... on Death Before Sin and Angelic Appearances Not to be Always Trusted

Initial comment by HGL on a video

04:32 in a Christian perspective, God is not just involved in Genesis chapter 1 as Creator, but also as revealer of truth, behind the text. A God who existed but not done it that way, would not be the God who revealed Genesis, or, if He were, would be a liar in doing so (like the Nine Muses who told Hesiod another story, or the Jibreel who revealed to Mohammed a story about Jesus quite incompatible with the Gospel, see Sourate V). And either way He would not have been the God Christians believe in. I am a Christian, I say He is, and challenge you to prove me wrong, IF YOU CAN ... (wrong about this, mind you, not about my personal behaviour, which it may be easier to do sth about, like relying on calumny or concentrating on me stumbling).

04:08 Would not be involved in "natural processes culminating in our species" ... indeed, death before Adam and death and lust as prime "editors" of the "blind monkey" typing our genome are not compatible with the Christian view of God's goodness and wisdom. What atheists like Democritus, Lucrece and ... what's his name ... first and foremost ... Epicurus apply to all existance we are involved in, we do apply to the existance before Adam sinned. If God had allowed evil before Adam sinned because he would not have wanted to prevent it, or because he would have needed it to make Adam, he would not be God.

[first wrote "editors or the blind monkey" but meant either "for" or "of" the same]

Soren G

you claim that there is a sky daddy,proof it! Or otherwise,you are just like reinhold messner,who claims to have seen the Yeti.We don't belief shit without evidence....cause if we would,we would have to KNOW that there are aliens....cause some people claim that they are here....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If Reinhold Messner claims to have seen the Yeti, I think it is likely he did. If very many people claim to have been abduccted by aliens, I think they were, and that aliens are demons. If you want proof of God, one part is the discrediting of Evolutionary pseudo-explanations, like of morality, which is given here courtesy of AronRa (probably as coherent as anyone holding his view).

Paul Wurr

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Then you'll believe that I am an angel, and God wants you to be more skeptical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am already too sceptical to believe in you even if you are an angel.

I would not want to end up like Hesiod or Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have no scepticism at all...you are gullible and naive,believing claims without proof and without any scepticism.....and the fact that your are xtain is nothing but coincidence.....born in the Middle East,you would be Muslim,in India a hindu etc....the system is always the same: belief bullshit without proof,cause your parents raised you with that lie.....sad....very sad

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"believing claims without proof"

No, not quite.

Not even exact about pagan religions, there is some proof for them too, but insufficient to conclude its about the really divine.

Greeks believed Hercules was a god, because Hercules was a strong man and killed monsters.

Christians believe Christ was and is and eternally remains God, because he raised dead and rose from the dead.

In both cases the direct proof of facts was that they were witnessed and the direct proof of that, thus a little less than direct about facts, is that there is a tradition about such witnessing of such miracles. Or, in the case of Hercules, simply marvels.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't even need to reply to the whole text you've written.... just ONE example:

"Greeks believed Hercules was a god, because Hercules was a strong man and killed monsters."

See what you've done here? you take for granted that Hercules EXISTED....FAIL! there is no proof nor evidence of any kind,except written stories,thyat he ever existed,let alone being a demigod or even a strong man....

Your way of thinking is faulty and you can't even grasp that.....

Eyewitness acounts are the least reliable ones....

We have EVIDENCE,which disproves your god or any other for that matter and THAT counts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"you take for granted that Hercules EXISTED....FAIL!"

No, the fail is yours, since you take it for granted he didn't.

"We have EVIDENCE,which disproves your god or any other for that matter and THAT counts."

Such as?

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

First and for all:

THAT is the big fallacy,which you clink on to.... to assume that something exists without any proof...to call it a fail on my part,to not assume that is just plain dumb.

If you have no proof,it simply doesn't exist.

plain and simple

well,first and for all do we have a ton of biological evidence,which disproves any design of nature by a god....we have wisdom teeth,due to our ape ancestry or an appendix and a ton more of vestigal organs

we even know,that all human embryos are female and that they develope only male sexual characteristics after a certain stage of the pregnancy....your scrotal sac is formed from the labia... so,"Eva" was first,not "Adam"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you have no proof,it simply doesn't exist."

No, not quite. If there is no proof available to anyone, it means we do not know if it exists.

However traditional history is proof.

Eyewitness accounts may be the weakest proof overall in your book, but it is the strongest in history. Second strongest is tradition of such.

Hercules existed.

We do not have eyewitness accounts beyond his own (and he did kill wife and children i madness) that he went down to the netherworld. Perhaps Cerberus was seen, perhaps not, around Tiryns, but the descent to the netherworld was unseen.

We do have a tradition which presumably originated as eyewitness accounts that he cleared such a terrain of the hydra and such another terrain of a lion, invulnerable to ordinary arms. Lernea and Nemea, I think.

