... on Bible not being fiction, on Human Chromosome 2 not proving us evolved from apes, on an amended version of "why are there still apes" faulty argument, and on a personal insult related to my view of age of consent

Video commented on:

Errors in the Bible?
Frank Turek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB18or8bJ10

David Withington

The bible isn't history, it's fiction. Your inability to interpret my point is typical of people like you. Blindly faithful. Also, you must have failed English as you can't interpret an easy sentence. Lol!

dtjwho2000

What the heck are you talking about?

Dêstynatiõn Y

+David Withington You should have a chat with historians some day lol.

David Withington

+Dêstynatiõn Y you have no argument. The bible is ... and God is ...! If he did exist I'd slit his ... throat! Join my club or,you'll burn in hell, what a ...! That's a gun to your head right there and you don't see it. You've been brainwashed to fear God to keep,you in line.

[censored as to blasphemies]

Ariztid

+David Withington you make excellent points in your argument. I mean, the way that you drop an f-bomb and show hatred really expresses your passion for atheism. I'm sure that you will have a huge cult following someday, and based on your inspirational comments, I am sure to follow. Please keep up the good work.

Dominick7

+David Withington thats just as true as saying youre a pleasant and informed person.

+Ariztid lol like your response better than mine. Youre right. Have been searching the planet for an intelligent man. Am finally glad I found David Withington, otherwise I wouldnt have learned that the way to display intelligence is with ignorance, murderous rabid threats and strawmen arguments on steroids. Like talking to someone high on crack cocaine.

David Withington

+Dêstynatiõn Y ye go an ... thyself for thou art a holy twat!

[censored]

+Dominick7 I forgive you even though you have forsaken me! Lol!

Dominick7

+David Withington How can I know if that's you or the cocaine talking doe.

David Withington

+Dominick7 no cocaine here old bean just telling you how it is, the bible and God that is. All fake, you've been brainwashed!

Dominick7

+David Withington Is 1+1 not 2 as well? There are things that are self evident we cant be wrong on, how do you manage to be wrong on the existence of God? You must have surely written something better than the Declaration of Independence if you've figured out how something actually and necessarily true besides actually undeniable isnt true. Wowee. You must be famous.

+David Withington No cocaine right now wink wink.

David Withington

+Dominick7 for something to be true there has to be evidence. There is no evidence WHATSOEVER for God

Dêstynatiõn Y

+David Withington
What are you on about?

You think we just popped into existence for no reason? Anyway; why did you not pay attention when I gve you evidence?

Jermie Fanning

+David Withington and there is no evidence that it isnt. also there is no evidence of evolution. which is wht u have to believe if u dont believe in God. the fact us God is real amd evolution is a falsity created by followers of the devil to try and destroy belief in God. evolution is so screwed up it krazy. to believe u came from a sludge tht one day a life crawled out of. is the defintion of krazy. if u believe in evolution. thn u believe tht certain races and genders are superior to others.

Ariztid

+Dominick7 I've learned that there really is no point in arguing with these type of individuals, especially when they hide behind a computer. They're typically educated by pseudo-historians or mad scientists on youtube. They'll typically regurgitate what they've been programmed to say and when their logic is threatened they sort violent antics. It's quite amusing, but sad at the same time.

Dominick7

By saying you know for certain there is no evidence of God whatsoever, youre saying you know for certain there is no God whatsoever?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How many people have started mistaking Narnia series or Lord of the Rings for history?

[Referring to "The bible isn't history, it's fiction," see above.]

Ariztid

You actually felt confident in making such a preposterous comment like that? If so, I suggest that you go back to school. You will not find many, if any, historical scholars that will argue the historical accuracy and authenticity of the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To me?

OK, Josephus for OT, Eusebius, St Augustine, Peter Comestor, Snorre, Saxo, Beda Venerabilis ... all these (and all except possibly Josephus who was discreet about matter believed NT as well) were historical scholars of top quality of their times.

Next question?

Oh wait, +Ariztid, you meant perhaps at your own faculty of history!

They might be Marxists there, and anyway, restricting "historical scholars" to contemporaries is just SO unhistorical!

David Withington

+Jermie Fanning er I think you'll find chromosome 2 in humans has proved evolution for some time now. You people just don't want to change your views, or face up to the fact that lowest age of consent on this planet is THE VATICAN CITY or that the Vatican used to celebrate hitters birthday, not joking. The idea of God kept people in line 2000 years ago, we've come long way since and know a lot more. God now is an old fashioned fairytale.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl give it 2000 years, you'll be surprised.

Jermie Fanning

+David Withington u people wont change yours. brain washed. if you believe for a second that we come from no where. you my friend are lost. you can never get something out of nothing. things dont just appear from no where. first of all. i never believe in God for years. but on the same note. i never believed in evolution. from jump i knew it was false. the evolutionist cant even back there theory with proven fact. thats why they still call it the evolution theory. not evolution fact. a theory is an unproven hypothesis. and thats a fact

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+David Withington

"I think you'll find chromosome 2 in humans has proved evolution for some time now."

