AronRa Tried to Answer 4 QQ by Rabbi Gottlieb

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's questions for "evolutionists"
AronRa | 23.VI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhASh8IOQUs

I

1:11 Pretending that things are true that can't really be true?

Like mammals evolving from first mammal having more chromosomes than he, or than any intermediate reduced chromosome number ancestor, even?

Isn't that what you evolutionists pretend?

4:10 And AronRa rants on two more times about how people applying label "truth" differently than he does absolutely must have a different definition to it, can't be anything like just a different methodology in finding out what is in fact true ... somewhat tedious.

II

2:48 Evidence against evolution being possible and therefore against it being fact : chemical abiogenesis (I know, technically not part of evolution, precedes it, but is presupposed as true when obviously wrong by lots of if not all evolution believers), origin of language and mind, origin of any chromosome in any mammal which is more numerous than the ones in the first (placental) mammal.

Mammals don't do viable tetraploid offspring (I know the claim the Red Viscacha Rat originated from a tetraploid, it is per se a diploid organism and shows no too clear signs of originating by tetraploidy).

Chromosome splits as envisaged by what's his name, P. Z. Myers are either impossible or would take too many steps to be possible.

One caution : while arguing this one I have presumed that telomeres are inherited just like gene sequences between meres. If telemeres are added to chromatids after conception and during gestation, well, my argument falls on this one. If they only grow larger, but have to be there to do so, it doesn't. I have not been able to get a straight answer on evolution believers or other scientists on this question.

Lack of evidence for evolution : you cannot prove geological column so called represents widely separated time periods, or that radiometric datings beyond Biblical time scale or even beyond other historic time scales (smaller ones within it) accurately show the chronology as to both order and extent of age.

This I have done studies on, pretty indepth. There are nodes, some of the links link in turn to more then one other link:

Creation vs. Evolution : Oil Drillers See Several Sea Layers
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/10/oil-drillers-see-several-sea-layers.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Feynman approach to YEC concepts?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/feynman-approach-to-yec-concepts.html

New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik / Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/phil-provaznikdalrymple-on-potassium.html

Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

Homology while pointing to a common origin is not distinnguishing between common ancestor and common creator.

Other node, to my chromosome number related evidence against evolution, here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

III

4:51 "If you're an evolutionary scientist and can't prove evolution is true, you are going to lose your job anyway."

That means quite a lot of jobs depend on pretending P Z Myers and a few more were never debunked by me.

It's excruciating there are job labels like "evolutionary biologist".

But there are quite a lot of other jobs where the observation is true enough. Biologist? OK, Carter is not losing his job, nor is Georgia Purdom, but they have great supportive networks in CMI and AiG and also not just don't pretend to believe evolution, but actively defend not believing it.

How about someone who has not their assets? Someone who has no actively creationist either outlook or organisation to back him?

And even with that, Mark Armitage lost a job.

4:56 There are lots of people who can prove evolution is false but aren't rich or famous because they are silenced.

5:42 "it can't be college professors are too busy to engage in religious nonsense"

Nice excuse. That's part of how the pretense is done and how the ridiculing is done and how the silencing is done.

IV

Questions by the Rabbi

Q1 a)

"when we have evidence for sth happening, we don't need to know the probability for that happening"

OK, "we have evidence for an invisible man creating everything by magic, so we can neglect that is improbable"?

What Christian, Jew or Muslim would you accept this quip from?

You'd say "that's impossible" I presume. Impossible means zero probability, but the evidence is not zero. The evidence is exactly the same evidence as for your theory of it happening, namely the result.

This being so, your argument can in essence be reduced to "God or evolution, but we can exclude God, so evolution". His is "God or evolution, but couldn't we rather exclude evolution?"

I second that.

"Everything that happened today is highly improbable, especially if you tried to predict it yesterday"

Noted, Sun rising this morning is so improbable, we should thank God for it actually doing so.

But this contradicts your dictum on what constitutes explanation, since you claim explanation is only be precedent. Reality as a whole hasn't any, therefore reality as a whole is unexplained. And if you try to counter "indeed it is, but within reality as a whole, there are explanations" I'd say the level of explanations you give are at least very close on giving explanations for reality as a whole, and very far from just providing explanations from within known reality.

A boy was born with non-mosaical tetraploidy and died within a year. I provide an explanation for it within known reality from precedent, mammals (especially human and similar) do not survive non-mosaical tetraploidy, non-mosaical trisomy 1 or trisomy 3. Probably too divergent type of instruction, or too divergent genotype for mother's immune system to not attack, or both. I conclude that placental mammals cannot (except perhaps rodents) have augmented chromosome numbers by tetraploidy.

This has implications making evolution a less likely explanation than God for mammalian chromosome numbers. Less likely, since impossible is less likely than "at least remotely possible" (let alone extremely probable on other grounds, to use your somewhat sceptic language). Unless you can show me a good source for telomeres totally forming only after conception, independently of previous presence or absence of such, in which case P Z Myers' model would work.

"those likely to work in social sciences are more likely to believe than those working in natural sciences"

Are you counting in history, linguistics, texts studies, juridics?

Because what is more typically modern and more typically referred to as social sciences would rather tend to have less likelihood of belief in God than Natural sciences, as far as I had gathered. But that could be an old statistic since then reversed.

"they would be the ones to find those clues"

Even if people of a certain philosophy are systematically discouraged and even if the clues are mostly philosophical in nature?

Krauss, Carroll, was the third one Stanger ... are they only having in common being good physicists, or are they also having in common a certain philosophy called naturalism?

In Krauss, that one is very prominent (I have actually seen him on video), and even involves heavily caricatured perception of the Christian outlook.

"probability of life being caused deliberately by a designer"

I think the comparison was rather like:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing producing life on purpose.

We know chemic reactions exist, we know fairly much on how they behave - for instance that phospholipids aren't produced by Miller Urey conditions (not sure your Mathematician knew that part), and we can at least define God and define what the probabilities are in relation to that definition.

You are proposing a comparison which is lopsided:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

This comparison is not correct. It could be replaced by two more correct ones, each having one of the sides:

• chemicals producing life by accident ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"
  vs
  
• God producing life on purpose ignoring probabilities or even impossibilities "since we know it happened"

That was one, the other being:

• chemicals reacting without purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from what we know of chemicals).
  vs
  
• God on purpose being what caused life (calculated from what we know of life, not from definition of God).

And this one is less directly accessible than the one Dovid was giving and I reconstituted in more explicatation:

• of chemicals producing life by accident (as in without conscious intention but with every piece of determinism inherent in chemistry)
  vs
  
• of God supposed as existing according to Theistic definition producing life on purpose.

Btw, I never caught out when you transitioned from 1a to 1b.

Q 2

Developing fish like features on part of dolphin, ichthyosaur, mososaur and cretaceous crocodile "being required if they are going to"

X being required if Y is going to Z does not prove or explain or cause X.

If Y consciously wants to Z, and sees X being required to do that, he may try to achieve X (and he may fail or succeed). If God want's Y to Z and sees X as one possible or best way, God will provide X insofar as Y (if a freewilled creature) poses no obstacle to X and therefore to Z.

But evolution is supposed to work without conscience, unless you are a spiritualist like Wallace. Then you can of course argue that the lifeforce present in a croc was pushing it to mutate in ways to achieve fish like features and pushing it towards aquatic environments where they would profit from it. But on Atheistic evolution, you can't posit such a thing.

Now, to be clear, convergent evolution does not disprove evolution, supposing it otherwise possible, since while each node of separate phyla is a diverging evolution between these, leading to reproductive barrier, one side of one and other side of other definite speciation will, without eliminating the already existing reproductive barrier possibly converge.

However, while convergent evolution poses no physical impossibility for evolution happening (there may be other ones, like chromosome numbers or a timeline only 7000 years old), it poses a logical impossibility of proving common ancestry from common features. Sure, if the common features are sufficiently many, like between rabbit and hare, they will arguably prove common ancestry. Most YEC (at least involved in creation science movement) would by now consider hare and rabbit are same baramin, same created kind. I would add, since hare has two chromosomes more than rabbit, in Europe, the ancestral type had at least as many chromosomes as the hare, and there were two chromosome fusions first to the chromosome number found in one American species, then to the chromosome number found in European rabbits. Going the other way in chromosome numbers would not have worked. But if the common features are fewer, like fourfootedness being common to frogs and dogs, it no more proves common ancestry than shapes of ichthyosaurs and dolphins do so.

And unfortunately for your argument, frogs and dogs are both supposed to evolve from sth like Tiktaalik based on such arguments.

"forced to adapt to that environment or die out"

Key word : or die out.

Q3

Intelligent design and Young Earth Creationism differ in approach.

ID is mainly about "this cannot have happened without God" while YEC is mainly about earth and universe "cannot/need not be so old" and also about frogs and dogs not needing or admitting a common ancestor.

This means, any ID argument (on their main issue as defined) is very eagerly approved by YEC, but parts of YEC are beside the point to ID which is compatible with deep time (as in Hugh Ross) and even with Theistic Evolution (though for some reason outspoken some TE's tend to distance themselves from ID movement, see Ken Miller).

