On Trusting Science

Catholic Priest: Can Science be Trusted?
21st April 2021 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TtWMtVcVw

1:32

Draper was right on one item, though: the Church in 1633 - though Francis Marsden said 1634 - really did condemn, not Galileo's attitude, but:

• that the Sun is the immobile centre of the world
• that the Earth moves "in the third heaven" above it and also by a daily motion.

1:53

"Galileo was not stripped of his teaching faculties ..."

No, he didn't have any ecclesial teaching faculties in the first place.

"but because he taught what he couldn't prove"

A thing which is true per accidens, but not per se.

Per se, his position was condemned because of stating:

• that the Sun is the immobile centre of the world
• that the Earth moves "in the third heaven" above it and also by a daily motion.

Per accidens, he could have avoided being condemned for it if he had been able to prove it - at least back when defending the Assayer or Sidereus Nuntius. But from this we cannot extrapolate that "once heliocentrism is proven, it is no longer condemned" because in fact while the Galileo cases ended with no proof for heliocentrism, unlike what many others state, this does not mean it was ever better proven later.

Nor that the condemnation of those two sentences was ever revoked by an undisputed Pope (Antipope Wojtyla isn't one, so the 1992 revocation doesn't count with those not counting him as Pope, including both Sedes, and more germainly to myself, Pope Michael).

3:17

And maybe some important question was left out of the study ...

1) Bessel identifies a movement of a star in Cygnus as the "parallax" missing when Galileo and St. Robert discussed things.

However, since both Galileo and St. Robert agreed that the fix stars were the outermost orbit or sphere without movement around the centre of the universe, the parallax they would have wanted to see presence or absence of once telescopes would allow it would have been one uniformly affecting all of the fix stars. The Bessel observation would fit as parallax in an infinite or at least very very very large universe to which distances within "solar system" are insignificant compared to the ones between stars outside it. But it contradicts the kind of parallax that Galileo would have predicted.

2) Bessel had no use either for Tychonian orbits or for angelic movers. This means, he never asked the question whether, and never refuted the position that the movement of that star in Cygnus was performed by an angelic mover. He just assumed physical factors as per Newtonian physics were all the factors mattering on this scale.

4:52

Your view of what the scientific method is:

1) Observe
2) Hypothesise
3) Test
4) Conclude
5) Repeat
_______________
a) sounds like Popper's ideal of how science should be done, is not how science actually was done by any particular either in Galileo's or in Bessel's time;
b) also doesn't adress what happens if those socially considered qualified to "do" science systematically by a cultural flaw avoid hypothesising about certain possibilities (like angelic movers);
c) also very clearly isn't what happened over time about Geocentrism to Modern Acentrism - because in fact no test was designed to exclude geocentrism except those that confirmed it (assuming luminiferous aether, Michelson and Morley tested annual movement and failed, there is also Airy's failure).

5:37

An overall scientific method cannot be true or false, because it neither is nor contains any statement.

It can be useful or useless, and it can be adequate or inadequate for finding truth. But it cannot be true as it cannot be false either.

Only individual statements can be true or false.

Anything you seem to have as "statements" once "individual studies" are abstracted away are doctrines, without reference to the studies that support or maybe even dismiss them. And those doctrines aren't the method, they are the cultural backdrop to the people at present using the method with the approval of "all of society" (except the minorities that do not approve evolutionists or heliocentric-acentrics being trusted with using that method).

One thing more that it actually can be : observed or ignored by those doing science. The overall "scientific method" of Popper that you outlined actually is more ignored than observed in practise.

6:09

Facts which are true facts are truth.

They may not be all the truth there is, but they certainly are truth as far as they go.

You haven't started adressing whether the scientific community today is or isn't habitually denying or ignoring true facts (to which I would count angelic movers) and whether it is or isn't habitually believing false facts (to which I would count metaphysical materialism - the idea thoughts are an elaboration of matter - deep time, deep space, molecules to man evolution).

6:25

No, truth is not "about meaning and purpose".

Truth involves correct factual statements about meaning and purpose, whereever and on whatever levels these exist (there is some factual disagreement between "matter in certain chemical and electronic movements indulges in an illusion of consciousness, meaning and purpose" and "matter is not the most basically real reality, but was created by a being having consciousness and doing so with meaning and purpose"). But truth involves factual statements of other types too. Like "the relation of a perimeter to a diameter of a perfect circle is unequal to any relation between two numbers, it is always lower than one or higher than one, like higher than 314:100 but lower than 315:100, higher than 3141:1000 but lower than 3142:1000" (the fact sometimes misstated as "pi is an irrational number" which the Middle Ages were supposed not to know - in fact they didn't count pi as a number in the first place).

Dito for "wisdom" and "knowing what to do with" - stating that that is truth is in fact the error of pragmatism.

6:54

"science can measure brain waves"

or heart beats ... you are here talking about what some call "natural science".

Now, natural or physical science can very definitely state its dependence on a metaphysics where the relation of such things to meaning gets its answers.

If there is spirit, there is meaning, since the attributes of spirit are knowledge and will. But if there is spirit, that also involves there being some correlation between spirit and matter. If an immaterial spirit (rather than a computer made by certain types of cells) is making these reflections, that means that an immaterial spirit is moving material keys on a keyboard by means of fingers that are material and directly controlled by it.

And that brings up the problem of how spirit and matter interact, and the only answer that will help is one which is assumed to be factual. It would be Kantian dichotomy to pretend "we cannot by observation prove a spirit moves a keyboard by fingers, but we must postulate it to live well" ... and there used to be, perhaps a 100 years ago, a certain attitude from Thomists to what they consider "Aquikantians" - Kantians using expressions from Aquinas but taking facts from Kant.

And the dichotomy between fact and truth you give sounds heavily Aquikantian to me, or perhaps rather just Kantian without any Aqui ...

Your example of the sunset pretends that only those data accepted by the scientific community as verifiable are so.

Memory data are verifiably such. Relief from heat (if the day has been hot) or exposure to cold (if it hasn't) or both, are verifiable. Just because something is not counted as "natural science" doesn't mean it deals with other things than verifiable sense data.

9:10

"[Science] is a form of inquiry that provides immense benefit to the human experience ..."

This is clearly unverified for:

• heliocentrism
• deep space
• deep time
• molecules to man evolution.

Matt Fradd took on the End Times

New blog on the kid: Babylonian Numerals for a certain number have a certain shape · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On End Times Prophecy · Matt Fradd took on the End Times

What You Need To Know About Anti-Christ (From Scripture and St Thomas Aquinas)
26th April 2021 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUgvq95Yg0g

1:51 I wonder if the Stein would really not spill over after two minutes of beer poured in?

3:11 No, I am not sure you know of Mother Basilea Schlink, Lutheran "Marienschwester" of Darmstadt abbess (I think they have converted since ... no, the site still marks "Evangelische Marienschwester" - evangelisch not meaning US Evangelical, more like United Church of Canada, except the partner of Calvinists are Lutherans in this case).

Me and ma visited her monastery, and we got or bought two books, one on angels, and one on the Apocalypse. The latter is exactly where I first heard about the Antichrist, unless I had already made it in my NT reading to the Apocalypse.

6:04 St John Paul II = Antipope Wojtyla with two or three miracles each inadequate.

French nun cured from Parkinson symptoms - recovery at invocation was not quite final.

Hispano-American woman cured from a brain damage - recovery was gradual, though non-naturally fast.

Someone (I have just one man's words for it) in India also woke up from coma - natural explanation not excluded.

So, he said what? His words [those here cited] are obviously correct. I think this Eucharistic conference of Philadelphia may have been before the Cold War ended (I didn't hear you say a year), and back then, apart from two events in 1986 (visit to synagogue and Assisi) he was decent.

24:20 No one preaching false doctrine can work miracles ... St. Thomas Aquinas as per your citation.

Well, the two miracles up to Wojtyla's canonisation weren't such and the third one I heard of wasn't such either, according to old standards:

• quite final healing
• that is sudden
• and cannot be explained naturally.

