"Flood Waters from the Ural Mountains"

Q

Is it possible that Noah may have lived in the last period of the biblical version of the Jurassic period?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-Noah-may-have-lived-in-the-last-period-of-the-biblical-version-of-the-Jurassic-period/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now, 29.VII.2021

I consider Jurassic, Permian and such biotopes, not as periods, but as biotopes during the Flood.

A Jurassic pterosaur at Ankerschlag in Tyrol? Buried in the Flood.

A Miocene whale buried in (the vicinity of?) Linz? Buried in the Flood.

A Permian Biarmosuchian of Karoo or of Perm region of Russia? Buried in the Flood.

Forget about Jurassic coming before Miocene and after Permian, that’s not how it worked.

I’ll give you a little hint from dear old wiki:

// Biarmosuchus is an extinct genus of biarmosuchian therapsids that lived around 267 mya during the Middle Permian period. Biarmosuchus was discovered in the Perm region of Russia. The first specimen was found in channel sandstone that was deposited by flood waters originating from the young Ural Mountains. //

Biarmosuchus - Wikipedia

My own reservation against this is - it’s the Urals that originated in the last parts of the Flood, or in the landlift after the Flood.

Though it seems the highest part of the Urals, Mount Narodnaya, at 1,894 metres (6,214 ft) seems to be low enough to have been entirely covered with water during the Flood, I think rather that the Urals like so many other mountain ranges would be from post-Flood times.

So called periods are, partly different biotopes on the land surface, partly different levels of biotopes in marine environments at the Flood. Mostly.

Latin to French, on the Spoken Side of the Issue

NativLang has a very good video on the theme:

Why French sounds so unlike other Romance languages
23rd of July 2021 | NativLang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2TWBBxwhbU

I

6:22 "instead, observe as it arises from social ..."

A bit like Australian English reflects more than one dialect of England? Kind of a wiki with different dialects as contributors?

II

9:33 I thought the non-trilled uvular R was attributed to a speech fault of Louis XIV?

Because, it seems to have spread past the Rhine into German, Dutch, Danish (except Bornholm?), Scanian in Sweden even.

III

10:54 We do agree that this French rhythm, final syllable of each phrase, is posterior to how French was pronounced in the days of Corneille, Racine and Molière, right?

Because we do find Alexandrines in pairs of two anapaests, caesura, two anapaests, rhyme, two anapaests, caesura, two anapaests and rhyme with first rhyme, and also in pairs of three iambics, caesura, three iambics, rhyme, three iambics, caesura, three iambics and rhyme with first rhyme. Which would not be the case if each half Alexandrine was a phrase of six syllables with one accent on the final one.

IV

After the video, how about this : you have explained (as the title precisely purports to) how Latin phonetics transitioned to French phonetics in the spoken language.

That said, there was a definite time when one ceased to spell langue d'oïl as Latin and began to spell it as ... newly invented spelling for langue d'oïl.

My take on the process is this:

• up to and including Gregory of Tours, "good" written Latin didn't reflect and "mediocre" written Latin partly reflected changes in sound as well as morphosyntax ("good" as in "katharevousa is good Greek" and "mediocre" as in "dhimotiki is mediocre Greek");
• in the 8th C. one became aware that pronouncing Latin the French way made for some misunderstandings (a priest, in visit from Italy, was wondering whether the priest had baptised in the name of the Father, the Daughter ... and therefore invalidly, the French priest arguably pronouncing "filii" as "filie" and "filiae" also as "filie");
• Alcuin came to the rescue, since in England, Latin had been on the freeze (since spoken only as second language, and with very intermittent contact with Latin first language speakers) since the times of St. Augustine and St. Pauline, these arriving from Italy, where Rome preserved a rather correct Latin in 600, and the pronunciation became even more close to Classical through use by barbarians who pronounced each letter, since it was easier;
• he arrived in 800 AD to Tours, and taught the clergy of Tours to pronounce Latin, as a complete non-vernacular;
• result, by 813, the clergy of Tours, sticking to his reform of the pronunciation, decided to add, after Gospel, on Sundays and public Feast days, a sermon explaining the Gospel "in lingua romana rustica, vel theudisca" - in langue d'oïl or in Frankish
• clergy preparing sermons began giving their old pronunciation a new spelling (with rules of correspondence grapheme to phoneme, similar to the new ones for new Latin pronunciation)
• which new spelling surfaces in the Strassburg oaths
• and is modified quicker, since now the local language was no longer seen as part of the spectrum of Latin stylistics, so that we have soon enough have an even less Latin sounding Sequence of Saint Eulalia by 880.

I am being somewhat (and with underhand tactics) harrassed by Protestants who would love me to admit this video of yours as disproving above, since they prefer imagining that pronunciation of correct Latin and pronunciation of very early langue d'oïl diverged so gradually, that the people could not have understood St. Gregory of Tours pronouncing his own text in a vernacular pronunciation, or a semi-vernacular one. You know, the theme of "Apostate Roman Church imposing Latin to lock the Bible into an unintelligible language" and all that ....

Some support would be fairly welcome ...

If he does, I'll make "on the written side of the issue" part of the header when sharing, perhaps with comments ...

CMI vs Geocentrism, Again

CMI vs Geocentrism, Again · Spirograph Patterns · Sungenis Also Answered CMI's Video

Geocentrism
22nd of July 2021 | Creation Ministries International
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow_JMm0YJKc

I

1:01 I do not know Buridan in detail, but Nicolas Oresme and Nicolas of Cusa were not dissenters.

Oresme considered the Heliocentric version in and of itself possible, all objections could be answered, but pointless, since nothing evidenced it.

Cusanus did say the earth moved some, but in the sense that only God, the uncreated, could be perfectly immobile.

So, neither of them was a Heliocentric. Cusanus didn't speak on the topic at all, Oresme treated it like we would treat the idea that the universe shrank to half its size every 24 hours in every dimension, and that constants adjusted accordingly : cannot be directly refuted as contrary to evidence, but is a pointless quirk without any evidence.

8:15 The exact mobility you attribute to the Sun, as Heliocentrics, is fairly similar, if not in causation, at least in concept of effect, to the mobility Cusanus was talking about.

II

1:49 The observation facilities were certainly the background for better astronomic observations.

It is quite another question whether that is "leading to rejection of Geocentrism" or whether something else is.

Case in point : Copernicus and Tycho agreed that Geocentrism implies spirograph patterns in lots of planets, all except Sun and Moon (planet, old sense = celestial body roving around the zodiac).

Tycho accepted, that's how God created the universe we are in, on relevant levels between fix stars and moon, Copernicus having never actually seen a spirograph pattern and finding them difficult to describe mathematically, considered they must be ugly things that God could never expose celestial creations to.

III

5:18 Didn't know Copernicus was encouraged by a protégé of the heresiarch (next to Luther) of Lutheranism, Melanchthon ...

"The Wittenberg Interpretation refers to the work of astronomers and mathematicians at the University of Wittenberg in response to the heliocentric model of the solar system proposed by Nicholas Copernicus, in his 1543 book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The Wittenberg Interpretation fostered an acceptance of the heliocentric model and had a part in beginning the Scientific Revolution."

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

Thanks for noting. I did know the Galileo - Milton connexion, and of recently, the Masonic connexion to Newtonianism, but not yet this one, thank you.

IV

6:37 This is a very bad parody of the Galileo case.

First, there were two processes, one against a prior book.

Second, the pope may or may not have felt slighted by portrayal as Simplicio, but he was not one of the judges in the process against Galileo in person. He kind of made sure the process could be equitable by stepping out of the direct process of judging.

Third, even from the first process, the magisterium had an understanding that Heliocentrism went against the traditional exegesis (which is not an eisegesis, but a prima facie exegesis, btw) of Joshua 10:12-13.

Fourth, you have not grasped (or shown yourself to have grasped) that the first process got started by a Dominican (from the same convent where the very famous portrait of St. Dominic of Guzmán is) who took fire against Heliocentrism upon reading what Galileo and Father Foscarini had to say about Joshua 10.

Simplicio doesn't mean "fool", but it does mean "simple" with connotations varying between honest and naive.

V

8:34 First an appeal to Newton who wasn't on the scene yet, then "if there were aliens" ... yeah, that one has been for fairly long a propaganda piece for Heliocentrism, but it is fairly rich coming from colleagues of Gary Bates, and his view that aliens are an endtimes deception.

VI

9:00 I first notice, you show three Bible quotes that do not include Joshua 10.

Or the passage in Habacuc that refers back to it.

I then notice Robert Carter asks if the Bible doesn't trump all these measurements ... but so far no attempt has been made to state any measurement actually argues Heliocentrism conclusively.

Sure, orbits are simpler geometrical shapes with geocentrism, but atmospheric C14 is also simpler, around 100 pmC over known time, in Deep Time as per C14.

VII

9:29 The modern situation, in which heliocentrics use geocentric language for convenience, is perhaps not germane to a balanced view of what Scripture means.

10:03 According to Geocentrism, the language of fix points is not phenomenological.

According to first audience of book of Joshua, as well as witnesses to the miracle, Sun standing still would arguably not have been just phenomenological.

