other context and here come from the Latin for "coming into be" in passive (generari) or "making to be" in the active (generare).

I suppose the Hebrew Toledoth has a similar meaning. At least, the most basic meaning cannot be the time it takes for a human son to grow up and engender a human grandson and so on to the great grandson of the great grandson.

It is not of specific men after Adam, but of Heavens and Earth and all that was in them that this is the "generations" i e the order in which they came to be. Meaning a pretty clear exclusion of Day-Age theory like moves like Sun created before Day one, but made directly visible in itself on Day four. Or insects created along with plants rather than two days later.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

My Original Questionnaire of one Question (sent mainly to Atheists)

Link to previous post ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

"Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history."

Do you, as an Atheist, agree with him? Not about me, that is less important, but in general?

If so, tell me.

This is not a multiquestion questionnaire, it is a one question essay question.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*You are free to specify whether instead of your user name (my default option, since you have already spoken up in public) you prefer the label "anonymised", when I publish the answers.
Anonymous Dutch Atheist
No, I don't agree with him, "as an atheist". The person who wrote that was either trolling or out of his mind. For people to be free to believe (not to do) whatever they want, is for the good of the human race. This protects every expression of free thought, including all religions, not just yours. However, freedom of thought does not mean freedom of legislation. This prevents any religion to suppress another and controlling the coverment, science and education.

Anonymous Dutch Atheist.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Mind a follow up question?

DOES this scheme function, or is the sometimes legislation and sometimes administration perhaps unduly favouring one particular religion called Evolutionism?

Was your school in the Netherlands for instance allowing you equal access to scientific material from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International as to latest Darwinist theories?
Anonymous Dutch Atheist
1. Evolution isn't a religion, it isn't even an ism. A religion is defined as a believe system, which states rules you must live by and makes claims often associated with the immortality of something part of yourself (a soul) that lives on in an afterlife.

Evolution (for clarity: the theory of evolution) meets none of these characters of religion.

The theory doesn't teach that you have to believe it, it also doesn't state rules to live by and tells you nothing about an afterlife. It also does not claim that the soul or afterlife doesn't exist.

It does not legislate "evolutionism" so the answer is: the scheme functions.

2. We aren't taught creationism alongside evolution, but that doesn't mean we are forbidden to have access to creation websites and to believe in creationism. So we are allowed to have equal access to both.
Hans Georg Lundahl
1) Atheism does make a claim associated with the immortality of the soul : namely that the soul does not exist.

Evolution as a theorem may be believed syncretistically by people who are also Theists. Evolutionism as a synonym for general trend of Western Atheism (certain Eastern Atheisms would perhaps accept immortality of the soul) make claims concerning God and the soul, namely that the one is superfluous to explain the universe and that the other is not what makes us conscious.

So, yes, belief system it is.

2) "So we are allowed to have equal access to both."

Not during school hours, and those are plentiful.
I don't really care. What other people believe is of no business to me unless they act on it. Even then, I can only criticize their actions and reasoning rather than their core beliefs with any kind of authority.

For example: If someone believed that there was an invisible angel and devil on their shoulders telling him/her what to do in such a way as I cannot hear them I can't then say "No there isn't" because by the very nature of their claim I can't know. In other words: it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, the result for me is the same.

I can however say: "How do you know?" or better yet: "How am I supposed to know if you're lying to me or not?"

Now, if the person said that the angel on their shoulder told them that Jews didn't deserve the same rights as everyone else, and they were going to act on it. Only then, is it something that needs addressing.

Once a person's "delusions" start to effect how they act rather than just what they believe in their head, that's when it becomes a matter of concern. A society in which these delusions are mandated out isn't a utopia, it's needless thought police.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate, First Half

Duplet: ... on Kent Hovind and Jaymen Dick debate 1) First Half, 2) Second Half

Video watched so far
Debate #17: The Great Compromise
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL
John Castro
hovind destroys this dude

[II Commandment censorship] this dude is fucking lame!!!!

geologic column is unreliable

romans 1 [dito]??? he is a follower of paul
I answer
+John Castro unreliable? [Geologic column, that is.]

Better say it doesn't even exist, as far as fossils are concerned:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

His reference to Romans 1 refers to Jaymen Dick claiming we must be able to look at nature and trust it - as a witness to its Creator.

Whereever in the video Dick said that as an argument against - for instance - starlight created in transit, here is my answer:

To Dick ... yes, we can LOOK at Creation and trust it.

Problem is when Heliocentrics stop looking and trusting.

Creation vs. Evolution : Kerry's 97 % had a precedent, TFP!
To Kent Hovind

Alexandrian "manuscript" or rather version does NOT say anything about "age". It has day, just as any other ancient Bible.

For verse one it has "in the beginning" "en te(i) archê(i)" just as any other ancient Bible.

He tries, rather, to incorporate what he considers reliable secular knowledge into the sacred text itself.

In Isaiah, KJV has, I think, "round", where Douay Rheims has "globe". The Hebrew word does mean round, which could either be a flat circle or a globe, but DR incorporated reliable geographic knowledge, gained from Columbus and da Gama and a few more, into the Sacred Text, as far as the choice of translation goes.

And when it comes to originals having ambiguous meanings, I think that "Bible" you just showed depends more on supposed ambiguity of yôm than on anything about hemera as such.

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot
The Old (LXX) & New Testament Text of the 1st Edition of The Apostolic Bible Polyglot
Above [click to see]: The above is a sample of a page from The Apostolic Bible Polyglot 1st Edition Old (LXX) Testament.

To Jaymen Dick
18:01 St Augustine and Origen believed in a time scale that was six days shorter.

They believed (though St Augustine at least did not do so consistently*) that the six days were one moment and "days" refers to angels looking at and apprehending that one moment. They apprehend very quickly, but the creation events were still so complex it took six consecutive (or similutaneous?) moments of their time seeing what God had done in one sole moment. Neither of them suggests remotely that Adam was not there at the beginning of creation (from day six, i e on their view from first moment). Neither of them suggests remotely that he was not 130 or - Alexandrian version - 230 years old when Seth was born to him.

There is an issue which Bible text you base the age of the earth on, Jews and Samarians obviously not favouring the LXX, Christians previous to Reformation nearly all doing so. But there is no issue on how you do it, and Ussher did on Masoretic text (or KJ translation thereof) exactly what St Jerome did on LXX text.

Dick, the pulling in of St Augustine and Origen here is dishonest.

* Or at least not bring it up every time he was writing on Genesis.

18:16, no, no, the difference between you and Hovind is VERY recent.

St Augustine and Origen are one Centimeter from Hovind and one Kilometer from you on the Chronological issue.

18:44, as I saw you referred to Luther's 95 theses, I do not know what Councils you count as correct.

The kind of Catholics who accept Vatican I and reject Vatican II have since the latter date had a few attempts of restoring a papacy free from Vatican II. Now, in Palmarian Catholicism, there is even a creed, which agrees with the One-Moment theory about creation, and also with the short timescale since. To a Palmarian, you and Hovind, apart from being heretics for being Protestants, are both heretics for believing God took as long as six days, but after that you are a heretic even more for believing in billions of years. Another attempt, councils were held in Elx, and I think those too would consider you, but in this case not Hovind as heretics, except insofar as you both are for Protestantism. If you accept Pope Michael - who was before election David Bawden, a man I came to know while being Palmarian, I am certain you would hardly qualify as clergy if you believed in billions of years. Or Heliocentrism, for that matter.

19:01 Genesis does not tell us anything about actual length of time - if you ignore the obvious about the context of yom, and also the NT exegesis of the context.