Saying ID is a masque for (Young Earth) Creationism is like saying Francis Collins' Theistic Evolution is a masque for your atheism.

Can you name one creation scientist, formerly self identified as such, who now calls himself intelligent design proponent, without also having changed at least some part of what he stood for?

"disproved in a court of law"

Which didn't look at scientific arguments, but at the "expert witness" of scientific expertise.

So, no ID has not been scientifically disproven, or at all disproven.

Ken Miller's extremely dishonest testimony (H/T to you for actually directing me to that case a few years ago), is not scientific disproof of ID. It is definitely no Catholic theological disproof for ID either.

Ken Miller is not a real Catholic, as illustrated here:

New blog on the kid : Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/responding-to-miller-staying-with.html

New blog on the kid : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 2
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-2.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 3 - Correspondence with Ken Miller
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/staying-with-father-murphys-god-part-3.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Ken Miller (part 4 of Staying with Father Murphy's God)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/02/correspondence-with-ken-miller-part-4.html

Q 4

You are showing to a paper discussing gene duplication as added information.

I'd consider as "added information" the addition of a new cell type.

Creation vs. Evolution : Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/03/microbes-to-man-happening-before-our.html

"The latter being the key mechanism"

Speculation, as far as I can see baseless.

"If yes, such genes might help understand what makes us human. Here we report the first experimentally verified case of a human-specific protein-coding gene, FLJ33706 (alternative gene symbol C20orf203), that originated de novo since the divergence of human and chimpanzee. FLJ33706 was formed by the insertion of repeat elements, especially Alu sequences, that contributed to the formation of the first coding exon and six standard splice junctions, followed by two human-specific substitutions that escaped stop codons."

PLOS Comutational Biology : A Human-Specific De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions
Published: March 26, 2010, Qing-Rong Liu , Liping Wei et al.
https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000734

This is an article presuming man and chimpanzee actually diverged from a common ancestor.

The "fact" of new information is not given before our eyes, but presumed as historic explanation behind our existence.

14:53 This other one posits loss of DNA which hasn't yet been showed to exist in any ancestor.

V

After questions, about the professors:

"they feel no need to educate"

Supposing they feel no need for apologetics. Where you honourably differ from them.

... "when they have sincere students willing to pay for it"

Meaning, as long as your business is working out fine, you feel no very strong urge to argue.

Science as we know it exists because Catholic Scholastics of 12th and 13th had other priorities. To a Dominican, truth is more important than money. I am not a dominican, I don't feel a need to prove what they have already proven. But I am kind of doing it anyway, so far.

Matt Dillahunty on Oneway Communication

Matt Dillahunty opens up about the toxic words from his own parents
gavsmith1980 | 2.IV.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byejeMHUrhI

My comment:

Since you were open about your dislike of one way communications, I can say I dislike when more and more of my time on youtube gets "enlisted" to someone recommending youtubes to me in conflict with my Catholic religion, either from a Protestant or from an Atheist / Evolutionist perspective.

It so seems, these guys do not dare openly show who they are and allow an internet conversation with them.

I have over a hundred (I think, but I won't check it) different user names on youtube I have either debated or commented youtubes of.

As to those I have debated, several are channels without content and without photo and some could be rehash of someone I already debated earlier or even other channels of someone I already blocked due to his bad manners.

The English language part of this is:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

So far one fairly virulent Setekh comes in one of the debates:

Showing posts with label Setekh.
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/search/label/Setekh

But, with his style, he could theoretically be someone I had debated earlier under another name, though I don't think this is the case, since he did shut up after my mentioning my five years at university.

AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend)

AronRa Mixed Archaeology and History (Including Legend) · In Answer to Robert Nett · Nett & More (Verbal Violence Warning)

How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa | 29.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WbQkRx2_8

I

being a dialogue:

Raptor302

The world was created at 9am? Um, okay sure. On a round planet, it's 9am somewhere.

Omitting

some.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Probably it was not 9am Sunday morning all was created, but that LIGHT was created.

Jerusalem time zone.

Precisely as it was 9am Jerusalem meridian that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles.

So, the 9am part (to be understood : Jerusalem meridian) is from Acts 2:15 (third hour approx 9 am, if the twelve day hours go from sunrise to sunset).

II

0:55 Ussher dated the landing of Noah's Ark as the 5th of May in 1491 BC?

I don't think so.

4004 BC
1656 years from Creation to Flood.
2348 BC

III

4:50 Chinese calendar's start. Before Ussher / Masoretic date of Flood, but after the Roman Martyrology, after Syncellus it would be closer to Babel.

4714 or 4654 is a year which started in 2017
2017 xx 2017
2697 or 2637 BC = start of their calendar.

Now, that would be a bit before Babel on Roman Martyrology's timeline,

RM would have that a bit before Noah died, before the date 2607 BC. Syncellus would have that in after dispersion of tongues, since placing it in 2724 BC.

So Chinese calendar, even if taken as literally correct, and all about China poses no problem for LXX chronology.

In fact, cultures may preserve chronologies having taken place in earlier cultures they are unaware of. Classical Greece preserved a chronology for Trojan War, but Trojan War took place just after Mycenean Greece was ravaged. Classical Greek culture is very different from Mycenean culture, and also presumably different from a situation of breakdown immediately as it had been from that culture.

So, nothing says the calendar if true really was about what we would identify as China.

But furthermore, calendars and chronologies conflict in length. For instance, both Snorre and Saxo would say that the son of Frey (stepson of Odin) who was drowned in a vat of mead was on that occasion invited by one Frode of Denmark. However, Snorre considers him as identic to the Frode who was Peace-Frode and as identic to Frode Haddingson, in the time of Augustus. While Saxo on the other hand, considers him as Frode Haddingson = Frode I, several centuries before Peace-Frode, Frode II, who was contemporary of Augustus.

This means, either Snorre has shortened the timeline of the Ynglings, or Saxo has prolonged the timeline of Denmark.

This in turn means, chronologies can get distorted. So, if Chinese calendar had been in real conflict with Biblical chronology, or for those who take Ussher's timeline (with which it is in conflict), the answer would be Chinese calendar shows an inflated chronology. For my part, I don't need that, provided that its earliest years were before the men in China talked Chinese, perhaps even before they arrived in China. Which is perfectly possible, a culture can preserve a sense of identity over geographic distance, and also at Babel, the several tribes probably preserved in various portions a sense of identity with either their lineage or the Babel imperium, whichever had been more important to them before the dispersion of tongues.

"5777" Hebrew calendar is in fact a shorter version of the Ussher timeline.

A Protestant or a Catholic would take issue with Jews for saying we are not yet even 6000 years after Creation.

5:26 In fact, the Jewish calendar as we know it is not begun when Adam started counting years, it is, precisely like Ussher or Syncellus a projection back in time over counting patriarchs and post-Exodus years and the main difference or one of them to Christian versions of Masoretic timeline is a shortened one so as to get Bar Kokhba in line with appropriate week from command to rebuild the temple instead of Jesus Christ.

This obviously means, you are taking anything literally, as long as you can fit it into a conflict with taking the Bible literally, and you even imagine wrong about how Jewish calendar came to be.

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible

And Yazidis' calendar could:

• refer to a Biblical event prior to Flood but posterior to Creation in a non-Masoretic chronology;
• be a date for creation intermediate between Masoretic and LXX chronology;
• or refer to some fictional event.

IV

5:45 "on their calendar Noah's Flood should have been in the year 2409"

Supposing you date Biblical Flood to 2340 BC.

Here are a few alternatives, giving also Roman Martyrology and Syncellus as to their BC year of the Flood:

6766
2017
4749

4749 / 4749 / 4749
2340 / 2957 / 3266
2409 / 1792 / 1483

So, in relation to either Roman Martyrology or Syncellus, the year of the Flood given in Yazidi calendar projected backwards would give a date inferior to the 2242 years that both of the LXX chronologies place between Creation and Flood.

5:57 Whether Yazidis counted from Creation or from an event before Flood but after Creation, they continued counting from before they were Yazidis.

Kali Yuga, on chronology of Roman Martyrology starts a bit before the Flood, which is one of my clues to Krishna's death and the Mahabharata war being in pre-Flood times.

On Syncellus' chronology, Kali Yuga would even start in post-Flood times.

Either way, the original character behind Krishna died well before there were Hindus worshipping him as an incarnation of Vishnu.

"During and after a great flood around 4000 BCE, the Yezidis dispersed to many countries in Africa and Asia, including India, Afghanistan, Armenia, and Morocco. Returning from their adoptive countries around 2000 BCE the Yezidis played an important role in the development of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Jewish civilizations of the Middle East."

http://www.yeziditruth.org/

This means, the Yazidis also believe there was a great Flood.

However, 4000 BC is about 1050 years earlier than Roman Martyrology and about 750 years earlier than Syncellus.

So, my guess is, Yazidi chronology involves an inflated estimate of the post-Flood era.