Not really, no.

You see, chromosome 2 and the two ape chromosomes do not only differ structurally by being one vs two.

It's only one of thirteen major structural differences. + 100,000 locus differences.

"or face up to the fact that lowest age of consent on this planet is THE VATICAN CITY"

I think S. Carolina having stuck with 12 for girls were at least [19]95 lower than Vatican having raised to 14 for girls.

However, I am for the low age, not meaning I'd be for the even lower one of 9 which Muslims practise.

[not in all places anymore, but some, and that is their tradition]

"or that the Vatican used to celebrate hitters birthday"

As his birthday or bc of some other feast?

If the former, what decade?

When Hitler came to Rome in 40 or 42 or sth, Pius XII left the Vatican and closed all churches in Rome, so as to shun him.

"The idea of God kept people in line 2000 years ago, we've come long way since and know a lot more. God now is an old fashioned fairytale."

Nice try, but all of this does not prove that Gospels are bad history or not even meant as history at all.

+Jermie Fanning Cool you never believed Evolution at all. I believed it about age 6 and a few years on, even a year or so into being a Christian.



David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl you bury your head in the sand. Telomere fusion PROVED WITHOUT DOUBT humans evolved from apes. And don't say something like why are there still monkeys, that would further confirm your lack of understanding and grasp of the subject. Rather than read the bible read something by Francis Collins. He will teach you a thing or two and wake you up!

Jermie Fanning

+David Withington the whole ape theory. is still a theory. to say we evolved from apes which there is no proof of is krazy. and to say not to ask why do we still have apes. further shows that the evolution theory is krazy. because if u can say something like that but nit be able to answer a simple question, like why we still apes. says that you and the evolutionists have no answer any of this theory. evolution never stops. if we started from a single cell organisim and that we evolved to this point but all the sudden the evolution stopped. is a dead theory. cause if we did evolve and evolution is a constant change. then we would by theory. continue to evolve and become a far more superior species then we are now. and why would it of taken millions of years just to reach this point. when this earth is not millions of year old. and they say they know this from carbon dating. when carbon dating has been proven to be a false and unreliable science.

David Withington

+Jermie Fanning er telomere fusion in chromosome 2 PROVES evolution and clearly shows our chromosome changes that mutated to Homo sapiens US. what you don't want is evidence because you want God to be true. This evidence and Francis Collins work on the human genome knock your silly little invisible man in the sky fairytale into a cocked hat. For God there is no evidence, for evolution there is categoric PROOF, accept it and move on. Also get used to the fact you won't be going to heaven either, I mean really, how childish and immature. Grow up!

Dominick7

There are a ton of scholars who would argue that. Or do you I guess admit you just close your eyes to things you dont agree with that exist in reality. What you said is special pleading and completely false.

Your starting point is the problem. You judge matters based on what they are to you as opposed to what they are in themselves in objective reality. There are a number of other historical sources who were not believers that wrote about it. But that assumes that the NT itself is not reliable which is false and that what other eyewitnesses said cant be true if they believe in what theyre talking about. If you accept the Holocaust, Jews wrote some of the best records yet they had a "bias" against in that thy believed it happened and happened to them as eyewitnesses. The enemy attestation in response to the church fathers is also evidence for what they said.

Im not for Roman Catholicism AND affirm the Bible is true. You dont have to support freemason luciferian sex majik child sacrifice in the infiltrated roman catholic church mafia to believe in the Bible.

You get that as aresult of your prior assumptions and structure the data that way for the same reason. You are projecting and btw in Atheism you have no objective morality so you couldnt condemn child molestation as really and objectively wrong, or any errors or wrongs you see in the Bible, God or elsewhere for that matter. All you can say is you dont subjectively prefer child rape but you cant possibly say its objectively wrong or evil. Those are only meaningful where you have an objective standard of good which would be identical to a Theistic God.

David Withington

+Dominick7 brainwashed bullshit. Stop listening to bully's like turek. It's semantics to talk about objective and subjective morals. I'm just as malus tic as you and don't need someone else to tell me why. Grow up!

Dominick7

You use hateful and violent type rhetoric while trying to point him out as a bully. Nice job.

"It's semantics to talk about objective and subjective morals."

Do you believe that is objectively true or just subjectively concocted by you as something you just believe and made up or prefer but that it has no connection to objective reality?

Have no ideal what a malus tic is. You apparently do need help because what youre saying is barely coherent and youre contradicting yourself left and right and yet somehow dont see it. Its like you have no filter and dont check what you say before you say it in public.

David Withington

+Dominick7 go to church you ...

[censored]

Dominick7

I thought you were against bullying, yet in almost the same breath you're trying to tell me what to do while hatefully cursing at me. How does that work? Ohh wait, is it because you cant or wont answer my question because you'll be exposing your views as contradictory?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Dominick7 A few minor points (in relation to this debate):

"If you accept the Holocaust, Jews wrote some of the best records yet they had a "bias" against in that thy believed it happened and happened to them as eyewitnesses."