[Jaymen Dick has compared Bible to a far view of an impressionist painting and science to looking at brush strokes.]

20:34 Bible' contains some close ups. To correct wrong sci[ence]

21:01 "No doubt it was incredibly complex when He flung out the galaxies with His Word", you say?

How do you know there are galaxies? There is one Milky Way. It is called Galaxy in Greek. But how do you presume to know that the visible Milky Way is the thickest direction of the galaxy to which also stars outside the Milky Way as such belong, and how do you presume to know Andromeda and a few more like that are parallels to it?

Because Science gives a close up?

It doesn't. Even on Geocentric terms, we have reliable distances up to about Neptune perhaps, and those distances are HUGE. Meaning it is nonsense to call astronomy a close up.

"It would have been impossible to record that in any text book"?

It would at least have been as possible to record it in a book written down 3500 years ago as now. And since all complexity is elaboration of something simpler, it would even with terminological barriers have been possible to do so with some kind of exactness.

Now, Genesis DOES give us some kind of exactness, and it does not look like "flinging out the galaxies".

22:00 In the DAY when (Gen. 2:4). The exact reason why St Augustine opted for a one moment creation.

22:05 "Generations of time"? Not what it says.

These are THE GENERATIONS OF the Heavens and of the Earth.

In contexts about men, the word would mean the order in which they were born as sons to fathers to each other. In this context it means at least the order in which the things were created.

Meaning insects were created on day five or six, while plants were created day three and Sun and Moon on day four, not the other way round. Nor on the same day. This has the implication that days cannot be ages, since plants can hardly survive long ages without sunlight (unless you add the light before the sun was adequate to them) and most certainly not without pollination.


[As to claim Hosea 6:3 even with numbers attached to word "days" does not refer to definite periods of 24 hours.]

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
OSEE - Chapter 6

OSEE - Chapter 6:3 He will revive us after two days: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. We shall know, and we shall follow on, that we may know the Lord. His going forth is prepared as the morning light, and he will come to us as the early and the latter rain to the earth.

Ver. 3. Third. In a short time the Lord will easily set us free. But the prophet refers more directly to the resurrection of the faithful, and of Christ, Ephesians ii. 5., and 1 Corinthians xv. 4. (Calmet)

St. Paul mentions the third day according to the Scriptures, which nowhere else so clearly specify it. (Worthington) See St. Jerome; St. Cyrpian; Sanct.[Sanctius?] 9.

Know. Hitherto we have been reproached with voluntary ignorance in adoring idols, chap. iv. 6. We will amend.

His, Christ's.

Rain. It falls only in autumn and in spring, Deuteronomy xi. 14. (Calmet)

[Gives parallel:]

1 Corinthians xv. 4.

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 15:4

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures:

[Gives parallel:]

4: Jonas ii. 1.

But cross reference to Osee (Hosea) might have been added.

24:01 Dick mentioned 15,000 species of land animals.

[And calculated that if Adam had named each, in 2 seconds, it would have taken him ten hours.]

Does Biblical Hebrew have 15,000 names for current species of land animals?

How many species or even genera of sauropods are described by Behemoth? And how many genera are described by Leviathan, starting with T Rex, adding Allosaurus, then there was another one recently found ... you get the picture.

Of course, Adam's and Noah's Hebrew would have included words for Cangaroo and Koala and even Platypus which were lost before Bible was written down because Hebrews post-Babel did not get to Australia during OT. After James Cook is of course another matter.

24:47 distant star light problem ... falls down for such a little detail like if these distances are really secure.

They have some problems even on Heliocentric assumptions.

If we stay with Geocentric data without reinterpreting these in Heliocentric ways, the distances are "pure moonshine" - or less secure, since Moon Shine does give us a clue about angles of the sides Sun-Moon to Earth-Moon in triangulation. But a star moved 0.76 arc seconds does NOT involve more than that one angle without any side. It is not even simultaneous.

Just before 25:14 creating star light in transit would be a giant deception.

OK, creating us on a huge object that feels like staying same place but is really in a vast and fast orbit is somehow not?
To Kent Hovind
26:14 ... sigh ... you really feel a need to establish possibility of wrongness by taking sides for the Moderns in Galileo case?

Neither diagram shows the belief defended by St Robert Bellarmine against Galileo.

Check out Tychonian system, will you. Moon, Sun, Fix stars all move around Earth. On a daily basis, but different speeds which leave Sun and Moon lagging behind and making full circle of Zodiak in year or month. BUT Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and so on, in their turn move arund the Sun.

For your argument it would have been enough to say that EITHER all scientists were wrong back then OR all are so now.

26:59 William Herschel ... according to your own statement on list - probably believed in an old-earth.

I e, distant starlight problem was there for him once he started guessing those gigantic inflated distances within the cosmos.

Does that suggest sth to you?

To me it does. Accept distant starlight problem OR ditch that large cosmos pseudo-science. I recommend the latter. It involves ditching Galileo.

28:39 January vs June.

Heliocentric scenario: earth is moving. You have one known side (Earth in January/Earth in June) and two known angles (On Earth in January between star and Earth in June, on Earth in June between star and Earth in January).

Geocentric scenario: earth is NOT moving. That means the star is. You have exactly one known angle (On Earth between star in January and star in June).

You said yourself, quite correctly, you need either one side and two angles or two sides and one angle to figure out the rest.

30:11 if you give 20 light years per parallax trigonometry (remember, this is Heliocentric scenario), they are taking the stars within that diameter and looking for types and researching other distances based on apparent size by size of the type.

For "real far off" there are even other methods.

Don't give even 20 light years in parallax trigonometry, don't give them the Heliocentric scenario.

33:05 light having different speeds - acceptable if it can be shown.

The articles you referred to could of course also be wrong.

But starlight created in transit, that was what I believed much earlier, since reading Edgar Andrews, and since some have not grasped that now I have another Young Earth solution, some Old Earthers have prayed (it seems) I should be confronted with the problem with that.

Any star just constant. No problem. But a nova occurring before creation?

If a star starts shining that was not there before - no problem. The light could have been created in transit. But if a star stops shining at a distance where its few millennia of shining on earth would all have occurred before Earth was created? That would contradict its being created on Day four. One solution is, it is not that far away in the first place.

Zero parallax showing not implying infinite distance, but more like no angel moving the star in parallactic ways. Though it may still be moved by angels in ways corresponding to the observation called aberration. Then the show of parallax was on their part intended to show we are neither dealing with a uniform parallax, nor with an aberration and no more. Now there is negative parallax to show parallax is not parallax. BUT some Heliocentrics still wilfully ignore that, most are just ignorant of that fact.
Before we continue with astronomy
Two comments pertaining to Kent and to either one on subject.
Hovind quotes: We can also find absolute ages by comparing a star's colour and brightness with those in stellar evolution models ... Discover, sept. 2003 pg. 17 (I corrected an Unenglish spelling for ya folks!)

Well, THOSE are also involved in stellar sizes and therefore in stellar distance beyond what they consider safe to calculate by parallax and trigonometry.

So, scrap the 15 billion light years' distance.
Other explanation for Red Shift.

If a light source circles around anything measuring or capturing it, it seems the faster it goes, the redder it is. Might account for some, on any Geocentric assumption, cannot it?
To Jaymen Dick
37:53 Dick supposes we know one side involved in the triangle for stellar parallax.

That equals the Heliocentric assumption that Earth is moving around the Sun and that therefore its distance to Sun added it its distance to Sun six months later is a real part of the triangle.

Or if you prefer, that known distance to Sun involved in a triangle Earth - Star - Sun really involves the angle of parallax.