Note very well, it involves sth else than one man starting it and then people just counting years from then on.

You know how some sitemeters can be applied to your blog well after it started, but the total count can still not omit the previous page views, since you program it to involve another counting start than 0? Well, if I were doing it, I would honestly start with the "all times" count given as an automatic stat, but the parallel in years would depend on their skills as to historic chronology - and on their honesty (as I could also give an inflated number to start from if I wanted).

I don't know why you are even including Chinese and Yazidi calendars in a video about archaeology, these things are about chronology as a historic discipline.

Is it that "history" sounds too much like "story" and "archaeology" sounds more like "science" to you?

V

6:26 2340 BC - beginning of Egypt's VI Dynasty.

According to a conventional chronology of Egypt which is inflated, and where carbon dates help the inflation, since carbon levels were lower then.

In my match between Roman Martyrology and carbon dates, according to my latest table, the year 2340 BC would have been 20 years after the death of Shelah in 2360 BC, and the surrounding "landmark subdivisions" for carbon levels mark that 2366 BC had a probable carbon level of 60.241 pmc, and would have a predicted carbon date of 6566 BC, while 2327 BC had a somewhat higher carbon level of 62.622 pmc, and would have been carbon dated as 6177 BC - way earlier than 1st Dynasty.

Just in case you think I might want a chat with Egyptologists on this one, I already had one. Or an attempted one.

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/carbon-dated-egyptology-coffin-club.html

Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/coffin-club-as-mute-as-grave-on-my.html

Third time over?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/third-time-over.html

And I even had a somewhat rougher non-communication with Melissa McIntosh over her remarks in third turn. Here:

Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/debating-manners-and-priorities-with.html

In other words, Egyptologist have lots of collective ego and little facts on carbon dating to offer - at least a Creationist.

This obviously means, VIth dynasty was later.

6:46 I'd rather consider that the first dynasty had not begun by the time Abraham was born, either Abraham in Genesis 13 interacted with Narmer or with an Egyptian ruler previous to the Falcon Tribe.

Your methodological problem is, you give archaeology as a story, rather than giving the actual digs and datings and circumstantial evidence that are the most scientific part of it.

By the way, carbon dated 2340 BC is after Joseph in around 1700 BC misdated as c 2600 BC, and carbon dated 2900 BC is after Genesis 14 where En-Geddi's Amorrhites carried out temple vessels in reed mats dated to 3500 BC, but the real date was 1935 BC or sth.

As you see, the pmC is increasing (from 85.811 pmc in 1935, if it's carbon dated to 3200 BC or less if it's carbon dated 3500 BC to 89.685 pmc and only 900 extra years in 1700 BC), the extra years are getting fewer.

This is a serious challenge related to archaeology, if they will take it.

Preliminary Conclusion, with Corrections
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/preliminary-conclusion-with-corrections.html

Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html

VI

7:05 The Pagan gods worshipped in Sumer around 3000 BC (carbon dated) come from an idolatry introduced by Ninos and Semiramis in real time c. 2300 BC carbon dated to c. 6000 BC.

Ninos et Sémiramis [en français]
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/01/ninos-et-semiramis.html

VII

7:37 "all in different languages"

Tying in with Babel.

Take date for Babel around 2600 BC, take carbon level around 45 pmc, and you get a carbon date around 9000 BC.

45 pmc (left now or at start of decay) = 6600 years age (real or apparent extra years).

6600 extra years
2600 BC real date
9200 BC carbon date

Now, from Göbekli Tepe (my archaeological candidate for Babel) you do not have texts in many different languages.

7:49 "They should be telling the same story"

Supposing no one had a motive to distort it. Polytheists had at least a religious motive to do so.

"in the same tongue"

Supposing that this was before Babel, when it was really after Babel.

8:18 Writing is from after Babel:

3300 BC (carbon dated) - in Abraham's lifetime, around Genesis 14.
2500 BC (carbon dated) - a bit after Joseph in Egypt and especially his Pharao Djoser (Egyptians recall him as Imhotep).

8:45 Australians and Polynesians show artistic connections to Göbekli Tepe.

This means, colonisation of "New World" happened at least in significant part after Babel.

However, before Sumerian preserved writings in cuneiform.

9:16 No, everyone should not have spoken Sumerian and read Cuneiform at Flood, these are post-Babel, and therefore everyone should also not have Sumerian and Cuneiform elsewhere.

However, if you had dated a written language other than Hebrew to before Göbekli Tepe, you would have had an actual case.

And you cannot pretend to know anything about a "pantheon" at Göbekli Tepe.

9:37 And Egyptian coherent texts in Hieroglyphic writing are from 2600 BC (carbon dated) or younger, and that means, they are from the times of Joseph in Egypt (real dates c. 1700 BC).

9:45 "that practise would have stopped abruptly in 2340 BC"

Supposing the Flood were then, supposing writing weren't in fact later than 2340 BC.

The time when Egypt was flooded precedes the time of Nabta Playa.

Nabta Playa, Hieraconopolis and Buto
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/08/nabta-playa-hieraconopolis-and-buto.html

VIII

10:04 Here is how Haydock identified the 40 years of wasted Egypt:

"Ver. 11. Years, till the third of Cyrus, who gave liberty to all the captives at the beginning of his reign. v. 13. C. --- Amasis reigned forty-four years in Lower Egypt, (Herod. iii. 10.) over the few whom Nabuchodonosor spared."

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT : EZECHIEL 29
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-1035.shtml#navPoint_1036

IX

10:55 Sumerian Kings' List. CMI had an article on them:

The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian King List
by Raúl Erlando López This article is from
Journal of Creation 12(3):347–357, December 1998
https://creation.com/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list

The article mentioned Sumerian Kings' List excluding both first man and Ziusudra.

X

13:50 The idea of Antediluvian Patriarch having counted months as "years" was already stated by some ancient swag and answered by St Augustine.

At least according to Masoretic chronology, at least Henoch would have been a bit too young to be a father when he is said to have been so.

XI

16:09 I think I actually gave a response to your archaeological moment in time, before I really got started on carbon rise tables.

Yes, here:

Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html

XII

16:45 Göbekli Tepe, as I already mentioned, is misdated due to carbon 14 levels being in the 40's of the pmC level. And rising, so that early parts are misdated by about 7000 years and later parts by about 6000 years. That's 42.879 pmC for atmosphere in early GT (ignoring the delay inherent in dating charcoal from trees where wood has an average carbon age higher than when felled), and 48.393 pmC for very end of GT, same reservation.

As it is between Flood (at Neanderthal démise) and Abraham (at early dynastic Egypt or pre-dynastic Egypt), it fits Babel very well.

And carbon levels in the 40's should also come in a carbon rise starting at 1.4 pmC at Flood and reaching 82 pmC by Genesis 14.

Oh, this rise implies a faster carbon 14 production than now, and it is in vain that I was asking one Ilya Usoskin to do a check-up on correlation of speed of carbon production and radiation levels.

Other Check on Carbon Buildup
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

AronRa Takes on Mythology

How Mythology Disproves Noahs Flood
AronRa | 14.VII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrDTaHjg2IQ

I

10:12 Malevolent creatures?

Well, suppose the Flood did happen.

Suppose the dinosaurs we find were mostly pre-Flood.

After Flood some were in Americas, since carbon dated dinos from there are usually younger than the 40 000 years I base on Neanderthal démise, some Dimetrodontes went off to Germany, where later the last was killed by Sigurd or perhaps if Beowulf was later in Sweden, (though the winged part suggests either serious mix-up over dragon biology or Beowulf killed some other palaeo-critter).

Where the children of Madai and Elam went (ancestors of Medes and Persians), there were no post-Flood dragons. Therefore, one could rationalise Flood as getting rid of them all.

Partly true, dino population was at least severely reduced by Flood.

Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters.
[Psalms 73:13]

Fairly good match to YEC scenarios of Flood and especially considering the number of creatures found without heads.

"maybe this is another attempt to explain fossils"

Meaning they were on this item clearly agreeing with Morris and more recent Flood Geologists.

II

12:07 Firmament of some type certainly is a Biblical datum.

Flatness of Earth is not.

Believe me, I have gone through the passages, none states flatly that the earth is flat.

Note very well, if Chinese were separated from the Hebrews, which they were, they may have interpreted the firmament in incorrect ways, as an actual solid body.

Job 37:18 notably has a clear reticence to saying this straight out.

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

Most strong is true of some things that are not solid bodies.

And molten brass is denied, not affirmed.

Four corners passages are possible for continents on a globe. If Americas don't count, but only count as biggest offshore islands, you are going to SW corner, near enough, Karoo. Otherwise, SW corner is of course Tierra del Fuego.

I do not see that all mythologies postulated a flat earth.

Odinism does, when it portrays Earth as one level of platforms in the crown of Yggdrasil, but Odin presumably had read both Kemetist and Zuist texts, and while world tree with snake echoes Zuism, flat earth echoes Kemetism. Osiris is each night under the Earth - not on the other side of a globe.