Exactly how many Jews were strictly speaking eyewitnesses to the gas chambers being used to kill human persons?

Jo Wajsblat was eyewitness to a gas chamber being used to scare him and other boys, but not kill them, though he assumed (without witnessing it, as far as I could tell) that the other 12 batches of 50 boys had been gassed.

50 persons swore under oath in Jerusalem to have been working on extracting corpses from gas chambers and putting them in crematories. But that was under Zionist jurisdiction. Also, it could be argued that certain relatives of disappeared prisoners might feel better about there relatives having been actually gassed than about their relatives having died slowly in typhus (there is an eye-witness account of dead and rotting typhus corpses lying around living but dying ones) or having abandoned Judaism.

That is not exactly the kind of support I see for the Gospels.

"You dont have to support freemason luciferian sex majik child sacrifice in the infiltrated roman catholic church mafia to believe in the Bible."

You don't have to be for infiltrators who recently took over in order to be a Catholic. And I mean Roman (or at least Palmarian or Remaining or whatever).

"You are projecting and btw in Atheism you have no objective morality so you couldnt condemn child molestation as really and objectively wrong, or any errors or wrongs you see in the Bible, God or elsewhere for that matter. All you can say is you dont subjectively prefer child rape but you cant possibly say its objectively wrong or evil. Those are only meaningful where you have an objective standard of good which would be identical to a Theistic God."

These are actually meaningful because there is a God.

So, they don't become meaningless per se because an Atheist is using or misusing them.

They are only a condemnation of his atheism.

+David Withington , some supplementary refutation:

"Telomere fusion PROVED WITHOUT DOUBT humans evolved from apes."

No, not without doubt, and considering the differences between human chromosome 2 and the two chimp chromosomes considered to correspond to it (13 structural including or excluding the supposed fusion + 100,000 or so in the genes) there is even a real doubt whether a telomere fusion occurred.

You react like a fandom, if your idol says "no doubt" you conclude for yourself and all others "there is no doubt" instead of digging into the doubts or even refutations you might come across.

"And don't say something like why are there still monkeys, that would further confirm your lack of understanding and grasp of the subject."

Actually, I was not going to say that.

I am fully aware that "evolution" whenever it occurs (like between variants of same kind, but evolution is a bad word for it) or is supposed to occur (like between kinds) involves one particular population drifting away from the original type due to selection which culls away certain gene variants or sometimes even mutations not culled away in it, while other populations of same kind may stay the same in other types of environment with other types of selective pressure.

"Rather than read the bible read something by Francis Collins. He will teach you a thing or two and wake you up!"

I doubt the latter very much, but who is he anyway, I get perhaps a bit more glory of refuting some stupid paragraphs by him than by refuting some stupid paragraphs by you (well, before men, if it gets known ... before God is another and more important matter, where refuting you to your face might be more meritorious).

"This evidence and Francis Collins work on the human genome knock your silly little invisible man in the sky fairytale into a cocked hat."

Ah, Francis Collins worked on the human genome? He's the guy with "no doubt" about human chromosome 2 forming by telomere fusion? Wonderful, in that case he will also have been the one to write on the other differences, and I'll be happy to see if 13 major structural plus 100,000 in the genes was correct or myself misrecalling what I had read years ago.

One thing, his having no doubt does not mean there is none. I respect his observations, I don't idolise his conclusions.

"For God there is no evidence,"

I suppose your dear Francis Collins has not read St Thomas Aquinas? I suppose he is able to twist the evidence sufficiently to be Heliocentric in order not to accept daily movement of universe as categoric proof for God moving it around us?

"for evolution there is categoric PROOF,"

Which one, apart from human chromosome 2 which I already refuted as far as we discussed it so far at least?

"accept it and move on."

Does not sound like you really wanted to discuss the evidence.

Sounds more like you want to get rid about a rival on the issue of debating evidence, a bit like as if you wanted that to be a privilege of evolutionists.

"Also get used to the fact you won't be going to heaven either, I mean really, how childish and immature. Grow up!"

Sounds like your version of "adult" means apostate.

"It's semantics to talk about objective and subjective morals."

Without semantics, there is no debate.

So, once again it sounds like you want to silence the debate.

"Grow up!"

So now "adult" is not just equal to apostate, but to incompetent in logic too, as much as you are incompetent yourself?

+ Dominick did a fine job of exposing your views as self contradictory.

+Jermie Fanning a few points:

"to say we evolved from apes which there is no proof of is krazy."

Indeed, apes can't talk.

And I am not speaking of not being able to do the sounds. They can't talk in other ways either.

"and to say not to ask why do we still have apes. further shows that the evolution theory is krazy. because if u can say something like that but nit be able to answer a simple question, like why we still apes."

They do, I gave it.

"evolution never stops. if we started from a single cell organisim and that we evolved to this point but all the sudden the evolution stopped. is a dead theory. cause if we did evolve and evolution is a constant change. then we would by theory. continue to evolve and become a far more superior species then we are now."

Some of them actually do dream of becoming the new titans - more like devils than a superior species if you ask me, but they do dream of that.