B U T in Joshua 10:12 we have not a description of what happened, which in principle could be phenomenological, we have the words of a miracle maker, and it would be the only time in all the Bible (or the rest of Church history) in which a miracle worker gave the miracle working order to something else than the thing meant to change behaviour.

Plus, the idea this is ok has prompted liberals (including in Swedish state Church, of which I am an ex) to pretend Christ could have actually cured mental conditions without any spiritual cause while purporting to adress demons.

11:13 ὑπενόουν οἱ ναῦται προσάγειν τινὰ αὐτοῖς χώραν.

My rusty Greek confirms this.

The sailors were made aware of some shore moving forth to them.

Phenomenological language, but in the phenomenological context of "ὑπενόουν" - were made aware of, it's active and I haven't looked it up.

Does mean phenomenological language is a possibility per se in the Bible, but does not mean that anything can be written off as phenomenological just when it suits.

VIII

12:46 Psalm 103 (the one you number as 104) actually places "the earth shall not be moved" in a fairly physical context.

a) it's after a word of earth being founded
b) it's about creation as such.

Psalm 120 has "may he not suffer thy foot to be moved" in a series of wellwishes.

A "moved" foot could be understood in terms of a judoka falling here. I think the grammar for "may he not suffer you to move your own foot" would have been different.

IX

13:04 Do you also consider someone working a miracle would be flexible about how to describe what he wants to happen, like describing it in inaccurate terms?

Plus, you haven't adressed Habacuc 3:11. "Stood still in their courses" is fairly different from "stood still from our point of view".

X

16:14 Epicycles may be geometrically ad hoc, but the actual explanation, to Ptolemy, St. Thomas, Cusanus as well, whom you cited, is angels move celestial objects.

So, the overall explanation is not ad hoc.

leaving out

the rest for now. And getting back next day.

XI

16:13 "None of those things are predicted from the basic idea."

If the basic idea is, willing and witting agents produce the movements, they can be observed, predicted by extrapolation, but not predicted as to what has not yet been observed.

However, there is one difficulty with epicycles I had not thought of, all the time I've been geocentric, and the difficulty is this: to Ptolemy or St. Thomas or Copernicus probably too, space or the heavens are divided by solid spheres of crystal.

When Providentissimus Deus (a document not short of Chicago declaration as to Biblical inerrancy) in §18 gives a hint about phenomenological language, the footnote is to Summa Theologiae, I, Q 70, A1, ad 3, which in turn cites Ptolemy and Chrysostom:

Reply to Objection 3. According to Ptolemy the heavenly luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have their own movement distinct from the movement of the spheres. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Gen.) that He is said to have set them in the firmament, not because He fixed them there immovably, but because He bade them to be there, even as He placed man in Paradise, to be there. In the opinion of Aristotle, however, the stars are fixed in their orbits, and in reality have no other movement but that of the spheres; and yet our senses perceive the movement of the luminaries and not that of the spheres (De Coel. ii, text. 43). But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (I:67:4; I:68:3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament.

Summa Theologiae, Part I
Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day : Article 1. Whether the lights ought to have been produced on the fourth day?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article1

So, the point is, while crystalline spheres do not fetter the heavenly bodies totally, they might put some constraints on how much epicycles there could be.

Now, Tycho observed a comet going through several "crystalline spheres" if there had been any.

This means that this difficulty simply isn't one.

When it comes to inventing new and new concepts to account for more and more observations, not predicted by the basic idea, could Newton predict the exact orbit of Mercury (as explained by Einstein) or the Chandler wobble? Did you not have an article about how Pluto was discovered, meaning the Newtonian interpretation of the observations was fallacious?

XII

16:49 Very bad summary:

• Church Fathers supported heliocentrism; the meridian line example.
• Christians supported Copernicus.
• Galileo helped but wasn't always tactful.

Reply point by point:

• They didn't. Exactly one Church father is on record as saying about a list of Pagan philosophers that so and so discovered Earth turns around the Sun - he could have said that to make fun of Pagan philosophers. Using the term "discovered" with some tongue in cheek. St. Paschasius was dug up by David Palm who is on a kind of crusade against Robert Sungenis. The meridian line example isn't one. Buridan, Oresme and Cusanus aren't canonised Church Fathers and Buridan was not even a clergyman.
• Even Melanchthon, precisely as Luther, discarded Copernicus. And this was before Joshua 10 came into the scope of the debate.
• Galileo was tactless enough to touch on exegesis, including of Joshua 10. That was the only lack of tact on his part that had any actual bearing on either of the two trials, it launched the first one, against his book, The Assayer, I think, or Sidereus Nuntius, which St. Robert Bellarmine condemned.

XIII

17:13 Kepler's ellipses were accepted by Riccioli, who otherwise accepted Tychonian Geocentrism.

What we have now, as Geocentrics, is, Ptolemy's epicycles improved by Tycho to having Sun in epicentre, improved by Riccioli to having Sun in one of the elliptic foci as epi-not-quite-centre.

Note that ellipses with Sun as epi-not-quite-centre are quite possible for angels to arrange.

Riccioli, by the way also lists a number of authorities in favour of angelic movers. His problem is, why do celestial objects move, and he lists four possible solutions:

• God Himself moves each "star"
• an inherent cause, but a mechanistic one, Kepler had suggested magnetism
• an inherent cause, namely "stars" being alive
• angels move one for each celestial object

The first is rejected as not how St. Thomas views the general providence : God moves things by secondary causes, usually not Himself immediately.

He rejects purely mechanistic causes as not being how noble as God would move objects this far up.

He rejects celestial objects being alive in themselves.

He accepts "the fourth position and the most common one" as having none of these defaults. He also lists a lot of authorities for this position, including St. Thomas Aquinas and Cusanus, but also including the Coimbra Jesuits.

XIV

19:06 God moving the aether around Earth at an angular speed of 360° every 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds, angels moving objects within that, it is also a formula that explains, if not predicts, everything.

It does not exclude gravity, so the fly-by's are real.

And claiming every inch of trajectories was predicted in advance, rather than where they arrive at, is overdoing the case.

We do not have optical proof the trajectories seen from us would be making an apparent zig zag, reflecting our moving out of and back into the launching point of trajectories. I asked that specific question, it was my one remaining doubt about Heliocentrism could be true, here is the correspondence:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Asking an Erudite for Optical Proof
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/09/asking-erudite-for-optical-proof.html

XV

20:00 Neptune was a bona fide discovery, by Newtonian physics, but Pluto, previously pretended to be same thing ...

A lesson from Pluto
by Tas Walker | This article is from
Creation 31(2):54–55, March 2009
https://creation.com/a-lesson-from-pluto

[tried to add, above disappeared, following]

It can be added, that Tychonian analysis of where the orbits are would not detract from the Neptune discovery.

XV

20:45 sth, Jonathan Sarfati spoke about importance of prediction.

You know, the oracle of Delphi was also good at getting predictions fulfilled. Perseus did kill Akrisios, Oedipus did kill Laios and marry Iocaste, Croesus, marching across a river did finish a big empire (his own Lydian one) ... St. Luke mentions in chapter 16 of Acts that St. Paul was not quite impressed with the benignity of the prediction formula.

On I, let's quote the timeline given by CMI as to Buridan, Oresme, Cusanus:

~1350

Jean Buridan discovered the law of inertia centuries before Galileo, and proposed a geokinetic idea as a mathematically elegant hypothesis.

~1380

Nicole Oresme invented graphs of motion centuries before Galileo, and addressed most scientific and theological objections to geokineticism.

~1450

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa proposed that the earth would be moving relative to reference frames of heavenly bodies.

Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth / Refuting absolute geocentrism
a linea : Timeline of events—a fun romp through history
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati Published 12 February 2015; last update 26 December 2019
https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism#Timeline-of-events

Calling geokinetism a mathematically elegant hypothesis, as Buridan did, is not calling it physical fact.

Nicolaus Oresme did adress "most scientific and theological objections to geokinetism" but concluded it was nevertheless unsupported by good reasons.

And Nicolaus Cusanus was speaking of reference frames of heavenly bodies in the context they cite, while the most absolute reference frame would be that of God's heaven above these, which standing still observes an earth standing still. I have not read Cusanus, but I suppose that is what he would have answered and would have called this cherrypicking on the part of CMI./HGL

On XIII, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati had claimed, ellipses were accepted, "not because of any conspiracy ..."

Q feedback

... On the other side, you refute this opinion [of theistic evolution], claim that evolution is not true and that there is a conspiracy done by mainstream media and education to promote evolution …

Shaun Doyle's reply

No. We say that it’s a worldview dispute. We say that evolution is the logical consequence of the naturalistic worldview that is assumed throughout so much of the West today. ...

How can we tell who is right in the origins debate?
Feedback archive → Feedback 2021 → Published: 24 July 2021 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/who-is-right-in-the-origins-debate

While there actually is a worldview dispute, there also is a conspiracy in mainstream education and media ... of the gatekeeping type. Making sure the other view is inadequately heard. However, this gatekeeping depends in high degree on painting the other view as overall conspiracy theorising, like claiming those holding it hold that an evolutionist scientist is dishonest when he claims to believe evolution.