Celtic myths instead have Land of the Young, euphemism for Land of the Dead, in the West. Also allows sungod to shine on dead after shining on living, but without implying flat earth. Presumably Celts had had contacts with Phoenicians. Who presumably had observed ships coming into harbour, or getting out, as well as observing harbours and their towers from ships. Land of the dead under earth didn't work so well any more.

III

12:56 Agreed.

I have defended Flat Earthers from being stupid, from being - on that account by itself - heretics but never from being on that account wrong.

IV

13:00 No, you do not know there is no firmament, you know there is no firmament that is a solid body, at least as far out as Voyager I and II have ventured, presumably to the stars as well. But that is not necessarily what firmament means.

You also do not know there is no water above the firmament, since we have clear indications of lots of water above. Spectrography reveals interplanetary space "in solar system" and interstellar space has two very abundant molecules.

H₂
H₂O

I venture that both would have been described by Moses as water, since describing H2 as air is more inaccurate and since the language of his day had no other word for it.

Also, "hydrogen" means "water parent" or "water origin", German Wasserstoff means "water material" or "water stuff" and Swedish "väte" nearly means "wetness" (derived from "våt"="wet").

Type into google translate English to Hebrew:

water
contains
hydrogen



You will note, Hebrew too has the word for "hydrogen" derived from "water."

While outer space is not full of water, it certainly contains such.

V

14:01 "at least 1400 years older"

No, I don't think so.

"Utnapishtim (or Unapishtim) means day of life, or day-life, while Ziugiddu means Life-day prolonged."

Fine meanings to rename a Noah whose name you forgot in Babel.

Atrahasis, I think I recall means "super wise" - the original homo sapiens who was sapiens enough to build an ark.

OK, the race type actually existed before him.

Your words on Noah remind me of Calvin's.

If you don't know the strength of wine in advance, you are not guilty of drunkenness by physically getting intoxicated.

And the curse on one grandchild was when he was sober, and an act of judgement.

Imagine if the early retellers after Babel (or even non-Hebrews in Babel) were obfuscating this, deliberately?

Nice episode to forget, isn't it?

15:07 Yeah, I get it - Chaldean version differs mainly in wrong theology. Lauding rebellion and secrecy.

"And written by the great grandfathers of the Biblical authors."

Assortion, here presented without evidence.

"Many centuries before the Canaanite god etc"

Again, no evidence here presented.

Yes, they are polytheistic.

If a Christian person's grandchildren go Shinto, Hindoo or Atheist, and retell a story from his life which in his version involved God Trine and One, are the grandchildren very likely to retell it in his statements, conflicting as they do with their theology or anti-theology?

At most the Atheist grandchild would (having some Western culture partially heir to Christendom) "this is how gramp thought it was, but of course there is no God". The others would more probably retell a story in Hindoo or Shinto terms they needed make no reservations against.

VI

17:39 Genesis is the first coherent world history.

It is possible that Moses had heard of Babylonian accounts written perhaps 100 years before him, but he would have known they were not leading back to Adam and also not leading up to the then recent times, at least not in a fashion which could make sense of things.

Nearly all non-Hebrew accounts lack reference to the Tower of Babel. You mentioned one account where people were dispersed under (as distinct from after) the Flood, but it only dealt with geographic dispersion, as if they were either ignorant of linguistic diversity or thought it was totally explained by the geographic one.

If you know anything about English both sides of Atlantic and two / three sides of Pacific, this is not so.

17:48 "the Jews did not worship Jesus"

Moses and Aaron did. King David called his upcoming "son" (descendant) his Lord (Psalm Dixit Dominus).

However, at one point one certain Cohen Gadol Kaiaphas rejected Jesus when He actually came and fulfilled the prophecies, so Jesus replaced him with Simon Kephas (I think Kaiaphas and Kephas are the same name, Hebrew vs Aramaic versions, like Peter and Pierre are English and French versions of its Greek translation).

17:55 "Islam emerged from Christianity which obviously emerged from Rabbinic Judaism"

If any Judaism, Second Temple Judaism.

Catholic Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism both have some historic claim of being direct heirs of it. A bit like Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox both have some historic claim of being direct heirs to First Millennium Catholic / Orthodox Christianity. Or like Judaism (broader sense, including Christainity) and Samarianism both have some claim of being direct heirs of Moses' and Aaron's religion, of the Tabernacle before the Temple.

And whether early Judaism was inspired by Zoroastrianism or the reverse is not a secular scholarly question. It is a debate between faiths.*

VII

18:06 Hinduism oldest in continuous practise?

That's a bit like saying Second Temple Judaism is still ongoing. Latest public and sovereignly endorsed Hindoo sacrifice of a horse was either before Ashoka, or on Iceland, but I wouldn't call it pure Hinduism on Iceland, considering how much Odin took over from Kemetism and Zuism.

VIII

18:19 Again, you are presuming modern scholarship on this matter is purely evidence based with no religious or anti-religious axe to grind.

Not true.

It is possible though that Moses got hold of the book of Job from his father in law Jethro. So, yes, it is possible it is older, not than all Genesis materials, but than Genesis as a single book.

Job has 42 chapters and Genesis 50. The chapter divisions were not put there by Moses, but as a reference convenience by a Catholic bishop c. 1200. But they are roughly similar length, so Job and Genesis would roughly be same length.

This means, Moses can have been inspired (not theological sense, but artistic) to the one volume by seeing Job.

6th C. BC is about 1 millennium too late. Those scholars have an axe to grind.

450 BC is a bit more than a millennium too late.

"that are thousands of years older than Genesis"

On your wrong opinion on when Genesis was written, that is.

IX

19:39 No, the schools didn't close.

Akkadian and Sumerian continued to be taught as Classic languages up to 1st C AD and 1st C BC. If Odin lived in the time of Caesar, he would have been able to read both languages, if he had had and taken opportunities to learn them. It was not for him as our inability to get a good thorough instruction in Etruscan.

Aramaic was official administration language of 1st Persian Empire (Achamenids or sth), the one which took over after Nebuchandnezzar II's near immediate posterity lost power.

Did I mention, the Aramaic of Persia was written in ... Cuneiform?

19:53 "no one could understand written language any more"

That explanation is, while not fiction in entertainment sense, still totally fictitious. About as fictitous as Protestant continuity within Christianity, as portrayed by Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

1st C BC is too late to account for an account in Genesis.

Aramaic of Persian Empire was also written in Cuneiform. Cuneiform was not the only type of writing available. Ergo, what you portrayed has never happened any more than Albigensians were Covenanters.

More than a thousand years - after Nebuchandnezzar II failed to complete Marduk Ziggurat?

No, that would mean 5th C AD before there was a written Genesis with a Tower of Babel account.

You are severely wrong on this one.

X

And your quip on how oral tradition irresistibly distorts is an heir from Protestant prejudice against Catholicism.

While your timeline for when it was supposed to distort doesn't work, it is still deleterious for Genesis credibility, since at least early parts of Genesis (up to chapter 12 and probably excluding chapter 1 account added by Moses) were so transmitted.

Fr George Leo Haydock in his commentary to Genesis 3 wrote:

// Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H. //

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT : GENESIS 3
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/untitled-05.shtml#navPoint_6

Here is my French reply to a similar quip a few years ago:

New blog on the kid : Fiabilité de la Tradition
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/03/fiabilite-de-la-tradition.html

ajs1031

and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned

Thanks for admitting up front that you don't care about facts. It makes you really easy to ignore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ajs1031 Not caring about facts and not doubting a particular source one finds fully credible are two different things.

I most definitely find, as a Catholic like Father Haydock the Genesis totally credible, with each of its parts in a Douay Rheims or Vulgate, apart from questions of scribal errors, like which version has the right chronology, where I side with (moderate) LXX reading.

* Note to any and all upcoming Swedish translators, no, I do not mean "trosfråga", I would say that as "question of faith" and what I wrote I would translate into Swedish as "trostvist".

AronRa Takes on Dendrochronology

How Dendrochronology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa | 23.III.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEfj3LLNSY

I

1:50 Ussher monk? Seriously?

"Ussher went on to become Chancellor of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin in 1605 and Prebend of Finglas. He became Professor of Theological Controversies at Trinity College and a Bachelor of Divinity in 1607, Doctor of Divinity in 1612, and then Vice-Chancellor in 1615 and vice-provost in 1616. In 1613, he married Phoebe, daughter of a previous Vice-Provost, Luke Challoner, and published his first work. In 1615, he was closely involved with the drawing up of the first confession of faith of the Church of Ireland."

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

One thing about Anglicans back then, just after rejecting Catholicism, was rejecting monasticism. Why would he have been a monk?

A real monk, however, used a similar method about 1000 years earlier, his name was George Syncellus. And nickname "Syncellus" refers to his having been precisely as monk sharing the cell with someone.

However, Syncellus used the LXX text. Flood 5300 years ago.

2:24 Nine o' clock in the morning in fact refers to other Biblical data, specifically the role of that time at Pentecost.

II

3:00 Tirade of your evolutionist extremism ends when?