So, I believe he did. Does not make him God, does not make him "a god". Thank God that Beowulf's memory is untainted by such false claims.

But when we have similar proof that:

• Jesus Christ spent three years doing miracles and preaching and making the then experts of theology look dumb;
• had miraculous powers over food matter and over light and "gravity";
• healed thousands of sick, raised a few dead;
• was crucified and rose from the dead without anyone raising Him:

THEN we have a case He was not just a great man but actually God. Especially as He claimed so (God would not have either made or permitted false miracles of that dignity to cling to a false claim).

'so,"Eva" was first,not "Adam"'

From my moment of conception, I had a Y chromosome along the X.

From the moment of conception, a woman has two X.

Adam and Eve were created adult, so the embryonal development you speak of is not applicable to their august persons.

I sense

that discussing Hercules and Gospel is somehow not Soren G's strong ground. Look how the discussion continues:

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh c'mon....you really belief that bs??

and eve was created from a rip of adam.....BULLSHIT!!

and how do you explain all the vestigal organs in the human body?

how come we have so many transitional fossils?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, with "rip" you may have a point about bs. Holy Writte says "rib".

"how come we have so many transitional fossils?"

How come we have so few transitional series of fossils, if it comes to that.

Human and Horse series are those flaunted again and again, and both have been debunked as contructs without a real base.

Unlike Gospel and Greek Heroic legend, there is not even eyewitness account available even by tradition for your view of the past. And your view about the fossils - as available in the present - depends on eyewitness accounts of palaeontologists, among other things.

Is it just me, or

is he trying to shift discussion from history and tradition to evolution? Anyway, I sense that is what he is trying to do, so I try to shift it back.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well,I see that you have no understanding of science at all....

the bible is roughly as credible as Mickey Mouse.

Science,which analyses evidence as fossils or biological evidence as observed in living animals/organsim is a peer reviewed process....claims are being evaluated by other scientists and that process is going on and on and on.

In the case of Evolution for 150 years....and nothing has disproven Evolution so far,but research came up with ever new discoveries,which added to the theory...and don't give me tha "it's just a theory" BS....gravity is a theory..germology is one etc...scientific theories consist of facts but are always open to new discoveries and realizations cause we advance technology and knowledge (just in case you haven't noticed).

Religion comes up with fairytales to "explain" things....not convinced....

and we have seen religion falter more and more to answer new questions as human knowledge expanded

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will take Mickey Mouse over Darwin ... at least as far as logic is concerned.

Mickey Mouse now and then does act the detective and his logic is about as great as that of Sherlock Holmes, even if both are fictional. Perhaps because they draw on non-fictional logic of Walt Disney and of Arthur Conan Doyle.

You have shifted the subject thoroughly, we were talking about eyewitness account and tradition when it came to Gospels or even Greek Heroic Legend.

But that is perhaps not your favourite terrain?

"and we have seen religion falter more and more to answer new questions as human knowledge expanded"

You mean like official faltering about Galileo case or sth?

I am not faltering, I am Geocentric.

Btw, are you trying to tell me you believe Peer Review makes science kind of objective and superlogical? Well, post-publishing review has that tendency, but the problem is it is hampered too much by pre-publishing review and by simple name calling on some parts.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look dude...you've told me aready,that you belief [sic] Messner,when he says that he has seen the Yeti....

Sure,bellief [sic] in Mickey Mouse....but don't try to sell it as truth.

Yes,the scientific method is trough scrutiny.

A sientist [sic] has to answer to other scientists....not just in his time period but for decades to come.

That is the very definition of objectiveness and logic.Sad that someone has to point that out to you.

Darwin observed his environment and came up through carefull [sic] reasearch the theory of Evolution.

This has been researched,questioned and varyfied [sic] by generations of scientists.

Nothing wrong has so far been found wrong with it.

Only things,which Darwin couldn't have known,due to the limited technological abilities of his time,were added.

Or do you belief DNA was known back in his days?

Dinosaurs have been researched extensevly and specially during the past 20 years (specially after Jurassic Park,with public intrest),has our knowledge about them expanded immensely.

This is how science works.

You take talking snkaes [sic] over that?

You are a poor fellow

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are a poor fellow"

How did you know I have less than 10€ on my bank account?

"you've told me aready,that you belief Messner,when he says that he has seen the Yeti...."

What would you believe about his statement? That he was lying or that he was hallucinating?

Those reproaches should not be thrown about lightly.

"Sure,bellief in Mickey Mouse....but don't try to sell it as truth."

You seem to have some problem with English.

Belief is a noun, the verb is believe. Or are you trying to imitate a Tcherman Acktsent?

Is that why you did not get:

• I believe in the LOGIC of Mickey Mouse, as I believe in the LOGIC of Sherlock Holmes
• while I do not believe either Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes existed

or is it because getting it did not suit your scheme of ridiculing me?