Have you noted, you posted the video on the anniversary of Chernobyl - 13 days after Wojtyla in 1986 walked into the Synagogue as an humble visitor. He did so 13.IV.2021 and on Gregorian 26.IV you obviously had Julian (ecclesiastically relevant for Ukraine, where Chernobyl is) 13.IV.

11:57 The Catechism of the Catholic Church or rather of a not so Catholic one....

On this topic it seemed OK.

27:00 Modern authors to like: John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and Clive Staples Lewis. Both for fiction and other writings.

I tried Dostoevski, and found him unreadable, bc too emotionally screwing up, if the words don't seem to gross (I read first half of Crime and Punishment in a stretch, with caffeine pills to keep me awake, and never picked up second half).

But I've heard of what he's about, and I'd say Tolkien is Dostoevski made readable. So, on occasion, is CSL.

Heard of Father Elijah, started reading Lord of the World (in which Antichrist is an US president, this was written before there was a Soviet Union).

[deleted comment with time sign. bef. 28:00]

I posted about "Catholics" who aren't Young Earth Creationists, which is part of keeping the traditions written or oral, and my dialogues with them.

You seem to have done some Jewish style gatekeeping.

I will tell you one way in which you do NOT fight the Antichrist like Father Elijah is suppposed to do: single out one layman, impoverished by lack of editor, and do gate keeping to impoverish him some morebecause he just might be the Antichrist or the False Prophet.

I found your deletion when trying to post this answer:

28:05 ... of the Church He established.

You might want to check out with a hierarch who actually still is Young Earth Creationist (like Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) as well as Geocentric (like these too).

I am only a layman, but I adher to Pope Michael.
https://www.vaticaninexile.com/

28:22 I actually do know what plastic is, as far as the material science is concerned : polymers. Large molecules of hydrocarbons from petrol joined together in even larger ones.

I also do know that very cost-effective ball point pens started when Marcel Bich - a French baron, producer of fountain pens and pencils - decided to make sth better than Eversharp, Waterman and a few more. The ball point is made of tungsten,and it's polished for 10 days to get the exact right shape. Fortunately, it is also very small. The ink is a secret recipe of Bic company, and together they allow the pen to write a line of 3 kilometers.

I read about it the other day.

28:35 I do not have the skill to actually wrap a cigar or make a lense, either for magnifying glass or for goggles, but know to an approximation how the process goes.

29:03 I think you misdefine the role of the papacy somewhat.

Certain parts of knowledge belong very directly to the revelation, and obviously they have been given to the laymen through generations of bishops defending them.

Other parts less directly, but knowing them is still no sin. This involves historic details about Genesis. It may on occasion become more urgent, for instance to defend the Young Earth Creationist position which is part of doctrine on more than one account (goodness of God's initial creation of man, fall, inerrancy of the Bible, infallibility of the Church through the ages) ...

The papacy on such a matter would not be in the role of proposing, but of judging.

If certain hierarchs or seeming such pretend to be not yet ready to judge my work, they pretend to be judging it as something more than the work of a writer, and they may be doing so because they know they cannot judge without judging themselves.

• They approve my work - they condemn the recent anti-YEC stance and the past treatment of me;
• they condemn it - they show they are treating recent changes as dogma and will therefore give sufficient warning to many more real Catholics now accepting them to shun them (Mil Sneler, Robert Sungenis and a few more).

29:27 That we can know

Yes, I agree. But exactly how long ago is magisterium still magisterium to you?

Is what Bergoglio said last year still magisterium? Is what Ratzinger said before him, if [Bergoglio] doesn't repeat it still so? Is Pope St. Pius X still magisterium? Is St.Augustine still magisterium when he speaks like a young earth creationist (not a literal six days, that's another question)?

De Civitate Dei. When I converted in 1988, no one could authoritatively tell me, I had to quit being a Young Earth Creationist. The Wojtyla decisions with Ratzinger from early 90's had not yet condemned "Fundamentalist Bible exegesis". But I was told more informally I didn't have to be a YEC, and in Sweden this was a strain, socially, and I was reassured since I was still accepting so much supernatural truth which the Modernists in CoS didn't believe, and I took kind of time off. Reading Aquinas was obviously steeping me in both Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism, but didn't move me to a definite stance. Reading De Civitate Dei, which is also very relevant for end times, did.

29:58 if they aren't faithful to the Church Christ established

I feel kind of pointed at, from the side of those taking Bergoglio as actual Pope.

we shouldn't listen to them

Observe there is a difference between listen to what someone has to say - hear him out - and hear him as a good source.

Anyone taking Bergoglio as Pope, since he is Evolutionist, has prima facie a case for me being a bad source. But there is a difference between that and shutting me up and making sure some of my comments aren't read by deleting them, not speaking about my blogs and thereby generally ruining my prospects as a writer.

On End Times Prophecy

New blog on the kid: Babylonian Numerals for a certain number have a certain shape · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On End Times Prophecy · Matt Fradd took on the End Times

Q

Do we still have years before the Antichrist comes since the third temple hasn’t been built yet and the peace deal hasn‘t been completed/there’s still wars/conflicts in the Middle East?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-still-have-years-before-the-Antichrist-comes-since-the-third-temple-hasn-t-been-built-yet-and-the-peace-deal-hasn-t-been-completed-there-s-still-wars-conflicts-in-the-Middle-East/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Morgan Johansson

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered 2:41 pm 28.IV.2021

I don’t think this is a safe conclusion, no.

“the Temple of God” of II Thessalonians could very easily be the St. Peter’s Basilica of Rome.

Confirming “a peace deal with many” is not necessarily attributed of the Antichrist.

It’s at least as probable Elijah will confirm to Jews the covenant with many that Christ founded in the Catholic Church.

We might have some years before the world ends, though, since we don’t seem to have seen Henoch and Elijah on the world scene. However, it could be because media hide things, but I don’t think so.

But Antichrist will arguably have been making a good impression on people before becoming a full scale persecutor, meaning, he could very well have already come.

More on Flood and Babel

Q I

Could the Tower of Babel have actually been part of the early Egyptian civilization and one of it’s very first cities?
https://www.quora.com/Could-the-Tower-of-Babel-have-actually-been-part-of-the-early-Egyptian-civilization-and-one-of-it-s-very-first-cities/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered April 13

Answering:

“Could the Tower of Babel have actually been part of the early Egyptian civilization and one of it’s very first cities?”

I’ll distinguish:

• could theoretically
• could probably.

Could theoretically, yes. It seems that some occasions Alexandria in Egypt has been identified with Babel or even Babylon.

Could probably, not on my view. See below.

I’ll also distinguish:

• tower of Babel
• city of Babel.

Now, the Hebrew and Vulgate text says “they ceased to build the city” but only the LXX says also “and the tower”.

I take Babel to be a city completely abandoned, I take the tower project as being a project not abandoned finally, and very recently actually realised.

Before take-off, what did Apollo five look like? A tower. It was raised vertically.
How much of it reached into space, a k a heaven? Only the top of it, steps 1 and 2 being discarded along the way up.

This brings about the classical question, do I think Nimrod could have built a functioning rocket if God hadn’t stopped him? No, no more than Leonardo could have built a functioning air plane.

Some people are so into progress that if I attribute a rocket project to Nimrod, he must in my view have been a genius who could have pulled off a rocket take-off into space. It doesn’t occur that I take him to be a dunce, a dangerous idiot back then, talented in leadership, having exercised many a successful captaincy over many a mammoth hunt, but absolutely promoted to his level of IN-competence when it came to Babel and the project of a tower moving upward until its top reaches into space.

There is a city that was abandoned with no reversal, where wild beasts would have rested, houses have been filled with serpents, ostriches would have dwelt until it was all covered in sand. When the sand was uncovered recently, some (including Graham Hancock and myself) have found the scenery very like a rocket launching ramp. I have said Göbekli Tepe. It is also in Mesopotamia, since East of Euphrates and West of Tigris.