But there is one extremely important thing about small angles of parallax. We are not measuring them as in a microscope. We are not measuring even alpha Centauri (largest angle of positive parallax) as an angle directly observable as such. It is an angle determined by comparison. Like in comparing "aberration angles" with some variation to the standard aberration - or like comparing to other stars.

That in turn means we no more know this star has a certain angle of parallax than we know "aberration" is uniform or the other stars are not moving.

41:59 "A small very young Universe does limit God"

No. God is no less glorious in creating a mosquito than an elephant. God is no less glorified in the soul of St James the Short than in the soul of St James the Tall. God is no less glorified in the soul of the young disciple St John than in the soul of the old disciple St Peter. God is no less glorified in the lives of Mayflies than in the lives of Turtles.

God being INFINITE is as INFINITELY "larger" than a large universe as than a small universe. If largeness were even an appropriate category.

Muslims say "God is greater" and that might refer to largeness, but St John says "God is greater than thy heart."

42:22 "And the Universe is just a reflection of that" [Of God's infinite power and wisdom.]

Well, but if so, just a very minuscule reflection of that. In other words, its size or age are not meant to indicate God's. They may suggest it by being larger than ours, but not indicate it.

42:40 "It should break your mind to try to get it all in"

Why would God delight in breaking minds?

Dick showing one list of refutations is not reading the third ( 43:06 )

"If fainter objects were really as close as suggested, the majority would be so small as to be completely incapable of shining."

Mr Dick did not read that one, but it interests me.

I have come across one more detailed version of the argument, in which it is "stars must have more mass than Jupiter, or Jupiter would have self-ignited as they".

The assumption is not so much about an ongoing fusion being impossible (in that case CERN would be wasting tax money for all of Europe - which might be the case anyway).

The assumption in that detailed version is rather that fusion, having originated on the Laplace scenario, must have had such and such a mass or they would not have started the fusion process.

I do not know - yet - if that is how Mr. Dick would support the quoted argument (if he supports it), but if not, I would like to know his version.

My answer to the other one on that topic is that it started out assuming neither God Himself nor any angel assigned with the stars lit them. It is therefore based on methodological atheism.

44:42 How do you propose to measure a DISTANCE via red shift?

I thought it reflected speed away from us. Except of course it could also reflect angular speed around us, in the daily rotation of the Universe.

49:01 Carnivores and herbivores.

Textually in Holy Writ, all animals seem to have been herbivores before the Fall.

Exegetically, some Church Fathers do take that literally. Others say things like wolves got to eat rabbits when Adam decided. Even so, no rabbit would have simply died from a disease. Which would have been unnecessary suffering and waste.

Scientifically, teeth can change in microevolutionary context (see Galapagos finches), and creatures with carnivorous teeth have been seen to be exclusively vegetarian.
To Capacity of Exactness of Biblical Terminology as Compared to Scientific
Before break in 56:47 - there are things which not only Bible is not directly adressing as scientists do today, but that if it adressed them at all, it would probably not be same terminology.

Behemoth and Leviathan being dinosaurs we could call Brontosaurus or Diplodocus and Tyrannosaurus or Allosaurus are points mentioned by Hovind.

Myself I have guessed that "waters above the firmament" may mean there was hydrolysis on day II, the firmament has lots of O2 and is known as atmosphere, and waters above it would more typically be H2 (and include future He as stars on day IV started out with lots of H2). Because Biblical Hebrew has no term specific to Hydrogen as opposed to both air and water. And H2 is "instant water" if you add O2 and a spark. And you cannot breathe in pure H2.

BUT a thing like "millions of years" is not same category.

The Bible does use the phrase "thousands of thousands and ten thousands of ten thousands" and obviously it has the word for year. So, if it had been accurate, it would not have been a terminological impossibility.

That is another matter than silence of the Bible.

Holy Writ is largely silent about what happened in Nod. We can see it got worse, first ruler got revenge sevenfold, seventh ruler seventyfold for any injury. There was also a general worsening of the moral climate. But if gene guns existed, the Bible and Book of Henoch are not very explicit about it. Nor totally opaque. "Sinned with every creature" need not refer solely to lust and cruelty, it can refer to genetic manipulation. And this one being NOT directly mentioned in Holy Writ, so as to avoid giving evil men ideas.

In the site Bible Code Wisdom I used to be able to find "free masons" with equidistant letters for each word, and first hit was starting at Nodian end of dynasty (or recorded such) and ending with "all flesh was corrupt" verse. Another decription that could mean nothing had escaped genetic manipulation.
How would an average reader interpret?
58:58 "they would also interpret many other passages of the Bible wrong, most likely".

The Bible does not say that an enquirer coming to the Bible without previous discipleship will interpret anything wrong. It does say he will not find everything immediately understandable. As the Ethiopian Eunuch found out.

It does however say that there are passages so obscure that "unstable" (that does not imply lack of previous discipleship) will "twist them" (which is another thing than interpreting something wrong in good faith). And this does not come from total lack of previous discipleship, but of unsteadiness of some who rebel against previous discipleship.

Like, for instance, Henry VIII and Martin Luther, Calvin and Beza, and a few more like those. Those were NOT promoting God's will or truth. Not even Melanchthon.

This means that a prima facie likelihood that an enquirer unfamiliar would easily come up with a certain interpretation and hardly any other, is prima facie an argument against qualifying that interpretation as wrong. There could be things one got wrong due to infamiliarity with social conditions when the texts were written. But more probably that would be lacunae and not real positive errors. Lacunae like not getting certain hints about papacy, because one does not know what stewards did back then.
Apocalypse 7:1 and Flat Earth Debate
59:45 Apocalypse 1:7 (7:1) is equally functionable if there is a limited "world" (in the sense of inhabited and civilised world) which is only a four cornered part of a globe.

I take the four corners to be English and Japanese corners in the North, South African and Singapurian/Australian corners in the South, as Americas and NZ were perhaps inhabited by cruel empires building big monuments, but hardly by civilised men like Romans. Or connected to other men.

[Jaymen Dick has said Luther and Calvin took Apocalypse 7:1 as proof text of flat earth.]

1:00:11 The Church as a whole - that is the Catholic Church - was not flat earthed.

Catholics were usually scholastics as to theology.

These were usually in agreement with Aristotle the earth was a globe.

If as you say Luther and Calvin defended a flat earth, this was their punishment for twisting scripture in other passages. Precisely at a time when a round globe was being discovered geographically.

As to Geocentrism, have you ANY scientific proof against it?

[He wagered no one in audience agreed Earth was flat or static in the centre of the Universe - Ps 104 had been discussed as well.]

1:00:30 I do not believe the earth is flat, I do believe the sun goes around the earth each day. Lagging behind the zodiak, so as to "go around the zodiak" each year.


"The fact that other passages in the Bible are obviously figurative ..." I do not think either Geocentric or Flat Earth passages are. "Flat Earth passages" are misunderstood but literal. Geocentric passages are literal, and rightly understood to be Geocentric.

[Hovind asked Dick if God COULD have created the world as literally stated and then stated it.]

"God could have created Adam blue" argument ... "yes, God could have done many things, but there is not enough evidence or the evidence doesn't support ..."

As to evidence for God creating Adam blue, there is zero. Not prima facie, not hinted, not confirmed in other passages.

As to God creating everything in six days (except individuals formed after prototypes made in the six days) there is prima facie evidence, it hints at other things and other things hint back at it, it is directly confirmed also in other passages.

In other words, it is totally dishonest to compare that to God creating Adam blue.

"God could have created in one moment, God could have created in milions of years" ...

