Saturday, September 23, 2017

... on Rachel's Take on Biddle, Part 1 Video


Part 1: Is The Bible Reliable? 'Genesis As History'
Rachel Oates | added / Ajoutée le 21 sept. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z1peBQQ96o


2:20 Difference from Quran.

Bible is a collection of 73 books (Daniel Biddle recognises 66, some Orthodox recognise a few more than we Catholics).

The 66 books would have 40 different authors, some of them also intermediate authors before the final one, because they stretch over too much history to work otherwise. Even in non-historic ones, some parts have been added later than others, Psalms are typically by King David, but psalm 137 is clearly from Babylonian captivity, hundreds of years later.

So, it is more impressive for 40 human authors to receive what can be considered as one divine revelation over several media, like collective history, like personal revelations in dreams, like personal revelation by dictation, and still all 40 or more authors agree between them, than for one man to have a revelation and it is consistent.

Suppose the Quran is consistent (there are people saying it contradicts itself wildly, but let us not overdo it) that means either God spoke to Mohammed consisitently, or a devil did, or he invented consistently.

But with 40 different men, and with a devil continually adapting his lies to different circumstances, you can forget the theory of 40 men inventing revelation with full consistency and you can also consider the Devil would be hard put to readapt lies contrary to the ones he was using then and there, over and over again. Lies aren't all that useful. Without human inventors and without the Devil being able to do the work, that leaves God.

If you want to compare the Quran to anything in the Bible, it reads (the little I have read) as a mixture of Isaiah and Psalms - there is no history in it, except glimpses. Muslims know their history, not from the Quran, but from Hadiths and Sunnah - much of which is taken over from Christian and Jewish sources.

This means, the Quran doesn't have a trouble of consistent historiography, because it is not doing any continuous historiography. It also means that when Wahhabis copy Protestant "Bible alone" to "Quran alone", the Wahhabis can't prove Young Earth creationism from their criterium. I am fairly widely, if not well, known by Muslims in the Paris region, and was more so when going to George Pompidou library. I have met Muslims who knowing I am a young earth creationist blogger have criticised me for that, as if my criterium were to be judged by theirs, a Quran which has nothing to say on the subject.

As the Quran makes very little historic claims, and as Muslims are very wary about taking history too seriously, it is a bit difficult for a Muslim to ditch the Quran due to its ahistoricity.

The Bible, by contrast, makes historic claims, and some guys are ditching it because they believe it is incorrect on them.

2:28 Both involve rules, both are considered holy texts by their adherents.

Perhaps both claim to be different from any other book too - but there are only so many right religions, namely one, and there are fairly many wrong ones, so only one of these books could be right in the claim.

What Biddle has so far said is still consistent with the Bible being wrong in the claim : he is introducing why he is putting it to some kind of test, isn't he?

2:32 If by fiction you mean stories, I don't think you will find too much of that in the Quran.

It is a claim on precisely ONE man receiving and being supported by other men HAVING received a revelation from God. How do we know what Jesus or Moses thought about the matter?

Oh, Mohammed gets a revelation, which tells us what Jesus or Moses said. It didn't occur to him (or did it?) to actually check books older than his own revelation and see what Moses is supposed to have written himself or what Jesus is supposed to have said according to His disciples, no, Mohammed's revelation trumps all that.

Guess where a lot of scepticism on Gospels come from ... and yes, the West has been in contact with Muslims fairly intensely at times, since the first Crusade, in 1089 [1095, sorry].

2:41 Obviously, the claim that the Bible is (through at least 40 different people using different methods, some clearly simply normal historiography, as applied by a religious believer not excluding miracles) also does involve that armed force is sometimes right and homosexual acts are wrong.

But I thought you were giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt, weren't you?

Will you at least go to Daniel [Biddle] for the answer?

2:59 The start of the chapter was more like, what is the challenge, what does Daniel need to prove.

Seeing your reaction, it seems he took a mouthful ... and I think he knows it.

3:02 "I mean that is circular logic."

There is no such fault. He has not committed any circular proofs, so far, beyond what you are reading into his words through gratuitous "reading between the lines". You seem very much trained to read that between the lines, and very little eager to explain exactly what circular proof he is supposed to commit.

For example: "Here is what the Bible claims. [Quotes] This is what the Bible claimed, therefore it is true." But you never allow him to speak that far, you interrupt him before he even gets to the quotes.

And in fact, I don't think that is what he is going to say either.

3:31 No, you still get wrong what he said in the introduction. First of all, he was not asking whether the Bible was true, but whether the truth of the Bible implies the historic truth of Genesis 1-11. Second, he was not giving judgement on whether it is true, he was just saying, if it isn't, he would have to ditch the whole Bible. Which of course he was not willing to do.

This means, you are misquoting what he said previously, or misreferring it, to back up your misinterpretation now.

And one more thing, for 40 different persons who haven't met each other and who lived in extremely different circumstances in times very different from each other, to have "same agenda" is in itself fairly remarcable.

One explanation - not your first pick, no doubt - would of course be that they were constrained by the facts of the case, by the revelation already both given and proved to them by historically attested miracles.

3:36 "I can't accept as really being all that meaningful"

I agree, misreading what someone is saying is not very meaningful, and the result is not very meaningful.

Btw, if on any point I do misread you, how about your "shouting out". While you might not convince me, I'd have to take it somehow into account.

3:48 The question is not if Bible is reliable. The question is how reliable the Bible has to be not to be a fraud.

It is like you are not just hiring any baby sitter, you are hiring one which claims to be Mary Poppins. Before you start hiring her, you might want to know if she really is Mary Poppins. And when you start looking around, you might want to preface the research with "hey, this babysitter claims to be Mary Poppins". That might be why you go to family Banks for a photograph of their known Mary Poppins and so on.

4:10 Babysitters tend to make money. Has it occurred to you some Bible authors weren't (clearly unlike Mohammed who died a millionaire or equivalent).

And they knew they had no monetary interest.

4:22 If you want to know how Moses is like a babysitter, you might want to ask someone he babysat - like David or Daniel or Ezra or Jesus.

So, past client is actually part of the testing over several centuries by different people receiving not verbally or topically identical, but consistent revelation.

Oh, btw, Mohammed was not babysat by either Moses or Jesus, by either Genesis or Gospel of St Matthew.

4:38 The people who wrote the Bible were independent of those currently making money of it.

4:46 Yes, we understand you want pure fact, unbiassed in favour of the Bible.

Perhaps you might want to take a cue from its enemies?

_____________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

The bulk of the inscription deals with Merneptah's victory over the Libyans, but the last 3 of the 28 lines shift to Canaan:[12]


The princes are prostrate, saying, "Peace!"
Not one is raising his head among the Nine Bows.
Now that Tehenu (Libya) has come to ruin,
Hatti is pacified;
The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe:
Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yano'am is made non-existent.
Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.


The "nine bows" is a term the Egyptians used to refer to their enemies - the actual enemies varied according to time and circumstance.[13] Hatti and Hurru are Syro-Palestine, Canaan and Israel are smaller units, and Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam are cities within the region; according to the stele, all these entities fell under the rule of the Egyptian empire at that time.[14]

___________
So, in 1208 BC - I suspect more recently, but I am not sure about details of recalibrating Egyptian chronology, I'll leave it at that - Merneptah is somewhere in Egypt claiming there won't ever be any Israelite any more. He is claiming he made sure of that, perhaps by infanticide, perhaps by castration, or whatever else might be meant by "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". Rohl redates Merneptah to Merneptah 888 BC to 875 BC.

United Kingdom of Israel is dated to "This is traditionally dated between 1050 and 930 BCE," (I would actually place it somewhat earlier, with Syncellus and St Jerome, but it is clearly after 1208 BC) and "Modern historians are divided on the historicity of the United Monarchy as described in the Bible.[5] There is little extrabiblical evidence of a United Kingdom of Judah and Israel in the 10th century BCE." - Except that Rohl identified Layaba in Amarna letters with Saul, which makes a change in Egyptian chronology.

But what if Merneptah was as late as 888?

"According to the Hebrew Bible, the Kingdom of Israel (Hebrew: מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, Modern Mamlekhet Yisra'el, Tiberian Mamléḵeṯ Yiśrāʼēl) was one of two successor states to the former United Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Historians often refer to the Kingdom of Israel as the "Northern Kingdom" or as the "Kingdom of Samaria" to differentiate it from the Southern Kingdom of Judah." "The Kingdom of Israel existed roughly from 930 BCE until 720 BCE, when it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The major cities of the kingdom were Shechem, Tirzah, and Shomron (Samaria)."