In fact, that kind of gatekeeping is precisely what Jonathan Sarfati did there. Very slightly, he didn't delve into it, but he suggested it./HGL

PS, Carter repeated it just at the end of the video, calling geocentrism and flat earth, taken as a unity "conspiracy theory"./HGL

On the Oprah Show, about a Seduced and Suicided 14 Year Old Girl

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: On the Oprah Show, about a Seduced and Suicided 14 Year Old Girl · New blog on the kid: No, Education is NOT Always the Way Out

A Mom's Story of Her Teen Who Was Lured By An Internet Predator | The Oprah Winfrey Show | OWN
17th of August 2020 | OWN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0BWOCJH1LE

I, to the mother

5:30 At age 14,15 our hormones ... yeah, Mrs Danielle Helms, before this happened, a certain Bill Clinton, back in the 90's had made sure that, nation wide, the hormones of girls aged 12 to 15 could get no normal romp as in actually marrying and making babies, because he was so concerned that girls and boys could miss out on education up to 16 ... result: instead of getting married, they find relief from overprotective parents by affairs like the one with ... I had to look up the name, Kiley Ryan Bowers.

6:56 So, Danielle, you don't believe the prospect of seeing him before an altar might have made her less depressed than that of seeing him in court?

Obviously, as said, Bill Clinton made that impossible ...

7:58 So, the suicide was committed by someone under antidepressants ... seems that Citizens' Commission on Human Rights considered rightly that such things are an unsafe gamble ...

Btw, so far, I haven't heard about what perhaps happened gynaecologically after the late night confession: was Kristen made to take a day after pill, or was she just not anyway near pregnant anyway?

Obviously, Oprah would not ask such a question, but I think it's relevant.

Being pushed into abortion (even a very early one) is not a recipe for happiness.

II, to Oprah

10:17 It seems Oprah is under the misconception that Kristen Helms was a child when all of this happened.

Supplement of Summa, Q 58, A 5, the corpus of the article says:

I answer that, Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5058.htm#article5

St. Thomas said 14 for males, 12 for women. Kristen was not a child.

A marriageable person socially treated as a child is good at getting seduced.

Has Danielle Helms never ever read fairytales where an oppressive father stops a daughter from marriage after marriage and in the end even gets killed bc his daughter wants to marry? Culhwch and Olwen and the giant Yspaddaden, anyone?

Obviously, however abusive Culhwch was kind of abusive to his pa in law, but not to his wife.

So bad not all seducers are of his tremp, rather than KRB's.

Life in the Middle Ages was Usually Not Miserable, and in Europe Involved No Cholera

Q

What was the most miserable aspect of medieval life?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-most-miserable-aspect-of-medieval-life/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Scott Webb

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered November 9, 2019

Who says it was miserable? I have seen some suggestions here.

I have seen “hunger,” well, happened. But it didn’t happen every year in every place. You had worse hunger in the XXth C. in Ethiopia or when Ukraine (and some neighbouring parts) were misruled by the Soviet Union, and you had worse hunger, back XIXth C. in the potato famine.

I have seen “bad hygiene,” both on clothing and on habitation. Sorry, but this is prejudice. Hygiene worsened from end of Middle Ages to beginning of Industrial Era and some believers in progress have projected the bad sanitation of Manchester in 1830 back to the Middle Ages, minus the factory smoke and the smog.

As for clothes, there is no indication they were dirty clothes very long before washing them. As for living with animals, there is such a thing as hay and there were such things as stables, that is having animal abodes and human abodes a bit separate.

And I have seen, also on the answers here, having to stay with the same lord. If he wasn’t bad, and didn’t seduce your wife or daughter or sister, which unfortunately some did, why would that be bad?

The one thing I could think of would be Hundred Years’ War, near the end of the Middle Ages, and after that War of the Roses, for France and then England, but that came near the end of the Middle Ages and it returned in even worse versions in religious wars during XVIth and XVIIth C. like Eighty Years’ War, Thirty Years’ War and English Revolution.

Before you shout “plague” the big Medieval one lasted 1347 - 1349 and in no place was actively killing majorities of people for all three of the years, so, Black Death is like saying the worth thing when Noah was alive was the Deluge, and also, smaller plague epidemics lasted up to at least 1720 in Europe. Look up Augustin of Vienna, who survived near burial in a plague ditch and bishop Belsunce of Marseilles - a man doing good volunteer work both in fighting the plague and in fighting Calvinism.

Henri François Xavier de Belsunce de Castelmoron - Wikipedia

Der Wiener Rathauskeller

Well, I could mention one thing, though : there were Albigensians at a time.

I

Eric Christian Hansen

December 8, 2019

pandemic (i.e. a series of epidemics).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

December 10, 2019

A pandemic is not defined as a temporal series of epidemics in the same area. If you mean a series in quick sequence of epidemics in different places, I already mentioned the one pandemic, namely Plague of 1346 - 1349 (no place all 4 years).

Eric Christian Hansen

Thu, 15.VII.2021

still bad even in Joan of Arc’s time (1412 to 1431 A.D. ). 50% of the French population died from the pestilence. Those that survived lived to fight a Civil War that raged on for over 100 years. (Hundred Years’ War).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri, 16.VII.2021

They did?

Source would be liked (btw, 100 years’ war was about to end in her time or rather soon after).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 18.VII.2021

As said, source would be liked.

I have a source saying sth different:

The Black Death and the Hundred Years' War
https://www.medievalists.net/2020/03/black-death-hundred-years-war/

According to this, France was first plagued by the plague, then (with some years’ overlap) by the 100 years’ war.

II

Marc Robidoux

Mon, 12.VII.2021

Oh those were the days, pre science, pre vaccine , rampant slavery feudal days when everyone knew what god to worship and no one questioned the validity of religious dogma. Who says it was miserable?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, 13.VII.2021

"Oh those were the days, pre science,"

Not really, Aristotle had invented it c. 700 years before the Middle Ages began. It was not lost.

"pre vaccine"

Indeed. Therefore also pre-anti-viral vaccines with viruses bred on human fetal cells.

"rampant slavery"

The Middle Ages were the days when slavery was first getting abolished. Historical fact. Queen St. Bathildis of Francia (a unit later split into France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, BeNeLux) abolished slavery and when Benjamin Frankling was about to voyage to France, he was councilled to take a slave who was either very devoted or didn't know French, since a slave setting foot on French soil (not Louisiana and Islands, but France proper) could ask for release and be immediately released, legally. Obviously, the slavery of black people by white people was absent from nearly all of the Middle Ages, starting just near the end with Portuguese conquests in Africa.

"feudal days"

Yeah ... Richard Lionheart had to accept being vassal to the King of France to be Lord of Aquitaine ... what is your point?

"when everyone knew what god to worship"

Indeed, with some exceptions. Not knowing it is not my idea of "not miserable".

"and no one questioned the validity of religious dogma."

Again with some exceptions. Seriously and pertinaciously questioning it is also not my idea of "not miserable".

"Who says it was miserable?"

If the image is supposed to be an answer, it was taken after the Middle Ages. That said, being in town would sometimes be less healthy as exposing you to pocks. Now it's exposing to Covid. A few decades ago it was exposing certain sets to AIDS.

Marc Robidoux

Tue, 13.VII.2021

Whatever in your religious fervour irks you about vaccine and vaccine development, you’d have to be living in a pretty remote desert island to deny that vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Smallpox and Polio to name just 2, are all now a figment of history thanks to vaccines, and COVID19 is well on its way to the same place. Insulin allows diabetics to live normal lives. Anti-viral drugs allows HIV victims to live long lives. You may have been perfectly happy living in squalor and under the thumb of a feudal lord or the church or whatever master you like, but most of us today would find that miserable. The squalor was a direct result of lack of public health, and no Aristotelian science resolved that. The point of posting a picture of a smallpox victim, is to point out that death from these diseases was no walk in the park. No mention of Plague. Cholera, alone, was responsible for death and horrible agony throughout the middle ages and even up to recent times and today in less developed nations where they still live in misery because their public sanitation is not up to snuff. Following the same god, observing religious dogma, benefits? Not so much. If that’s all you do, you’ll be in misery, unless someone gets away from that to do the science and implement the public health measures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue, 13.VII.2021

"Whatever in your religious fervour irks you about vaccine and vaccine development,"

Vaccines involve cultivating pathogens. Virus won't multiply in nutrition solution. They need living cells. Guess which ones are the standard right now?

News & Views: Why Were Fetal Cells Used to Make Certain Vaccines?

"you’d have to be living in a pretty remote desert island to deny that vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of mankind."

So are atomic bombs.

"Smallpox and Polio to name just 2, are all now a figment of history thanks to vaccines,"

Thankfully this happened - mainly - before the change in standard.

"and COVID19 is well on its way to the same place."

Thanks for the optimism ... I don't think so, right now.

"Insulin allows diabetics to live normal lives."

Normally long, but under abnormal circumstances. The Gonzagas of Mantua arguably lived more normally, but shorter lives.

"Anti-viral drugs allows HIV victims to live long lives."

No HIV (in Europe at least) in the Middle Ages.