Better question would be: if evolution never stops ...

• ... why are archaea no longer neither evolving into bacteria nor into eucariotes nor into anything other than archaea? Not meaning "why are there still archaea", but why are they no longer branching off new other types?
  
  
• ... why have no other animals than apes evolved the kind of intelligence which can deal with a human TYPE language and abstract thought?
  
  
• ... why do extant apes show no tendency to so evolve? Not as in "why not all of them" but as in "why none of them"?
  
  
• ... why are no fish climbing onto land to become amphibians after that time supposedly 500 million years ago? Again, the question is not "why are there still fish" but why are there no land animals evolving from other fish than Caelocanths more recently?

+David Withington , this emended version of his original question is hereby also passed on to you.

Dominick7

If the holocaust happened and the Jews were eyewitnesses then they kept great records inspite of being biased against those they were recording about. But if youre asking me my view of it, if you do research and consider Jewish revisionists accounting, such as Cole in Auschwitz, or the greatest story never told about Hitler, a Holocaust never happened, most Germans dont believe it did either which is why its illegal to say so, and the numbers of those deaths went down significantly over time. Would be a great way to distract from how the US teamed up with a total monster in Russia. I realize they swore under oath. Check out Cole and Auschwitz then see what you think. He shows you the crematoriums and everything else so you dont have to just rely on testimony. Not sure what you mean by support for the gospels.

Who are you referring to as infiltrators? Jesuits? Your responses are kind of cryptic, if you coud be more direct or clarify Id appreciate it.

Correct objective morality as a fact doesnt become a non fact because an Atheist wants to argue as if morality was objective.. but the point was that they can state it but they as an Atheist cant meaningfully affirm, ground or justify their moral outrage unless they want to affirm the existence of a Theistic God who would make objective morality meaningful and possible. If they treat morality as objective they must reject their atheism in order to be consistent. If they want to be a consistent Atheist they will only say they dont like murder rape etc, but theres nothing wrong with it and theres no objective difference between loving a child and raping or butchering them. Without an objective standard theres no way to measure moral behaviors in an objective way. If morality comes from man, its subjective and concocted, based in personal preferences.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I meant the Gospels had the support of authors and men knowing authors dying martyrs' deaths in support of their veracity.

Holocaust story has nothing comparable, whatever it may otherwise be worth.

I will look up Cole and Auschwitz.

"Who are you referring to as infiltrators? Jesuits? Your responses are kind of cryptic, if you coud be more direct or clarify Id appreciate it."

Fulton Sheen received a convert from Communism who had said these - the Communist party - had been sending 1000s to the seminaries.

You may easily be a Jesuit without being an infiltrator, like that ex-Jesuit Saenz y Arriaga who considered Vatican II as the work of infiltgrators, as a counter-Church, and I think that other guy Malachy Martin who did not go so far, was also not an infiltrator.

Certain Catholics agreeing with these no longer call themselves "Roman". Pope Michael (if he's Pope) does, and he calls his work "vatican in exile", which is Roman enough. One so called Gregorio XVII, whom I once thought was Pope, did not, in his group they are called Palmarian Catholics. There was one sex offender in it, himself, and his victims were consenting adults, if religious consenting through obedience count as consenting. But anyway, Palmarian Catholics also reject that anti-Church.

One so called Alejandro IX, who I think may be an Antipope due to his beeing Feeneyite, also rejects what I just called the Anti-Church, his group is known as "Iglesia Católica Rimanente" and I suppose a member of it calls himself "Remaining Catholic" rather than either "Roman" or "Palmarian".

Or, perhaps, I should rather say : you could easily once upon a time be a Jesuit without being an infiltrator. These days, they seem so dedicated to loosing the faith and defending "Pope Francis". Whom I prudentially consider as The False Prophet.

Is that specific enough?

As to other theme - France is one of the countries where one can go to jail by being too specific.

Dominick7

Ah ok sure agree.

K yea was wondering guess you were just curious.

its pretty eye opening. Am really not liking learning.. seems the more I research and learn, the more crazy things get and it gets more challenging it is to try to figure out how to talk about things without sounding like a lunatic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Without sounding like a lunatic.

In certain places that is both difficult and a real practical necessity, though subordinate to veracity.

Guess you might hate me introducing you to Geocentrism, then ... tell me if you dare!

Dominick7

Oh wouldbt be surprised at all at that. For sure. Hard to know whos who. Part of me says once youre in you cant get out but then what about whistleblowers. Or are they just damage control like I believe Edward Snowden was/is. Yea think its those who rise to the top, the people underneath are usually more normal decent people. Id agree it was a counter protestant reformation and counter church. Heard of palmarian but hadnt looked into it. Interesting stuff.

Yes agree with how you rephrased that. Lol yea thats very specific great info ty. Agree. Go to jail for talking about certain things in France?

Yes lol.

Geocentrism? No hate. While I wouldnt necessarily call myself a flat earther, thats where the evidence points as far as I can see.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think there are indications flat earth is wrong (such as day and night at poles, their symmetry would not be there with a "South rim"), but no real ones for Geocentrism being wrong.