This means that Merneptah can't have wiped out the Samarian kingdom either.

[ Edit : As it lasted after him, even on his placing by Rohl.]

So, we clearly find Merneptah bragging about an exploit he didn't do. This is not evidence from the Bible, but from its enemies. And that might be the kind of thing Biddle comes to later in the chapter, if you ever actually read it instead of ranting about opening lines.

5:25 "it tells us nothing, does it"

It tells us exact how big the burden of proof is, which Biddle might be coming to.

5:43 Here you did an excellent job.

How do we know The Blair Witch Project is NOT real history?

Maybe your take is "it contains things that just don't happen", well, that is useless to any Christian and leaves me wondering why Sherlock Holmes is not history on your view, Conan Doyle's work being remarkably free from "things that just don't happen".

For my own part, I trust the TRADITION that Sherlock stories and Blair Witch project were published as entertainment.

And precisely same way, I trust the TRADITION that Genesis and Exodus, Kings and Gospels and Acts were NOT published as entertainment.

5:55 But they weren't real - how do we know that?

Well, if they had been, there might have been some kind of police investigations going on. As far as we know from TRADITION this was not the case. If they had been, the guys involved might not have come out afterwards and said things like "this is how we wanted TO DO the film". Perhaps you know from TRADITION they did make such statements. If they had been, none of the faces would have reappeared as actors in other films, and TRADITION here in the guise of wikipedia tells me that

  • Heather Donahue
  • Michael C. Williams
  • Joshua Leonard


were starring and Heather Donahue has been acting from then to now, Michael C. Williams has done acting twice since then, and:

Joshua Granville Leonard (born June 17, 1975) is an American actor, writer and director, known primarily for his role in The Blair Witch Project (1999). He has since starred in films such as Madhouse (2004), The Shaggy Dog (2006), Higher Ground (2011), The Motel Life (2012), Snake and Mongoose (2013), If I Stay (2014), The Town That Dreaded Sundown (2014), and 6 Years (2015).

In other words, we have this information from TRADITION which says that everyone involved is habitually taking money for an entertainment type involving fiction.

With Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, we can debate on whether he was into fiction or docufiction, but we know he was living some centuries after events. As OTHER sources are not treating Homer as fiction, I am siding for docufiction. Zeus and Athena on Mount Olympus debate Ulysses? Fiction, no human observer involved, Homer is not even actively claiming to have this from a vision. Ulysses did some excellent archery against the suitors? Probably true.

But you could of course treat OTHER sources (involving Livy) as also writing fiction, including about the Carthaginian Wars ... you usually don't do that, but that is about the equivalent of your take on the Bible.

6:39 The reward is at least as testable as health benefits from doing yoga.

Daniel gives a claim, this logically means (since he is not the fool you are consistently protraying him as) he is going to back it up in one way or another.

6:46 OK, you can test it.

Btw, if you are living together with Dan, one first way of testing it would be to get married and ditch the condoms or pills or whatever you are using.

7:13 There being a reward is clearly proof it is something one has at least some interest in following, as for C.

As for A and B, that is another matter. BUT Biddle has so far NOT been cited as saying this promise proves that the Bible is true.

All I see is your citing "here are the claims the Bible makes", and I would expect, after that, not the "therefore it is true" which you pull in at every single passage, but a "let's see how we can test them". Which for some reason, at 7:13 in 10:51, you have still not cited.

I expect his first test (from content list seen on screen) to be "can we trust the transmission, or must we fear it is completely garbled" (a very valid question on other grounds too, like Muslims claiming Bible is completely garbled, since otherwise it would be too good evidence against certain parts of the Quran, where it speaks on Biblical characters).

And with 3 minutes and 38 seconds left, you have still not touched on his answer.

8:02 Tent makers is cute, perhaps, but it is also a fact.

When St Paul considered these guys he had converted were not up to supporting his existence financially, he made tents for a living.

UNLESS you have good reason to claim that is a fictional statement. Suppose Luke lied about it in Acts 18:3, see quote here:

[1] After these things, departing from Athens, he came to Corinth. [2] And finding a certain Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with Priscilla his wife, (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome,) he came to them. [3] And because he was of the same trade, he remained with them, and wrought; (now they were tentmakers by trade.)

In other words, in Corinth, St Paul was returning to a trade he already knew. If Luke was not lying.

How about this:

[7] For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you; [8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you.

II Thessalonians [chapter 3] - claimed to be written by same St Paul.

In other words, he was claiming to the recipients to have, visibly to them, supported himself by working - if he knew tentmaking, it is clearly possible. And if the letter was actually sent by him to them, he would have been stupid to say sth which they knew not to be true. Right?

A fraud might tell you "when I was younger, I made tents with my bare hands", but he would hardly tell you "a while ago, YOU SAW ME work hard" if in fact he hadn't done that.

So, if he was not making tents, there is some VERY elaborate and hard to explain fraud going on here.

Oh, one more thing. You might try to solve the mystery by claiming he either never wrote or never sent that letter. Well, if it was written in his lifetime, he would have said "no, that is not from me, don't be silly, you know I didn't work", and if it was written long after, how did the real writers convince Thessalonian Christians they had been receiving this letter decades or perhaps a century earlier, when they hadn't?

8:16 How we know there were this many authors ... let's say someone wanted to tell you Aeneid was in fact written by Homer, or conversely Iliad and Odyssey by Virgil - how would you go about proving them wrong?

Obviously, you would go to HISTORY of TEXT RECEPTION, also known as TRADITION.

Suppose Iliad and Odyssey were written by Virgil, that would mean they weren't there when Plato and Socrates discussed them.

This means that if Iliad and Odyssey were forgeries from well after Plato and Socrates, the passages in Plato where Socrates is discussing Iliad and Odyssey (and sometimes quoting lines) are in fact also forged.

But this raises another question : if this passage in Plato (author name, and Socrates is a character he claims to have studied under) is forged by someone wanting to project Iliad or Odyssey far back, how come this succeeded?

Is Plato all forged? What about everyone before Virgil who claimed to have read Plato? Are their writings forged too?

Or is Plato genuine, just the passage spurious? Well, that would be hard with a genuine text, because all we see from authors well before Virgil, is that Plato was well known, at least what we have preserved from him. The list begins at least with his disciple Aristotle, who disagreed with him. And what is more, disagreed with him on the subject of poetry, of epic poetry, of Iliad and Odyssey.

You would have to say while Iliad and Odyssey are forged, while a passage in a dialogue of Plato is mysteriously forged, all of Aristotle's Poetic (that is the title of one of his works, the one I spoke about) is forged.

In other words, finally you come up with a burden of forgery which no forger would possibly be able to furnish. Artists, including forgers, tend to have knacks of their own style, recurring in work after work. We are not all of us very good at varying ourselves, and a man forging BOTH Iliad AND Odyssey AND a passage in Plato in all text traditions we have of the work (and one very well integrated in the rest of the dialogue too, it is hard to imagine how it would have looked like before the supposed forgery) AND a whole work of Aristotle, though not his most difficult one, that is somewhat too much for a forger.

And if you wanted a committee of forgers, why not accept the Moon landing fake while you are at it? It is easier to pinpoint NASA or some top responsibles in NASA as a potential committee of forgers, than to pinpoint any reasonable committee of forgers behind Iliad and Odyssey and their mention in Plato and this being mentioned in Aristotle. Virgil belonged to a school of poets, not to a school of philosophers, even supposing he had known Homeric Greek (which is another Greek than Classic Attic or Alexandrian Koiné, or than newer Ionic of Herodotus) well enough to forge the one, he might have had severe difficulties in doing two as clearly opposed philosophers as Plato and Aristotle. Especielly, Plato is writing in Classic Attic (he is one of the models for its correct usage), while Aristotle is on the verge to Alexandrian Koiné, but not quite over the limit totally either.

I am not taking your word for your having read all 17 pages of the chapter and not having come across one single indication of how we know who wrote what in general.

8:44 If he really doesn't say we generally know who wrote what in what purpose if there is a tradition from back to the author, perhaps he was too much taking it for granted.

YOU are taking it for granted yourself, when you so to speak "know" Blair Witch project was not real events.

And rightly so.

9:21 "who found this out"

Accumulated knowledge in unbroken tradition is not something one finds out, except as a new member of the tradition.

It's like asking "who found out that Tolkien was the author of Lord of the Rings?"

Tolkien and his friends. His publisher. Everyone else. AND since it has not been forgotten (even by you atheists so far!) it is not something someone has a need to "find out".