III

ICR is the Ussher date.

4004 BC - 1656 years from Creation to Flood = 2348 BC.

I have seen a French disinformation where 2348 BC was presented as Catholic date for Creation, when Flood would have been correct, as some Catholics do prefer Ussher timeline.

In Roman Martyrology, the date for the Flood is 2957 BC.

Syncellus has a date further back than 3000 BC.

(5500 / 5508 BC - 2242 years from Creation to Flood - based on LXX =

5500 / 5508
2242 / 2242
3258 / 3266 BC).

Creation dot com is CMI = Creation Ministries International.

They may have one article saying 2304 BC, but they have others detailing the variation in options, between Masoretic and LXX and even Samarian timelines.

IV

3:59 Genesis 5 for Adam to Noah, Genesis 11 second half for Sem to Abraham is pretty "plain sailing". The question is just which text you have and whether you think 930 means "from 929 and one day to 930 years exactly" or "from 930 years exactly to 931 minus one day" or "between 925 and 935" to take Adam's age as an example.

But between Abraham and Christ there are so many different texts to take into account that Abraham's birthday in BC terms can vary over more than a century, simply by what you are looking at. One issue is whether 430 years mentioned in a promise to Abraham involves the time when patriarchal families lived in Canaan or only starts when they move to Egypt. There are others.

V

4:29 Thank you for a bristle cone pine arguing in favour of a LXX reading ... (they push Flood back, since those arguing for LXX readings argue the Masoretic timeline between Flood and Abraham was deliberately shortened by Jews rejecting Christianity, there is a passage in Josephus where he gives the new sum (Abraham born 292 years after Flood) but adds up a sequence of x born when y was z years old which with normal mathematics come closer to LXX, though, like Roman Martyrology, lacking II Cainaan.

CMI having one article giving side by side, but another one arguing against LXX, here are Lita Cosner and Robert Carter:

Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?
by Lita Cosner, Robert Carter | Published: 25 September 2018 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

And here is my response to them:

Creation vs. Evolution : Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/resp-to-carter-cosner-in-lifetime-of.html

5066 years old - a little more than the ages implied by Roman Martyrology for Flood, 2957 BC, clearly less than Syncellus' date.

VI

6:32 "in salted ground"

Supposing seas were salty prior to Flood as opposed to starting to get salty then but slowly getting much saltier.

6:40 And For Koalas arriving in Australia we have the Sahul Sunda strait as a fairly narrow one. In the post-Flood ice age.

And the "no trees survived the Flood" would have to mean "anywhere at all" in order for your argument to make sense.

I have a somewhat other Flood model, not denying streams where heavy boulders were carried away 500 km, but arguing that calmer conditions also occurred.

I think you have made an argument Robert Carter's Flood Model as part of his reply to why Neanderthals had to be post-Flood, may have been wrong.

HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Notification on His Post
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2019/02/carters-notification-on-his-post.html

VII

8:03 As for Old Tjikko, I dealt with "him" in Swedish.

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Huru gammal är Old Tjikko?
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/02/huru-gammal-ar-old-tjikko.html

I got "him" to be somewhere like 2688 / 2733 BC (probably going on a Syncellus based table, or before I identified Göbekli Tepe as Babel).

Key to "8000 years old" is, it's carbon date, not dendrochronology, and it's from when carbon 14 level was lower than now. Rising from 49.279 to 56.3215 pmC.

Obviously, Göbekli Tepe with contemporaries can't show records of a global Flood if that is Babel.

"13 000 years ago" (if a carbon date) = before GT, towards end of Noah's life.

The estimate of "at least 80 000 years old" if not carbon dated at all for the cloned aspen is not chronologically checkable, but if involving carbon dates would involve aspen surviving flood via clones.

VIII

9:15 The article you are reading perhaps doesn't show how hazy some matches are on that oak and pine sequence, notably on some bottlenecks with few materials involved?

9:31 if we get carbon dates or other indications of ice age involved in the older tree material, that was happening after the Flood.

Following

deal with - Specimen Point? No, Specimen Ridge:

IX

11:39 So, "each" forest had oldest trees 500 years?

This is a bit funny, if a process of new growth just happened again and again, it is more probably if we see different segments of same trees at different levels, arguing the forest was 500 years old in the time when the Flood involved unprecedented and thereafter unmatched volcanic activity.

12:50 Or, since root systems have been found at higher levels, rather, trees were shoved on top of earlier ones by either lava streams or Flood water dynamics.

A classic in Creationist argument is floating logmats and this time add, interacted many times with lava.

13:50 Top of a trunk directly under roots of another tree?

Lower tree above that trunk level cut off by Flood water, higher tree then moved in with thick lava.

X

12:27 As for 55 million years ago, is it dated by the lava typical method?

Ka-Ar?

My hunch is, lava cooled very quickly that first layer, with lots of cold Flood water above it, trapping lots of excess argon, and possibly washing off some of the potassium too.

12:36 Yes, I throw out the manmade mythology of reliable lava dates.

XI

15:05 Some fish mixed in?

In land biota far from coasts of pre-Flood world, no. Not because no fish material could have reached there, but because when it did, it would no longer be recognisable.

If a large boulder carried 500 km is arriving half diameter every direction, any skeleton moved that far would have been ground to dust.

This supports my deviation from the CMI "standard" model.

It also supports my work on replacing "geological column" with "pre-Flood geography". Based on what biota are involved.

XII

15:56 I sense a very ugly attack on YEC parents and private schools.

16:33 The Disney sequence has Noah and family drafting animal beneficairies of Ark.

I'd rather suspect some went there for "work experience" in some socialist scheme for the unemployed and left (and eventually drowned) when they got job elsewhere.

In Swedish there was a time it would have been called ALU-jobb.

Arbets-Livserfarenhets-Understöd.

A dole for gaining work experience.

And on this or another video, you mentioned "Noah and three sons with stone age technology".

This is a bit like "Versailles and St Paul's Cathedral couldn't have been built in some decades of 17th/18th C, Chingachgook and Natty Bumppo had no technology for that".

Since, I think when we see Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnons living among them, we see sth like the Chingachgooks and Natty Bumpoos of back before the Flood. Henoch in Nod East of Eden is not yet found, and may never be so. Probably too much post-Flood Himalayas over it.

Rejecting Freemasonry

Is Freemasonry a Cult: Seven Minute Seminary
Seedbed | 30.X.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C8pDTG92es

I

5:35 In fact, Catholics and Catholics alone are called "living stones" in I Peter 2:5.

II

dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here would be a great reason not to become a freemason.

"GAOTU" ("GADLU" in French).

What would make such a title (un-Biblical) offensive to the true God?

1) A certain "great architect" lived who was called Nimrod (not someone God found admirable or just or holy);
2) It also suggests, falsely, a "god" who only made the universe, but is not involved in its upkeep and is not its owner or lord or judge.

blazecorp

Grow up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp Into a Mason?

No thanks!

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, just an adult with a brain would be a good start.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp Thanks, but that involves the right to reject Freemasonry - as I did.

What are you complaining about?

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl 1st GAOTU is not a word and it is not from the French. 2nd. Nowhere in masonry does it say the creator is just that and doesn't monitor/upkeep the universe. As a matter of fact its the opposite and if you knew what you were talking about, the evidence is right in front of you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp Heard of Acronyms?

English : Great Architect Of The Universe = GAOTU

French : Grand Architecte De L'Univers = GADLU.

"Nowhere in masonry does it say the creator is just that and doesn't monitor/upkeep the universe."

1) But does it state He still owns the Universe and is its Lord?

Or can Masons pretend "he" has given it over to man?

So much about "suggests".

I did not say Masonry stated the false suggestion explicitly.

2) You are not adressing my first point, Nimrod being an Architect.

Check out Luke 14:28-30.

I think the Real God stated why He did not use "architect" as one Biblical name for Himself.

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl When making the comment it would seem you are using the acronym as a word. Try to be clearer. As for Nimrod, he may have been a king but he wasn't the architect of the universe. There for it is clear he wasn't the architect GAOTU is based on. Please don't make things up in an attempt to create false information about Freemasonry. And as for rejecting Freemasonry...so what. Its not for everyone.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp "he wasn't the architect of the universe"

No, but he was the architect of a tower that didn't go very well.

Not something that the maker and Lord of the universe wants to be compared to.

"There for it is clear he wasn't the architect GAOTU is based on."

I didn't say he was.

"And as for rejecting Freemasonry...so what. Its not for everyone."

It's in fact for no one, since it is a heresy.

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And at no point does Freemasonry compare him to God. You're comparing him. Thats like saying Jesus is King but lets compare him to Herod the King.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes you did. You compared him. Associated him to Nimrod.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp You know, I did not say you consciously based your title for God on Nimrod (even if the devil or very evil ultrainitiates behind you may have done so).

I am saying God probably based His Biblical non-use of such a title on His disgust for Nimrod.

Christ and Herod both being Kings is in fact sth which has a point : that is how Herod came to think of Christ as a rival.