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl incorrect

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, name one indication for Geocentrism being wrong, then.

I didn't say there were no given or even no prima facie cases, I said there were no real ones.

* rubbing my hands for a chance of tearing your case to pieces .... *

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl well, read any science book instead of that idiotic fiction called the bible. Whatever I say you will claim it's false it's how your bible bashers roll. I will end by saying if God did exist I'd slit his .... throat he has served no good whatsoever. You're a slave having to join his club or else you'll be sent to hell.thats a gun to your head. What a ... that God must be.

[two blasphemies censored]

Jermie Fanning

+David Withington and if u believe in evolution u should just go ahead and slit your own throat.

David Withington

+Jermie Fanning that does not make sense thicko!

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl pervert

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"read any science book instead of that" [not quoting next words here]

You are treating science books with the reverence I reserve for the Word of God.

We can agree science books are not written by God, nor by "man" in the abstract (deified by some humanists), but by MEN.

So, since men can be wrong, what is your argument (feel free to take it from science books) that the conclusions about Earth moving around itself or around Sun are the right conclusions?

"Whatever I say you will claim it's false it's how your bible bashers roll."

Have you paid any attention to how I answered you previously?

There is a chance I might say one thing is false and tell you why.

There is also a chance I might say another thing is correct and tell you why it does not prove your point.

"pervert"

What for? Is name calling all you can do?

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl God is ..., science is not. We will never agree so go away and dream of a low age of consent you pervert.

[censored]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, you DID read a bit in my blogs, did you!

Or you spotted what I said about age of consent in Vatican?

Well, when it comes to consent to MARRY, why is a low age of consent suddenly these last decades perverted?

I am not pleading for a lower one than historically usual.

Now, some anti-God do attack the commandment of "no sex before marriage" by saying "what, you mean we have to wait to 18!"

Well, guess what, God and the Catholic Church do not mean that.

It is Liberals like house of Savoy in Italy and what Liberalism made for in Russia in 1830 which raises age of matrimonial consent and exponentially raises temptations against the "no sex before marriage" aspect of VI commandment.

But on top of that, some of these anti-God hypocrites will ALSO now call one a pervert if one wants to reverse a recent and bad trend in legislation!

You seem to be one of that crew!

a1seus

lol "So, since men can be wrong, what is your argument"

One argument can be that man got it wrong when it came to making up the god of the bible. The "word of god" describes a Bat as a bird, who has that kind of faith, for that kind of evolution?

"in Atheism you have no objective morality so you couldnt condemn child molestation"

lol sadly neither can the christian since there is plenty of child molestation done by gods own people for example there is one story where a prophet orders his men to keep all the virgins to themselves as young as 9, to kill off the men (their dads) kill off the women aren't virgins implying their mothers. So maybe you Christians learned child molestation is wrong from the atheist. bua ha ha

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"One argument can be that man got it wrong when it came to making up the god of the bible."

Man? If so MEN, not "man".

And one argument can be that men got it wrong [edit : on your side, as scientists], partly in making up what truth is, partly in other ways.

"The "word of god" describes a Bat as a bird, who has that kind of faith, for that kind of evolution?"

Using a DIFFERENT (and older) terminology does not constitute an ERROR in yours (a younger one, not necessarily false, but inapplicable in certain ways to texts not written in it).

"sadly neither can the christian since there is plenty of child molestation done by gods own people"

You mean by priests? Less than by other categories, less attacked.

Some of us not following God's law is no reason for us not to accept and uphold it.

Or were you referring to following misreading or misquote?

"for example there is one story where a prophet orders his men to keep all the virgins to themselves as young as 9, to kill off the men (their dads) kill off the women aren't virgins implying their mothers."

Bible passage, please?

Sure you are not referring to some extra-Biblical prophet, like Mohamet or (less likely) Joseph Smith/Brigham Young?

"So maybe you Christians learned child molestation is wrong from the atheist. bua ha ha"

Not likely.

Romans defined age of matrimonial consent as 14 for boys, 12 for girls. As long as they were pagans, you find tombs or other biographic items telling stories how someone was a bride at 11 or even 10. When Roman Empire became Christian, the 14/12 limit started to be respected. WELL before there was any widespread movement of Atheism. CENTURIES before.

a1seus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean by priests? Less than by other categories, less attacked.

I said by a prophet, so it had to be a commandment by your god and i reference one of the stories in the bible about it. also for atheist you used paganism as your "not likely" shit i ask what the hell does paganism have to do with atheist?

bible passage please? go s... you should know your bible and the goofy stories in it.

[censored]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I said by a prophet, so it had to be a commandment by your god and i reference one of the stories in the bible about it."

Unless it was some non-Christian prophet, like Mohammed?

"bible passage please? go s... you should know your bible and the goofy stories in it."

[censoring my original quote too]

I don't claim to know every passage in the Bible by heart, and if it was a story you quoted that really was from it, well, I think you quoted it wrong. Your memory deceives you.