For the one moment scenario you do have St Augustine at times (especially books 5 - 6 of De Genesi ad Literam Libri XII, less, if at all, De Civitate). He in turn does base it on the verse Genesis 2:4.

Saying that this warrants one departure from six days and so also opposite one is warranted is idiotic.

When truth is between two extremes, it is not equidisant from them. We eat meat of animals but not of men. One could imagine two more simplistic and thoroughgoing approaches, but vegetarians are not as bad as cannibals, if you please.

So, supposing for a moment the six days could be the truth, and that the one moment departure from it is licit, it does not follow that the billions of years departure from them is licit too. Hence, this approach stinks of dishonesty.

In fact, when I was in a Lutheran youth group, there were things I would take literally and others would answer by this kind of approach. Genesis and the Words of Institution at the First Eucharist. In the second context, the anger at the dishonesty made me a Catholic.
Kent Hovind gets allegory somewhat wrong
1:04:57 "Why would God start off with an allegory, how could we trust any of the book?"

Allegoric truth does not imply literal non-truth.

John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is literally not true. Also, it is allegorically non-true insofar as it calls Papacy an evil giant (of course that could be prophetic about Bergoglio, that is another matter).

Genesis is allegorically true, since Christ is really the Second Adam or Last Adam. And the new Isaac, who carried the wood for his sacrifice. And the new Melchisedec. And ... so on.

But this does not preclude it is also literally true.

God differs from Bunyan not only in knowing what truth there is to be provided by an allegory, but also in being almighty and able to give the allegory the ontological status of reality, where Bunyan could only write his allegory as a fable.
Does God have wings, and if so is He a bird?

Body parts of God. Not JUST about allegorical rendering of divine attributes. ALSO a foreshadowing of Incarnation.

On the Cross, Christ was holding His arms stretched out as a bird taking a long flight on its wings. He was holding out His "wings" over His Blessed Mother Mary, His Beloved Disciple St John, and over Adam who was buried under Calvary, and presumably over Eve too, buried same spot.

"Under his wings" we find peace is a parallel to "by his wounds" He hath healed us. It refers to literal wounds in Isaiah, and in the Psalm it refers to literal arms held out as wings. Even small boys when pretending to be birds will hold out their arms and call them wings. One day, and it was the Sixth Day of the New Creation, God's or God the Father's Eternal "Little Boy" honoured His Eternal Father. Before that Day, we were heading for damnation, since that Day we have redemption. That is what the Psalmist talks about.
Did Apostles reach ALL the world?
1:10:36 Far East.

St Thomas the Twin had obviously reached India.

Americas ... I would say these were outside the "four corners". Or else, the four corners are of double application.

NW and NE corner angels together keeping in N Wind both from Eurasia and from America. NW corner angel with SW corner angel both keeping W Wind from Europe and Africa and E Wind from America. ... See where I am heading?

But as to Apostles, that would be more properly within the Old World and its Four Corners.

Also, there has been some doubt about what alignment they are. Here is the Catholic Bishop Witham, cited in Haydock comment:

Ver. 1. I saw four Angels, &c. Though some understand here evil spirits, whom God may make use of as instruments to punish the wicked, yet we may rather, with other interpreters, understand good angels sent from God to guard and protect his faithful servants both from evil spirits and wicked men. (Witham)

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
APOCALYPSE - Chapter 7

Kent Hovind actually thinks people came to Americas earlier than thought.

In itself that would be possible, it is not theologically wrong either.

Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

Exchanges continued Pentecost Tuesday. And Ember Wednesday.

My Original Questionnaire of one Question (sent mainly to Atheists)

Link to previous post ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

"Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history."

Do you, as an Atheist, agree with him? Not about me, that is less important, but in general?

If so, tell me.

This is not a multiquestion questionnaire, it is a one question essay question.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*You are free to specify whether instead of your user name (my default option, since you have already spoken up in public) you prefer the label "anonymised", when I publish the answers.

Not sure whether she prefers real name or user name on youtube

got your question about what to do with deluded people. disagree with giving them therapy & euthanizing those who don't go for it. a better solution - round up every deluded person, dump them in the middle east where all this non sense started & have them live, eat, dress, work, etc., EXACTLY as the people who came up with this non sense did thousands of years ago. even make them learn the language spoken by these people. may be then, after a few weeks of living like these desert tribal people lived thousands of years ago, they'll under stand why these people believed as they did. & after living with out the benefit of their modern 21st century conveniences, these people will be begging to go back to the civilized world - but they should just be left in the middle east. I also think, be fore dropping them off in the middle east to live like those whose delusions they took on, they should ALL be spayed neutered so they can't have any more kids to brain wash with this garbage.

I replied

You were joking, right?

Or was it THAT time of the month?

Two points:

  • Neutering people was not so widely done 2000 years ago.
  • Working conditions were usually better than now.

St Joseph the Carpenter could absent himself from his carpenter's shop to get to Bethlehem, stay absent while staying in Bethlehem, stay absent and flee to Egypt, stay absent while staying in Egypt, come back a few years later and get back into business in his own shop.

So much of modern conveniences are just compensations for what has been lost.

A coffee brewing machine is great - if you don't have the time to boil water and brew it as it should be done.

Cars are really a convenience - if you live twenty miles from where you work - and back then they didn't.

Even Rock'n'Roll may be useful as an anaesthetic - to people who are in pain because of delayed marriages and compulsory schooling.

In Jesus' Day Jewry was still a community where homeschooling was strictly allowed. Compulsory attendance (on the male side, I presume) to a school with a rabbi as school district's head did not come until Joshua Ben Gamliel was High Priest. And he came after the Hanan ben Hanan who had had St James the Greater executed. Who obviously came after Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord.

So, overall, conditions were better than now.

Restoring them - not necessarily in the Holy Land - would be a good thing in itself. Neutering would not.

Hans Georg Lundahl

same anonymised person

i see. making people incapable of having children so they can't pass on their delusions to a new generation is some how wrong, but it's okay to murder people who hold such beliefs so long as one calls it "euthanasia".

and it's funny how you defend delusion by claiming that with it, every thing was so much better, yet you call your self an atheist.

ah, well. of all the animals on this planet, people are the strangest of breeds.

Hans Georg Lundahl/me again

I was not defending euthanasia any more than eugenics.

I am not the atheist.

I quoted one and asked if you agreed with him.

It is of course a good thing you do not agree about euthanasia, but the thing about eugenics is agreeing a bit too much with Robert Honan.

As to me, I feel targetted by either view, I am Christian you see.
Miss or Mrs Anonymised Preliminarily
you might have made it clear where you stood when you sent the question.

and as it happens, I don't believe ANY gods ever existed. they are man-made constructs.

people seem to have a need for an authority figure; they seem to have a need of having some one greater than them selves to answer to. they also seem to have a need of revenge; like a child who says to her or his sibling, "I'm gonna tell mom and dad on you and THEN you're gonna get it!"

gods are nothing more than some ultimate parental figure for those adults who still haven't out grown their need of some kind of authority figure who stands above them.

that's part of it. then there are those who, while they may or not believe in any gods, use such figures for political control and control of the population in general.

and I need no book - written by MEN - to give me ideas about what is "right" and what is "wrong".

rules and laws are made by PEOPLE - not gods.
Hans Georg Lundahl/me again
I did make it rather clear.

I quoted Robert Honan, I asked if you agreed with HIM, and then I said "not about me, that is less important, but in general".

You said here you had no need for a book to tell you what is right or what is wrong, but how are you doing on your own?

You advocated sterilising people and barring them from having children to educate.