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl hang on....Your original post was about reasons for not becoming a Freemason. You actually ARE saying that the use of G.A.O.T.U. is a comparison with Nimrod. Its your first point. Ive proved your second point false. And now you ARE comparing Herod and Christ? At this time of the year? Dude whats wrong with you?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp "You actually ARE saying that the use of G.A.O.T.U. is a comparison with Nimrod."

No, I am saying it is comparable with Nimrod.

I am not saying you are making that comparison consciously or deliberately.

I am saying God, the real God, is making it and therefore not accepting worship as G.A.O.T.U.

@blazecorp "And now you ARE comparing Herod and Christ?"

Both were in some fashion kings of Judah.

The de facto and the de jure one.

Both true for Herod the Great who murdered infants and for Herod Antipas (I think it was) who was promoting the Crucifixion.

God wanted that comparison for a purpose.

@blazecorp Plus, you have not exactly proven my second point false, there are lots of Masons who would even deny personality to GAOTU, like Grand Orient type Masons. Or, perhaps they do not even accept that concept, but some who do have no Theistic concept of it.

Voltaire clearly was a Mason, clearly was not Grand Orient type and clearly had a Deistic concept of GAOTU - as an architect who after handing "the house" over to man leaves it to them. Hence no miracles, that would be like contracted architect paying uncalled visits to new owners.

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl How do you know what God is thinking? Why would he not except praise and pray from those that worship him? Do you think he would get confused? You seem to have knowledge about God no one else on this planet has, I wonder how? Or is this just your opinion?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl How do you know this? You're making an assumption on behalf on God. Do you speak for him more than others?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp As a Catholic I can note the Catholic Church has not approved invoking God under that name.

And I can also note, it is not in the Bible either.

I can also judge freemasonry on its fruits.

Even barring things like its being behind French revolution, it is certainly behind much of the indifferentism as to religious confession which wears down to indifference against certain moral rules of the right religion, that being Catholicism.

When was the last time a lodge openly took sides against contraception or homosexuality?

blazecorp

Hans-Georg Lundahl Once again you both belittle God and make assumptions on his behalf. Masons come from all walks of life. We live the motto “love thy brother” . Something Jesus both taught and practiced. We are not a religion so we allow our members to practice their own faiths. When we say GAOTU, it is a personal prayer to our own God.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes let’s judge Freemasonry by its fruits with proof. We have built hospitals, funded schools, supplied scholarships, built retirement villages for the elderly. Things we haven’t done: created wars (no we were not behind the French revolutionary movement and if you’re going to make things up then supply proof), inquisitions, witch burnings, barter with fascist governments and ignored genocide, judge others because they are different and create divisions within Gods children. We are NOT a religion but we teach morals and ethics.

You want to us to take a stand against things that divide the people. And you wonder why the Church is losing people at a record rate. You wonder why people protest the church regularly.

You’re disgusting judgemental attitude should be turned in for awhile. You’d find a lot to deal with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp "Masons come from all walks of life. We live the motto “love thy brother” . Something Jesus both taught and practiced."

He also chose a clergy, and taught to hear it as one would hear him and hear God the father.

"We are not a religion so we allow our members to practice their own faiths. When we say GAOTU, it is a personal prayer to our own God."

Meaning, if someone is praying to the idols Osiris or Baal, you accept that too, and you certainly accept "brothers" who consider the Quran or the Kabbalah give better clues to God's identity than the Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian creeds along with the update to Trentine Creed (Nicene + some added anti-Protestant clarifications).

"We have built hospitals, funded schools, supplied scholarships, built retirement villages for the elderly."

Which Catholics did well before you.

And better scholarship.

"Things we haven’t done: created wars (no we were not behind the French revolutionary movement and if you’re going to make things up then supply proof),"

Apart from Barruel's studies on the matter, there is the fact that a few months before 14 July 1789, a Mason was in command when putting down a popular protest in a very bloody way, which led to the kind of shame in the army where not firing on the insurrection (which clearly became one) was seen as a good thing.

Plus of course, while Jacobins didn't start the French Revolution, their takeover of it was a particularly bloody episode. You are not denying that Club Bréton was a kind of lodge?

"inquisitions, witch burnings,"

I'm subtly reminded on who is providing a Black Legend against the Catholic Church on these grounds.

"barter with fascist governments"

Sure, Pius XI should have continued claiming Papal states and at the very least insist Vatican state was a continuation of it. Reminds me of how Masons were hardly very pro-Catholic in the dark days of 1870.

"and ignored genocide,"

Being unaware of a secret genocide is perhaps not a crime. Were Masons aware before 1945 and were they providing Catholics with proof? Plus, being too outspoken against Hitler would have provoked further atrocities on his part, at least Pius XII thought so. You don't mean you are promoting the lies of Hochhut, are you?

"judge others because they are different and create divisions within Gods children."

Christ certainly gave His Church the right and duty to judge. And your claim to unity "despite sectarian differences" is in itself another sectarian difference drawing God's children away from the Catholic Church.

"We are NOT a religion but we teach morals and ethics."

Well, Christ provided His religion with the right and duty to teach morals and ethics, are your morals and ethics the Catholics ones? You haven't answered when a lodge last condemned contraception or homosexuality, for instance, nor, by the way, am I very sure all lodges consider abortion should be forbidden in law. In fact I think there was a Masonic majority in Supreme court during the infamous Roe vs Wade case. There certainly was when "dividing wall between Church and state" was being introduced.

"You want to us to take a stand against things that divide the people. And you wonder why the Church is losing people at a record rate. You wonder why people protest the church regularly. You’re disgusting judgemental attitude should be turned in for awhile. You’d find a lot to deal with."

With "disgusting" you just forfeited your credibility in claiming to be non-judgemental. Morals and ethics do divide people. So much indeed that Kantian or ex-Kantian Eichmann found certain Nazi directives ethical.

blazecorp

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I do love the pride and arrogance you show...As if you are right and anyone who questions you are wrong....Now I wonder who else showed that type of pride and arrogance? I'm pretty sure he took a fall...what was his name again? You'd know him as you seem to have a lot in common.

As for accepting men who follow different religions, yes we do. Muslims and Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist. They are all men of this Earth and there for equal. We tend not to have your pride or arrogance. Their faith is there own.*

I do like your attempt at trying to drag me into a "pissing" contest. "We did it before you did..." Please try to behave like an adult.**

As for Club Breton being a Masonic lodge, not it was not and if you are attempting to link it, we can add liar to pride and arrogance. If you have some proof? But I can see that it had many links to the Catholic faith...hmmm.***

As for the church and its dealings with fascists. Your wonderful church didn't even lift a finger to help those being sent to the concentration camps in Germany during WW2 but you were happy to take the scraps from Mussolini. Masons built underground organisations to help get people out of war torn areas° and for their trouble 100,000 were killed in those concentration camps. Hitler hated Freemasonry because he called it the greatest opposition to fascism on the planet.°°

I admit to judging you in this case°°° as you have shown yourself to be a bigot~ and hatemonger.~~ A man who throws religion up into the faces of those different to him~~~ and promotes injustice and inequality.~~~~ You are so far away from the path of Christ its scary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp "Your wonderful church didn't even lift a finger to help those being sent to the concentration camps in Germany during WW2"

When it came to Club Breton, I asked, I didn't assert.

You did assert above lie, which I quoted.

Check the Assisi Underground by Ramati.

Check also why Rabbi Zolli chose to convert after the War.

Since asserting a thing you cannot exactly know is a lie in your book, even if you believe it, just because it isn't true, you are now by your criterium a liar.

@blazecorp "Now I wonder who else showed that type of pride and arrogance? I'm pretty sure he took a fall...what was his name again?"

The one the Pharisees considered arrogant took 3 falls to Calvary.

He also rose from the dead.

He answered

only little.

Here:

blazecorp

Hans-Georg Lundahl I do love the way you cherry pick. A talent at the very least. Just like when you need something to persecute someone. Oh the bible says this but ignore this part because I break that rule. I wonder what God thinks of your cherrypicked practice of Christianity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@blazecorp You have given no example.

Apart from that

he didn't answer.

So, here are the other items in footnotes.

* Yes, their faiths are their own, mine is God's.

** It escaped him that I did not content myself with saying who was first, I added who was providing best scholarship.

It also escaped him that it is hardly "adult" to get worked up about accusations against someone's Church, especially if claiming to accept all faiths, which adds inconsistency to the "pissing contest" aspect.

*** Club Breton met in a former convent of Dominicans. Key word former. It's like tying the Lutheran curate in Wittenberg to Catholicism because what the Wittenberg Church was before Luther "reformed" it.

° As mentioned, so did the Catholic Church. The Assisi Underground specifically helped Jews to escape.

°° He hated the Catholic Church too.

°°° Candid admission.

~ In Masonic parlance that means Catholic.

~~ Hatemonger is rich from someone who routinely calls Catholics bigots. Rich, but not tasty.

~~~ Jesus also was not accepting false religion. See His less than gentle approach to many Pharisees, and His gentle but firm approach to a woman from Samarian sect.