Q II

Is it possible that the pyramids existed before the Tower of Babel and was built by Noah’s descendants instead of at the time of the tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-the-pyramids-existed-before-the-Tower-of-Babel-and-was-built-by-Noah-s-descendants-instead-of-at-the-time-of-the-tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sun

I would say they were built some centuries after Babel.

Babel = Göbekli Tepe, carbon dated to beginning 9600 BC for near real 2607 BC and to ending 8600 BC for near real 2556 BC.

Pyramids are in real time after Abraham’s birth 2015 BC. In chapter 12 or 13 he meets the first pharao. Chapters of Genesis, I mean. This means, it carbon dates in 4th millennium BC.

Q III

Why does it appear biblically that the ancient world around the time of the Tower of Babel appeared to be the same as before Noah’s flood?
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-it-appear-biblically-that-the-ancient-world-around-the-time-of-the-Tower-of-Babel-appeared-to-be-the-same-as-before-Noah-s-flood/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 1h ago

I suppose you refer to Shinar meaning the land between Euphrates and Tigris, while these two rivers are also two rivers of Paradise, mentioned in Genesis 2 for the pre-Flood world.

I would solve the problem by saying the Euphrates and Tigris surrounding post-Flood Shinar are not quite identical to the Frat and Hiddekel of the pre-Flood world. I think they are same riverbeds, but running opposite directions.

So, Frat would have been Euphrates (in opposite direction), running down through what is now Black Sea then Danube (also in opposite direction), running down through what are now Alps into Rhine, Rhône and Seine. And across a stretch of Atlantis, now sunk but only after the Flood, and into St. Lawrence and into Mississippi. Onto the North West corner of the pre-Flood world.

In other words, it does not appear Biblically that the ancient world around the time of the Tower of Babel is the same as that before Noah’s Flood.

Q IV

Where did Cain get the people from to build his city which he named after his son?
https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Cain-get-the-people-from-to-build-his-city-which-he-named-after-his-son/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1?

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 1:18 pm next day

• 1) Adam and Eve had more children than just three.
• 2) Cain got a sister or niece as wife and children but also some less important siblings than Seth and some of their children from among those other children.

Q V

If Damascus is the world’s oldest city at 5,000 years old, could it have possibly been the first organized civilization built before the Tower of Babel? https://www.quora.com/If-Damascus-is-the-world-s-oldest-city-at-5-000-years-old-could-it-have-possibly-been-the-first-organized-civilization-built-before-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1?

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 2:21 pm

I copy this from wiki on the city:

“Carbon-14 dating at Tell Ramad, on the outskirts of Damascus, suggests that the site may have been occupied since the second half of the seventh millennium BC, possibly around 6300 BC.”

6300 BC in carbon dates would have been in real dates between 2332 BC to 2309 BC, with Babel ending in 2556 BC.

However, we also see:

“However, evidence of settlement in the wider Barada basin dating back to 9000 BC exists, although no large-scale settlement was present within Damascus walls until the second millennium BC.”

9000 BC in carbon dates would be between the carbon dates for Babel / Göbekli Tepe, namely 9600 to 8600 BC. It would be in about mid time of Babel, in 2585 between 2607 and 2556 BC.

Here is the wiki for Damascus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus#Early_settlement

And here is the calibration I have made partly on the equation Babel = Göbekli Tepe:

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

That is my stance, and as long as you don’t show a structure that is carbon dated even older than Göbekli Tepe and which also is in between Euphrates and Tigris, I don’t see much need to change it.

The carbon date 9000 BC there was just a small settlement, and that is consistent with the place being populated but sending delegations of workers and deliveries to Babel by getting East to Euphrates and following it upwards to Göbekli Tepe. Tell Qaramel is perhaps older, but West of Euphrates.

I am not and do not pretend to be a prophet, nor do I pretend to be or aspire to become your pastor, I am a writer. If you wish to differ from me, you can do so, insofar as your reasons prompt you honestly, and there is no disobedience, since you don’t owe me obedience in the first place. So, why do you keep trying to find reasons for me to reconsider what you already know to be my stance? If you have what you consider a solid reason against it, why not state it below in comments?

I

Ron Barak

May 8

Jericho
Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE),[12][13] almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history.[14][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 9

Nice, but you forget that Göbekli Tepe has its layers from 9600 to 8600 BC.

In other words, Göbekli Tepe starts before Damascus does.

Christian Farivar

Sat

It is not a civilization because it did not continue nor is there any Alphabet. You need study bit more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4h ago

Continuing and having an alphabet are not criteria needed for Civilisation.

b

Christian Farivar

May 9

Settlements are not cities. We have been making Settlements at least known dating 45000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 10

Göbekli Tepe however is a city.

A settlement from carbon dated 45 000 BP would be a pre-Flood one.

II

Christian Farivar

May 9

Wikipedia is a site anyone can add info to, and is not an acceptable reference.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

May 10

I don’t give two pence for what you consider acceptable references.

You didn’t give any such for:

• Damascus being older than Göbekli Tepe
• or Damascus being between Euphrates and Tigris.

Christian Farivar

Sat

Then you are spreading lies and should be banned.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4h ago

No, your (his*) view of “acceptable references” does not equal “truth”, my rejection of that criterium does not equal spreading lies.

Note *

Christian Farivar disabled comments, so not sure he gets notified of a reply I technically made as reply to my previous.

Christian Farivar

"Popular historian of technology and political philosophy / Master's of Liberal Arts in Management, Harvard University Expected 2022"

Doesn't seem his credentials are very adapted to the question. However, his university matches his prejudices.

Q VI

Do most linguists and historians believe that the “Tower of Babel” allegory has a bit of truth to it, in terms of the whole world having one language at some point, and then the civilizations later being scattered and developing their own languages?
https://www.quora.com/Do-most-linguists-and-historians-believe-that-the-Tower-of-Babel-allegory-has-a-bit-of-truth-to-it-in-terms-of-the-whole-world-having-one-language-at-some-point-and-then-the-civilizations-later-being-scattered-and/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Lance Heffa

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Answered 30.IV

If you mean most linguists and historians now alive and at work in universities, I would think no.

Most would dismiss it as myth.

I also do not think it “has a bit of truth to it” but that it is literally true. 401 to 529 years (two versions of LXX chronology for birth of Peleg = end of Babel) after the Flood, the one language spoken on the Ark would not naturally have diverged into things as different as Chinese and Japanese or Sumerian and Akkadian. The reason we don’t have languages of just one language family, if not as closely related as Germanic ones, at least no further apart than P-Celtic and Q-Celtic or Baltic and Slavic, is arguably that God made a miracle. A punishment, but one which has its relish to linguists (whether Tolkien believed the story factually true or not, he once said “felix peccatum Babel” - “what a fortunate sin at Babel” - which deserved us such an interesting punishment!).

Now, if there were in the Evolutionist timeline accepted by most Academics today as factual any time when all men spoke one single language, it would have been way before civilisation and therefore way before documentation, and therefore historically speaking unknowable. An alternative theory is, when Homo sapiens had developed (or Homo erectus if they are credited as “first” users of language) the faculty to invent language, the actual invention of language took place in different places and times independently of each other, even if by now all populations not yet having language are long extinct (and could have been so even before the rise of Homo sapiens).

This means, Academics are typically on the edge between accepting monogenesis of language before any division into different languages or accepting polygenesis of language therefore from the start divided into more than one language. Obviously, I think they are WRONG, not because I am smarter than they, but because they belong to the WRONG tradition, namely that of Evolution belief.

There is a little mistake in your wording of it, namely, “civilisations … developing their own languages”. Having a language, having a grammar, having different languages and different grammars definitely does not require having a civilisation. It’s populations that develop the inherited language on own lines, with more or less relating to other populations of same language depending on how intense the contact with them is. Civilisations may develop specific sections of the vocabulary, but they do not overall “develop language” or if anything, by writing, only a certain stability in it.

QVII

Why is there so much mystery surrounding the exact location of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-so-much-mystery-surrounding-the-exact-location-of-Noah-s-Ark-on-Mount-Ararat/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

The Bible doesn’t say “on Mount Ararat” but “in the MountainS of Ararat” = of Urartu = of Armenia.