One could remark, there are people who study these questions, and he has chosen the conservative and Christian scholarship, excluding some Catholics and all Orthodox insofar as he takes the Masoretic timeline (Exodus took place in 1510 BC, not 1450, or perhaps even 1600's BC). Atheists usually prefer the set of scholars one can call Modernist, the equivalent of saying if not Virgil, well, at least Apollonius Rhodus wrote Iliad and Odyssey, and if Plato gave bits and pieces of Homer, that only means some scraps previously existing were available to Apollonius Rhodus. But we can't presume it was the whole poem or sth.

In this last minute of the video, you claim Biddle is not giving any clues on why we know the facts we do about the Bible, authorship and external evidence for this (external evidence for inspiration would be ensuing chapters, like testing Genesis against evidence).

The chapter you claim to have studied is from page 14 to page 30 or so (next one begins on page 31). This according to preview on Amazon which features list of contents.



You have not been giving the content of 16 pages in this critique. You have chosen a few tidbits you found easy to attack.

https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-History-Biblical-Scientific-Evidence/dp/1542970210#reader_1542970210

Oh, it is only the first part of a longer footage on the chapter?

We'll see if you do better on next video.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

... on Inbreeding and Bible


Genetic Mutations In Humans that Caused By Inbreeding
Mega News | Ajoutée le / added 18 avr. / April 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzQndaIGSVw


I am not sure you got title right.

The mutations are not caused by inbreeding.

Getting the same mutation in two chromosomes, one from father and one from mother, well, not always caused by inbreeding, but it is a risk factor.

But inbreeding will not "cause a mutation" not previously caused by ... mutation. Which is not caused by inbreeding.

Get a condition which is autosomal recessive, it will show up more often through inbreeding (and that can have contributed to non-patholigical conditions diversifying ethnicities, after Babel).

BUT inbreeding will NOT involve causing a mutation which is autosomal recessive, either bad or harmless, it will only help it to surface more often or even give rise to populations where it is the norm. The latter probably not in cases of bad mutations.

Mentioning this due to prevalence of certain memes in creation versus evolution debate (inbreeding being the norm in some degree after Adam and Eve, after Flood - at least cousins - and after Babel in some populations).

Some would consider the skin colour of the "white race" is a kind of albinism. Though it is not the same as albinism.

[video claims examples to the contrary:]

4:25 The story behind Habsburg jaw is not of evolving a long under jaw from nothing, it comes from marriage:

It is alleged to have been derived through a female from the Mazovian branch of the princely Polish family of Piast. The deformation of lips is clearly visible on tomb sculptures of Mazovian Piasts in the St. John's Cathedral in Warsaw. However this may be, there exists evidence that the trait is longstanding. It is perhaps first observed in Vlad Dracula (1431–1476/77) and Maximilian I (1459–1519).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prognathism#Mandibular_prognathism_.28progenism.29

6:50 No, inbreeding can not per se (by natural genetics) have caused the mutation leading to elongated skulls.

It can come from nephelim, it can come from some divine judgement, it can be just a freak mutation which happened to become valued in certain places (Paracas and Egypt), like in Japan a crab with a human face design will be spared by fishermen, and in Egypt is was preserved by inbreeding. But it was not caused by it.

After comments:

Now, there is a little quirk to this. Creationists have for quite some time been saying mutations are not caused by inbreeding, they just surface because of it. And now we have two videos from the same channel speaking of mutations as "caused by" inbreeding (one video) or incest (the other).

It seems like a media stunt to make creationism look bad./HGL

On Susan's Bow


Two Takes on Susan, My Takes on Them · On Susan's Bow

Best medieval weapons for WOMEN
Shadiversity | Ajoutée le 22 déc. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSy9GLi2H44


3:24 I think Susan was given a bow because it is not a melee weapon.

Suppose pulling a bow needs same strength or greater strength than swinging Peter's sword Rhindon.

Even so, Susan only pulls it once in order to get rid of two Telmarines (one preferring to flee, when other was down, hit on helmet), while Peter needs to swing his sword clearly more than once in fighting Miraz (and even then was on the loosing edge, if it hadn't been for Glozelle and Sopespian).

5:17 Noting that when a girl uses a weapon to threaten, not attack, Jill is using a dagger, held against the throat of a sleepy guard, not a bow held back more than 30 seconds.

I suppose C. S. Lewis, being an ancient* military, did know what one could expect a girl to achieve with either weapon type.

Would you say Tolkien (also ancient* military) gets anything wrong? Obviously, elves using bows is no problem, since Legolas is obviously stronger, though not looking like it, than Orlando Bloom. Same for dwarfs. And hobbits are mostly using, if anything, short swords (but one bow held in menace, Scouring of the Shire, was it a cross-bow?)

6:01 You just made the case for Susan's archery.

* old, former. I am pansing in terms of Francey ... "ancien militaire"!

Or, as here, rather supplementary queries, to NativLang on Rhymes


What's the reason and rhyme for rhymes?
NativLang | Ajoutée le 18 juil. 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5LoMp0TXiI


I on Mnemotechnics:

Speaking of memory : how well do the chapters 2 to 6 in Genesis rhyme or how mnemotechnic are they, in Hebrew?

I mean, chapter 1 is from Moses getting a revelation on Sinai (unless chapter 1 was given to Adam and Jubilees to Moses, as some claim), but 2 - 6 would have been preserved by pre-Flood patriarchs, 7 - 11 by patriarchs living post-Flood, before Abraham had a whole caravan of servants who might preserve some papyrus (he could have got the first of that in Egypt) or similar.

I reckoned, learning them by heart is at least not impossible (if you think it is, tell that to Milman Perry or to both, he / they might need a laugh).

But are they very mnemotechnic or just short and syntactically simple enough?

II on Rhyme Schemes:

2:15 "within 3 seconds"?

Hmmm ... is this expectation fulfilled when hearing poems with rhyme schemes involving patterns like ABBA?

... correcting an Afro-American on History, Geography and Morals - And Learning Some Too!


This video is a speech. It involves some examples of Africans not succeeding and White Men succeeding, and while the general sentiment has some truth in it, the pastor bungles historic detail, and he also, which is worse, gets morals wrong.

Africans Have Never Built a Major Enduring City in 3,000 Years
ATLAHWorldwide | Ajoutée le / added 8 oct. 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZkE3xB8o8A


1:57 "most people were of the mindset that the Earth was flat, and if you sailed too far" [you would fall off the edge, right?]

Excuse me, one little moment, where do you get that fact from?

We know St Thomas Aquinas did not think so. Where did he say ignorant people thought so anyway?

We know St Albert the Great didn't think so. Where did he say ignorant people thought so?

You may be thinking of certain writers a little further to the edge of Europe. On Iceland, people were, even as Christians, eagerly studying the epics and also myths of Pagan times, and one of them seems to indicate an Earth which is flat with a vault of Heaven that has the basic shape of a cheese bell (made of a giant's skull, held up in four corners by the dwarfs North, South, East and West, above that disc). But even on Iceland, perhaps you were not really believing these myths after Christianity, so it is a moot point whether Icelanders believed in a Flat Earth. What is not moot is that Iceland had a very different mentality from the rest of Europe.

[The following after he gets in St Petersburg along with Oxbridge:]

2:32 Peter the Great was however:

  • quite a few centuries after 11th and 12th centuries
  • two centuries after Portuguese had conquered lots of Africa
  • since around 1700 he and Charles XII of Sweden were fighting the Great Nordic War.
  • AND he was a kind of Antichrist, a man changing laws and (if he had dared, probably even) seasons.


Now, Charles XII was perhaps even more of an Antichrist, if he didn't ruin Sweden it was partly due to being off to war so much.

2:54 Was it England, wasn't it Holland he visited?

The problem is, he didn't only bring back ship building. He also brought back and forcefully foisted on Russian Church the 66 book canon. And forcing men to shave their beards (which Holland didn't, they were shaving voluntarily).

3:13 Black Sea and St Petersburg are two distinct things.

Black Sea would be the city Azov, which he started taking from the Turks.

St Petersburg is on terrain he conquered from us Swedes. It is in a deep bay, the corner furthest in, 42 islands in all, and it has two coasts going West from there, the North coast of the bay belongs to Finland, which Sweden kept despite him, but Russia conquered later, the South coast of the bay is on Estonia, which he conquered from Sweden.

3:35 Leningrad was not so named by Lenin:

"On January 26, 1924, five days after Lenin's death, Petrograd was renamed Leningrad."

Thank you, wikipedia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg#Revolution_and_Soviet_Era_.281917.E2.80.931941.29

3:48 No, it was not just after the death of Lenin that Leningrad was changed back to St Petersburg. It was decades later.