"You may have been perfectly happy living in squalor and under the thumb of a feudal lord or the church or whatever master you like,"

I'm not happy living under the thumb of what seems to be shrinks.

Squalour in the Middle Ages is a trope of ...

Artistic License – History - TV Tropes

"but most of us today would find that miserable."

So would most in the Middle Ages, if that had been true.

"The squalor was a direct result of lack of public health,"

Soap box Hyde Park, speech for social medicine, but neither squalour nor lack of some kind of public health is even true.

"and no Aristotelian science resolved that."

It did. Or more properly, medicine back than was by Galene. But close enough to Aristotle.

"The point of posting a picture of a smallpox victim, is to point out that death from these diseases was no walk in the park."

In Europe, many survived. And in the country-side, risk was small.

"No mention of Plague."

Middle Ages doesn't equal the Plague years. Like Days of Noah doesn't equal the Flood. About similar proportions.

"Cholera, alone, was responsible for death and horrible agony throughout the middle ages"

Didn't even exist back then. Your history again is …

Artistic License – History - TV Tropes

"and even up to recent times and today in less developed nations where they still live in misery because their public sanitation is not up to snuff."

Strike out the word "even" and that matches what we do know of cholera.

"Following the same god, observing religious dogma, benefits? Not so much. If that’s all you do, you’ll be in misery, unless someone gets away from that to do the science and implement the public health measures."

Which people following the same God, namely monks and priests, did.

Marc Robidoux

Tue, 13.VII.2021

Cholera “Didn't even exist back then.” and “ neither squalour nor lack of some kind of public health is even true“ , spoken by the guy who thinks geocentrism and Noah’s flood are “true” - “many survived” - yes, in squalor and misery. Not sure who Galene was, but he never thought of inventing sewers to flow away the shit from the streets apparently, that was discovered much later to be the primary cause of Cholera, which existed but was not known to exist (perhaps because your god never saw it fit to reveal it to his followers perhaps?). I’m not aware that Galene came up with the discovery of germ theory and disease…

People following the same god, namely monks and priests, got away from the dogma to dwell in science, it wasn’t BECAUSE of the dogma or monotheism, but clearly because they were able to get out from under it to think for themselves. See Galileo, Giordano Bruno, etc. as examples.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, 14.VII.2021

“Cholera “Didn't even exist back then.” and “ neither squalour nor lack of some kind of public health is even true“ , spoken by the guy who thinks geocentrism and Noah’s flood are “true” - “many survived” - yes, in squalor and misery.”

Cholera didn't exist back then - in the relevant area. Spoken by a guy who looked it up, first European description of cholera is from 17th C. in a book about diseases of the East Indies.

// The disease appears in the European literature as early as 1642, from the Dutch physician Jakob de Bondt's description it in his De Medicina Indorum.[84] (The "Indorum" of the title refers to the East Indies. He also gave first European descriptions of other diseases.) //

Cholera - Wikipedia

Squalour is not true ...

// The first closed sewer constructed in Paris was designed by Hugues Aubird in 1370 on Rue Montmartre (Montmartre Street), and was 300 meters long. The original purpose of designing and constructing a closed sewer in Paris was less-so for waste management as much as it was to hold back the stench coming from the odorous waste water.[47] In Dubrovnik, then known as Ragusa (Latin name), the Statute of 1272 set out the parameters for the construction of septic tanks and channels for the removal of dirty water. Throughout the 14th and 15th century the sewage system was built, and it is still operational today, with minor changes and repairs done in recent centuries.[48] //

History of water supply and sanitation - Wikipedia

Why not earlier? Because cities were only then crowded enough to need that.

What was sanitation like in cities without sewers? Well, waste was carried to cess-pits and surrounding farmers went to them for fertiliser. Some of them had streets so hilly that any rain would drain the street clean (for instance Paris before the sewer), and where that wasn't the case, throwing your waste in the street was fined.

"Not sure who Galene was, but he never thought of inventing sewers to flow away the shit from the streets apparently, that was discovered much later to be the primary cause of Cholera, which existed but was not known to exist (perhaps because your god never saw it fit to reveal it to his followers perhaps?)."

It didn't exist in the Middle Ages in Europe.

"I’m not aware that Galene came up with the discovery of germ theory and disease…"

He came up with or inherited from Hippocrates a lot of good advice about sanitationary city planning. Early Middle Ages went away from large cities with Aquaeducts and started favouring smaller ones with dug wells for this very reason.

You don't need to know germs from a microscope to discover that putting a city next to a swamp is a health hasard.

"People following the same god, namely monks and priests, got away from the dogma to dwell in science, it wasn’t BECAUSE of the dogma or monotheism, but clearly because they were able to get out from under it to think for themselves."

The Hôtel-Dieu of Paris and lots of similar places involved doctors serving there for free (gave them experience for paying patients whom they served at home) because of the dogma that being kind to the poor is a good investment for eternity.

"See Galileo, Giordano Bruno, etc. as examples."

Neither of whom did the least bit for sanitation. Remember, we were talking about squalour, not about "superstition", as we both know I would not consider Geocentrism as such.

Marc Robidoux

Wed, 14.VII.2021

“ Cholera didn't exist back then“ - spoken by a guy who thinks nothing exists unless it is discovered and documented, and also believes the Sun revolves around the earth and Noah’s flood covered the whole earth.

You seem to think that because there were medical discoveries and some forays into medicine throughout the ages, there was no squalor or misery. Yeah, those 1370 sewers in Paris were surely helpful and improved sanitation, but it doesn’t eliminate all the squalor and misery that existed all over the place. Dying of smallpox, TB, Malaria, Polio, Cholera or any other number of diseases now prevented or eliminated was a dire way to go. Infant mortality, as well as being deadly to the infant, was painful for the parents, and drove them to procreate more, increasing the chance of maternal mortality, etc. etc. A total combination recipe for miserable existence. Note I didn’t say 100% of people lived in abject misery, but misery and squalor was prevalent, and present in areas where it is not today, and this is because of lack of sanitation and the resultant disease.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed, 14.VII.2021

"spoken by a guy who thinks nothing exists unless it is discovered and documented, and also believes the Sun revolves around the earth and Noah’s flood covered the whole earth."

Look here. The Western Europe of the Middle Ages had sufficient competence in medicine, partly thanks to Galene, to document a disease like cholera, if they had seen it. If so, the 1642 book would not have been the earliest Western documentation of it. And it would have retained the Latin name it had got in the Middle Ages, instead of getting a new Greek one.

"You seem to think that because there were medical discoveries and some forays into medicine throughout the ages, there was no squalor or misery."

Did I say "no squalour of misery" ever, anywhere? No. I am just saying the squalour in the Middle Ages was not prevalent, any more than now. Some forays? Whom are you kidding!

"Yeah, those 1370 sewers in Paris were surely helpful and improved sanitation, but it doesn’t eliminate all the squalor and misery that existed all over the place."

Now, "all over the place" is your claim, how about YOU try to give a decent link about it?

"Dying of smallpox,"

Or surviving it. Like, at the end of the Middle Ages, Europeans had immune systems able to survive smallpx very widely.

"TB"

Checking ... in the Middle ages, it was mentioned by : Avicenna and Rhazes, both from the Arab world, Arnaldus de Villa Nova from formerly such, namely Catalonia. Inquisitors in Medieval Hungary recorded pagan superstitions about it. Well, yes, it existed at least in the South and East outskirts of Europe. In France and England, TB and scrofula spread Renaissance and later, and in Italy it was present in the Renaissance.

History of tuberculosis - Wikipedia

Girolamo Fracastoro - Wikipedia

"Malaria"

Certainly did exist in the Mediterranean. And was often survived.

"Polio"

Doesn't seem to be deadly. In Egypt back in Pharaonic times, and in England, at least since 1789 (what a year!) No evidence I could see it was there in the Middle Ages in Europe : before 1789, there were lots of contacts with the Orient after the Middle Ages (though, admittedly, the Crusades could have provided an occasion).

"Cholera"

Medieval Europeans didn't travel all that much to India.

"or any other number of diseases now prevented or eliminated was a dire way to go."

So are diseases now extant.

"Infant mortality, as well as being deadly to the infant,"

Which was often enough baptised before. Confer abortion, which is mostly deadly to the foetus. Which is not baptised.

"was painful for the parents,"

Sure. But less so, perhaps than deaths of children now.

"and drove them to procreate more,"

Mortality as such drives people with some rationality left to procreate. Unless they are monks. Or nuns.

"increasing the chance of maternal mortality,"

Yes, did happen. Not all that prevalent from the stats I have studied in Medieval royalties, but it did happen.

"A total combination recipe for miserable existence."

No, procreating, having many children, and even if some die, having more left is not a recipe for a miserable existence.

"Note I didn’t say 100% of people lived in abject misery,"

And I didn't say 0 %.

"but misery and squalor was prevalent,"

Ah, we differ.

"present in areas where it is not today, "

While today has new areas of squalour.

"and this is because of lack of sanitation and the resultant disease."

Sanitation was adequate, disease was arguably somewhat more prevalent than now, but not so significantly everyone was in misery.