"also for atheist you used paganism as your "not likely" shit i ask what the hell does paganism have to do with atheist?"

I did NOT use paganism for atheism.

I did say Pagans and Christians were around before Atheists were, and saying child molestation was clearly wrong was the merit of Christians, not of Pagans.

Now, some Pagans DO have sth to do with Atheists.

Epicureans were Pagan and Atheist. They worshipped the Pagan gods about as sincerely as you play around with Santa Claus and Easter Bunny.

These may presumably also have been among the Roman gentlemen who married ten year old or eleven year old girls.

At least I am not aware they heavily protested against this usage and flouting of actual Roman law (14/12 limit, as in Papal States up to 1870, when Italy conquered them).

a1seus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl If you are a pagan you cannot be an atheist you imbecile you are either one or the other.lol I said a prophet from YOUR BIBLE commands his army men to keep every virgin for themselves the girls were as young as 7 8 9 year olds

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean if you are a BELIEVING IDOLATER you cannot be atheist.

But PAGAN is distinct from BELIEVING IDOLATER (at least as far as theistic and polytheistic idolatrous beliefs are concerned).

If you mean the stories I think you do mean, I do not think 9 was mentioned as an age limit.

Also, it does not say the soldiers could immediately touch the girls they had taken.

So much for your pretence.

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl perverted cunt!

[not censored]

a1seus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

Pagans believe in god(s) you imbecile atheist is a disbelief in god(s) you goofy ...

[censored last one]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+David Withington seems to realise he has lost all arguments. Now he's trying insult.

+a1seus ...

"Pagans believe in god(s) you imbecile"

Not always all kinds of them.

Not always even the ones honoured by Paganism.

A Baal worshipper 1000 BC was probably a believer in Baal (if even that). A Zeus worshipper 100 BC, or 100 AD, not necessarily a believer in Zeus.

A worshipper of genius of Emperor 100 AD was probably most often NOT a believer in anything except social necessity of doing such worship.

"atheist is a disbelief in god(s) you goofy ..."

[censoring my quote of it too]

Atheism is certainly a disbelief in the Theist version of God. Not necessarily in all kinds of polytheistic divinities. But even if disbelieving, before Christianity came in and tied religion and philosophy together, he would usually have worshipped what he didn't believe in.

Caesar was certainly a Pagan priest and nearly as certainly an atheist.

Update

a1seus

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Atheism is certainly a disbelief in the Theist version of God. Not necessarily in all kinds of polytheistic divinities"

sounds like you want to redefine atheist to set up your little domino game here, seems to me you need to redefine atheist for your argument, you are like the goof trying to debunk materialism oh but for his argument, all of a sudden the word "Matter" isnt definable,sadly for him Materialism is based off the matter that can be defined, and sadly for you atheist means a disbelief in gods, if pagans didnt believe in god then they wernt pagans they are atheist, you see how that works, Wait?
shoooo
hear that? thats the sound of me breaking down your dominoes

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl No! If people look at your replies to me you state you favour a low age of consent, as low as 12. This makes you a perverted cunt. Also you are an atheist just like me. You don't believe in Mohammed, Vishnu, or any other God from other religions so you're an atheist to those religions. You only believe in one God more than me. You're getting closer to the truth than you think. Pervert!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"if pagans didnt believe in god then they wernt pagans they are atheist, you see how that works"

OK, the Pagans were atheist.

Even better for my case.

Since many of them and that often of élite, did not believe their gods.

And since the limit 14m/12f was disrespected by these Pagans who were in your terminology often your fellow atheists, while Christians were not going below it.

"you state you favour a low age of consent, as low as 12. This makes you a perverted cunt."

For girls. For boys it would be 14.

Do you know when normal full puberty is?

And how wide the spectrum of variation?

If God made 14 year old boys able to impregnate and 12 year old girls able to get pregnant, not just a few isolated cases (as age 9 would be) but about half of the time, well, 14/12 is the normal age of consent too.

[Exact half of cases would be a few months above 14 for boys and above 12 for girls. As in first pollution and menstruation.

Can't see what's perverted about that, except to your very parochial prejudice.

"You don't believe in Mohammed, Vishnu, or any other God from other religions so you're an atheist to those religions."

I do believe Mohammed and Joseph Smith existed. I just do not think their Jibreel or Moroni came from God.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are a very false concept about God, and Shiva, like Apollon, on top of that usually impersonated by the demon Abaddon/Apollyon.

But they are so to speak a guess about a God who is there, even if a bad guess.

Krishna as one "incarnation" or "avatar" of Vishnu was probably a real man.

So, no, my relation to Paganism is not quite the same as yours. I am not a Materialist and Mythicist Atheist about all Pagan deities, even if I consider them all as false deities.

David Withington

+Hans-Georg Lundahl thanks for proving to everyone just how much of a perverted cunt you are. If we ever came face to face I'd knock the shit out of you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh yeah?

The real perverts thank you.

They thrive on sexually desperate teens and on their needs of covering sex up.