"Nach einer Volksabstimmung, in der sich am 12. Juni 1991 54 Prozent der Bevölkerung für die Rückkehr zum historischen Namen ausgesprochen hatten, nahm die Stadt am 6. September 1991 wieder den Namen Sankt Petersburg an. Die umgebende Verwaltungseinheit blieb aber ebenfalls nach einer Volksabstimmung weiterhin als Leningrader Gebiet (Oblast Leningrad) bestehen."

I mean 6 of Sept 1991 (my 23:rd birthday) is some decades after 1924, when Lenin died!

Danke, die Wikipädie!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankt_Petersburg#Russische_F.C3.B6deration.2C_Sankt_Petersburg

4:17 He was Russia's Benjamin Franklin ... you got that one correct.

Enlightenment probably has as one of its roots admiration for Peter the Great - and Benjamin Franklin lived some decades after him. Peter the Great died 8 February [Old Style 28 January] 1725 and Benjamin Franklin was born January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705 - i e, English new year would have been on March 25 a few months later]. Their lives overlapped by 20 years only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Great

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Thank you, wikipedians!

4:30 Sure, white men hadn't set foot in Black Africa when Oxford University was built, but they certainly had when Benjamin Franklin brought a black slave to France, some decades after Peter the Great had died, and made sure he spoke no French, because, in French colonies like Louisiana, you could have a slave (usually black), but in France itself, if a slave claimed his freedom, he legally got it.

So, you can't claim St Petersburg for the period when no white man had set foot in subsaharan Africa.

5:54 You said Columbus convinced men you would "not fall off"?

Sorry!

That is wrong. People were telling Columbus he could not go West to China, and they were in the immediate right, there is America in between.

And what a luck for him there was America in between, because he had miscalculated the circumference of Earth, his critics were much better on geography, and said, no, you have too few leagues, you will run out of food and fresh water before you reach China. Some also may have thought there was a belt on the West were winds were so stormy no ship could sail through, but this had been somewhat debunked since the days when Portuguese in the 1400's had proven you could go past the equator without burning to death from heat. But Columbus brought so little food and fresh water, if he hadn't come to America, to Hispaniola (now called Cuba, I think ... no, it may have been San Salvador or one of the others in that archipelago*)

* obviously : thank you, wikipedia! Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#First_voyage

"Columbus called the island (in what is now The Bahamas) San Salvador; the natives called it Guanahani. Exactly which island in the Bahamas this corresponds to is unresolved."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanahani

Since you mentioned Columbus convincing everyone you did not fall off, do you get your view of history from Washington Irving? He wrote a historic novel about that, but he was not writing a history book with good documentation for the claim, nor is there any! Disney has had Goofy star as Columbus in a comic book taking up the theme. But Disney also is not a very excellent historian!

6:37 Did you say Cecil Rhodes was one of the first white men coming to South Africa, when there was war between Zulus and Afrikaners?

You are aware, I hope, Afrikaners are also called Cape Dutch! They came from Holland or Netherlands to Cape Town well before Cecil Rhodes, even before St Petersburg was built!

6:50 Cecil Rhodes became even wealthier in South Africa. You can say that again!

He was certainly doing the rich man's stuff, if you ever read about the rich man and Lazarus in the Bible.

6:59 Rhodesia, I mean Zimbabwe, is encircled by South Africa?

Here is wiki:

"Zimbabwe (/zɪmˈbɑːbweɪ/), officially the Republic of Zimbabwe, is a landlocked country located in southern Africa, between the Zambezi and Limpopo Rivers. It is bordered by South Africa to the south, Botswana to the west and southwest, Zambia to the northwest, and Mozambique to the east and northeast. Although it does not border Namibia, less than 200 metres of the Zambezi River separates it from that country. The capital and largest city is Harare. A country of roughly 16 million people, Zimbabwe has 16 official languages, with English, Shona, and Ndebele the most commonly used."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe

Thank you, wikipedians!

If you really want a small country encircled by South Africa, perhaps you mean ...

"Lesotho (/lɪˈsuːtuː/ (About this sound listen); li-SOO-too), officially the Kingdom of Lesotho (Sotho: 'Muso oa Lesotho), is an enclaved, landlocked country in southern Africa completely surrounded by South Africa. It is just over 30,000 km2 (11,583 sq mi) in size and has a population of around 2 million[1]. Its capital and largest city is Maseru."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesotho

Thank you again, wikipedians. And Lesotho is not far from where Tolkien was born, in Bloemfontein! Fitting reference for Tolkien week!

7:41 You are right there was a king who foolishly signed a paper:

"Rhodes had already tried and failed to get a mining concession from Lobengula, king of the Ndebele of Matabeleland. In 1888 he tried again. He sent John Moffat, son of the missionary Robert Moffat, who was trusted by Lobengula, to persuade the latter to sign a treaty of friendship with Britain, and to look favourably on Rhodes' proposals. His associate Charles Rudd, together with Francis Thompson and Rochfort Maguire, assured Lobengula that no more than ten white men would mine in Matabeleland. This limitation was left out of the document, known as the Rudd Concession, which Lobengula signed. Furthermore, it stated that the mining companies could do anything necessary to their operations. When Lobengula discovered later the true effects of the concession, he tried to renounce it, but the British Government ignored him."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes#Treaties.2C_concessions_and_charters

Matabeleland is not all of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, though, just the West somewhat to the South.

8:48 "The King or African people had no idea of their value."

Of their value among white people, because they had another culture, of course!

9:34 Don't be too sad over black Africans building no cities that last.

You know who built the first city, which may have lasted to the Deluge, or perhaps to some wars before it?

Cain, naming it after his son Henoch, built the first city in the history of mankind in Nod, East of Eden.

And Babel, the first post-Flood city, was built with, not under initiative, but under later leadership of a relative of yours. Nimrod also was a son of Kush. Now, Babel, probably Göbekli Tepe, did not last. But it is the second major city of sin mentioned in the Bible.

Don't be too sad about not being city builders. Perhaps some ancestors of yours were taking the fate of Nimrod as a bad omen.

10:04 They bombed it back to the stone age?

I don't think so. The stone age was partly a period between Flood and Babel, and partly an area (like Amazonas or Kalahari now, but back then including Europe) before the Flood.

I don't think people in Coventry learned to make flint knives just because they were bombed. Did Churchill at least warn them, so they could be evacuated rather than die?

Here is wiki:

"An estimated 568 people were killed in the raid (the exact figure was never precisely confirmed), with another 863 badly injured and 393 sustaining lesser injuries. Given the intensity of the raid, casualties were limited by the fact that a large number of Coventrians "trekked" out of the city at night to sleep in nearby towns or villages following the earlier air raids. Also, people who took to air raid shelters suffered very little death or injury. Out of 79 public air raid shelters holding 33,000 people, very few had been destroyed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz

A good decision? No, if Churchill could have saved Coventry that november day in 1940, he should have. 568 people whose prime minister he was, whose king George VI was, were standing before God, some of them going to Hell, because they weren't Catholics, and telling Him, they died because Churchill betrayed them, so he could pretend not to have broken a code.

12:54 I am not sure who has sent you, I don't think it is God.

And if black men had not known how to do "nothing", how do you figure your ancestors survived before white men built cities in Africa?

This is not from my video comments, but added here:

Lilongwe in Malawi was in deed made into a town by the British. But it is after independence that Lilongwe grew. While Malawi has high infant mortality and low life expectancy it is also doing sth to improve the lives of its citizens. The boy who reinvented wind driven electric power generators (already in use in the West of US, but he hadn't heard of that) was fairly sponsored by Lilongwe after that. As to the life expectancy, it is for both sexes 58.3 years.

Taken at face value, this is like Medieval and later Royalty in Europe (not counting child mortality).

But since a high child mortality is involved in the short spans, this means that if you survive to 21 in Malawi, you can at least count on living to 64 or sth - the Medieval non-royal figure. Or perhaps, if infant mortality is even more important in low figure, even higher.

Hope they learn fidelity and get rid of AIDS, some time soon!/HGL

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

... when Cosmic Sceptic Tried to Debunk Ham


This one is rambling, it is also in response to a rambling video. I therefore number the diverse points, which may sometimes be very diverse. Here goes.

Reading Ken Ham's Ridiculous Tweets
CosmicSkeptic | Ajoutée le / added 8 oct. 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P4oTr9uJVA


I 1:30
"Yours [your morals] are based on"

Let's enumerate and respond.

"absolute truths"

Yes, fortunately.

"in an ancient book"

You prefer them only coming in a recent one, and all our ancestors missing out on the absolute truths of morality?