Bonus, you didn't feel sure who Galene was, check this guy:

Galen - Wikipedia

And sorry for spelling Galene rather than Galen ...

Marc Robidoux

Wed, 14.VII.2021

TLDR, I only have time to address one of your many attempts at gish-galloping: Yes, right, medical knowledge in the 1500’s was amply sufficient to eradicate Cholera if it had existed back then…I’ll take your word for it, you win.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, 15.VII.2021

It was amply sufficient to IDENTIFY and DESCRIBE cholera in the 1500’s if it had been there. They could describe smallpox accurately (and it was there), they could describe different types of TB accurately (though they didn’t link phthisis and scrofula as having same germs, attacking different tissues), so they could have identified cholera accurately if it had been there too.

It was not. In 1642, it was described as a disease of India or East Indies, in 1817 the first pandemic of it touching Europe started in Bombay.

Gish Gallop has very specific meaning, and adressing point after point in YOUR Gish Gallops is not that one.

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 15.VII.2021

Something else added to your long list of things you KNOW are true, geocentrism, global flood, inerrancy of the bible, middle ages medicine identifying and categorizing diseases, the list goes on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, 15.VII.2021

Middle Ages medicine identifying and categorising diseases isn’t even controversial.

Get in touch with this guy:

Tim O'Neill

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 15.VII.2021

The facts are that medicine in the middle ages were steeped in superstition and ruled by Catholic doctrine. Surely there were some discoveries and developments, but to suggest that medieval “doctors” knew what Cholera was and could identify it or are you suggesting they could treat it? Another one of your delusions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, 15.VII.2021

I said nothing about “knowing what it was” (i e germ theory). I did say sth about being able to describe it.

It is indeed totally “delusional” - but I don’t use that word - to imagine that any amount of superstition could have prevented that.

The meme is not accurately Medieval, and the mask was thought to prevent catching the disease … an idea which in the recent year has had a comeback.

Robidoux, after notification this was on my blog, wrote:

I see you hold your own KNOWledge in very high regard.

So do lots of people. When it comes to the Middle Ages, some have less reason than I. But that guy is able to gas on and on about any high regard for my own knowledge being some kind of delusion, why bother?

Days of Noah?

Q

Is the Earth possibly returning as it was during the age of Noah?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Earth-possibly-returning-as-it-was-during-the-age-of-Noah/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

ans-Georg Lundahl

amateur reader of it

Answered just now

If my theory of pre-Flood violence as “well meaning” or “responsible” administrations is correct, I have seen it beginning in my life.

Noah may have married only at 500, or may have been long separated from a wife he had married earlier up to then. I am 52 and still have my situation manipulated to remaining poor and celibate.

Sharing

“Pints With Aquinas”: Dead Atheists May Not Go To Hell - Heresy
July 13th 2021 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGb8C5K5Wrk

[Euhemerism]

Bias in the Sources for Heathenry? Misunderstood Myths of Ancient Norse Records
9th of July 2021 | Ocean Keltoi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6uYidxAmPM

I

4:51 "several generations" - you are more in this than I am, so ...

Taking destruction of Troy as 1179 BC, taking Odin's arrival as either time of Cyrus or at latest Alexander (Saxo) or as time of Julius Caesar (Fjölner drowns in mead in the court of a contemporary of Augustus), does the number of generations come close to matching either number of years?

II

10:18 W a i t ... did Saxo consider Odin longlived enough to make later appearances in person? Same guy who went to Uppsala?

My own euhemerism on this is, the wizard who plunged a sword later known as Gram in the oak in Völse's hall, either was later mistaken for Odin, or simply played the part (a bit like Phantom of Bengali pretends to have been alive for centuries).

Specifically, did Saxo consider the Odin who betrayed Bjarki as identic to the one who had come to Uppsala?

I think he specifically says, Odin was burned after death and Med-Odin ("the co-Odin") went down as a vampire killed in Finland, so putting Odin in Bjarki's time as identic to either would be anachronistic, strong sense, like Perseus meeting an Atlas mad bc Hercules had fooled him.

III

15:46 One rune stone in Sweden contains the earliest version of Hail Mary.

A rune stone need not be sourced by a heathen, and if you imagine "if it contains Norse legend, it was" take a look at staff churches with Sigurd killing Favne on the porches.

IV

16:46 Unless the very euhemeristic Odin who came to Uppsala was a pre-Christian Hebrew.

Talmudic alias : Yeshu, wayward disciple of a rabbi also named Yehoshua and also not Our Lord.

Indirect Gospel alias : gramp of James and John.

Book of Daniel is as likely a source as Book of Apocalypse.

It may be noted that one of the earliest Christian writings from German territory is Muspilli - a résumé of parts of the Apocalypse with Daniel, and this choice could very well reflect pre-Christian occupations of these peoples.

V

17:57 Havamal very certainly doesn't show Odin anyway near like Christ. "ölr var ek" - I was drunk.

But the verses very well could go back to Qohelet in some instances, and if Odin came to Uppsala, he would have spoken them in proto-Norse - and the "deyr fé" stanza definitely can be phonetically translated back to proto-Norse and give an overall metric (though not identic metre) impression in that guise too.

Again, the somewhat clumsy and not quite morally upright person we see fits a certain guy in the Talmud, whom Jews should not have confused with Christ. Founder of an idolatrous sect - but not of Christianity.

VI

23:22 I am most certainly not an ex-Christian.

However, I'd add that Nerthus worship in Tacitus:
* concerns an idol of the cosmic, totally non-eumeric kind (a demon)
* and that her name is identic to that of Odin's rival (both Saxo and Snorre's Heimskringla consider Skade = Frigga).

I think it is very possible an indigenous heathen priest or priest king, named Nerthus for the goddess he worshipped, became divinised in the new cult he helped to start.

And which hadn't come through as far down as in Denmark yet, which is where Tacitus discusses her.

VII

After the video : euhemerism.

As you mention, it served to discredit the heathen as theologians, they mistook men for god.

It also served to credit them as historians. "Yeah, sure, Romulus was no god, but his followers took him for one, because they loved him" ... freely after St. Augustine. In other words, Romulus existed.

Your avoidance of euhemerism balks you from seeing that beings we take for men, but heathens took for gods are at the dawn of the Yngling dynasty. I may be partial, as a Swede.

Speaking of which, Snorre, as a post-Republican Icelander, that is as a Norwegian subject, was also partial to the Ynglings, and that is why he, unlike Saxo, credited them with Trojan ancestry - you know the ancestry that makes Aeneas stand out as ancestor of Caesar or Brutus as ancestor of British kings ("when the siege and the assault had ceased at Troy" if you recall the prologue to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in Tolkien's translation).

Saxo was less partial to Ynglings, so he didn't. While being equally euhemerist and putting Odin's appearance right in Sweden, not Denmark. Despite Skjoldungs being credited with Odinid ancestry.

A N D the one Christian historian who did discredit the historic existance of Odin also put him round the timespan where Snorre does "but that tale is ridiculous, for one it is the true God who gives victory and not these false gods, and for another, Godan is a Greek magician called Mercury, who lived 1000 years earlier." (Freely after Historia or Gesta Langobardorum, by Paul the Deacon).

You describe Odin in Havamal, "hanged and sacrificed to himself" (you know the poem more by heart than I do) as a reference to Christ, but have you considered, there are Shamans who do rites after which they consider themselves as incarnating the relevant gods or spirits ... hanging nine nights from a tree (I don't think he said "dead") and surviving after it, sounds like the nose wasn't tight around the neck and probably some sort of Shamanistic initiation.

Back with MagnificentXXBastard

Five Ways, Especially First Way · Found an Answer Unpostable · Back with MagnificentXXBastard

Added, and now the answers could be posted:

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl > Seem so to YOUR type?

No, to every type. Which is why as we gather more and more knowledge about nature, this ha become the prominent and basically universally agreed model of our solar system. Cause it's the only one that makes sense and is completely consistent with the laws of nature and our observations, and it requires no suspension of disbelief in angels, magic etc. which you claim move everything, but do it so that it is literally undetectable by any means and still makes it look like only the laws of physics are at work since they describe the system perfectly, which SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE if there are "angelic forces" at work, influencing the system.

>That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

Fucking LMAO, nice God, making everything look like it's just gravity using his magic to fool pretty much everyone, and then when people don't believe it's actually invisible angels moving the planets he "judges" them. Wow.

Sorry, we are never going back to geocentrism unless you find some proof for your angels, lol.

>If "parallax" isn't parallax, no trigonometry to prove those 4 light years.

There are other ways to prove distance like supernovae which blows your entire argument out of the water, but still funny. ANOTHER case of God using magic to make it look exactly like we have parallax be moving all stars JUST SO haha. I bet you are just going to say he makes the supernovae look like they are really far away too, huh?
Convenient!

>St. Thomas Aquinas had a better education than any of us

For his time maybe. By todays standards?
Doubtful. Pretty sure a highschool graduate knows more about how the world works, math, science, etc. than this guy.