The mystery begins with exact mountain top.

Supposing the tradition of Mt. Judi near Cizre in Turkish Armenia is correct, we get a journey due West (very nearly) to Göbekli Tepe.

ANY placement of landing place so far proposed I have heard of makes the journey NOT to the West into regions like Eridu.

Own Answer, Same Question

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Still on Catholic Apologetics' space on Quora.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

It so happens, a man who fully accepts evolution in the modern version is arguably either not a Catholic or an ill instructed such. “Ill instructed” is no excuse on the level of bishops.

This means, as Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio were all at episcopal status before their elections, whether validly bishops or not, the one alternative is, they were not Catholic, but heretic.

As such they were all ineligible. Therefore none of them was validly elected as pope.

For some reasons why full acceptance of evolution is heresy or even apostasy, see here:

Creation vs. Evolution: What Extension to Old Age do Old Agers Permit Themselves?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-extension-to-old-age-do-old-agers.html

I

Frank Jones

Sun

Someone made a comment in one of the answers which’s roughly stated the Catholic Church says some of the bible is myth. Perhaps this article you attached does not cover the myth part. So, everything being made in 6 days is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

I wrote this too:

Creation vs. Evolution: Was St. Jerome Calling Genesis a Myth, and if so in what sense?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/was-st-jerome-calling-genesis-myth-and.html

No, the Catholic Church (traditionally - I don’t think the present USCB or Vatican represent it) does not say so.

II

Melissa Bronder

Sun

Do you subscribe* to a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

I think I s-u-b-scribe to it.

I think you a-scribe qualities to objects.

I ascribe truth to the Bible literally interpreted and I subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

But as I am a foreigner, you just might be right … but if you have Oxford English Dictionary, do take a check, please!

Melissa Bronder

Sun

I've edited the diction.

However, why do you subscribe to such a literal interpretation? Do you see theological interpretation as needing to be separate from scientific inquiry of the universe? What are your views of science and the scientific method?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

I appreciate the correction.

I believe there are scienceS and scientific methodS in the plural.

I also believe evolutionism is mistreating both of them.**

It can be added, theologia (and that includes the literal sense of Genesis) regina scientiarum. It’s not for theology to adapt beyond its traditional front lines.

* She had used "ascribe" first, whether by inadvertence or bc she wanted to check my English. I keep my ensuing words, not because I doubt her English skills, but because some have doubted mine.

** Both groups, that is.

Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least)

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Mikey Clarke

April 20

Lived in New Zealand

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

The Pope accepts evolution?

I’m no expert on this stuff, but I’m fairly sure the notion that Christians should oppose evolution is almost exclusively an American Protestant thing. That’s where the young-Earth creationists hang out, isn’t it? Nothing to do with Catholicism.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

“That’s where the young-Earth creationists hang out, isn’t it?”

Check Robert Sungenis with DeLano, check Tom Zimmer, a pauper pilgrim I met in Rome, check Kolbe Center for Creation Studies, check alternative popes like Pope Michael (the one I accept), or the Palmarian line (which I for a while accepted first claimant of).

And check 19th C. Roman Catholic actual writers.

Or while Hilaire Belloc may not have taken a stand, check his comment in Return to the Baltic that the Ice Age ended very closely before the beginning of the Christian era, since he didn’t trust science to know it exactly and he did trust mankind to invent ships as soon as a habitat like Denmark is available.

II

Michael James Gentry

April 21

So called "Intelligent Design". Evolution with The guiding hand. It took the Church centuries to apologize for Galileo, showing again that there is always a caveat to the acceptance of science.

Austin Middleton

Thu

Galileo was (eventually demonstrated to be) correct, but his work did not support the conclusions he made, specifically regarding parallax; his lenses weren’t strong enough to take the measurements needed, but that didn’t stop him from making evience-based claims without the evidence. The Church was right — and scientifically rigorous — to condemn his work for being substandard and overreaching.

Above was

answered twice, a and b.

a

Michael James Gentry

Thu

Galileo was charged with heresy by "qualifiers" of the Inquisition and church officials, not with promoting unsupported science.

b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

“Galileo was (eventually demonstrated to be) correct,”

When, how, by whom?

Austin Middleton

Sun

You mean, when was it proved the earth revolved around the sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22h ago

Yes, exactly.

Some anti-Church would have it Copernicus or Galileo proved it.

You obviously disagree, and so do I.

So, on your view, when was it proven that the earth revolved yearly around the sun and daily around itself? And how and by whom?

Austin Middleton

21h ago

My understanding of astronomy is incomplete and is not my expertise. However, I believe the complaint about Galileo’s evidence was the interstellar parallax, which would exist if the earth orbited the sun, could not be demonstrated with Galileo’s instruments. FW Bessel was able to offer evidence of a parallax shift of 61 Cygni in 1838.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

Ah, but the parallax Galileo and Bellarmine were talking about would have been fairly equal across the sphere of the fix stars - Pisces being sp much larger in September as Virgo in Mars.

Both took non-planet and non-comet and non-moon celestial bodies to be one sphere above all of the “solar system objects”.

Now, as the Bessel phenomenon did not show that, does it really prove Heliocentrism? Or, to put it in another way, is it really incompatible with Geocentrism?

Austin Middleton

16h ago

Let me check my astrophysics degree…

… nope, I don’t have an astrophysics degree.

I don’t know if you’re a geocentric apologist or what, but my knowledge of astronomy is limited, and am not interested in an inquisition (ha) on its rigor.

If you’d like to make statements about Galileo or Bessel and the parallax that the Church was unconvinced by, please do, but continued questions won’t get much from me: I am outside of my field.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Ah, yes, I will.

Galileo and Bellarmine were discussing the parallax of (the sphere of) fix stars. Bellarmine : “we don’t see it”, Galileo : “that’s because they are too far off”.

Bessel could look further, and didn’t find any parallax of the sphere of fix stars. Either he found parallax of some especially close stars (not sure if he found more than 61 Cygni, but off the hand I think so) or he found a proper movement that is not parallactic.

Like Bradley either found a larger shift (against which “parallax” is measured) that was due to different aberration of star light, or he found a proper movement not due to it.

With stars moved by angelic movers, such proper movements are perfectly plausible.

Therefore neither proved heliocentrism.

No pope was convinced of heliocentrism according to a direct statement of as high dignity as an encyclical before Vatican II, at which point at least the ensuing “popes” (of which the last three were heliocentrics) are disputed.

Pope Leo XIII adressed the subject in an oblique and ambiguous way in Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV used a subsidiary clause of agnosticism on the matter in a short one dedicated to Dante, In praeclara summorum.

Pius VII took Settele off the index, but did not oblige Anfossi to renounce Geocentrism. Gregory XVI took even Galileo off the index, but did equally not oblige geocentrics to become heliocentrics.

As far as I know, neither of these even said directly in so many words that heliocentrism may licitly be believed.

Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Susan Kelly

Sun

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

You prefer insanity to evolution? Progress requires evolution, be it idea, language, understanding…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

The alternative to progress is not insanity.

Susan Kelly

Sun

Depends on context. In answer to this particular situation, it would be. Without evolution, the ability to co create heaven on earth with man through free will wouldn't be such work as to require a timeline, as it would just be. If the concept of evolution shakes ones faith, where is this faith and in what? Surely, one can not deny evolution when looking at the history of our Earth. Faith is not denying evidence to support what the evidence is in fact supporting, however, this does seem to fit insanity in my understanding. Thoughts???

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

You miss that Young Earth Creationism very clearly places human freewill at the very beginning of the timeline, and it is tainted only by original sin and by personal sins.

While evolution on the other hand pretends human freewill (if any) developed from clearly unfree animal mentalities and is therefore tainted by those too.

“ Surely, one can not deny evolution when looking at the history of our Earth.”

History is not looked at, it is told. I believe the true early history of earth up to pharaonic Egypt is told in chapters 1 to 11 of Genesis.