"written by people who didn't know the Earth orbits the Sun."

Because it does?

And because, if it does, not knowing that makes you disqualified to talk about morality?

I mean, I can hear parents say "don't beat your sister, if she were bigger you would not like her beating you", but somehow they are not saying "don't beat your sister, the Earth orbits the Sun". Or are they, in the meantime?

II
And even if Ken Ham likes secularism lite, your promotion of secularism tout court reminds me of some secularists in history.

Cicero. Julius Caesar. Augustus. Tiberius. Claudius ... can I hear someone say Nero?

Constantine and Theodosius between them ended secularism, because it had failed to promote the peace promised between diversities of belief.

New secularists: Attila the Hun. Theoderic the Great. Partly Visigoths in Spain, not persecuting Catholics for heresy, but for breach against secularism.

Even newer ones: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler ... Atatürk who was so very kind to the Greeks, wans't he?

A little earlier, in France, a series like Jules Ferry with Émile Combes, leading up to Clémenceau - all three of them inspiring Hitler, also a secularist.

A little further west again, Azaña and further west than that, Calles. Check out why Catholics rose against Calles and failed and got slaughtered (Cristeros) and why they rose against Azaña and succeeded (Franco).

And yes, North of Calles you get people who promote a kind of secularism at American Revolution, but some decades later Albert Pike is so fine with making Ku Klux Klan defend it against the Catholic threat.

Sounds like, secularism is not an excellent way of promoting peace between religions. It has failed so often.

III 2:40
If Christianity were erased, it would prove Christianity wrong.

Matthew 28:16-20.

IV 2:53
When God hardened the heart of the Pharao, He didn't make it cruel, it already was so by the Pharao's own choice.

What God did was to remove obstacles from Pharao remaining obstinate, withdraw graces He could have given.

See here my debate with fellow Creationist, but NOT fellow Catholic, Jonathan Sarfati:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/01/with-jonathan-sarfati-phd-on-fall-and.html


Sorry, seem to have lost the part where I debated him on Pharao .... somewhere.

No, what I did was refer him to an earlier debate with Monty Collier, Calvinist :

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Contra Monty Collier - De libero arbitrio:
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/contra-monty-collier-de-libero-arbitrio.html


V 3:40
Yes, I agree, we have some common ground on disagreeing with "most reasonable Christians".

3:45 I can prove it even more to you.

Some "Catholics" will stand up and say the Fathers took Ark metaphorically.

Yes, but what they leave out is that they took it BOTH literally AND metaphorically. Literally about the then event (I just checked that Creswell Crag didn't contradict my carbon date limit of 40 000 BP as archaeological date for Flood), and metaphorically about the Catholic Church now.

This is from City of God, book XV:

Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?

But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and liker to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?

They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.

As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words "every creeping thing of the earth" only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said "male and female," no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, "They shall come unto you," Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, "They shall be male and female." For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has "male and female."

Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals,— whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities—the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.

Link for above:
The City of God (Book XV)
St Augustine, scroll down to chapter 27
http://newadvent.com/fathers/120115.htm


VI 3:56
Accepting only the New Testament as truth is not an option for a Christian.

We know Albigensians were heretics because they rejected the Old Testament.

VII 4:08
You suppose the fossils are independently of where they are found datable to 100's of millions or years?

At least not by carbon dating!

Creation vs. Evolution : Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/09/pat-robertson-called-dinos-65-million.html


VIII 4:50
Billions of galaxies vs Flat Earth?

Frankly not the only alternatives, have you heard of Classical Geocentrism? Like Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe (I'd say Tycho beats Ptolemy in accuracy, but Ptolemy was a decent approximation) ... they believed - correctly - that the Earth is round.

"Each galaxy" having billions of inhabitable planets?

The exoplanets supposed to be in our own, so far detected, are I think 777. I don't think a single one of them is uncontroversially inhabitable.

So, that makes your initial estimate very moot.

Then, supposing there are extraterrestrials "on their own planets". That is not all that "believing in aliens" means, it means believing they have visited us.

According to YOUR astronomy, getting from alpha Centauri to here would take 4 years with light speed, 8 years with half light speed, 16 years with quarter of light speed, and with highest attained rocket speed (relative to sun in my reference*), it would take:

17 077 326

Yes, 17 million years.[**] AND alpha Centauri does not even involve a detected inhabitable planet.

So, how large are chances of aliens visiting us, if they are biological entities from exoplanets***? Slimmer than chances of God being that of the Bible, unless you are very prejudiced against that one, I'd say!

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vehicle_speed_records#Relative_to_the_Sun

[** I suspect there is some kind of anomaly, and if the speed limit implied is correct, I wonder if Voyager 1 really is already 18 light hours away ...]

*** Demons arranging sham visits is another matter, I don't think all contactees or even most of them are hallucinating from mental disease.

IX
5:09 It's not that there is some kind of conspiracy, we have to reject God, and reject sin and salvation.

Well, there is.

French Grand Orient involves rejecting God and some of its members are obviously in positions to influence both science faculties and education faculties without being very open to all concerned they are Grand Orient.

If you go to Grande Loge and a few others, more conservative, they may accept a concept like "God" or rather "Great Architect of the Universe", but reject orthodox belief in the Biblical one, and that precisely on the points of sin and salvation. They are also in high ranking positions and also not very open about it always.

And most freemasonries of English speaking world are a bit like Grande Loge.

Also, there is a fairly heavy collusion between Grand Orient and left wing in France, and if left outside Latin countries is less indebted to Grand Orient, recall where Karl Marx stood on the matter.

Yes, there is very much a conspiracy against Catholic beliefs, or, depending on how you define conspiracy, perhaps "culture" would be a better word.

It is not as unlikely as an alien from another galaxy visiting us to imagine people of Marxist or Grand Orient or both at a time convictions are coopting each other to higher and more important positions in research and education. It is in fact extremely likely, even, if you care to look around!

5:16 "Do you actively want not to believe in unicorns"

No, I actively believe in unicorns. Not sure if Biblical word so translated refers to a rhino or to a Triceratops (one horn being bigger than the others), but I believe in both and in men being along both.

BUT your citing that exact same phrase as I have heard so many others citing seems, depending on definitions, a culture or a conspiracy.

X 5:33
If I put this on a blog, I might take the still of your eyes into our faces.

Eyes are not explainable by evolution.

X illustration


Eyes

X contd:
5:37 No, you are NOT including compelling evidence for God in either science or history classrooms, even if the evidence is of a type belonging there.

It's like saying I could gain the Nobel prize by proving either evolution wrong in general (as with mammalian evolution being impossible from common ancestor due to karyotypes) or by proving a common argument for it wrong (as with detailed verification of fossil finds and of carbon rate tables that neither geologic column, nor carbon dating, proves any longer time span than the Biblical one), if YOU were the Nobel committee.

I know Swedish scientists, I am from Sweden. I might stand a better chance with you than with the Nobel committee.

In fact, there is a political conspiracy over many countries to :

  • state monopolise or quasi education of children and teens
  • allow evolution but not creation in science class rooms
  • teach science to all children and teens with that skewed preference.


I would be extremely naive if your "'we" - essentially those involved in this multinational conspiracy - would be credited with that much objectivity!

I am not all that naive.

XI 5:56
Funny, on the demographics you show, there is no separate entry "atheism", but the equivalent (more or less so) "no religion" ranks second. 26,349 people in March 2016, 30.8 %. True, much on juvenile delinquency, since at 15 + "no religion" is only 24.1 %, but there too it is the second.

And if Christians are 49 % overall, but 61 % above 15 years, it is perhaps because Christians are better raised (less likely to be juvenile delinquents) but are less well treated in job applications and a few things like that and therefore tend to be more "disappointed with life" - or involved with some network of ethnic type, less willing than Muslims to use boys under 15 for their dirty work.

Read more here, it is stats from UK : http://ppt.li/3vv

XI illustration


Atheism in prison

XII 7:59
The point is probably this: if God is ultimately in charge, there may be a day (especially if He's said so) when disease and sufferings end (at least for those loyal to Him).

If no God is in charge, not only is evolution responsible for disease and suffering, but disease and suffering are responsible for evolution, for us, since they are what eliminate the less fit, you know "survival of the fittest".