>I don't hold to the idea of "predict observations" as sole test for theories

Yeah, then you're not doing science my buddy. If your theories and models DO NOT predict anything, they are useless. If they are unfalsifiable also, they are useless and unscientific. This is ridiculous if this is supposed to be your scientific foundation for contesting the heliocentric model of our solar system that is
1) supported by immense quantities of evidence
2) has perfect predictive quality
3) neatly ties into and uses other scientific theories and laws of anture.
4) Is completely falsifiable, yet has never been falsified.

> You are in practise excluding a claim you haven't falsified.

Because it is literally UNFALSIFIABLE. Propose an experiment to disprove angel magic please?
Unfalsifiable statements are not science and not to be taken seriously. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Sorry.

>The evidence for an explanation is:
* presence of one or more observations needing explanation;
* absence of any observation radically incompatible with it.


????
What does that even mean?
Of course nothing is imcompatible with your claim, it is an UNFALSIFIABLE claim. I can right now say that a magical blue teacup named jerry living in the center of the sun makes everything move in crazy zigzag lines all over the universe, but he just manipulates the light and gravity to make it SEEM like everything is normal, and he stops when we get close to check.

Unfalsifiable. No evidence. No predictions -> useless
ust like your angel claim. Now, would you dismiss my explanation?

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it has all the evidence needed

If by "all the evidence it needs" you mean "no evidence", then yes. If not, no.
Simply saying all observations we make of parallax are illusions caused by angel magic is not proof in any wy that angel magic exists and moves planets.
Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Honestly? You use fancy words and latin, but what you are saying is ridiculous drivel to the bone. How can you not see that? There is a reason nobody takes geocentists seriously anymore, you know?
Have you ever critically evaluated your beliefs and thought about how everybody laughs at your ideas and if all this is not just wishfull thinking?

>you would have to know not just periodicity, but also position at a given earlier or later point

Exactly, you got it. All we need is an initial position and some data, and from that we can use all our entirely scientific, non magic containing formulas to predict it's movement completely, which fits observation.
This, btw, should not be possible if there were angelic forces affecting it's orbit in addition to natural forces. Except of course magical illusion or whatever.

A geocentrist can do no such thing. You have no equations, no predictions. Orbital mechanics work, my man. Our equations and understanding of orbital mechanics allows us to launch sattelites, gravity-slingshot off planets, send probes out of the solar system looking back etc.

> it is also a problem for Solar System staying together without special design to do so.

Why would any of this be a problem for the solar system staying together. It's not "pretended" predictive power btw, it is actual predictive power. Because, you know, it accurately predicts reality? Which is what spacefaring relies upon?

> I take that as "unfalsifiable by means of physical calculations".

No, unfalsifiable by ANY means. If it is falsifiable, name me a way to falsify it. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

>For that matter, there are plenty of things that theoretically could falsify geocentrism

No, there aren't, at least not your version of it.
You could always chalk it up to illusion and angel magic. As you did with everything i brought up so far. Nothing magic can't do after all.

>That's a far cry from a theory being so intricate all falsification venues are countered

Doesn't have to be intricate. Just say "it's a miracle" to every counterargument. Thats what you have been doing.

>"stars move with too irregular orbits, though very rhythmically, to be a simple question of inertia and gravitation"

This is not true, stars movements are perfectly explained with gravity and inertia.

>When two options are available, and one cannot be excluded, the other cannot be confirmed.

Yeah sorry, but you simply have no idea how science works, because this is not it. I can think of infinite unfalsifiable and ridiculous theories about how planets move, doesn't mean they have to be all falsified until we accept the real explanation as true.

>and God and angels are to most of mankind historically and geographically more intuitive than materialism.

No longer bro, sorry. "Historically people believe in God and angel magic so this is more likely correct" is also not a scientific argument my man.

>God moves the aether around us each day. Coriolis, dito.

There is no aether, this is an antiquated idea about electromagnetic waves. You are a couple years to late for the discovery of the photon. Moreover, even the historical theory of aether does not explain foucaults pendulum, because the aether does not interact with gravity, mass, inertia etc. but with electromagnetic waves as their medium.

So no, even the aether does not explain this. The only explanation is us siting on a spinning ball. Or you can just use "angel magic" to once again dismiss anything contradicting your system.

>Another case of your mistaking your culture for mankind's general condition

Yeah sorry, not many people left who believe the earth isn't spinning. Especially in the christian countries. Guess we all going to hell, huh? God really tricked us on that one, making foucalts pendulum work making it seem like earth is spinning, but instead actually spinning some invisible, intangible, magical aether around it that casues everything to look like Earth is in fact spinning.

This is what i mean by unfalsifiable, no matter how damning the evidence, you just make up a magic explanation up.

> 6.28 times speed of light.

Yeah sorry, but no. Another case of magic making faster than lightspeed possible to save your failing model? You're like a guy with a bathtub full of holes smacking your magic tape over every single one lol.

>You again forget, however many or few of the planets have had their mass checked, the masses were calculated from observed orbits before any checks.

And they are CORRECT every time. Completely correct. What are you waiting for, lmao. Don't hold your breath for one not being what we expected.

>Yes, that they are able to make spirograph patterns of Tychonic orbit

Anyone can draw a line following the movement. A kid can do it. I am talking about calculations here. Just using some data like mass etc. on the celestial body and an initial position, and then go, calculate the orbits. Predict the position. Launch a probe there and gravity-slingshot off the planet.
Can't do that with your model. Cause you got no math.

>any purely physical movement could be mimicked with a willed movement.

What does that even mean? Another magical "just so" story about how angel magic makes it look "just so" as if only physcial forces were at work?

>angels don't move matter by vectors. But by will.

That statement does not make sense. Any movement through space contains a vector. That's what movement is. If the angel is adding something or overriding some of the natural forces governing the movement of a celestial body, THE CALCULATIONS WOULD NO LONGER BE CORRECT.

I don't know what "quirks" you mean but the movement of all celestial bodies is perfectly explained by natural forces with no need for angels to be quirky.

>is apparent to ALL of mankind from direct observation.

Maybe a couple thousand years ago. No longer though, sorry. When we started building better and better telescopes that worldview crumbled, it shattered when we discovered gravity and is long dead as we launch sattelites to space and slingshot probes of distant planets using gravity.

> Mathematics can be misapplied.

It is not here. Explain what you mean and how that invalidates the statement i made earlier.

> Illusion, no. Manipulation, yes, but not of maths, but of orbits.

Again, simple logic:

If God was manipulating orbits, he has to do that by changing the laws governing those planets, or add momentum to them, or some other way to change their behaviour to be different from purely physical causes.

Now, that means the orbit could NOT be calculated using purely physical methods. It simply could not. The theory of gravity and relativity would neither be able to correctly explain the movement of the planets nor predict it.

Do you understand that?

>In the context of a planet having its inertia and its gravitation into the sun and getting some corners of Tychonian orbits correctly turned due to regulation of these factors by an angelic mover, the biker whose ride is mostly determined by mass of himself and bike and velocity already obtained, as well as inclination of surface and smoothness and wind, but where some things are regulated to keep him from falling by his twitching a pedal or turning a wheel slightly when needed is a fairly perfect fit.

Still does not make sense. For one, the changes would not be minimal, they would be massive. A huge amount of force or manipulation is needed to supercede gravity and make the sun rotate around the earth.

> We can observe too. And extrapolate from observations.

You can't do the last part though. Merely showing you an initial position and some data about mass would not enable you to make any predictions and extrapolations. An astrophycisist though, no problem.

See the difference?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Thematically rearranged.

Discussion of possibility of an angelic explanation:

"Because it is literally UNFALSIFIABLE. Propose an experiment to disprove angel magic please?"
"No, unfalsifiable by ANY means. If it is falsifiable, name me a way to falsify it. Go ahead. I'm waiting."

No angels, no magic, etc would be verified in a world with no mind, including yours and mine. With no language either. There would be no one to conclude the falsification had taken place, but it would have.

"Doesn't have to be intricate. Just say "it's a miracle" to every counterargument. Thats what you have been doing."

Not exactly. Intentionality and miraculousness are not the same.

Angels are involved in miracles proper, like parting of the Red Sea, but they are also involved in the ordinary operations of nature. Including the very regular astronomic ones, and - perhaps mostly fallen angels - the atmospheric ones as well.

"No longer bro, sorry. "Historically people believe in God and angel magic so this is more likely correct" is also not a scientific argument my man."

You are missing that mankind today does not consist of 7 billion Westerners and Westerners do not consist of the 600 million No Religion. The position I take is, science belief cannot philosophically banish as non-sense something most of mankind considers as sensible.

"What does that even mean? Another magical "just so" story about how angel magic makes it look "just so" as if only physcial forces were at work?"

No. The thing is, there is nothing that spontaneously looks to all of mankind like only physical forces are at work. However, supposing you can explain observations that way, this is, for named reason, no refutation of willed movements.

"That statement does not make sense. Any movement through space contains a vector."

Any movement through the aether.

"That's what movement is."

Movements of objects with masses through the aether certainly do contain vectors. My point is, angels don't have to use such to cause such.

"If the angel is adding something or overriding some of the natural forces governing the movement of a celestial body, THE CALCULATIONS WOULD NO LONGER BE CORRECT."