THAT is an evil which has been perpetrated time and again against Gipsies in the century that has more than any previous been into the idea of "and I need no book to give me ideas about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'."

The one that has been going on since WW-I broke out.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

At least for the two who answered.

Has since been updated on Pentecost Tuseday with a third answer of same type.

My Original Questionnaire of one Question (sent mainly to Atheists)
Link to previous post ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

"Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history."

Do you, as an Atheist, agree with him? Not about me, that is less important, but in general?

If so, tell me.

This is not a multiquestion questionnaire, it is a one question essay question.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

*You are free to specify whether instead of your user name (my default option, since you have already spoken up in public) you prefer the label "anonymised", when I publish the answers.
You can not eradicate stupid notions or bad ideas by terminating some people who happen to subscribe to them. There will always be people who (for whatever reason) will be enamored about mysticism and supernatural googah. I'm sure it's cause is fear of the unknown, specifically fear death and the notion that some overseer will make sure that evil doers will get what's coming to them. Religion has had thousands of years to hone it's stock of defensive and offensive arguments. I don't expect rational skepticism to win out just because it is the foundation of methodical science which is better at uncovering truth. What I have found is that people don't want the truth. They want the comfort of their beliefs regardless if the is no evidence to support them or even evidence of self contradiction and falsehood in the texts they use to understand the god they worship.

In short, NO eugenics is evil and will not solve the problem at all. In fact, a bigger problem is those who think eugenics would solve anything.

This can be reposted under my name if you wish.
first of you seem to misunderstand something very important, i am not an atheist and i assume the reason want to get rid of religion is to achieve a better world right? so i do believe in god but i am also a person who believes in math and science. i do not agree with your statement and the utopia you believe in, reasons being;

  • 1. the 1900s, during that time man abandoned faith and look what happened, millions were kill without hesitation or remorse in wars for land, ideologies and political beliefs. some leaders looked at them selves as supreme beings and had the people of their nation basically worship them and thus creating a dogma. millions where brutally and inhumanely killed with the use of science and millions more in the name of science via terrible inhumane experiments.
  • 2. im not saying thousands haven't died in the name of religion on a whole but the world took a path lacking any faith and even more people died in that hundred year period.
  • 3. what we need to understand is that people will always use anything as a face to get what they want whether its money, land, resources or power. they will use religion, morals, science, sense of entitlement, political beliefs/agendas and even peace as their "reason or reasons" to attain what they want.

so forcing people to not believe in a supreme being will not change a thing. we human being are selfish by nature and that selfishness will eventually lead to greed. good thing is that we don't have to be that way if we don't want to, so if you want a perfect world without death, starvation and corruption... get rid the greed. getting rid of culture and religion will not make any difference. you can use my user name odean14 if you choose to post my reply
Hans Georg Lundahl
I am delighted with your answer.

I will of course post it.

Up to now there are about 2.*

I am not the one who wants to get rid of religion, Robert Honan expressed that, I cited him.

I looked back to my past debates, and in some I forgot who had been on my side, who had been somehow Christian, but not a fundie Catholic like me, and who was atheist. Most have been atheists, hence the confusion about you.

I was sending the questionnaire to Atheists because they are the ones who are most likely to agree with Honan.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Exactly two in fact.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. While I do believe that religion is a corrupting force on humanity, I believe that the best way to set aside religion and move on is by logic and reason alone rather then through force of any means. A great analogy is drugs. When you ban a substance and force a community to abstain from it, the problem becomes worse, people will go to great lengths to find and consume it, even if the threat of punishment is present (think about prohibition during the 1920s in the united states.) Even if the drug was the worst thing in the world, the fact that its banned makes it more valuable, thus compelling many to find, buy and use it. However, if you educated people on the drug, providing both its benefits and side-effects and provide a way for addicts to overcome their need for it, you will see a decrease in consumption by the public since 1) people are more educated and can choose to stay away from the drug, 2) its not illegal thus there's no added value and 3) the addicts who are treated can (not always) resume a normal life free of the drug.

I wasn't forced to become an atheist, my reasoning led me to this conclusion. Today, I feel no need for a religion, yet I experience awe, wonder even spirituality on a daily basis given the right circumstances (and yes without the aid of any drugs.) Furthermore, I cannot even imagine being in the religious mindset nor am I capable of faith of any kind, its just...not possible for me. This is what I want for everyone, even if it takes another thousand years. Forcing "atheism" on a community is no different from forcing a religion and I (and many atheists I know) would gladly fight any such attempt. A day may come when Christianity, much like other religions before it, will be treated as mythology but I'd rather get to that day through logic and reason rather then with force.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer for you.


P.S. I don't mind you posting my username.

Friday, June 6, 2014

... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up)

1) ... on Child Abuse and Enemies of Catholicism (and Why Some of Them Want Me Locked Up), 2) Pentecost Monday, First Check on Questionnaire Answers, Situation Hopeful, 3) Pentecost Monday, Second Check, Situation Less Hopeful, 4) Answer from Anonymous Dutch Atheist and from Uzziya5) Answer from James Toupin

I was listening to Robert Barron, a man who has more goodwill than knowledge and wisdom in my opinion.

I came across some anti-Catholic hate speech. I came into a debate with Robert Honan, after AJ Earthbend had given up or got tired.

Robert Honan
I was raised Roman Catholic, educated by Jesuits, and read Merton extensively. As an adult, I was very active in my parish, and a member of the Knights of Columbus. Then the Church decided that the root of it's child rape crisis was not pedophile priests, or Bishops more concerned with power and wealth then protecting children. No, the Church blamed the gays, and joined the right-wing war on LGBT rights. I saw an organization that should have been canonizing Father Mychal Judge instead elect a Pope who helped hide pedophile priests. The Roman Catholic Church is still protecting pedophile priests, so if that is proclaiming the glory of God, I want no part of that insanity. That is why I am now an ordained minister in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least we know men of good character do not associate with child rapists, and the people who protect them.
AJ Earthbend
So, rather than think, "Gee, this church is pretty messed up, I should probably leave it and pursue God in my own way" (regardless of whether that would be through another denomination or independently), your response was, "Gee, these human beings who believe in God do and institutionalize pretty terrible things, I guess I'd better abandon God"? I'm sorry to hear that you counted the sins of the created against the Creator, who grieves over those sins more than you or I ever could.
Robert Honan
No, it forced me to re-examine my beliefs, and recognize that they made no sense. I realized that I when I was praying to god, I was just talking to myself. I have not seen good people do evil things because they did not believe in fairies, but a saw throughout history where otherwise good people did evil in the name of their god(s). Most especially, I recognized the central stupidity of Christian doctrine. While there are many good people who are Christians, and they do good in his name, salvation is based on believing in a ridiculous idea, not being a good person. That ridiculous idea is that an all-powerful god created a creature that can not avoid sin, so god chose to be born as a human, so that he could offer himself to hisself, so that he could then forgive humans for being how he created them. The catch being you have to believe this silly idea to be saved. I can rape, pillage, slaughter whole villages, and torture little kittens, and as long as I genuinely accept Jesus as my savior, I go to heaven. Yet if I simply try to live my life as a decent person who helps others, and laughs at iron age myths, I suffer for eternity.
AJ Earthbend
That's a gross simplification, since "faith without works is dead". That quote is from James 2, where it is said twice and where the idea is further expounded upon. The passage sheds a good deal of light on the idea that faith is not some standalone concept, but rather something that manifests as a continuous life journey and through our actions. On the flip side, faith is so important (indeed, necessary) because what we are being compared to in our day-to-day actions is perfection, which is God. You can try to be as "decent" as you want, but under that comparison, "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). Actions alone cannot suffice.