“Faith is not denying evidence to support what the evidence is in fact supporting,”

You have offered no evidence to sustain evolution. I am not taking your bare word on the matter.

Susan Kelly

10h ago

I did not miss, or as you have, assume, anything.

I will keep my faith in God.

You can keep yours in Man.

We can't talk to the dinosaurs, but I have seen them in a museum, and fossils of all kinds.

We are simply different, I am a visual mathematician when I take an IQ test, therefore I deduce by observation.

You, by admission, need to be told what to think.

What either of us believes changes nothing in reality.

Evolution does not deny God, evolution is proof of Grace!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“need to be told what to think.”

No, but I do need to be told what happened. Mathematics won’t solve that for you. As said, there are plenty of subjects that are looked at rather than told, but history is not one of them. If you think otherwise, you have been told what to think.

“We can't talk to the dinosaurs, but I have seen them in a museum, and fossils of all kinds.”

Have you seen in situ where fossils come from? I mean especially land fossils, like dinosaurs, pelycosaurs, Uintatheria, pterosaurs, Biarmosuchians, Cretaceous ducks and frogs and crocs, sabretoothed tigers and mammoths, etc?

Or have you at least taken the time to find out where they come from?

I have. As far as I know there is not one place in earth, outside musea, where you find a pelycosaur under a dino under an Uintatherium under a mammoth or sabretoothed tiger. Or even any two of them in order. As far as land fossils go, you have one fossiliferous layer per place. In aquatic fossils, you may have several layers and there would be reasons in the seas why trilobites are found below whales or elasmosaurs. And I don’t think you find any where an elasmosaur is below a whale.

Which is totally consistent with all fossils coming from rapid burials in the Flood of Noah. Some could come from post-Flood land slides too, one way to solve the discrepancy between carbon dates usually more recent than 40 000 BP and that being carbon date of Flood (the two other ones being : Neanderthals and Denisovans have disappeared as pure races before the Flood which has a more recent carbon date, or dinos tended to live on places where a pre-Flood nuke war augmented the radioactive parts of their carbon).

I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Francis Marsden

April 20

36 years a priest. Lived and studied six years in Rome.

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

Pope John Paul II said in one address “l’evoluzione è più que una teoria.” The Press translated this as “Evolution is more than a theory” i.e. it is a fact.

However he may equally have meant: “Evolution is more than one theory.” There is neo-Darwinian theory of random mutations as the motor for evolutionary progress. Or there are theories of guided or theistic evolution.

The Church rejects the idea that human beings are just a random accidental outcome of meaningless physical processes. It insists that God has willed humanity into existence, whether by evolutionary pathways or by direct creation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

Do you accept the timeline of millions and billions of years or of 6000 / 7200 / 7500 years?

If the latter*, how long ago was Adam created?

Francis Marsden

23h ago

13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. Sure. No problem.

4.5 billion years since the formation of Planet Earth. No problem.

Since the emergence of homo sapiens - whatever the anthropologists say, but it is rather uncertain.

Since God breathed a living spirit (nefesh) into our ancestors, giving them self-awareness, self-consciousness, language, moral conscience etc. - I just don’t know.

Adam in Genesis is not a personal name, by the way. It means “man made from earth” (adamah), just as Hawwah (Eve) means “mother of all the living.” Are they symbolic, or collective personalities, or single individuals? Who knows?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You are overstepping the limits posed by Humani Generis in doubting a personal Adam and a personal Eve.

You are also making a joke of Catholic metaphysics by pretending God could have breathed a living spirit into our ancestors way after Homo sapiens emerged, especially as new evidence supports Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo erectus being certainly endowed with language.

If you put Adam at 90 000 years ago, or earlier, you make historicity of Genesis 3 a joke. If you put him at 7500 years ago or more recently, you are making the common descent from him of all men a joke.

* I meant former.

Epilogue, next day:

Francis Marsden

20h ago

Hans-Georg, you’d better go and tell the exegetes at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome that they are overstepping the limits of Humanae Generis too! And making the historicity of Genesis a joke!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I think you have better contacts to them than I.

If you’d invite them to take on the debate with me, I’d be game, not sure that they would be.

Plus, as to their authority, I don’t think they are since 1958 any such thing. As Pontifical, that is.

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant

Mike Hartigan took me for a Protestant · I don't take Francis Marsden for a Catholic · Mutually Small Respect with Susan Kelly · Mikey Clarke Thinks YEC is American Protestants Only, Austin Middleton That Heliocentrism was Proven by Parallax (or he thought so, at least) · Own Answer, Same Question

Mike Hartigan

Fri

Code Monkey (1979–present)

The pope now accepts evolution. What consequences will follow? I see the universe and us created in 6 days will now come under question and the consequences from this acceptance being the collapse of faith?

The Pope now accepts evolution.

Given that evolution is not inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, I fail to see why you think there will be consequences or a ‘collapse of faith.’ Genesis spoke of evolution thousands of years before Darwin was born. This isn’t new.

FYI, the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the 6 day thing. You may try reading a little more.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun

“the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to a literal interpretation of the 6 day thing”

Since when?

Mike Hartigan

22h ago

Since forever. Keep in mind we're talking specifically about the Catholic Church (the largest Christian denomination in the world, FWIW). I can't speak for other Christian denominations. Catholics are not fundamentalists. We teach that much of the Old Testament is allegorical — the 6 day thing, for example.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Since forever.”

Forever meaning since you went to catechism after Vatican II?

“Catholics are not fundamentalists.”

Someone forgot to hand Sts Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Aquinas, not to mention Augustine of Hippo that memo?

“We teach that much of the Old Testament is allegorical”

St Thomas taught all of OT history was literal truth and all of it was allegorical.

Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.

Not his words, but a seminary saying from his time.

Mike Hartigan

2m ago

If you need to mischaracterize the teachings of the Catholic Church to make a point, then it's probably not a point worth making.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I’d say you are mischaracterising the historical teachings of the Catholic Church by believing they are identic to your modernist catechist’s teaching.

Update

next day.

Mike Hartigan

21h ago

As you wish to believe. I'm not inclined to defend a position l that I didn't take* — specifically, the fundamentalism thing. If you want to debate that issue, you'll need to find someone who doesn't understand the Catholic Church's teachings on that. There are plenty of atheists on Quora who will be more than happy to engage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

You are the one not understanding the Catholic Church’s teaching on that. Unless you mischaracterise the Vatican II Sect as the Catholic Church. AND it was not “condemning” Fundamentalism up to the early 90’s. When I converted in 88, I had been told I didn’t need to be a Fundie, not that I couldn’t be.

* Did he imagine I attributed to him the statement that the proper Catholic understanding is Fundamentalist? I never stated I took him for St Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas! Ah, he did. Here is an update the day after above:

Mike Hartigan

21h ago

I'm not going to defend a fundamentalist position, since, as a Catholic, I'm not a fundamentalist. You can believe in a 6,000 year old earth and a universe that was built in 6 days, if you like. I'm not going to change your mind, nor have I been trying to. I only ask that you show me the same courtesy.

Bottom line is that the teachings of the Catholic Church don't contradict Darwin, and vice-versa, so there's no crisis of faith resulting from the Pope's words on that subject.

With that, this conversation is over.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:28 pm

From your side.

“I'm not going to defend a fundamentalist position”

I wasn’t asking you to.

“as a Catholic, I'm not a fundamentalist.”

That’s what I am challenging you to defend from Catholic magisterium prior to 1990’s.

“Bottom line is that the teachings of the Catholic Church don't contradict Darwin,”

That so called bottom line is also what I am attacking and by implication asking you to defend if you like.

Neither need to “try to change” the other’s “mind” - more like sparring.

It is distinctly discourteous of you to pretend I challenged you to something I didn’t and pretend to represent the Catholic position when I am pretending to be precisely Catholic. It is distinctly discourteous of you to ask me to take that as a final statement which I can’t contradict.

And it’s a bit stupid to think you know the history of the Catholic Church better than a Latinist, with plenty of opportunities to read both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. At least if your profile qualifications are not hiding things.