~~~~ I don't see any thing I promoted as unjust, and inequality on some issues is not inherently so.

AronRa Tried to Answer 11 QQ for Atheists

somewhere else : Answering 11 QQ for Christians · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : AronRa Tried to Answer 11 QQ for Atheists

11 "unanswerable" questions for atheists - answered
AronRa | 5.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1PdswhKtXA

Q 1 ...

...did not refer mostly to St Paul, but to other martyrs who actually did claim to have both known Jesus before Crucifixion and seen Him risen.

Sts Peter, Andrew, James, according to many also John (though some identify him with the John who survived a martyrdom miraculously, went to Patmos and got into a grave in Ephesus, I think that might be another person than the brother of James), and a few more.

St Lazarus the four days dead who was raised himself before seeing Christ risen before becoming bishop in Samaria, before ending up in either Marseille or Larnaka (both Cyprus and Provence claim him, one of them obviously had a namesake confused with him). Yes, Lazarus existed as a name before he, it seems to be a Greek version of my fourth given name Elitzur, so, more than one 1st C Christian bishop can have been named so.

I mean, for any one claiming to have seen Jesus both before and after Calvary (or on Calvary, as is the case of one very probable John either brother of James or another as previously stated). Add hereto St Longinus (the Centurion). Add the wife of Pontius Pilate. For anyone of these, they can't easily be contingent on St Paul having what could otherwise be a hallucination.

And even St Paul can hardly have hallucinated, if his claimed contact with God enabled him to do miracles, like raising the boy from the dead who had fallen asleep in the window. Miracles recorded in acts by his disciple St Luke.

You are shifting question from "martyrs claiming to have seen Jesus risen" to "early Christian martyrs" in general.

The question was specifically about martyrs claiming to have seen Jesus risen, of these the only one who hadn't seen Him before crucifixion was St Paul.

1:20 "Claims of seeing their gods in person?"

No, I don't think this is the case.

And when it is, like Shiva or Poseidon appearing to Arjuna or Theseus, it could very easily (especially for Poseidon) be Satan.

In other cases, it is about deified men. Romulus and Hercules being two cases in point and Krishna a third.

Buddhists kind of deify a series of men claimed to be one reborn man, Dalai Lama. Claiming to have seen Tenzin Gyatso are normal claims. Even a Buddhist actually attributing some kind of "divine" qualities to him would not be hallucinating for claiming to have met Tenzin Gyatso.

Your dissection of "religions" is not doing the trick.

1:43 Give examples in "comparative religion" of claims clearly parallel to the claim of having seen Christ risen.

Q 2

You are somehow projecting Joel Osteen back to the bishops of 313. One of them, slapping famously Arius for denying divinity of Christ, in 325, had been in prison several years, I think more than one or perhaps two decades prior to 313.

What makes you compare St. Nicolas of Myra to Joel Osteen?

Plus, it didn't answer the question : how did such a very humble beginning acquire such numbers and influence.

It's a bit short on parallels.

Israelites starting with 70 people in Egypt who had lived in Canaan and before that even just one man (albeit with 318 or more servants), Rome starting with very poor village architecture where Romulus and Remus had drawn up a ritual city boundary.

Can you name grassroots qualities of Mohammed or Zoroaster, again .... how grassroots was Kung Fu Tse? How grassroots was Siddharta Gautama? How grassroots was High Cast exclusiveness apparent in Vedic Hinduism?

Somehow it seems, whatever your actual studies in comparative religion, you are comparing basically Appalachian Awakenings' sects.

2:45 "it was soon illegal to be anything else"

No, it was legal to be Jew. It was legal to practise paganism at home (pagan temples were torn down or remade to Churches while paganism was disestablished as state religion), at least if you had never been baptised.

And yes, I mean after Theodosius made heresy illegal and after he made public pagan worship illegal.

2:52 "the political power to murder an infidel in one or two witnesses"

Can you give any examples where you think pagans were falsely accused by Christians for crimes they did not commit?

Constantinian laws were made to discourage them from a violent backlash - as actually did happen a little before Theodosius, in the time of Julian the Apostate. Yes, it was violent. Yes, we do have cases of martyrs from his time. St Bibiana of Rome, December 2, along with her father, were martyred under his misrule.

"Constantine pushing it on everyone militarily"

He wasn't.

He was not persecuting pagans, though he did tear down some pagan temples, notably the Venus temple on Calvary was torn down by orders of his mother St Helen.

He was not persecuting Jews except those who had been persecuting Christians up to 313 (as some had).

He was persecuting Arian heretics, but mildly, and in the time of his sons, it was them persecuting Catholics instead, up to Julian the Apostate.

3:03 "the old hippie socialist religion would have died out as humbly as it began"

The question was about the situation in 313 before Constantine did anything in its direct favour.

5 to 6 million Roman citizens and residents were Christian.

That is not us humbly as back in 33.

You know, hippy socialist religions have a tendency to disappear before perecutions they can't avoid.

Take Anabaptists.

First the mutated from militant revolutionaries (non-hippie socialists) to pacifists between Münzer's execution and Menno's preaching. Second, they survived in the interval because of religious wars between potential persecutors. Third, they got as far away as persecutors as possible.

Christians cannot be shown to have thus mutated, they did not profit during 280 years (much longer than between Münzer and Menno) from Roman Empire being torn in violent religious conflict comparable to Reformation, and Roman Empire where they were 5 to 6 millions is where Diocletian had just made the tenth major persecution against them.

A very different story than how we have Mennonites and Amish in Pennsylvania.

"like all other religions of that time"

Platonism was arguably the dominant religion, coexisting with Roman Paganism of a more Homeric type a bit like Buddhism coexisted with Shintoism and still does in Japan. But a better comparison, Japan before Westernisation.

It didn't die humbly. It dried out, it was reduced to an élite, the élite fled to outside Roman Empire to continue esoteric teaching and some would claim modern esotericism still hankers back to that Platonism.

Roman Paganism didn't die until after Sack of Rome by Odoacar.

Sorry, Alaric.

St Augustine was writing City of God some time after 410 to prove to them (diehard élitist pagans, like St Augustine's father had been) that no, it was not due to neglect of Roman Gods since 313 that Rome was sacked, for instance Trojans had not neglected worshipping their gods. Virgil told us truthfully how they were sacked.

In 313, Christians were half the population in the East, one fifth in the West.

Not in a position to impose persecution of Pagans.

It came later, when Christians had gained more ground.

Now, this may disgust you as it does not disgust me, but whichever, the persecution of Pagans under Constantius II (a kind of Arian, a Semi-Arian) and under the emperors who had listened to St Ambrose really cannot explain how Christianity rose from 500 disciples or perhaps twice as many in 33 prior to Pentecost to 5 to 6 million in 313.

Muslims did not face persecution of a well organised empire, they were the best organised confederation of tribes fighting to make one from Yathrib on.

622 Mohammed having faced persecution in Mecca goes to Yathrib (now Medina) and 627 (five years later) Mohammed puts men to death in pitched battle. 5 years after that, he dies as basically emperor of Arabian Peninsula. This reminds of Calvinism, both Knox and Calvin, but not of Christianity.

Sikhs on their part became local rulers of Punjab early on.

Like Mohammed was trying to give a "golden mean" between Christianity and Judaism (both or which were violently at war in Arabia, while Pagans mostly looked on), so also Sikhism started out as a "golden mean" between Islam and Hinduism.

As the warring factions had large military means, so also the "golden mean" got one very soon by those tired of war.

No such "luck" for Christianity. It was as intolerant of Paganism as Judaism, and while Judaism and Samarians were at "war," religiously speaking, Romans imposed peace on both without Christianity needing to do so.

Hence 280 years without public power and its arms fighting for their even liberty.

Q 3

For your definition of "possible" reality as a whole is not possible.

"miracles are impossible by definition"

By whose definition?

Yes, miracles are impossible to some agents up to and including human ones with whatever technology, but they are not impossible to all agents. Not to God and for some things conveniently classified as miracles not for angels.

["appealing to" God / miracles / magic / supernatural] "doesn't constitute an answer"

Not a scientific principle, but an atheistic prejudice.

Q 4

He was not asking why humans "believe in spirits", but why we are spiritual.

How come you have a language? How come you can understand a language?

How come a rabbit won't ever be able to understand a language?

How come with language you can study mathematics?

How come with language you can study metaphysics (including your own atheistic version claiming miracles are by definition impossible for all agents)?

How come you can study theory of knowledge (including your own circular if not sloppy version in which any explanation has to be shown possible by an explanation already accepted)?

How come we have art?

Q 5

"an awareness of your surroundings established by a network of neurons and association with nerve sensors, some organisms have it only as a couple of senses like tactile sensation or homeostasis, others add a sense of sight or pain withou enough of a neural network to be fully aware or even awake, the more synapses you have, the more aware you are and the more things you can be aware of"

• 1) To a Theist, biology having some type of awareness is explicable in terms of that biology being created by a Spirit with some kind of soul.
  
  How do you account for matter being aware of anything?
  