To address other points:
  • People of all kinds do evil for myriad reasons, including and excluding religion depending on the individual; the actions of people do not determine the morality of what they get their beliefs from. If I somehow interpret the Bill of Rights as permitting or even commanding me to kill everyone in the U.S. who wasn't born here, does that mean that I am, or the Bill of Rights is, to blame?
  • "created a creature that cannot avoid sin" This is patently false. God "will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it". (1 Corinthians 10:13) Every sin is a choice that we make; we are able to resist. This has been true from the first sin man ever committed (whether one believes that to be Adam and Eve or someone else).
  • "so that he could offer himself to hisself" I'm splitting hairs here, I guess, but it wasn't just about offering Himself to Himself. It was more about Jesus taking on and offering all the sins of His children to Himself as God. Jesus was but the voluntary, loving vessel through which all that sin was being offered up and purged.

Regardless, I am likely not going to convince you of much of anything (not that that was necessarily my intent anyway), and so I leave the above simply as my thoughts and responses to your points. I can only pray that others don't let flawed humanity color their view of God.
Robert Honan
+AJ Earthbend I find it very telling that you can't justify or support your delusions regarding a deity without turning to that delusion itself. I feel sorry for people who think the blood-thirsty deity depicted in the Old Testament, or the asshole that Paul envisions in the New Testament who is just fine with slavery, is worthy of anything but contempt. See, ultimately that is why I could never again suffer from the religious delusion, the god depicted in scripture is nothing but the sort of petty tyrant I'd have complete contempt for were he a human I met in real life. I'm an average schmuck, and while I think I'm a decent fellow, I know a lot of people that are more compassionate than I am. Still, when I read the Bible the one thing that is quite clear is that my moral compass is quite superior to the one god is depicted as having. I simply can not respect my moral inferiors. Sadly, people of faith are not able to see that is exactly what they are doing, which is why it is so easy for religious people to do evil. For example, the church's persecution of the LGBT community, and its role in the fight against LGBT civil rights.
AJ Earthbend
(If you'd rather be done with me, at least read the last paragraph)

"I find it very telling that you can't justify or support your delusions regarding a deity without turning to that delusion itself."

Okay, so, flipped around, "I find it very telling that you can't justify or support science without turning to science itself." I'm not saying that I DON'T believe in science (because I do), but it just seems silly to me to pretend that it does NOT use itself to justify itself (as opposed to Christianity in your statement). Trying to hold a discussion on Christianity without involving the Bible would be like trying to hold a discussion on scientific discovery without involving the scientific method.

What I also find interesting is the interpretation of God's character as blood-thirsty (particularly considering that He specifically speaks in scripture about how, really, sacrifices are not what He wants, but rather faith and fidelity from His people) and as being okay with slaves in the New Testament. The passages I can think of in the New Testament that relate to slaves don't support taking slaves, nor do they preclude someone from seeking release. They simply give guidelines to operate under so that one may remain faithful to God and to the ideal of loving even your enemies.

"the church's persecution of the LGBT community" This goes back to the point I made in my original comment. The church (still referring, I assume, to the Roman Catholic Church) is an institution and can be as fallible as the humans who run it. Just because it does or supports something does not make that thing officially endorsed by God. I, too, detest the way so many people treat the LGBT community (or blacks, or women, or Latin American immigrants, etc.), and I believe it to be against the way God would have me/us treat them. Thus, since I am my own person, I can make decisions separate from whatever church body I am or am not a part of (and so could you or anyone else).

But there I go again! I didn't really come here to evangelize or argue or any such thing; in fact, I don't really generally evangelize. I tend to prefer to let my actions speak for who I am and for what I believe in. I mean no one any harm, and I shall be on my way. Regardless of your feelings toward me, toward what I believe, or what I have said here, I wish to sincerely bid you a good day (or night or whatever it is if and when you read this).
A Escoto
+Robert Honan I fail to believe that you were ever a devout catholic as you claim...interesting shortsightedness and hypocrisy are ripe in your statements. Am wondering if you are as intellectually stunted as your argument painfully demonstrates. 
Hans Georg Lundahl
+Robert Honan "I can rape, pillage, slaughter whole villages, and torture little kittens, and as long as I genuinely accept Jesus as my savior, I go to heaven. ... I was raised Roman Catholic, educated by Jesuits, and read Merton extensively."

The thesis you criticise is not the thesis of the Catholic Church.

How come you claim to have been raised a Catholic and then criticise your former religion as involving one logical consequence of ... Sola Fide, which the Catholic Church formally condemned as a Heresy?

Either you let yourself be brainwashed by Atheists who were unaware of what your real past religion really taught or who did not care, OR you are a fraud.

I do not know which it is, but you have spoken a lie, whether you lie to yourself or only from. 
Robert Honan
Sorry, I forgot the proper Catholic step of the Sacrament of Confession. I Catholic Priest can molest kids, and as long as he confesses his sin to his Bishop, the Church will cover his sick ass.
Hans Georg Lundahl
A Catholic priest who hears confession from boys in the confessional, who sits in one side of it while boys (or girls) walk in the other side, and they line up for it so if either went to the wrong side of the confessional it would show and so on does NOT have very much possibilities to molest children or teens (hate the word "kids" btw, though not as much as I should, but your comment does help).

A Catholic priest who confesses to having committed a sin of sodomitic nature will according to a decree of Pope St Pius V in 1568 be told he cannot be given absolution until he has officially notified his bishop who according to same decree has to defrock him.

A defrocked priest has very little possibilities - traditionally - to molest the Catholic population. A defrocked priest, traditionally, is a man without honour.

What went wrong was not Catholicism being applied. What went wrong was Catholicism being no longer applied, since priests wishing to marry were GRANTED to be defrocked so it was no longer a dishonouring punishment, while superiors like bishops, abbots, order generals were no longer applying 1568 either, but sending offenders to counselling and then recycling them after counselling when told they were cured. Since those days in the 70's counsellers have swung around quite a lot.

How do you like the latest child porn news?

No Catholic priests involved, but a policeman was and a rabbi was.

It involved children as young as two years old. I am pretty certain no Catholic priest so far went that way.
Robert Honan
+Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, child rape is committed by men of all religions, professions, and social classes. The issue with the Roman Catholic Church was official toleration and protection of child rapists. The last Pope, when he was in charge of the modern descendent of the Inquisition actively worked to suppress criminal investigations of rapist priests, to the point of instructing Bishops to threaten the families of victims with excommunication if they informed the civil authorities. The day that bastard was elevated to the office of Pope, the Church reduced itself to nothing more than an international criminal conspiracy to rape children. The church should be dissolved, and any employee of the church who knew a child had been raped by a priest, but did not report the crime to civil authorities should get 5 years hard labor. Any official who covered up even one indiscretion on the part of a subordinate should spend the rest of their life rotting in prison.

The fact that your solution to a problem that has it's roots in superstition is to turn to an even older version of that same superstition is telling. Do not bother trying to argue your stupidity with me, I'm not the jackass whisperer, and I can't cure you of your delusions.
A Escoto
+Robert Honan You premise is false and dishonest, but folks of your ilk are not interested in justice rather, prevarications. The abuse occurred primarily in the late 60s, 70s and early 80s the church acted like other institutions that incurred similar problems. They counseled and treated and moved the abuser, which was in line with school districts and police departments of that time period.

To suggest other wise is dishonest you contentious half-wit.