Saranga Saikia came in under a video by AronRa (a long thread of 185 msg)

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the Indian age of Kaliyuga and Krishna.... they're all mythology......not history....get your facts straight

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia How much "mythology" can be history and how much can't? How do you tell the difference?

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the historicity of Vasudeva Krishna in the Mathura region of Uttar Pradesh is to this extent- a local hero called Vasudeva elevated to a central status under the greater tradition or Cult of Vishnu in the greater Brahmamical pantheon under the aegis of Puranic Hinduism- a hero whose historicity can be at best pushed to the 1st- 2nd century BCE

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ok... so let's say that the idea of Kaliyuga actually has historical merit to it. But, the end of it's predecessor, the Dvapara yuga doesn't meet it's end by a flood. Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race. It was just the end of the Kurukshetra war or more accurately, death of Krishna.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "Nor does the beginning of the Kaliyuga represent the actual reset of the whole human race."

I think Hinduism started among people who wanted to ignore there had recently been a flood. Nod nostalgics.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you think? What you think doesn't mean shit. And it's not Hindu, rather Vedic. The Puranas actually have references to a Flood, and a so called Manu building a huge Boat and Vishnu in his first incarnation as Matsya- a giant fish, saves him. But that happens in the Treta yuga, the age of the first Manu...or ancestral man. In the Puranic understanding of time...the age your Judeo- Christian tradition refers has no equivalence of any sort of population wiping. And don't say Brahmanism got it all wrong. Either all of this batshit is true or none is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia No, for a true religion, all of it is true, but for any false religion it is not true that "none of it is".

I don't have a habit of making a difference between Hindu and Vedic religions, though I see what you mean.

I am here talking of early post-Flood, perhaps not even post-Babel origins of both. And these obviously prior to both.

I think Rama was an early post-Flood and pre-Babel hero, and Nimrod would have been "Hanuman", and I think both this and the Flood were pre-posed to much earlier in order to leave a "continuity" between world wars of Nod East of Eden and the world of early post-Flood India - because the civilisation is in some ways built on nostalgia for Nod.

Later on specific wars and heros added an aura around the pre-Flood memories, like Kurukshetra and your view of "Krishna's" origin.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana.

And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness. FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia "No, if we subject the myths to a chronological reading, as proposed by the Puranas, the Kurukshetra episode is placed after the events of the Ramayana."

We would agree both Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas too were written way after events?

One of the things that oral tradition has a way of muddling up is, chronology. The Bible, even on purely human grounds, has a safeguard : from Genesis 2 to 11, the oral tradition later taken down by Moses and perhaps already by Abraham involved full genealogies from Adam to Flood, from Flood to Abraham (Genesis 5 and 11), and from Genesis 12 on, one can count on some kind of writing being used and also kept in the beduin tribe that would later resettle in Egypt.

Without such safeguards, one thing that can happen is chronological rearrangements. For instance, Germanic legend about the battle of Ravenna pits Ermaneric against Theoderic. When we go to written sources made by Romans (both Latin and Greek speaking, and including Romanised Germanics) we can however see that Ermaneric lived about a century before Theoderic.

The traditions about early kings in Denmark and Sweden come in two versions contradicting each other on the exact topic of chronology: both Saxo and Snorri agree Odin came to Sweden before Frothi Haddingson was king of Denmark. However, to Snorri, Frothi Haddingson was identic to Peace-Frothi, contemporary of Augustus, but to Saxo, they were Frothi I and Frothi II.

Whether one or the other manipulated or both took the tradition as heard from oral tradition bearers, chronology has been manipulated on at least one side.

When it comes to Snorri and Saxo, I think Peace-Frothi and Frothi Haddingson are one and the same, Saxo abusively divided him into two several centuries apart, and when it comes to chronology of Flood, Rama, death of Krishna, I think your tradition has abusively pre-posed Flood and Rama to before the death of Krishna.

"And your claim of your religion being the one true and all of the rest being false just reeks of arrogance and haughtiness."

I think I had already got that you are not a Christian, and I am well aware of that value being one of your errors ... thank you. But though I actually do claim that, and though I worded my expression accordingly, the gist of what I said is, a false religion or a religion not the true one will contain some error, but you cannot take any single statement from it and conclude it is erroneous just because of that.

"FYI... though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness, the Indian philosophical schools are characterised by far greater complexity of ideas and concepts about the Atman and Brahman and purush and prakriti, things that actually follow reason, than your Judeo-Christian traditions could ever grasp."

For your information, I think St. Thomas Aquinas has both grasped that complexity and refuted it.

And as to your saying " though not saying they are in anyway true or hold scientific goodness," I think I respect Mahabharata and Ramayana more than you do. As sources for history.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl there are a lot to say about everything that you blurted out. How most of what you said was garbage. But that's the whole point. It's garbage. The best I can achieve is losing my mental peace and balance. It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct, so dogmatic has your upbringing been, it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically, or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything. The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to. They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief, ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel. Well, I should have read the rest of your comments.

As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history. You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story. Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity, for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any, something I can gauge from your comments, since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong. Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events. You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details. How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity.We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably. The most blatant obstacle is, obviously, the Harappan civilisation. I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff. But that's not the main focus of our study. We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE. In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results. The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned. There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms. It is a beautiful exercise to use these two epics in understanding history of the early historic period of Indian history.

Thus, we can clearly see who respects the sources more and who is honest in their efforts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm not commenting on some of your simple abuse. But you had some other things to say between a beginning and an end that were calculated to disparage me.

"It's because you so blindly believe what you view is correct,"

I believe my view is correct, so do you. Do you believe that blindly?

"so dogmatic has your upbringing been,"

Well, yes I was taught chemistry and round earth and how machines work ... lots of scientific dogmas ... you meant religious ones?

"it'll be easier proving that the earth is flat than showing somehow that something doesn't hold good chronologically,"

It so happens, I perfectly understand that if Puranas are correct, my chronology doesn't work, precisely as if the Bible is correct the one you attribute to Puranas as well as the one you hold as Evolutionist is not correct. I pointed out, before anything was written down in India you had some millennia even into the Kali Yuga - way after all of Flood and Rama, Krishna and his Kurukshetra war would have been finished.

"or asking you to take up an unbiased study of anything."

In history, one is usually not unbiassed.

"The same thing holds true of all of these pastors that you flock to."

Like, I haven't been to Church since 2012 ...

"They would scoff at anything that isn't their belief,"

Well, I didn't.

"ridicule the fact that anyone is having a world view that isn't centred on Israel."

I find it fairly respectable to have a world view at least somewhat centred on pre-Flood and early post-Flood world, as I take hinduism (with predecessors) to be.

"As for the treatment of Ramayana and Mahabharata, what you mean by valuing it more than is that you see it as a tool to confirm your history."

And in the process learning more of it. Josephus says Nimrod defended his brothers, one of whom was called Regma or Rama ... and Ramayana gives me context, I only weed out what is rooted in idolatry, like Rama being an incarnation (among several) of Vishnu or Sugriva or Hanuman being both gods and monkeys. The Protestant pastors you think of would, most of them, throw out all of Ramayana.

Genesis says the earth was full of violence or injustice - Duryodhana both abetting Yudhishthira to gamble and faking the game and when winning Draupadi humiliating her gives me one key of what that could be about (I get other keys from archaeology too), and some vague hints about nuclear bombs or pollutions gives me even more such.

"You try to draw parallels between events in them and the Biblical narrative, to the extent that would increase the historicity of your story."

I think I don't quite need to increase it, but a confirmation is not quite bad anyway.

"Other than that, you don't care if anything else has any historicity,"

On the contrary, the only things I clearly and definitely disagree about historicity with these is where they either contradict theology (Krishna being a god) or Biblical history (sequence of events, timeline).

"for all you care, it'll be better if they don't have any,"

Not the least. I actually went out of my way to mention that Odin came to Uppland region in Sweden ... while I think he was a man, not a god, the pagans before Christianity came to us counted him as the supreme god. I am very well comfortable with maximal historicity of non-Christian sources, within the proviso that they cannot be historically accurate where actually directly contradicting the Bible.