This means, with evolution, there is no chance of disease ending until the whole planet blows up, if even then.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Why Concerned if Non-Religious Rebel Against Genesis 1:28? (quora)


Creation vs. Evolution : Ubi Crux, et Corona (Genesis 1:28) · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Why Concerned if Non-Religious Rebel Against Genesis 1:28? (quora)

Q
Why are fundamentalist Christians and Catholics so concerned if people they don't even know use birth control?
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-fundamentalist-Christians-and-Catholics-so-concerned-if-people-they-dont-even-know-use-birth-control/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
More like:

  • we are concerned if acceptance of birth control becomes the rule
  • because birth control is not acceptable.


Suppose you were talking of a man living in a house, either white collar employee or self employed. Suppose he expressed an endorsement of keeping stealing illegal, and that if someone was trying to, for instance, argue that a bank robber could keep the money, as long as no one was actually hurt during the bank robbery.

Would you ask why people in his situation are so concerned if people they don’t even know rob banks? Especially in cases where it is not their money?

One little item arguing it is in part our money (those of us Catholics and them Evangelicals who are against it who are paying taxes, which currently I am not) is, as just said, taxes. Birth control is sponsored, sponsoring is by tax money.

But this is peanuts compared to the ravages of “demographic pyramids” looking more like top hats.

Before certain social ensurances became the rule, working men knew their main way of having a decent old age was having children.

Now that social ensurances are here and sponsored birth control are here, some believe they don’t need children, their money will take care of their old age. Well, as the lives are longer, the old age rents are less likely to be totally paid for by the worker himself before retirement. But even more, they were perhaps laying money aside, but not the utilities they buy for it, and these utilities are produced by the persons of a generation some of them were not willing to grant existence very much, a generation smaller than it should have been. AND the actual payments of money come from money earned and paid in taxes by that generation.

Sweden no longer says the State will guarantee old age pensions. One has to sign up for private insurances to compensate. They won’t be able to guarantee it either, but when they go bankrupt it won’t be the state which does, and since there are diverse of them, one may go bankrupt while others are still on.

Germany has more old age voters than young voters and is chasing the young with harder taxes and more pressure to get a work.

France is doing away with retirement at 60 and 35 hours work week.

Young people are paying for having been born in generations which are defective in numbers relative to the older ones, due partly to abortions (teens and tweens in France are showing stats on a site translateable as “one in five”, referring to abortions only) and partly also, less gruesome, but “perhaps more numerous”, the children never even maid, avoided by condoms and pills (some of which “numbers” are also actually early abortions, since pills are not just preventing conception, but if taking one after some pause, preventing a conceived human embryo from nesting, therefore killing a person).

Meanwhile, medical doctors who are very antilife in relation to the young in this way are also very prolife in prolonging the ages of the old.

Suppose you want to avoid a total disaster (I guess you can fill in some blanks), the answer is:

  • young people must start having babies again;
  • older people must stop telling this or that teen “you are too young to marry” or “you are too young to have children”
  • pills, condoms and abortions must be banned. And homosexuality lived out as a sex life also.


As on quora, this answer counts as "signed" by being posted by my profile, I here also sign it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
14.IX.2017

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

While Some Refuse to be Post-Modern, I Refuse to be Post-Medieval in Outlook


This has not too much to do with accepting modern technology, btw. Anyway, here is the quoran question with my answer:

Q
What were two ideas that emerged after the medieval period?
https://www.quora.com/What-were-two-ideas-that-emerged-after-the-medieval-period/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Middle Ages fan + Latin student in Lund (where Medieval Latin rules).
Answered just now
Answering "What were two ideas that emerged after the medieval period?" - In other words, two ideas powerful today but absent from Middle Ages.

I guess you allow me to pick any two, as long as both fulfil the criterium.

  • 1) Communities can "emerge" with no single identifiable founder, so naming of a founder "is no proof" he actually existed and disputing his existence need not mean implying existence of an alternative one;
  • 2) Consciousness can "seem" as a different thing from what we call matter and the Medieval scholastics called bodies, without actually being so.


These two ideas strike me as very post-Medieval and also as very illogical.

Two Takes on Susan, My Takes on Them


Two Takes on Susan, My Takes on Them · On Susan's Bow

One youtube comment of mine is now interwoven with some debate*, but I still do comments which just remain my comments without answers too, and as often in such cases, I indicate time signatures:

Susan's Shocking Fate in the Final Chronicle of Narnia (Spoilers)
Glumpuddle, Ajoutée le 16 mars 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1kyMi389og


0:39 No, Susan did NOT die.

[I took his "everyone dies" too literally.]

0:55 From her siblings (the three we know of, but I suppose they were and remained four).

Not necessarily from her parents.

1:09 I agree with the article.

She must, after train crash, have come around.

How I resolve this with Polly's prediction? It was an estimate just after Polly had died, before she had spoken to Aslan.

ALSO - who is telling us in this world about LB? Everyone in it died, so it is not Eustace or Jill. Obvious solution referred to in my chapter "Susan's dreams become a book". She is dreaming true dreams about it.

How does she know the dreams are true?

She dreamed sufficiently of Rilian to see Silver Chair (she had not bothered to hear Eustace and Jill on Narnian matters while they were alive) as a confirmation her dreams were reliable. She is of course reading all of the seven chronicles as they come out, and she was obviously (as still having the maiden name Pevensie and very afraid of getting attended by shrinks for believing in Narnia if she did) very shy before appearance of LWW, just one year or so after train crash (though CSL had obviously asked her permission to publish it).

This means, the words by Polly are known to us, because Susan saw this in the very first dream - the night of the train crash or just before the train crash. So, she was meant to hear Polly's words in that dream in order to be corrected.

Now, what do you think about the view in the article?

1:56 I sense a conflict with my scenario of Susan having Jill as archery pupil ... unless the exclusive interest comes just the last period they knew each other, so Jill could notice (as well as Polly).

Or unless the interest is not too absorbing for her to do some good work, like teaching archery (I'm making her a sports' teacher by profession, at least after publicity - same firm as in Murder Must Advertise or Dorothy Sayer's own pro experience - comes as too shallow after the grief of a train crash).

2:17 As said, Polly is not saying this after the Beatific vision, after meeting Aslan, she is saying this during what CSL considered "the great conversation" ... and we only know Polly's words through Susan's dreams, if this had been a factual story, since CSL's inventions would not be a fact source for it in that case.

4:14 Lewis obviously wanted it ambiguous ... well, I'm in for making her eventual salvation fairly ambiguous to herself too.

But one of CSL's intentions was actually to leave loose ends (Swanwhite is another one, which has been extraordinarily well treated by another fan fic writer - you know the story where the "Adam's flesh and Adam's bone" prophecy is spoken by Swanwhite as she is dying from a snake bite in front of Jadis) in order to encourage fan fic.

He specifically said so in Letters to Children on at least one occasion when asked what happened to this or that character and he asked "why don't you make a story of it?"

4:55 Are you suggesting a scenario in which Lucy of dedication is a standin for Susan or perhaps her real name?

In my fan fic, I have not yet written the chapter thereon, but I intend to let Lucy and perhaps Susan too meet Lucy Barfield, historically correct person in getting the dedication.

5:26 Is Superman your fav?

Mine is actually Captain Marvel - from that small comics company which was eventually bought up by DC after they had sued it over plagiarism.

My fav comics are:

  • the one where Captn Marvel has to deal with LOTS of custard simply floating over
  • the one in which one character is sprayed with a "charm spray" (which hadn't worked on another character, the crook)
  • with Mary Marvel, the one in which a club house is disinfested of fake ghosts (done with phosphorus)
  • with Captain Marvel Jr, the one in which a city resurrects like once every thousand years, and he averts its sultan or whatever from becoming a world dictator.


Compared to that, well, OK, some Superboy ones are quite OK : like when Superboy's dog has to deal with Mxyzsptlck from another dimension.

Will Susan of Narnia Be Saved? A Response to Glumpuddle
Brett Fawcett, Ajoutée le 17 mars 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnBD2TOYEYE


1:43 Back to Narnia physically?

Excluded by Aslan's words at end of PC.

Back to believing in Narnia?

Since LWW, her Christian piety is so interwoven with Stone Table, that if she ever is saved, she arguably won't continue to be a Narnia denier either.

In fact, in my fan fic, I made her impossibility of continuing to deny Narnia an important part of her conversion.

3:17 I have two solutions to this one.

  • 1) already adressed : in England she is adressed as Queen of Fairy Land (she might also be eligible as Queen of Telmarines, if she gets to their Island - I've even thought about making her successor to Pippi Longstocking, making that Southsea island the Telmarine Island**);
  • 2) not yet decided (therefore not adressed in any chapters I wrote): she might as "another person" (wife, widow) return to Narnia on a previous occasion to that of Aslan telling her she will never come back ... as queen Swanwhite.