A higher education is still valuable and worthy of attaining, despite a few bad teachers.
Robert Honan
+A Escoto
Dude, you're the one that is starting from a false premise. You believe that the God of the Catholic church exists, even though you have no evidence that he exists. There is no God. Life, the universe, and everything, are the result of impersonal random chance. All the evils of religious superstition revolve around the idea that right and wrong come from an imaginary higher power, and humans have used that for ages to justify the worst evils humanity has faced. The only moral standard that should apply is "am I hurting someone without their consent?" Give me repeatedly verifiable peer reviewed scientific evidence of you deity's existence that I can not refute with a simpler scientific explanation, and we can talk. As long as "faith" is involved, you are the loser.

So, put up, or shut up!
A Escoto
+Robert Honan Dude? Peer reviewed? sure, we exist, the universe exist you dolt. Something cannot come from nothing. The odds of it coming from random happening are so small its laughable. How small? the odds are greater of you beating up mike Tyson in his and your prime, if you could fight a million billion times in a row. That's why learned scientists had to come up with the multiverse theory. just as highly unlikely. If you are right, lets assume, why should your morality prevail? the hurting others benchmark? (sounds awfully Christian, that's ok we know it is) but why should those ethics prevail? why not Stalinist ethics, Maos? Kim Jon Un? BTW the worst evils of mankind within the last 85 years and in human history were perpetuated by secular humanistic regimes, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung, Tojo: 200 million killed, and according to you, whats the big deal? because.....

You cannot justify your morality without God.
Hans Georg Lundahl
"The issue with the Roman Catholic Church was official toleration and protection of child rapists."

My answer was that this is in Catholicism VERY recent. Post Vatican II.

"The last Pope, when he was in charge of the modern descendent of the Inquisition actively worked to suppress criminal investigations of rapist priests, to the point of instructing Bishops to threaten the families of victims with excommunication if they informed the civil authorities."

Normally offending priests, usually not raping except in [merely legal] statutory sense (unlike those raping 2 year old children for porn), are to be dealt with by CHURCH authorities.

It is just that since Vatican II this has malfunctioned.

"The church should be dissolved,"

Will not happen.

Bergoglio can try to please Claudio what's his German or Jewish name again (a prosecutor) by doing so.

BUT faithful Catholics will not accept that.

Neither will we accept being targetted as child rapists because of infiltrators and because of men less bad than they but broken down by their infiltration.

For that matter, if a priest becomes lover of a fourteen year old girl in a State where statutory rape is counted up to fifteen, I will not accept his being targetted as a rapist either. Nor compared to the rabbi or policeman, or both, whichever it is, who made child porn with two year olds.

"The fact that your solution to a problem that has it's roots in superstition is to turn to an even older version of that same superstition is telling."

You have missed the point that it is only the UPDATED version that has been found guilty.

"They counseled and treated and moved the abuser, which was in line with school districts and police departments of that time period."

Exactly, A Escoto. They should NOT have taken a cue from contemporaries, but continued on the lines of 1568.

"There is no God. Life, the universe, and everything, are the result of impersonal random chance."

If that were so, you [to Robert Honan, again] and any offender here mentioned would also be so, and your indignation at another result of impersonal random chance would be also a result of impersonal random chance.

"The only moral standard that should apply is 'am I hurting someone without their consent?'"

So hurting WITH consent is OK to you?

A thirteen year old girl who DIRECTLY consents to being lover of a priest, would in that case definately exonerate the priest.

But what about men who have been for years targetted and hurty by conspiracies of masonic nature and who have repeatedly stated thei non-consent? Is their consent to be presumed because of indirect indications going the way in interpretation of those hurting, that they really are consenting?

Because that kind of position resumes my situation pretty well.

"We saw him shake hands with the shrink, so we must assume he accepted analysis and treatment."

Even if the shrink never for a moment told me he was a shrink, or told it in such a manner as to make it assumable it was a bad joke?

But of course, if I were just a result of random and impersonal chance happenings, what were I except mud to be trod on? Or you? Or anybody else, including the victims you are apparently so upset about?

"Give me repeatedly verifiable peer reviewed scientific evidence of you deity's existence that I can not refute with a simpler scientific explanation, and we can talk."

In other words, scientists are your priesthood.

You are treating God before the Scientists as Catholics are treating Medjogurje apparitions before Episcopacy of the Catholic Church.

I happen to treat Catholic Bishops* as Catholic Bishops, and NOT Scientists as Catholic Bishops.

And the question of proving God is not a matter of expertise. It is a matter of common sense, a million times MORE peer reviewed than the kind of discoveries YOU would call peer reviewed.

Before I forget, the news story:

CNN : Cop, rabbi, scoutmaster among arrests in child porn bust
By Evan Perez, Pamela Brown and Ray Sanchez, CNN
May 21, 2014 -- Updated 1949 GMT (0349 HKT)


* Pre-Vatican II, at least!
Robert Honan
If you are talking about Masonic conspiracies, I suggest you seek counseling. Perhaps therapy and heavy medication will help?
Hans Georg Lundahl
That sounds like a Masonic threat.

Have you heard of Sysslebäck / Likenäs, 5 of February 1998?

Check that out before you try any funny stuff on those kinds of level, will you?
Robert Honan
+A Escoto Dude, Hitler was a Roman Catholic in full communion with the Church. His most Antisemitic speeches heavily quoted Martin Luther.* Look at how many people the Holy Church tortured and killed because someone denounced them as a heretic, and their confession under torture confirmed it? Look at the enslavement of entire peoples justified as going God's work. Hell, that persisted into modern times with the Church in Ireland using captive women as slave labor for profit. The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt, and incapable of providing any valid or rational guidance towards peoples morality.

I'm done with you. You are too blind and ignorant for me to waste my time on, and I would rather spend my limited time on hedonistic pleasure, than playing Jackass whisperer to morons like you.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl As I said, you need mental help. You are delusional, and need to be treated before you hurt someone.


* Reminds me of how a probably Seventh Day Adventist site cited Reichsbischoff Müller as proof of Nazi ties with the Vatican. Müller was of the Evangelische confession and not of the RC one! And Landesbischoff Coch was a clearly Lutheran clergyman, indeed a kind of successor of Luther as his position was with the Duke or King of Saxony.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It was trying those games that put me in a position to hurt a policeman with his own pistol.

One decimeter in he flesh of his hip. I got 3 and a 1/2 years and did 2/3 in the end.

So, don't try it.
A Escoto
+Robert Honan "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity" Hitler 1941

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." Hitler 1941

Moron? lmao from an illiterate neophyte. Dude, these are but 2 quotes, you are uninformed and allow lies and falsehoods to distort your thinking, you are the lost one.

Own it, that Secular Humanism is the worst thing to have happened to mankind, of which you and your ilk bear the load with your ideological cohorts, hitler, mao and stalin for the worst atrocities of all humankind. :)

+Robert Honan who do you think Hitler sounds like? A Catholic in union with the Church? or a Secular humanist, here are some more quotes from Hitler on Christianity for your edification:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)* Hitler 1941.

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339) Hitler 1942

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie." Hitler 1942 (sounds like your drivel doesn't it?)

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278) Hitler 1942


* Will try to ask A Escoto what book he is quoting from. Done:

wiki : Hitler's Table Talk's_Table_Talk

He added there is also this:

Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Paperback– November 2, 1993
Alan Bullock(Author)
Hans Georg Lundahl
He also regretted that helping Franco defeat Communism forced him to be involved in saving Catholicism in Spain.

He also had plans of kidnapping Pope Pius XII while occupying Rome.

He also preferred Hohenzollerns (Prots, and some were extremely liberal back in Hitler's time - at least German Prots in general) over habsburgs (notoriously Catholics, and in ages that had no problem with child molesting clergy).