Shout a little louder will you? It's the same proposition by which energy at disposition for the body has been proposed as ruling out that the mind moves anything even a little bit other than as an alias of purely material causalities. While movements done by persons of human nature don't normally (excepting miraculous exceptions) exceed calories available in a body, we must assume something is moved apart from by vectors to explain how free will moves our either fingers on a key board or tongues in speech.

"I don't know what "quirks" you mean but the movement of all celestial bodies is perfectly explained by natural forces with no need for angels to be quirky."

First heliocentric prediction : earth moves, stars don't. Stars will show parallax if observed with a sufficiently good resolution.

First quirk : hey, the phenomenon of alpha Draconis is so evenly distributed, it's probably aberration of light instead.
Second quirk : proper movements have been observed.
Third quirk : pulsars.
Fourth quirk : Chambler's wobble.
Fifth quirk : the other wobble.
Sixth quirk : redshift. Different from red-filtering.

All of above have modified the initial prediction and some still won't get "hey, perhaps there someone alive out there!"

"If God was manipulating orbits, he has to do that by changing the laws governing those planets,"

No. He would have made the laws and He would also have made the non-physical parts of them.

"or add momentum to them, or some other way to change their behaviour to be different from purely physical causes."

Or turn the aether in which they move around earth. Without that adding any momentum, since it is in the aether momentum occurs.

"Now, that means the orbit could NOT be calculated using purely physical methods. It simply could not. The theory of gravity and relativity would neither be able to correctly explain the movement of the planets nor predict it. Do you understand that?"

I understand perfectly that that is your half learned view of it. The kind of half learning I'd expect from a shrink, as well as the bad manners I'd expect of him. It is bad manners to adress the words "[d]o you understand that?" to an adult.

"You can't do the last part though. ... See the difference?"

What I can do personally is irrelevant. I am not called Riccioli.

"Still does not make sense. For one, the changes would not be minimal, they would be massive. A huge amount of force or manipulation is needed to supercede gravity and make the sun rotate around the earth."

Earth staying still might be the one example. For a Tychonian orbit of say Jupiter, minimal changes would be adequate.

Sun is not constrained by gravity from moving around the Zodiac if so moved by an angel, as we see the Sun so move.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard and:

Discussion of proof:

"What does that even mean?"

I'll examplify:

The evidence for an explanation like blood circulation (see Harvey) is:
* presence of one or more observations needing explanation, like pushing on veins stems blood flow;
* absence of any observation radically incompatible with it, like opening veins releasing air would have proven the pre-Harvey theory.

Discussion of the proof status of geocentrism:

"I can right now say that a magical blue teacup named jerry living in the center of the sun makes everything move in crazy zigzag lines all over the universe, but he just manipulates the light and gravity to make it SEEM like everything is normal, and he stops when we get close to check."

Unlike geocentrism, not born out by observations, as they directly seem to apply. Unlike God moving aether and angelic movers moving stars, not born out indirectly, via heliocentrism either. [I meant geocentrism]

It is heliocentrism that makes claims about things being very other than the normal they seem.

"Simply saying all observations we make of parallax are illusions caused by angel magic is not proof in any wy that angel magic exists and moves planets."
"Yeah sorry, not many people left who believe the earth isn't spinning. Especially in the christian countries. Guess we all going to hell, huh? God really tricked us on that one, making foucalts pendulum work making it seem like earth is spinning, but instead actually spinning some invisible, intangible, magical aether around it that casues everything to look like Earth is in fact spinning."

You don't know the subject. It's calling it a parallax that makes it an optic illusion, like the one that makes trees seem to fly past the train you are in. Angelic movers = the movements happen precisely where they seem to happen. No illusion.

"Maybe a couple thousand years ago. No longer though, sorry. When we started building better and better telescopes that worldview crumbled, it shattered when we discovered gravity and is long dead as we launch sattelites to space and slingshot probes of distant planets using gravity."

You are misconstruing what in the "current" world view of your "we" is observation and what is world view. To this date, every observation is geocentric, except a few luno-centric, marto-centric, soho-centric, mir-centric and a few very narrow, no longer available views from Voyager (their cameras are turned off). Plus a few close views on planets.

Riccioli is also not a couple thousand years ago. Nor is baron René le Roy.

You show the level of Dunning Kruger on the subject that I would expect from a shrink.

"Exactly, you got it. All we need is an initial position and some data, and from that we can use all our entirely scientific, non magic containing formulas to predict it's movement completely, which fits observation."

Thank you, but the initial position was not among the things you proposed. It is also available to geocentrism. And since previous positions form a pattern, it is applicable for predicting future observations. As to "completely" that is imagining there will be no new discoveries which will prompt heliocentrics to new proposed models to account for movements observed somewhat mismatching predictions.

"There is no aether, this is an antiquated idea about electromagnetic waves."

Saying "the idea is antiquated" is neither scientifically nor philosophically a refutation.

"You are a couple years to late for the discovery of the photon."

Photons and electrons could be ripples in the aether.

"Moreover, even the historical theory of aether does not explain foucaults pendulum, because the aether does not interact with gravity, mass, inertia etc. but with electromagnetic waves as their medium."

To me it would also be the medium of Newtonian vectors.

"So no, even the aether does not explain this."

Except with my extension.

"The only explanation is us siting on a spinning ball. Or you can just use "angel magic" to once again dismiss anything contradicting your system."

Nothing contradicting it, and aether isn't moved around earth by angels, but by God (recall : it reaches up to sphere of fix stars).

"Yeah sorry, but no. Another case of magic making faster than lightspeed possible to save your failing model? You're like a guy with a bathtub full of holes smacking your magic tape over every single one lol."

With "speed of light" being in relation to aether the speed limit, and with aether not being limited, no problem. Rename aether "space time" and there are Einsteinians who will jump to that hope of a future faster than light space travel (I don't).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Forgot one:

"There are other ways to prove distance like supernovae which blows your entire argument out of the water, but still funny. ANOTHER case of God using magic to make it look exactly like we have parallax be moving all stars JUST SO haha. I bet you are just going to say he makes the supernovae look like they are really far away too, huh?"

No, supernovae are not another way independent of parallax, but the distance proofs from supernovae depend on supposedly proven distances supposedly so by parallax.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard And one more:

"This is not true, stars movements are perfectly explained with gravity and inertia."

Not if we include all of the movements actually observed. Like the ones you put down to an illusion called "parallax" - same type as with trees moving outside train window.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard And one more:

"Doubtful. Pretty sure a highschool graduate knows more about how the world works, math, science, etc. than this guy."

In terms of number of facts, including merely supposed so, probably. Unless you include subjects outside "natural science" as now delimited.

In terms of how to evaluate proof - no way!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

added later

@MagnificentXXBastard AND two more.

First a retraction. I said supernovas used to calculate distances depend on parallax. Might not be true, though many other non-parallax do. The basis is, one presumes one knows the real speed for the spread of a corona around the area of the previous star. Then the apparent speed is used to calculate distance.

It still involves presuming one knows something which one cannot know, and here again, angelic movers will do : it's a very pretty firework, and why deny them artistry?

Second, I was a bit flustered by your use of "do you understand this" so I missed the weakness of your argument.

An angel has no mass. An angel may produce vectors indirectly through moving an object, but moves it himself by will and not by vectors. This means the presence of the angel is in no way a permanent extra needing physical accounting for.

Your idea, if an angel adds something ever, we don't get what we calculate, guess what - it might exactly precisely be the difference between what a heliocentric Newtonian calculates and what we geocentrically observe, the exact thing needed to make for instance a retrograde literally occur in the aether rather than be a parallactic illusion in empty space coordinates, as claimed.

Biblical Chronology Questions on Quora

Q I

Did the Bible really say the Earth is flat? Did the Bible say the Earth is 6000 years old?
://www.quora.com/Did-the-Bible-really-say-the-Earth-is-flat-Did-the-Bible-say-the-Earth-is-6000-years-old/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered May 30 (2021)

These are two questions.

"Did the Bible really say the Earth is flat?"

No. For instance, each "four corners" passage is understandable as about corners of the continents, since Hebrew Eretz doesn't just mean "Tellus" (as opposed to Heaven) but also "Terra" and especially "Terra firma" (as opposed to the sea).

"Did the Bible say the Earth is 6000 years old?"

According to translations (notably of Genesis 5 and 11) and according to estimates about the period between Daniel and Christ, the Bible says earth was between 4000 (or even slightly lower) and 5500 years when Christ was born, that is, that it is now, two thousand years later, between 6000 years (or even slightly lower, Jews had Anno Mundi 5777 in AD 2007, as I recall) and 7500 years.

Marc Robidoux

Sun (4.VII.2021)

Ancient civilizations like in China and Peru and Mesopotamia and India ( some who kept excellent records by the way) would be shocked that they predate the earth itself as some calculations dated from the Bible. They were already shaking their heads in disbelief at the supposedly global flood that never affected them at all. How weird.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tuesday 6.VII.2021

You believe the Sumerian King List where one of the pre-Flood kings ruled like 28 000 years?

You believe Indian records are excellent when they got writing a few centuries BC? First written text of considerable length being in Pali, decree of Ashoka, later one also had written Sanscrit?