Probably not the second, unless the word used is "never more", in which case the era of Swanwhite being previous is not a problem ... or is it?

5:47 Speaking of confession.

Yes, in my fan fic, Susan does convert. She also makes a good first confession and communion. In Narnia - Italy.

Back in England, her second Catholic priest is a disaster.

Since he does not believe in Narnia, he does not believe in her culpability against Lucy either and therefore she is unable to confess a real culpability which nevertheless she is really guilty of. So, to avoid invalid confessions, she confesses no more, falls back into doubts about Narnia (and Christianity) even, and can't confess until years later Father Brown comes in making a somewhat better show, towards the end of my novel (lots of chapters remain to be written between the beginning and this).

6:10 I don't know when exactly CSL started going to Anglican (and therefore invalid) confessions ... but he did.

Obviously, you gave a hint about CSL's possible reasons to be vague - if the story had happened.

What if he considered the matter in some fashion as "sub rosa"?

That said, I should perhaps, as I mentioned my fan fic under both videos, give a link to the main index. If you read chapters in order, even with some still missing, at least up to when she shoots arrows at corrupt policemen it is fairly intelligible.

Chronicle of Susan Pevensie
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2011/12/chronicle-of-susan-pevensie.html
or ppt.li/zi

Notes:

* This was the original main format of this blog.

** The first fan fic I tried to write, on paper, not internet, was when I had been teaching Swedish, and my successor as Swedish teacher showed me an assignment on writing about Pippi Longstocking as grown up. I had her defend the island against Communist forces, and not getting what "fascists" means (any more than King Caspian would understand "fascists, bullies" at the end of The Silver Chair).

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

... on Armed Force by Catholic States


Three questions, on Rome under Constantine and THeodosius, on Middle Ages and Crusades, and on possible future, even possible near future.

Q
How was the persecution of non-Christians by the Catholic Church in the Roman Empire justified?
https://www.quora.com/How-was-the-persecution-of-non-Christians-by-the-Catholic-Church-in-the-Roman-Empire-justified/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
Converted to Roman Catholic Church, Novus Ordo version, then to Trad.
Answered 21h ago
Non-Christians IN the Roman empire.

Before the fall of Romulus Augustulus, I suppose?

If you mean free citizens, they were only persecuted in case they wanted to practise paganism in public. Private paganism was allowed but went out of fashion.

If you mean slaves, well, a pagan slave under a Christian master could get some stripes if he tried to practise paganism on what was after all a Christian’s property. Pagans had done worse to Christian slaves before that.

If you mean Jews, they were not persecuted. They were disadvantaged in some ways (you had to be so many Jews to accuse one Christian layman), but this is because they had abused their equal terms with Pagans to arouse more than one persecution against Christians.

Q
What were the Crusades all about?
https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-Crusades-all-about


Hans-Georg Lundahl
History buff since childhood. CSL & Eco added to Medieval lore. + Classics.
Answered Sep 2

  • Defending a Holy Place. With Holy Things.
  • Liberating Christian Populations there.
  • Taking back old Christian territory previously usurped by Muslim occupation (they started c. 60 years after completed Reconquista of Sicily and after beginning or new beginning of Reconquista in Spain).


This if you mean the Crusades to Near East, especially Holy Land.

In Crusades across the Baltic or across countries south of the Baltic, Swedish, Danish, Swordbearing and Teutonic Knights, national or of orders, were trying to …

  • Rid Christians from harrassment by neighbours
  • Reduce harrassers/marauders to non-violent, sometimes even servile, state. The part about servile is especially about the two orders.


Other answer
Answers collapsed by downvotes [I upvoted.]

ARq
Answer requested by Amirrul Hakim

Tibor Bamhor
catholic
Answered Jul 26, 2016
Imagine that killing and murdering by islamic fanatics will go on for couple of years in europe. Most of original population will get into same mood as population of south europe around 1000. So when pope called for military stand against muslims expansion, a lot of peoples sold what they had and leaved to fight them. It was like sacred duty to defend their homeland.

Of course, the movement brough also a lot of injustice, violence, and was only partially successful.

Q
Have you ever heard the phrase "The powerful Monarch, who is sent from God, will uproot every Republic"?
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-heard-the-phrase-The-powerful-Monarch-who-is-sent-from-God-will-uproot-every-Republic


ARq
Answer requested by Darrick Wagner

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I speak two langs, Latin and Germanic. In a few dialects.
Updated 5m ago
No, I have not done so.

I have heard about “the great monarch” and about his being sent from God, but that doesn’t equate with uprooting all republican régimes.

He might uproot every usurping republic, those usurping the former monarchic rules of same countries, like restoring Bourbon monarchy in France.

But uprooting a republic just because it is a republic - like San Marino - makes very little sense.

I think - this is an update - I have heard sth like “will uproot every godless republic”.

Other answer

Jason Whyte
Not actually a linguist
Answered Sep 3
A2A. No, I have never heard that phrase.

Googling it returned this rather bizarre website, 2017 - Great Help From The Northern Warrior King...2016-11-25 - expandourmind, which includes the quote as a 17th Century prophecy from “Ven[erable] B. Holzhauser”.

Holzhauser was a German priest and prophetic visionary, who allegedly foresaw the execution of Charles I of England.


It seems Holzahauser had said "every Republic" and I had read another prophecy, on every godless Republic.

... on Birth Control


Q
What is the Catholic church's rationale for forbidding contraception - where in the Bible does it say that it's wrong?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Catholic-churchs-rationale-for-forbidding-contraception-where-in-the-Bible-does-it-say-that-its-wrong/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


Hans-Georg Lundahl
[former] Self Employed at Writer and Composer
Answered 21h ago
Genesis 1: [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

David Taylor
21h ago
That doesn’t preclude doing it with wisdom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
When it is wise not to have sex it is wise not to multiply.

When it is wise to have sex, it is wise to multiply.

We value monks and nuns, but of married couples we expect fertility.

Other answer

ARq
Answer requested by Christopher Johnson

Dennis Gardner
Master's in Biblical Studies; studied Greek and Hebrew
Answered 20h ago
There’s no place in the Bible that says birth control is wrong or sinful. It’s another thing Catholic Popes and Cardinals use to control the people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Genesis 1:28?

Genesis 38:9–10?

Did you read that?

Sola Scriptura non in Scriptura


Q
As a Catholic, how do you argue with Protestants against the Sola Scriptura principle?
https://www.quora.com/As-a-Catholic-how-do-you-argue-with-Protestants-against-the-Sola-Scriptura-principle/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl


I mean, how do you actually carry out the dialogue with them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered Sep 6
  • 1) I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical;
  • 2) I see how they react and carry on (or not) according to their way of taking it, often a protracted debate - or a non-response cutting off carrying on (as it is often over internet, a non-response is easy for them).


Jean Dieudonné
Sep 6
“I start pointing out that Sola Scriptura is anti-Biblical”

Okay, how is that anti-Biblical?

Cheers

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sep 6
It excludes oral tradition, contrary to this Bible word:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

It excludes infallible magisterium, contrary to this one:

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

Against two proof texts = anti-Biblical.

Jean Dieudonné
Sep 7
“by word, or by our epistle”

Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles. Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope? Or all of the popes? Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?

About 1. Thimothy 3:15:

Where do I get the rules for “how I ought to behave in the house of God”? I say I get them from the Bible. And so do all the other people. And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person.

So far I would say that your argumentation is flawed here. But I am looking forward reading a reply from you :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sep 7
"Yes, by the word of the apostles who Jesus chose himself. Not by all the successors or followers of the apostles."

This is in contradiction against:

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matthew 28.

Here, what Christ tells the apostles applies to all of their successors. All the original ones are dead, unless St John was taken alive up to Heaven. The promise in verse 20 was not directed to all the faithful in common, see verse 16. Therefore the Apostles do have successors. Again, they were eleven at the occasion, because Judas the traitor was missing. He got a successor, though, see Acts 1.

Again, St Paul was not of the original 12, nor this chosen replacement of Judas. He was an added apostle, and for purposes of apostolic activity he received cheirotonia along with Barnabas:

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.
Acts 13

Therefore, by cheirotonia, laying on of hands, a man can become an apostle, like the original twelve.

This along with the promise of being with apostles to the end of all time means that, yes, promises to the apostles in common apply to their successors up to our time.

"Otherwise I ask you, why are there no further additional books to the New Testament from, say, the first pope?"

Only the apostles and Luke and Mark are hagiographers in NT. The first Pope wrote two books, I and II Peter.

He is behind the Gospel of St Mark, and he sent St Mark to be first bishop or patriarch of Alexandria.