"since in most of the cases, you argue that the other things are wrong."

How about taking a look at in what aspects I thought them wrong?

"Anyway, you try to see the source as an actual, chronologically, correct, depiction of events."

Actual, yes, chronologically, no. Correct, mixed.

"You see the depiction of a certain event, and you shout out, that is just as it happened (because it supports what you believe), and arbitrarily leave out or discredit other details."

I discredit only what my faith cannot accept, and accept most of the rest.

"How I use it is corroborate it with other available evidence, archaeological and literary before ranking them on the basis of authenticity."

Archaeological evidence doesn't speak for itself. It is therefore weaker than narrative. Narrative evidence is obviously of various accuracy, varying between 50 and 100 %, most sources falling in between, and I am taking optimistic views of all sources, until I find evidence to the contrary of something, like my faith does require rejection of certain timelines or attributions of godhood.

"We have sought, there have been multiple attempts to establish the historicity of the two stories in the time frame mentioned in the books themselves. We have failed miserably."

Well, the problem is, you take carbon dates as literal truth. I don't. A pre-Flood event, like Mahabharata, would date before 40 000 BP in carbon dates. A post-Flood but pre-Babel event would date between 40 000 BP and 9600 BC. Harappan civilisation would have carbon dates younger than Göbekli Tepe, which I take to be Babel.

"I can go into details about doubtfulness about authorship and other contradictions and missing plots and stuff."

I don't believe Vyasa was a relative of Mahabharata characters and back then spoke or wrote anything like Indian languages. Before Babel, all spoke some type of Hebrew. I think Vyasa was put that far back in an attempt to both hide the Flood had happened after that and pretend that these Indians had a very reliable history of all details. You would arguably agree on anything of this except for Hebrew as pre-Flood language and Flood as post-Kali-Yuga-starting event.

"We try to see the events as being representative of the social, political, economic and cultural reality of the times, and by that I mean 5th century BCE- 5th century CE."

I believe you when you say that you see politics and culture of the 1000 years around the birth of Christ as mirrored in Mahabharata. How much of that was really totally new back these times? Obviously, if Homer attributes iron weapons to some, he is living in the Iron Age, while those he wrote of lived in the Bronze Age. Some contamination is to be expected from later conditions.

How much was a repetition of pre-Flood conditions? How much of these repeats would have been provoked by a somewhat detailed tradition of them surviving after the Flood through the descendants of Regma, son of Kush? I don't know. But I am optimistic it is fairly much.

"In this exercise as well, corroboration with other and contesting sources, such as the Buddist texts and archaeological records is crucial for a balanced study and for yielding the best results."

It seems we have different criteria on what makes a historic fact reliable. To me one good source, even if it is a partially bad source, is enough, as long as it isn't discredited by better sources. To you, confirmation by other sources is a must ... I can only say, with that criterium, there is lots of history which can't be treated as such. Did Caesar build a bridge over Lake Geneva when battling Orgetorix? Bellum Gallicum book I is the only text that says so, and the earliest manuscript is from Carolingian times.

"The didatic portions are very useful for the study of changing social norms and ideas about dhamma, complex relationships regarding authority as far as interpretation of law is concerned."

I would say the theology of any written work is the theology of its writer. That involves its moral theology. However, this need not mean the seeds for the Indian ethos were not sown in Nod east of Eden before the Flood.

"There are different versions of the texts as well. Studying the variations helps us understand cultural contestations and contradictory socio- cultural norms."

This is like asking what a Medieval text about Troy has to say about the Middle Ages. But recently someone found that a 15th C. text involved detail found archaeologically to be correct about Troy itself. Like 2500 years earlier, before Homer.

Saranga Saikia

@Hans-Georg Lundahl seems like anachronism is your mojo. If that's the kind of flawed methodology that you wanna pursue to reinforce your beliefs, be my guest. No one can teach a blind goat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Saranga Saikia I'm leaving you the final word.

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/04/saranga-saikia-came-in-under-video-by.html

Dimond Brothers on EO

The Real History Of “Orthodoxy”
12th April 2021 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCURDSRz6D0

12:04 As far as I gather byzantine ecclesiology:
* the patriarch has jurisdiction over all of his patriarchate (to which Kiev metropoly and by extension Moscow belonged)
* he can give new bishops and even patriarchates in areas where so far no missionaries had come
* but he cannot interfere in a patriarchate already established outside his own
* in these powers he is heir of the popes of Rome from "back when they were Orthodox" ("before filioque and azymes").

It's a bit in politics like British Crown could (or can):
* exercise some jurisdiction over all of the Commonwealth
* and over places where Brits start colonising
* but cannot interfere in a French or Spanish colony, nor in United States where the independence is already given
* and in this respect is heir of the Roman Empire.

In other words, the idea is not contradictory in itself. However, it was contradicted with Bartholomew giving a tomos to Ukraine, recognised by Orthodox to have previously been under Moscow.

It can be added, that the patriarchate of Constantinople exists as a tomos from that of Rome.

It can be added also, in the time of Innocent II, the Pope was not claiming direct immediate jurisdiction in places in the West, notably Holy Roman Empire, he was claiming the right to adjudicate when appeals had been made to him.

13:03 They do not fail to see it's the Pope, they are just declaring a very longstanding sedevacancy since some time after Leo III (whom they honour as a saint) and before or since St. Leo IX (since he "schismatically" or "heretically" interfered in Constantinople for Western clergy celebrating in unleavened bread).

They give the see of Constantinople the role that St. Robert Bellarmine gives to Cardinals : a standin in case of non-occupation of Papal see.

17:45 Good analysis of Matthew 18:18 in relation to Matthew 16:19!

Paul Balaster liked to quote Matthew 16 as if the passage ended in verse 18.

20:46 What do you think of ROCOR?

24:20 Where do you think the Harlot is more probably considering the following:
* the Vatican II Sect is larger;
* but EO has a greater percentage of actual definite apostates.

One could go on with Anglicans, Muslims or Jews too, in each case, except Muslims, smaller than the previous.

27:10 Jeszcze Polska, nie zginiela ... in 2018, Poland had 3 abortions per 1000 live births, Russia 353 ... the least bad four were in order Poland, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia, the bad five were Bulgaria, Georgia (not the US state, but where Stalin came from), Moldova, Romania, Russia.

I think I see more and more reasons for coming back from the schismatics ...

As I already did, to make myself clear. First to FSSPX, now to Pope Michael.

Children of Nephelim (quora, Marc Bloemers)

Q

What happened to the children of the Nephilim?
https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-children-of-the-Nephilim/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

First of all, nephelim were very probably themselves children or specifically sons of angels and women.

And they themselves were very certainly not saved, not in a state of grace, and were damned.

Here are a few verses of Baruch 3 (a book which Jews disowned because a later verse supports the incarnation of the Logos) which sheds a light on this:

[26] There were the giants, those renowned men that were from the beginning, of great stature, expert in war. [27] The Lord chose not them, neither did they find the way of knowledge: therefore did they perish. [28] And because they had not wisdom, they perished through their folly.

This was about the nephelim themselves, now as to their children … we do not know.

First of all, we do not know if we have in standard archaeology found any nephelim. Neanderthals, Denisovans/Heidelbergians, Homo Erectus would all of them have been stronger than a normal Homo sapiens, but this does not mean all of them or even any of them were nephelim.

My hunch is, the nephelim were something like Denisovans, but half breed children or grand children could still get saved and we know “half breeds” of Denisova and of Neanderthal were on the Ark (OK, not necessarily half and half, could be quarter, could be an eighth and so on). So, some of them would in that case have been diluted to near normal human and would have been able to accept the graces as given in the then covenant. Even Neanderthals have been known to have been vegetarian, while others were not just eating woolly red rhino but also men. This is one reason against singling out Neanderthals as nephelim.