  
• 2) How do you account for sense awareness giving rise to rational awareness of things like implications?

7:25 That you have met Cartesians who aren't Thomist is not an argument against the Thomistic view of things.

And yes, remembering things from some year or not is only a one ways criterium of consciousness back then.

If you remember things from then you were conscious. If you don't, you may still have been conscious, but forgotten everything. Why? The first year there is so much new things to learn. You forget so much of occasions of learning, and while lessons stick to later, you forget occasions of learning them.

This includes some emotional learning while in the uterus. I certainly can't remember hearing my mother rehearsing Latin words while she was awaiting me, but it certainly did predispose me for facility and pleasure in recognising Latin words later on.

7:59 If in infancy you had only had basic mammal intelligence, you could not have learned a language.

Guess what you were doing while an infant? Learning language.

"consciousness came from the development of the brain"

Could only do so if it had some kind of consciousness in the first place.

Where do you put the limit?

Do one celled creatures have awareness, despite having no specialised cells?

Did amino acids have awareness before abiogenesis?

That's called animism, and that is basically what Epicure taught - hence the idea corpses have some remaining awareness, hence the superstition of vampires.

Or do you consider awareness arises after a certain type of complexity is reached? By now, with so many bytes, computers should be aware. They are not. Computers being aware is disproven, if you know two languages and do some computer translations. Computers possibly becoming aware later on or the earlier dream of them becoming aware (still entertained by Elon Musk) is simply counterintuitive.

An abacus can be made more complex, but still not aware of the maths you are doing on it.

8:15 appealing to "when you all know better" and "the real answer" is not arguing, it is asking us to be brainwashed in your particular ideology.

8:34 I might fear going to Hell for becoming an atheist, if I found it anywhere like attractive intellectually.

I find it about as "what's the point?" as flat earthers, especially on the questions of language and consciousness.

There are things I do fear going to hell for, like not praying enough, like not forgiving my enemies, like not being charitable enough to atheists (some of which might think I am picking low hanging fruit if I go for your arguments), but becoming atheist is not actually one of them.

Do you fear becoming a Flat Earther?

Q 6

9:04 No, it is not "believers" it is scientists back when I was little who were giving sense 5 as sth involving all your senses 5 to 10. I am not sure what that would have been in English, if "feel" would have served, but in German, "Gefühl", and in Swedish "känsel" does serve (yes, "Gefühl" can also mean "feeling" in the emotional sense, in Swedish that would be the distinct "känsla").

I feel a smooth surface, I feel dizzy, I feel cold, I feel tired/hungry (if that is proprioception?), I feel aroused, I feel a toothache. All of these classically lumped together as sense 5. By Atheist like by Believer.

At least on the level of normal scientific literacy. Yes, sense 5 would have been subdivided into your senses 5 to 10 by certain specialists in neurology back then.

It is actually probably Atheists who coined the word "sixth sense" where some believers would prefer terms like "a nudge from God" or "inspiration of the guardian angel".

When I was little - I am born in 1968.

A Homeric pagan would have said "Hermes told me". Or "Athena told me".

Q 7

10:54 "in an incomprehensible vast abyss of freezing and boiling poisonous chaos"

There are two ways of counting odds actually.

Flip a coin, the probability of it being either side is supposed to be 50/50. From there you can mathematically calculate the probability of "between five and ten tails" in fifteen flipped coins.

The other way is checking with flipping whether the coin really has a 50/50 probability of heads and tails.

You seem to be referring to the other type, since you involve checking out exoplanets.

However, no known exoplanet has conditions like Earth, and claiming "there could be other conditions for biological life" is no better, in fact a lot worse than claiming there are other conditions for awareness than biology and not meaning computers.

In fact, this ties in with Carrier - how can he exclude a cosmos appearing from nothing from laws of non-contradiction, appears as a consciousness with omnipotence rather than as a spacetime with particles?

Q 8

11:08 "why does humanity cherish humility and honesty"

All of your rebuttal presupposes that you do in fact cherish humility and honesty.

Which takes quite a lot of weight out of your rebuttal.

You are one umpteenth sample of humanity, and this umpteenth sample of humanity does cherish humility and honesty.

At least enough to complain about everyone else including questioner not doing so.

Q 9 (sorry, still on Q 8)

Your atheistic faith actually can't do it very well either, even if somewhat better than the Mormon faith you were being pushed into.

Correct your own misconceptions to improve your understanding.

13:07 "cult leaders say the best way to control people is to strip them of their pride"

Sure, but the best way to want to control others is not having your own pride stripped. Or having a compensation need after it was.

Did scientists telling you of your "confirmation bias" strip you of so much pride you want to be a scientist cult leader?

There certainly are some religious people who you seem to want to strip of the pride of knowing better.

Q 9 (for real).

It is somewhat discouraging to see an Apologist reducing natural law to "empathy".

I already knew you had an answer on this one.

Now, to put "natural law" back in perspective, morality normally means one "should" do a thing.

How can an emergent quality of population be obliging to one of its constituent individuals?

15:07 Here you are reducing the very wide category of religion to one subset of false religion, Protestantism.

As a Catholic, I believe Henry VIII was a believing Catholic and went to Hell for a lot of other sins than unbelief.

Including imposing schism on England and Ireland, including giving heretics (whom he would with some thought have identified as such) the right to despoil monasteries, including giving heretics the right to define Bible text and liturgy (the reason why Irish Catholics finally remembered they were Papist, they were much less interested in Supremacy act than in English liturgy replacing Latin), and of course personal acts of lechery and abuse of power.

"gullibility sole criteria for redemption"

Not gullibility in the face of Muslims, Protestants, Jews, Pagans or Atheists, no.

15:22 A criminal Christian can't get to heaven unless repenting.

Since the OT was still ongoing on Good Friday, both the robbers, by the fact of being Jews, were kind of Christians.

However, it was only the one of them repenting who actually was promised paradise.

15:19 "kind, fair and charitable heathens and infidels"

Oh, but if someone consistently is that, God probably offers them a chance of becoming Catholics.

Heard of St Eustace?

One day on a hunt, he saw a vision of a cross between the antlers of the prey he was hunting. He slowed down and saw Christ talk from that cross.

Thy alms have pleased me.

And then Christ laid out the conditions for Eustathius and his family getting to Heaven.

Q 10

Even a fanatic pro-Trump would consider "the great Trump in the sky" as blasphemy.

Your overall answer was foreseeable.

Oh, by the way, would he ...?

The point is, even if you think Trump is what US needs (I think he's at least slightly better than Obama, but that's not saying much), you would admit he is a man who has flaws - which God by definition has not.

Admiring someone who in fact is admirable is a pure joy - as pure as the admirable qualities are.

Q 11

Your answer to why there is evil is exactly the same principle as Hitler's.

Not in application, not in balance between genetics and upbringing, but in deterministic principle.

• 1) You don't believe anything is inherently for all centuries and all populations right or wrong, you consider morality emerges with the population.
  
  Corrollary : in any conflict between individual and population, barring elementary misunderstandings, individual is wrong and population is right.
  
  You have not taken the extra step of applying this also to minority populations, but you could.
  
  
• 2) Whoever is evil (never general population, see above) is for without his freewill being in cause.
  
  Corrollary : he has no ill deserts which can be punished, and if small enough leave him a life after punishment. He only has bad dispositions which the general population can require him to change and his only real chance of a life after "repercussions" is changing.
  
  You may not have taken the extra step of concluding those who resolutely refuse to change should be "eliminated." Either shut up and key thrown away or killed. Oh, unless they leave the country.

In other words, your analysis of evil is a great recipe for becoming cruel. Especially to people you find less typical of the general population than you are yourself.

I will not accuse Trump of being precisely that (ok, there are already incidents like taking away children at the border, but there is a wider problem of CPS taking away children), but there are definitely some pro-Trump people who are that.

There are also some non-pro-life Republicans who are that even more.

Oh, the last quip on Pedophile clergy reminds who is an Atheist clergyman ... Roman Catholicism (as such, not Vatican II version) was identifying homosexuals in clergy and expelling them from publically serving as clergy since 1568, when Pope St. Pius V saw there was a problem.

mrtadreamer

Do you think pedophile clergy might be born that way?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@mrtadreamer "What type" of "pedophile"?

The word is useless.

Pedophile means attracted to children, and children have two things only in common : being human, not being mature.

But "not mature" is very different between a toddler abused ritually in a lodge and a pre-teen where cuddling went to far.

Also, the word is even used of persons having already reached puberty but being legally "gaol-bait". Usually according to some recent raise in marriage minimal ages. The word child, that is.

Therefore, the word pedophile does not cover one reality, but two or rather three different ones. Let's not forget the kind of homosexuality called pederasty.

I don't think anyone is born a pederast any more than I think anyone is born any other type of sodomite.

I don't think those abusing toddlers are born that way either, I think they are pushed that way by bad lodges or sects.

That by the way is nearly never the case with "pedophile clergy", it is usually either teen romance or at worst pre-teen romance or, even more often, pederasty.