He is called Saint Peter. He was the chief of the apostles.

Their successors are however not receiving NEW revelation, they are however, like Timothy and Titus succeeding St Paul's work, habilitated to not just read aloud from epistles of St Paul but recall ALL that St Paul told them orally.

"Why is this so strongly distinguished from all the successors of the apostles?"

Why are YOU distinguishing it so strongly, is the question.

Where do YOU find this extreme distinction in the Bible?

"Where do I get the rules for 'how I ought to behave in the house of God'? I say I get them from the Bible."

But St Paul certainly did not say "from Bible alone" to either St Timothy or anyone else.

NOT getting rules from the Bible would be foolish, but since the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not getting rules from the Church would be foolish too.

"And if someone comes to me and tells me “God told me this and that” I would immediately look into the Bible and search for the passages that fit the description of this person."

The rules of the Church are NOT Bible + later private revelation.

They are the Bible, all of the 73 (at least) books + apostolic tradition not written down in Bible.

This latter breaks down into a small and a big category.

The small category is a few things not directly mentioned in the Bible, like replacing Saturday with Sunday, like how exactly to celebrate Holy Mass, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays, like making the sign of the cross.

The big category is being heirs to the 40 days crash course of OT exegetics given by Christ to His Apostles.

Private revelations do exist. We do not judge them just by the Bible, but by ALL of above.

Monday, September 11, 2017

... in Defense of Inquisition Against a Non-Albigensian Admirer of Albigensians


Q
Was the Catholic Church justified in suppressing the Cathars?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Catholic-Church-justified-in-suppressing-the-Cathars/answer/Philippe-Dangin


Philippe Dangin
Hopis brother,old Greece lover,oldest Egypt disciple
Answered 18h ago
I feel obliged to write because of the consequences of calumnies from the Church hierarchy of which I can see like a continuation in some answers here . Suicide never was a Cathar ritual . It was indeed performed several times in the many hopeless situations in which the Cathars found themselves : sieges lasting for months, no more water and no more food, no way to escape, perspective of being burnt at the stake because none of them wanted to abjure their faith . Beside this, some individuals committed suicides pushed by a sort of personal religious madness, but these were individual decisions, the Cathar spiritual leaders, called the“Parfaits” (Perfects) never promoted suicide .

A point that is not enough said or even known is the Cathars made the first translation of the New Testament for everybody, in everyday’s tongue . It was in Occitan language around 1230 AD, 150 years before the first English translation . In a time when acquiring an original version in Greek was a crime punished by torture and death they managed to get one and translated it for everybody to be able to read it .

Moreover they didn’t trust the official Latin translation, the Vulgate, and they were rather right IMO : the Latin version of the only prayer that the Christ gave to the world, the Lord’s Prayer or Our Father, is in my eyes a shameful crime . “Give us this day our daily bread”, when the Greek term is “ἐπιούσιον”, which means something non-material, best translated by “superessential” or “transsubstantial” . You can see the different level of spirituality …

The major risk for the Church was that the Cathar leaders lived like true Christians : they were poor, they walked everywhere, they healed the sick people, they never indulged in the many vices that were a habit for the Church hierarchy . And they didn’t do any difference between men and women, their most luminous and respected leader was a woman, Esclarmonde de Foix .

Yes the Church had every reason to slaughter them . Too bad for the future Europe, and even the future world, the official Church kept on existing and the “Parfaits” disappeared .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3h ago
“Suicide never was a Cathar ritual .”

Endura was what?

“A point that is not enough said or even known is the Cathars made the first translation of the New Testament for everybody, in everyday’s tongue . It was in Occitan language around 1230 AD, 150 years before the first English translation .”

How come I have seen OE translations of Gospel texts, from the times before Norman Conquest, in Sweet’s Anglo-Saxon Primer?

Ealc thara tha gehierth thas min word and tha gewyrcth bith gelic snotran monnu …

Sorry for not putting dots over c when appropriate and for replacing thorn with th.

Also, how come Cathars were normally credited with rejecting several NT books?

Also, you are forgetting that the Roman Catholic Vulgate was a translation for those not knowing Greek back in 400 AD, and that it remained roughly comprehensible (about as much as Church Slavonic to Russians or Ukraineans) up to 800, when Latin pronunciation changed. Alcuin restoring an earlier one, in Gaul.

It also remained so even longer in Spain and Italy, because Alcuin’s restored pronunciation took a few centuries before catching on there.

Philippe Dangin
3h ago
I’m totally sorry about the OE translation before 1066, I never heard of them . To my knowledge the Cathars were the first to dare comitting what was a major crime in the continent . I guess the Celtic/Germanic OE translations were unknown out of the islands . A favorable point is religious totalitarism and power of repression was certainly far weaker in this early time and these faraway islands .

Endura was the way how a faithful could and should face death, the best way to act rightly until the last expiration . It was made to fairly die when the time had come but the enlightened Cathars never taught people had to kill themselves .

I didn’t say they rejected the NT, they rejected the translation, and the example I mentioned is enough by itself for me . I hate what the Church Fathers but even more what the various religious churches made of what Jesus and his disciples tried to sow in human consciousness .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
54m ago
"To my knowledge the Cathars were the first to dare comitting what was a major crime in the continent ."

Where does your "knowledge" come from?

It was NOT a major crime "on the continent," but due to Cathars, it became one in certain countries.

"Endura was the way how a faithful could and should face death, the best way to act rightly until the last expiration . It was made to fairly die when the time had come but the enlightened Cathars never taught people had to kill themselves ."

It did not involve starving oneself to death?

It did not involve denying oneself water?

"I didn’t say they rejected the NT, they rejected the translation, and the example I mentioned is enough by itself for me ."

Who are you talking about?

The Church did not generally reject translating, it rejected translations on certain occasions, mainly provoked by Cathars.

The Cathars rejected most books of the NT, not just translation, but actual books.

"I hate what the Church Fathers but even more what the various religious churches made of what Jesus and his disciples tried to sow in human consciousness ."

Oh, you hate the Church Fathers, do you? Well, in that case I don't think you know the NT very well.

And I don't think you know the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ very well either.

Actually, to be frank, I will not trust your reply about Endura not involving starvation and dehydration to death. To me, you have shown yourself a sectarian hot head. Eager to twist all of history into your little message.

Philippe Dangin
32m ago
The NT is the result of a selection, elimination and additions made by some individuals with the limits of their greed of power in some cases and the limit of their spiritual abilities of insight anyways . The hierarchies that came out after lots of fighting and temporal alliances increased that limitation of enlightenment . The fact that for most faithful basic Christians of the Middle-Age and still now in many places the Creation is the arena of a struggle between God and the Devil is a scandalous result of the transmission through our Churches . It really looks like a root of pagan polytheism, 2 anthropomorphic gods fighting each other . The average result in masses consciousnesses is far from the mission of enlighting humanity towards a still inconceivable Unique Being .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
Let’s put it like this.

Your view of Church History is worthless.

You may of course signal this comment for violation of the Bunnybear policy. But that is all I can honestly say.

If you call the Albigensians … I just noticed that you were yourself the very opposite of an Albigensian. They were Dualists and you are a Monist.

You seem too occupied with judging and preaching to even take in history as it actually happened.

Your condemnation of Pagan Polytheism is worthless, since not identic to that of the Church.

Your condemnation of the Church is worthless, since too identic with that of the Protestants - in accusations against persons. Only different in doctrinal content, and very totally so.

Update
next day.

Philippe Dangin
17h ago
I never said I shared Cathar metaphysics . I sympathize with every genuine researcher on the multiple paths that can lead human to become conscious . And I also approve those who don’t mix spiritual quest and material acquisitions, understanding and wealth, humility and power, and above all individual knowledge and belief .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
13m ago
I don’t quite share the sentiment in your approval.

But considering what you do to poor Historia, I think you may have preferred wealth to understanding or taken your very few remaining Protestant beliefs for knowledge.

I have to admit, they seem to have used a complete NT, since “Bible Cathare” in Lyons was a complete such, I was confusing them with earlier types of Manichaeanism.

That said, their antinatalism and rejection of the OT are incompatible with a real belief in all of NT.

Also, you are very forgetful of all the lords who for very base secular reasons were promoting Cathars, whether to gain an excuse to give no tithe to the Church or, discouraging children, to exploit the peasants more.

I am sorry if I took your admiration for Albigenses for some kind of shared “Christianity”, apparently you are Rosicrucian.

Also, along the New Testament they had a plethora of forged books, like Interrogatio Iohannis. Or simply bad books, like Liber de duobus principiis, without faking Apostolic origin.