But others could have been bred on purpose to even more muscular and to even less intelligent, and this could be the case with Homo erectus. As basically all Homo erectus are dated, not by carbon, but by potassium argon, all or nearly all are covered by lava and that would mean they were around at the Flood.

Then again, we cannot state that the nephelim themselves were unable to get saved, it just says they weren’t. Even more we can’t say that the children could not get saved.

A Dialogue Not Quite on Topic of Video (But Theodicy in Both)

Here is a video with atheistic apologetics:

Christianity's Biggest Problem
8th March 2021 | CosmicSkeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KDnnp0sDkI

Here is a dialogue, starting with my on topic answer, but gliding away from it:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Answered as to Autumn Lauber's hamster's cancer.

It got cancer:
* because Adam sinned
* so Autumn Lauber and her viewers could see there is a problem with sin, it's not hunky dory ... they are the innocent collateral victims most people won't rationalise away, unlike for instance civilians when militaries bomb other things than troops and weapons and a bit more like those. They are the innocent collateral victims that make us see sin hurts.

How many suffer is not relevant for the suffering as such.

It may in many cases be relevant for the guilt of the one inflicting it, but it's not relevant for what the suffering is.

You gave a one sided view of animals' lives, and most of their days are fairly happy, and they do not when seeing predators think "yesterday too, not again!" as we would.

chris sonofpear1

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born - and not knowing the wider stakes? Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world? I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was. And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven. Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan, and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile... Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chris sonofpear1 I'll try to enumerate all.

1a ) Why was Adam in a position to make that choice, especially for people not yet born ...

Because he was the first man. Mankind, unlike angels, are social beings beginning with one family beginning with one man, and his choices count.

1b) - and not knowing the wider stakes?

He did, since God had told him they would die same day as eating of the forbidden tree (same 1000 years, not same 24 hours, or they began to die that same not 24 hours but even same hour).

2) Or that he could even 'give' Satan anything, still less a world?

Because he was the first man, see 1a above.

3) I have no indication he even knew Satan existed, nor what death was.

He knew Who God was Whom he was disobeying and God would have given a sufficient indication of what death was for His warning not to be incomprehensible.

4) And sin began even earlier, than that, in heaven.

Yes, but as man, not angels, were meant to rule the earthly creation, that would have had no impact on any animal, had Adam not sinned.

5) Why too, was Adam trusted with less knowledge than Satan,

Adam was a man, beginning to learn things from God. Satan was an angel, having learnt lots and lots and lots in one single instant - one reason why his sin was unforgiveable, unlike Adam's.

6) and why would Satan ever, ever retain powers, post exile...

Because the powers were part of his nature. Also, God doesn't allow him to use all of them, by far.

7) Also, was the lives of many medieval Spanish Jews, say, 'happy'...?

If you take medieval adequately, I'd say yes, except in times of pogrom like excitements. There was a flourishing community of Marranos, then they got targetted by pogroms by people calling "fake conversion" and then the Inquisition started to protect bona fide Marranos from lynch mobs. Two people of the Turrecremata/Torquemada family, uncle and nephew, got involved, since they were Marranos. Uncle Turrecremata stopped a pogrom. Torquemada started the Inquisition I named since the expulsion of Jews made suspicions of fake conversions even more burning than ever before.

chris sonofpear1

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And does Jesus' choices, count, too? And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation, and his pissing off to a cloud after not even spending one YEAR as 'King' of anything? And with no idea of good, or evil, how is obedience conceived or framed as? And with no idea of death, how is a death a deterrent, to Eve or Adam.

And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature, and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth. And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet. Why not give them their own?

And just worshipping another God is often deemed unforgivable, by many, or detestable - whereas taking no responsibility for competing with other versions of Yourself as a God, and abandoning the Jewish people, and others, is just peachy, I guess.

And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use. Specifics - not inferred from the Book. Posing as a being of light on a whole species CRIPPLED form before birth is pretty serious enough. What does 'spiritual death' mean, again? Dead to which, or how many spirits. Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?

Don't forget the Principalities too, angels, or spirits, that some might interpret, from the older testament, that Jehovah had rivalries with, yet steered or influenced whole nations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chris sonofpear1 "And the LACK OF CHOICES he made about the future, churches, leadership, curses, antisemitism, interpretation"

He very much did chose the Catholic Church. He founded it on 12 disciples and first of them Simon Peter.

@chris sonofpear1 "Or could it be, only, dead, to the 'right' one?"

Obviously, yes.

@chris sonofpear1 "abandoning the Jewish people,"

There are Jewish, Samarian and Galilaean Catholics called Palestinians

@chris sonofpear1 "And yes, we are VERY unlike angels, who all got to 'chose' at once, with no impairments, no special legalism about a first one of them, and no passed on curse, or sin nature,"

Meaning, obviously, once they have chosen, they have no chance to repent.

"and no stolen knowledge removed from them, pre birth."

Neither have we.

"And even the rebel ones kept most of that, whilst exercising their free will on our planet."

Globe. Earth is not a planet.

A man also exercises free will while active, which is when alive, before his test is ended.

Angels also do so after their test ended, and that means, we don't just have Satan against us, but also St. Michael for us.

"And you prove to me, what powers Satan cannot use."

Demons are poltergeists on occasion, and when Sor Eusebia Palomino Yenes just prayed 3 Hail Mary's, the poltergeist had to leave before the ordained exorcist arrived (on two separate occasions).

"Specifics - not inferred from the Book."

Why not inferred from the Book? Do you have reasons to doubt what happened in the life of Job, when Satan had to ask for permission before each test and had to leave when God stopped his harrassment after 40 years?

Principalities were given nations as guardian angels. Unfallen ones.

There are also fallen ones, but "principalities" doesn't per se mean that just bec. St. Paul once uses the word referring to those.

Beowulf and other Nordic

Q I

How much of the epic novel “Beowulf” is real? Did ‘Beowulf’ interact with people who existed?
https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-epic-novel-Beowulf-is-real-Did-Beowulf-interact-with-people-who-existed/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

First, it is an “epic” and not an “epic novel”. Novels are supposed to be made up, epics as such aren’t.

His host in Denmark, Hrothgar, seems to have existed, Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus mentions him as Roar, and deals with how his son Rolf was going to oppose Adils. His uncle Hygelac seems to have existed, a Frankish source mentions Chlochilaicus. The potential enemy further inland, the Sweden of Onela and Ohtere and Eadgils seems to have existed, Snorre mentions Ale and Ottar and Adils as Yngling kings.

Chances are Beowulf himself as well as his monsters are real, unless you have a diehard prejudice against monsters and monster killers.

Q II

Can you summarise the plot of Beowulf in five sentences?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-summarise-the-plot-of-Beowulf-in-five-sentences/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

George Ireland

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 7m ago

Geatish prince Beowulf gets to Denmark to help Hrothgar rid Heorot of a giantlike degraded human cannibal.

He does rid Denmark both of Grendel and of his mother, which involves getting below water for one hour, and his men did not give up hope.

He gets lauded by Hrothgar and by his uncle Hygelac when he’s home.

He becomes a king of Geats and hears of a dragon and he takes along Wigalf to fight it - alone, apart from that, no troops.

He dies and Wiglaf helps to finish the dragon, and Beowulf is cremated, as last king of Geats, without an heir.

Q III

Who was the first king of Sweden?
https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-first-king-of-Sweden-1/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 20h ago

Gylfi may be fictional, but his successor is agreed on between Snorri and Saxo: Odin. Neither being Pagan, both considered him a real man while a false god. His stepson Frey is also called Yngwe and is the eponym for the Yngling dynasty.

That is is about 1000 years before Erik Segersäll and Olof Skötkonung mentioned by Mats Andersson.

It was in the time between that Adils started conquering a part of Finland, and a few generations later Ingjald was the last Yngling to rule in the Swealand region. His son Olof Tretelgja set up in Wermland (now part of Sweden), and the next generation entered Norway, where Ynglings ruled as late as St. Olaf and his younger brother. These are about contemporary to Erik Segersäll and Olof Skötkonung.