He also allowed Lutherans of the Wehrmacht to forcefully implement his early version of Ecumenism by holding a Lutheran service in Notre Dame.

He also was enemies with the Catholic Austrian politicians Fr Ignaz Seipel and Engelbert Dollfuss, whom he had assassinated, and Kurt von Schuschnigg, whom he locked up in Dachau.
Robert Honan
Right, still not the atheist you claim.* Besides, atheism is not a doctrine, it is simply the recognition that there is no God. The Marxist you mention replace a superstitious belief in a sky faerie with a superstitious belief in Marxism. They make a bloody religion of it, with all the abuses and tyranny that religion naturally evolves. In fact, Lenin very directly tapped into Russian Orthodox traditions as a way to get the little people to respond as the obedient sheep the church had trained them to be.

Nice try,


* A Escoto had used the word Secular Humanist. Certain Buddhists would be Atheists, but not Secular Humanists. Certain Secular Humanists are rather Pantheists (like Hitler) or some kind of New Age. Mao was at a time Christian of some sorts, but his regime was Secular HUmanist in that era too.
A Escoto
+Robert Honan be entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Lenin destroyed the orthodox church, thousands of priest were executed. The cathedral destroyed and rebuilt in 92

Never said they were all atheists, but those bubbas were ALL secular humanists. You hatred makes your nonsensical. Funny you wont say how you justify your morality. I know you cannot, but its amusing you wont admit it
Hans Georg Lundahl
+Robert Honan , +A Escoto

Lenin was quarter Jewish. Trotski even more so. Stalin was however ex Seminarian and made a kind of temporal appeasement with Orthodox Clergy (or Heterodox Clergy) during the Great Patriotic War = WW-II.

Lenin and Stalin both owe lots of their outlook to Marx and Engels, and so does the new atheism, whether its proponents know so or not.

Wurmbrandt wrote an "Answer to the Bible of Moscow" (i e to a handbook of Atheism so nicknamed), in which he pointed out a logical contradiction in the criticism of Christianity: finidng it BOTH too gloomy and too recklessly rosy. Same contradiction resurfaces when Onfray is popularising Atheism in France. And Onfray is to France about as Dawkins to the English speaking world.
Robert Honan
As I said, you need trained help with your delusions. I look forward to the day when medical science finds a cure of religious delusions that works consistently so we can take care of you poor deluded fools. 
Hans Georg Lundahl
That was a confession that psychiatry is not about medicine, but about anti-Catholic and anti-Christian fanaticism.

That was also a confession that you had no rational answer to my argument.

You were wrong.

And it was also a confession that there are other heinous cruelties going on than "pedophile priests", like in psychiatry, for instance.
Robert Honan
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The Volkswagon was another good idea Hitler had. A world completely free of primitive superstition would be worth breaking a few eggs to accomplish.
A Escoto
Robert Honan, you should be comforted then, because that mindset you share enables those things to happen
Hans Georg Lundahl
How many infiltrators have been thinking along the lines of:

"A world completely free of primitive superstition would be worth breaking a few eggs to accomplish."

and how many of them have considered victims of pedophilia eggs worth breaking?

And here I am not speaking of girls having relationships because evil lews do not permit them to marry before 18, here I am speaking of pederasty, of boys destroyed in the purity of their manhood.

Even though probably much rarer than the other scenario, it did happen, as in Gerge Gheoghan. The ex-priest who was killed in prison.

BTW, it was psychological expertise that twice over cleared him for recycling in parishes. His superiors were gravely culpable, but not by following tradition, rather by following the word of modern expertise.
Robert Honan
You knowingly and willingly support an International criminal conspiracy to promote child rape, and dare to talk to me about morality? Who the fuck do you think you are? Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy. For the good of the human race, primitive superstition needs to be nothing more than something school-children are surprised by, and laugh at, when they learn about it in history. Please, do humanity a favor and kill yourself.
A Escoto
+Robert Honan there is no conspiracy, you would have known that had bothered to look a little. but seedy intellectually dishonest little men with small minds love to propagandize , it bears no wait on truth, because the truth always wins out. Your ideas about life will always be rejected by the mainstream and will never gain mass adherence, they fail because they lack substance and are empty. Yet you will go one searching, rudderless. All you have is mindless invective to mock and deride, not terribly original or fulfilling.
Hans Georg Lundahl
+Robert Honan "Yes, I would love to see a society that mandated therapy to cure religious delusions, and humanely euthanized all who rejected or resisted that therapy."

Thank you for the candour.

You are definitely involved in things as dirty as or dirtier than child rape, at least by indirect participation.
After the debate
Two observations which are definitely less shocking than Robert Honan's ideals. You might need it to recover.
On broken clock
It used to be true that "a clock that has stopped" - not quite same thing as a "broken clock" - is right twice a day. In the case of modern clocks that flip numbers around it would be only once. If the show is digital, it may show nothing at all, and so not be right even once a day.

It is however true also that a clock of the old sort that has not just stopped but really been broken is not even right once a day. If both dials hang limp downwards, the long dial on the six indicates the short dial should be between two hours. But the short dial would then also hang limp exactly on the hour of six. So when both dials are broken and hang onto the six, the broken clock is not even right once a day.
This was under the video
The Flying Spaghetti Monster and God by Robert Barron
Sent above to codebators.
From A Escoto I got bibliographic info. From Robert Honan this:
Robert Honan
I see nothing dirty with removing bigots motivated by primitive superstition from the gene pool. I'm also ethical enough to not repost other people's comments in a discussion out of context. If you want to link to my comments here and respond on your silly little blog, go right ahead. Too bad you're the typical forum bully who can't help but refight the debate in a forum where you can edit my comments to your pleasure. Either post my comments word-for-word with everyone else's comments quoted word-for-word, or don't post them at all! Perhaps I should repost this discussion to my blog, and correct your posts to openly reflect your support for child rape?
Hans Georg Lundahl
I see something extremely dirty and bigotted about removing any group from the gene pool.

All of your comments have been posted word for word.

I have added footnotes, both to yours, to A Escoto's and to my own.

You are obviously as free as I to do the same.

Have you changed any of your comments since I reposted them to suit your accusations?

[Next Day:]

Robert Honan
Oh, you are promising that I can freely add footnotes and additional commentary to the discussion you have on your site? Great! First, make sure you include every single comment from this site as it was originally posted, without any of what you call insults removed.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Why don't YOU do it like I did: going up this thread and copy pasting every comment?*

I excluded ONE comment which was not on the debate and hardly comprehensible. And by a person who was not either before nor afterwards in this thread.

In this particular one, I excluded no insults.

I specifically included your insults to my sanity and my answers to them.

You seem to have an attitude about the work I did on this thread based on illfounded rumours as to other threads on same blog. And the work I did on them. And possibly to predecessors like my site Antimodernism (which went down with other MSN sites in 2009).

And the fact you have had access to such rumours tells me something about some community you are part of. NOT deciding whether it is limited to New Atheism or includes things like Psychiatry or things like Freemasonry. But certainly a kind of community capable of inaccurate rumour mongering.

Or did you edited your comments with added insults to pseudo-substantiate your accusation? Something tells me you did not. After asking a similar question yesterday, I looked and you had not deleted any material in your comments as far as I saw.

By the way, I am stating you can do this about the thread or possibly later threads you were involved in, I cannot speak for all other participants in all other threads, though I have tried to contact them all (and I have no longer access to AOL boards, so no possibility of asking certain someones).


*If he distrusts my rendering so much, that is about what he should do.