Make that : their "need" socially imposed as such by late marriage legislations.

Not the real needs of teens.

Back at fourteen, best thing I could have done would have been to marry my first love.

Are Rabbis giving me more and more time to declare myself as "Messiah" as in Antichrist?

Look at this video:

Why The Antichrist Will Be Revealed on 30 August 2016 ?!
The Antichrist News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjKywDOZMQ

You are reading the date "Will Be Revealed on 30 August 2016 ?!" - right?

When I first watched it, the date was 5 May 2016.

Now, 5 May 2016 was Ascension Day 2016. As I was a bit worried they might be doing me such a trick, I am on that day concerned also to show myself as a Christian.

So, on a somewhat short internet times available to me that day, I make these posts:

Si les esprits ne viennent pas aux médiums, pourquoi ça marche?
Thursday, 5 May 2016
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:42
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/05/si-les-esprits-ne-viennent-pas-aux.html

I give the explanation by St Thomas Aquinas, with some explicatory details of my own observation.

Then hoping to finish the day on a purely Devout tone, I post this:

Bonum Festum Ascensionis Domini lectoribus Christi fidelibus exopto.
Thursday, 5 May 2016
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 09:43
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/05/bonum-festum-ascensionis-domini.html

But on FB, I find a very disturbing story, and I find it should be made known:

Also wishing an end to CPS, as they are
Thursday, 5 May 2016
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:15
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/05/also-wishing-end-to-cps-as-they-are.html

I think I made it very clear, I was not declaring myself as Antichrist or - in the language they would have wanted "Messiah of Israel" that day.

I think I made it very clear that, by the grace of God, I am a Christian Roman Catholic (see feast wish in Latin), I believe what the Church believes about divination (see French message on apparent success of superstitious divination), and abhor the Antichristian, truly such, Child Protective Services of Norway (as of my own country Sweden, which I have left).

Some network has decided to "give me more time", and the date announced on videos (all of a series, including one by Brother Nathanael) is now changed from May 5th this year to August 30th this year.

I was just listening, and what the Christian girl was telling people was to ignore whoever is claimed to be "Messiah".

I suppose the rabbis are using the Bible Code as by Rabbi Glazerson again.

He also predicted the advent of Messiah in Pesach 2012.

It coincided, then too, with a Catholic Feast : Easter started and ended a few days later than Pesach and so had coinciding days.

I was careful, back then too, to make it clear, I am not claiming to be Messiah.

There was a video where he showed the reading, he decided it may have been about wrong year after Creation, one should have not counted the year of Deluge ... I saw the reading too, though I do not know Hebrew, and I had another interpretation - but one also involving correctness of the reading, it was just his interpretation which was wrong.

I wonder whether Christians will all agree to "ignore me" as in "do not follow him" (God's word, but about those claiming Messianity, normally) as long as the rabbis are giving me more time?

I was not using the time they had given me before, and will not be using the time they give me now, other than to repeat that Jesus is the Messiah.

BUT, while Christians ignore me and do not even play my music, they are stealing away my carreer opportunities as a writer and composer.

Update, the video with the girl is showing a text where rabbi so and so has predicted advent of Messiah « At the end of this Sabbatical year », namely the one which « will » (back then was going to « be ending on 29th Day of Elul, which by Gregorian Calendar falls on Saturday, September 12, 2015 ». So, the owner of the channel has taken old videos – in themselves perfectly good ones ! – and then gone on to change, not the dates spoken or show in writing on videos, that he could not, but the dates shown in title of the video, which he could change.

... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

1) ... on Roswell Creatures and Peer Review (starring M McQuarrie) · 2) ... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Never underestimate the power of deeply impious people to rationalise their beliefs in Evolution ...

Ward McCreery

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution exists whether you believe it or not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Creation happened whether you believe it or not, so did Flood.

Ward McCreery

The difference is evolution has evidence other than a moldy old book

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No it did not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Ward McCreery, if you call bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or ability to digest citric acid "evolution", well, there is evidence, it is being observed or was observed in the very recent past, last few decades, but it does not contradict our book.

If you call bacteria (or sth else, whatever) evolving into multicellular organisms, these starting to reproduce by sex, developing spines, leaving sea and starting to breathe air and a few more things like that, well, it does contradict our book, and there is no evidence for it.

+M McQuarrie Flood is abundantly evidenced in the fossil record which evolutionists want millions and billions of years in order to sort it into diverse non-global-Flood disasters and sedimentations.

And when layers that correspond to "millions of years" were all folded at same time, or when trees go through layers supposedly for hundred thousand years, well, your explanation works a bit badly.

Creation is evidenced in a Tychonian universe (which I suppose you dispute) and in the soul of man (which I also suppose you dispute).

Tychonian universe is most direct explanation for our viewings or observations, soul is most direct or even only viable explanation for our being able to think.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What about it?

Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc.

[sorry, missed distinction here]

I am in this reply presuming "Hitchens' razor" is a variety of Occam's.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc."

Lame straw-man of what evolution actually is.