"A s[c]ientist has to answer to other scientists....not just in his time period but for decades to come."

If he gets it published.

Yes, that is called POST-publishing peer review and I pointed out that this has the effect, when it happens, to make the scientific community a bit more objective.

However, there is also PRE-publishing review. Some papers are not published and then the scientist cannot spend years answering questions.

How sad for you I had to point that difference out to you again.

Now, it is interesting that you think POST-publication peer review is, not just essential to but even "the very definition of" objectivity and logic (and that perhaps not just among scientists but overall?).

Some guys have trouble standing up to post-publishing review.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Apparent Annual Zig Zag Question about Geo/Helio and Space Crafts
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/apparent-annual-zig-zag-question-about.html

Note the last comment:

Not answering as far as I have seen since: John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev

6 people who are NOT taking the duty seriously to spend years answering questions.

Meanwhile, plenty of faults have been found in Darwin, like the ones pointed out by Kent Hovind and his comrades at CMI http://creation.com - oh, by Darwin I am also referring to his successors.

I have also done my part of refutation at my creationist blog:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

Plus, you are still avoiding the issue about a tradition from things that happened long ago.

You seem to think that people in the past would just lie about something and noone would notice anything. Fathers would lie to their sons - everyone in a whole generation, just like that.

Once it must have happened : both the Christian and the Jewish views of the 1st C cannot both be true.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have the guts to come up with Kent Hovind?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Is he already out of jail?

Besides: English is not my mother tongue so,yes,I do have some issues with it.

Tell me,oh knowing one:

If you or that clown Hovind would have ANY merrit to your claims about problems with Evolution...how come you have been defeated 10 times so far in court?

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism
February 14th, 2001
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

How come that none of your idiotic ID crusaders have ever been able to defeat Evolution and claim a Nobel price in doing so?

You slime around with picking words here and there but as every religious loon so far,you fail to come up aith any evidence for the claims you have.

You fail and your wishful thinking is all that you have to your religious idiocracy

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Court cases may say sth about masonic bias.

"You slime around with picking words here and there but as every religious loon so far,you fail to come up aith any evidence for the claims you have."

Except tradition.

Mickey Mouse existing and Sherlock Holmes existing is not tradition. Tradition says Walt Disney and Conan Doyle made them up.

Hercules being strong and Jesus rising from the dead is tradition. And being strong does not make one God.

"In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

OK, balanced treatment statute violates Establishment clause of the US Constitution?

It's like a wolf telling a lamb "you killed and ate my father".

It's the other way round which really violates Constitution.

As to Nobel price, I think one winner is by now a creationist, but I might be wrong. However, you also qulified "in doing so" - in defeating Evolution. Price Committee is in Sweden, a heavily secularised country. And I know, Swedish is my mother tongue.

Soren G

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Hercules being strong and Jesus rising from the dead is tradition"

There you've got it in a nutshell....Christianity is a tradition just as Islam is a tradition in those countries.....

As for the Nobel price: proving Evolution wrong would grant the person,who achieved that a Nobel price for sure....yet,no one has been able to do that and far as the evidence goes,it will not be done. Sweden is a highly secularized country THANK GOD ;)

But that has nothing to do with the Nobel comitty.....they look for evidence and claims,which can be backed up by facts.

That is how science works

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There you've got it in a nutshell....Christianity is a tradition just as Islam is a tradition in those countries....."

I respect the tradition that Mohammed and Joseph Smith were religiously confused.

I respect the tradition that they saw apparitions.

I do NOT respect their theological conclusions that the Jibreel of Mohammed and the Moroni of Joseph Smith were really sent by the true God.

That is why "angel X appears to man Y and says Z" is NOT to my mind a correct basis on which to form a religion.

And Christianity with its Old Testament preparation are very much better founded than that.

But I do not doubt very seriously that Mohammed and Joseph Smith had such apparitions, and even less that their early followers heard them claim these.

"As for the Nobel price: proving Evolution wrong would grant the person,who achieved that a Nobel price for sure..."

Earn - yes.

Grant - no.

To make the difference palpable, Astrid Lindgren, C S Lewis, J R R Tolkien, Graham Greene and Gilbert Keith Chesterton have all EARNED the Noble prize in literature, but none of them were granted it.

On the other hand, in 1906 the Nobel Prize in literature was granted to one Carducci who had written an Inno a Satana. A hymn to Satan.

No, you overtrust the Nobel committee.

"But that has nothing to do with the Nobel comitty.....they look for evidence and claims,which can be backed up by facts. That is how science works"

The Nobel Prize as such is not science.

It is a spectacular event promoting what is supposed to be spectacularly good science.

But it is above all a spectacular event of promotion - as with Peace Prize, as with Prize in Literature and so on.