And you're wrong about Hitchens' Razor too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+M McQuarrie, so you pretend evolution is NOT pretending some one celled organisms like bacteria evolved to man?

Good, then you might not be an evolutionist!

As for Hitchens' Razor, your turn to explain!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Find the correct definition of evolution and I'll explain Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you DO say"

That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it.

The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not.

If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have) try a credited source:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Or if you want to ignore me, please do. You creationists twats are effectively done.

The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it."

OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?

[Did not even name bacteria here!]

That this transition and whatever development there was before it is "pre-evolution" because evolution deals with how individual variations get or don't get a chance for sexual reproduction?

Or did you take umbrage on my placing "bacteria" where your credited source places "archaea"? And bacteria also developing from them?

I said "bacteria or something like that", I was pretty careful not to single out bacteria specifically among the one-celled organisms.

[Except once, in haste. Btw, CMI has the more correct "amoeba to man evolution" - I was just not much interested in caring too much about distinction archaea vs bacteria. No incorrectness of source involved.]

"The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not."

Gravitationists don't, I do think there would be a point to use "Newtonians", "Einsteinians" for the diverse tribes of gravitationists. One could, for instance, take the stand that apple falls to ground because of electromagnetism (I am not sure that believers in electromagnetic universe do that, they might be Newtonians about why apple falls to ground while yet being electro-magneticists about why planets orbit whatever they orbit), or that apple falls to ground because it is made up of heavy stuff and thus has centre of universe for its natural place.

Aside of course from that little detail that debating evolutionists is more common than debating gravitationists.

"If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have)"

OK, "twats", "you dolt", "wilful ignorance and deceit", I kind of sense a slight animosity even before the debate begins.

Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?

"Or if you want to ignore me, please do."

Actually, you start to sound a bit interesting.

"You creationists twats are effectively done."

You mean sth like we will be by tomorrow?

Predicting the future? Have you taken drugs or are you hypnotising yourself on crystal balls?

"The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now."

So, you are progressive left or progressive right or progressive sth else .... what exactly are the left or the regressive ones of them so dangerous idiots about?

Perhaps I should have enumerated politics along with crystal balls and fumes of burning laurel, or whatever it was the poor Pythia used!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?"

Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution. What is evolution hasn't really changed all that much and you can read all about it here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Twat.

"Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?"

Well we also have facts, science and reality.

Dolt.

And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution."

Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled.

Each position merits a name.

Which of them agrees with evolution?

"Well we also have facts, science and reality."

And above all ignoring each of these, and logic too, whenever it is convenient to you.

[And manners, hoping bad manners will impress whoever it will impress ....]

"And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it."

Two problems:

• 1) you still pretend to foresee what happens tomorrow;
  
  
• 2) you also pretend to know what "I need to understand".

Both of these statements are really nothing but divination.

Do you read it in cards? I certainly did not offer you my palm to read, I don't do your superstition.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled."

False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is.

And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

[I was accusing him of playing the snob and of ignoring basic logic. Not of "ignoring the facts" of how evolution is supposed to work. Except on the unlikely but still mentioned alternative he did NOT think many-celled organisms evolved from one-celled. I did not say I thought it the likelier alternative.]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding.

But you haven't.

Which is why you are a dishonest twat.

As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind.

People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is."

I don't think so.

I think the alternatives were not two allegations which could both be false, but one allegation with its direct negation, of which not only both cannot be true, but both cannot be false.

You seem ignorant of logic.

"And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding."

As to distinction between archaea and bacteria, I did so correct it at first glance at your credited source.

If you meant sth else, be a bit precise as to what you meant and where I could have corrected whatever misunderstanding you meant.

"But you haven't."

I did as much as I had time for. Before answering.

If you require me to lecture myself an all the content of their site before returning to your simply flouting of logic, you are unreasonable.

That is not how debates work.

If you want to correct a specific misunderstanding, you point out:

• what is the exact misunderstanding
• what is the exact correct position
  AND
• what your source is, specific on page, unless you can claim forgetting.

So, what exact page in your credited source would explode my simple observation as a false dichotomy?

"Which is why you are a dishonest twat."

I am not replying in kind for cuss words, but dishonest is how you come forth to me.

"As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind."

Most of them concentrated to one corner of mankind, which is not the one reproducing fastest.

I have also heard a more credible claim Islam is on the rise.

But whichever of the two rises quicker, there is such a thing as reversal of trends.

You are yourself a product of one.

Protestantism and Atheism are reversals of the trend of Pagan societies in Europe to become more Catholic.

Both are most prevailing either in Europe or colonies and former colonies or in near colonies. And least of these perhaps in former colonies. Or some of them.

So, they reverse the trend of the model societies to go from Pagan to Catholic.

Trends can be reversed.

Therefore your supposed rational argument for your prediction rests on the lie that trends cannot be reversed.

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America."

Part reversal of the Protestant trend which produced US, perhaps?

Not that I care for Bernie. He's pro-abortion and probably pro-government run schools as in anti-homeschooler. NOT social justice.

And suppose your trend won, what good would it bring you?

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things."