Inca civilisation started in Cusco, c. 12th C. Yeah, AD. It had no writing and did not orally preserve all records of any previously extant civilisations.

China? It so happens, their civilisation starts with Fu Hsi, and his lifetime is a bit after the Flood. Even with “moderate LXX chronology” and certainly with the “full LXX chronology” (Flood in 2957 BC acc to Roman Martyrology 3258 / 3266 BC according to Syncellus).

See more on China here:
Recorded History of China Too Old For Us?

Marc Robidoux

3h ago

You sir are a believer! A true believer. You obviously hold quite extended education, and perhaps this informs your true belief to the point you KNOW! You know, the Bible is literally true. You know the myth of the biblical flood is true, and all the animals including dinosaurs survived on a ship that engineering tells us wouldn’t even have floated. You know this flood occurred globally despite insufficient water existing on earth. You know this biblical flood took out the entire globe even though civilizations all over somehow existed and went through it. You know animals found in only remote parts of the earth were ‘hand carried’ by descendants of the inbred humans carried on that ark. You know all bear types descended from 2 bears carried on the ark, despite common biological evidence that a population below several hundred individuals is a sure way to extinction. You know Ken Hamm is absolutely correct and his “Ark Experience” is the literal truth, despite the fact he only managed to build his monstrosity with concrete and rebar and cranes and diggers etc, but oh no, Noah managed it all with his bare hands, you know it.

It is to laugh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

I am very impressed with how quick you drop an argument after I made an attempt to disprove it. Seems it was successful …

"You know the myth of the biblical flood is true,"

That the Flood is in the Bible is not a myth. It's also in a few mythologies, which I hold to be mostly true, but not when in conflict with Catholic theology, including but not limited to the Bible.

"and all the animals including dinosaurs survived on a ship that engineering tells us wouldn’t even have floated."

Not all the animals, but two or seven per kind. You are aware only land and air vertebrates are concerned, that among these mammals are the most diverse and that mammalian families are a little above 120 (129, I seem to recall)?

And if it had been a ship with any propulsion against the waves, it would not have floated, it was a floating box, Noah had no control, but God knew where He directed it.

"You know this flood occurred globally despite insufficient water existing on earth."

Or water actually being sufficient, and after Flood getting drained into new deep Oceanic basins ... (with new mountain peaks protruding the other way too, so as to keep a kind of balance).

"You know this biblical flood took out the entire globe even though civilizations all over somehow existed and went through it."

Did you somehow just forget my previous comment?

They didn't.

"You know animals found in only remote parts of the earth were ‘hand carried’ by descendants of the inbred humans carried on that ark."

I know that would be one of the options, never said it were the only one. I do not know the people on the Ark were very inbred between them.

"You know all bear types descended from 2 bears carried on the ark, despite common biological evidence that a population below several hundred individuals is a sure way to extinction."

Make it despite an urban legend to that effect. Or maybe, that matches the situation of populations today.

"You know Ken Hamm is absolutely correct"

No, I disagree on some particulars. [Ken Ham, btw, one m]

"and his “Ark Experience” is the literal truth,"

He doesn't claim it himself.

"despite the fact he only managed to build his monstrosity with concrete and rebar and cranes and diggers etc, but oh no, Noah managed it all with his bare hands, you know it."

I haven't stated how bare his hands were, and I haven't stated he did it all by himself. He also didn’t take 80 - 100 - 120 years.

"It is to laugh."

Enjoy, you might need it.

Meme:
"and then kills everyone with a flood for not acting the way he wanted"

Like, for violence killing freedoms that God had given? You know the type now seen in CPS, school compulsion, shrinks ... things which, thank God, the world after the Flood was free from!

Q II

What can stratigraphy date?
https://www.quora.com/What-can-stratigraphy-date/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Thu

Archaeology, as to relative chronology.

Not palaeontology, except a lot would be from the Deluge.

More on it here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

Q III

Is it possible that as the world becomes closer to the time of the Antichrist, ancient civilizations like Atlantis that were thought to have vanished will reappear?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-as-the-world-becomes-closer-to-the-time-of-the-Antichrist-ancient-civilizations-like-Atlantis-that-were-thought-to-have-vanished-will-reappear/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested

by Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered 6.VII.2021

Very possible.

I am for my own part interested in whether Nod and especially Henoch in Nod will be found under the Himalayas.

Sharing on Eden

Biblical Archaeology: Eden
14th of May 2019 | InspiringPhilosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PWWNDaMb4

Yehoshua Feigon is Back

Q Indirectly about Sts Simon of Trent and Andrew of Rinn · Nope, Not for "Blood Libel" · Yehoshua Feigon is Back

Here is the question.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Jews-in-ancient-times-drink-human-blood-What-kind-of-rituals-were-they-following/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Yehoshua Feigon

Fri

You are STILL living in a sick fantasy. Jews have never killed Christian children to “save“ them from Christianity. Religious Christians with the explicit connivance of their churches organized on a mass scale to slaughter Jewish communities, including children, in the name of the Christian religion from the time of the Crusades to the Holocaust. (The Holocaust itself would have been impossible without 2,000 years of Christian prep work, from the promulgation of the blood libel by the Catholic Church to the writings of Martin Luther.) Jewish communities in Western Europe, from Portugal to Germany, were very much targeted at various points in history. England is fairly far west. Does the massacre of the Jewish community of York ring a bell? It was carried out at Passover time. The conduct of the Catholic Church in Iberia with its conversions of entire families under torture is especially famous. Not a single case of a Jewish religious “mafia” murder of Christian children has ever been documented. Stop the slander. It’s a projection. Have a sense of decency.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Religious Christians with the explicit connivance of their churches organized on a mass scale to slaughter Jewish communities, including children, in the name of the Christian religion from the time of the Crusades to the Holocaust.”

You live in a sick fantasy. Or you give specifics.

“Jews have never killed Christian children to “save“ them from Christianity.”

I gave specifics on some cases when this seems to have happened.

CASES. Like, not some vague, general accusation, but CASES when a specific child was found dead.

At least for St. Simon of Trent and for a boy in Xanten late 19th century, doctors have certified the boy had his throat slit through and the blood let out, like in kosher butchery.

“Many members of the community chose to commit suicide rather than be murdered or forcibly baptised by the attackers.” - York, 1190.

This was fairly soon after early cases like St. William of Norwich. Note, here the suicide would have fuelled anti-semitic sentiments. Suicide is one of the least respected sins in Medieval Catholicism, kind of equivalent to raping a toddler these days. Also, the horror of the baptism which it expressed. Also, if not here, then in a similar case, it could have been the one in Constanz, one seems to have observed trapped Jews killing other Jews to save them from forceful baptism or even from willing surrender to baptism.

Note, in your general intro, you spoke of :

// with the explicit connivance of their churches organized on a mass scale to slaughter Jewish communities //

The York massacre is obviously a horrid thing, but where was the connivance of the Catholic Church here?

“The conduct of the Catholic Church in Iberia with its conversions of entire families under torture is especially famous.”

You can document that? Seems like Protestant slander to me.

Could involve some slander on your own part convenient when seeking refuge with Turks too.

PLUS doesn’t in any way involve the kind of massacre we were talking about. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Yehoshua Feigon

19h ago

You are citing two murders POSSIBLY committed by Jews, yet do not hesitate to implicate them nor to suggest that the motivations were religious and, without a shred of evidence, that they were organized or “mafia” killings. The Crusades were specifically launched by the Church, and the various Inquisitions carried out under the aegis of the Church. Thousands were slaughtered here for explicitly religious motives.

This just on Spain, not France, Italy, or Portugal. One article. Among many. The Inquisition has been amply documented by Catholic critics as well as by Protestants.

Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia

One among a very large number of works on the Crusades:

Sanctifying the Name of God

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The Spanish Inquisition certainly did get die-hard crypto-Jews killed, but was launched mainly to prevent bona fide converts getting targetted simply for origins or for inadvertently keeping a Jewish custom they ought to have dropped.

Tomás de Torquemada had an uncle known as Cardinal Turrecremata, active in preventing (successfully) a pogrom taking place. Perhaps partly because the family was a marrana one. Yes, conversos did exist before the exile of 1492.

The first Crusade was certainly launched by the Church and as certainly the undoubted exactions, possible massacres on Jews were not. Blessed Peter the Hermit (blessed means a saint you are free not to honour, whom others are free to honour, so a Jewish convert need not honour him) certainly did argue Jews could be forced to contribute to the Crusade, but as certainly, he left off running the people’s Crusade, which is where this took place and left the crusading to actual knights, the barons’ crusade, when he saw this went out of hand.

In other words, the Church did not connive to get Jews killed there either.

However, I do not think I singled out any purely “religious” motive for the child killings. I also did not single out the entire Jewish community.

I mentioned sth like Jewish maffias.

I think I even mentioned - if not, I do so now - a political motive.

Jews were forbidden to carry out death penalties. This was taken as demeaning to Jewish sovereignty. Ergo, the people doing so would have been carrying out a death penalty for crime of Christianity (as against St. Stephen and against St. James the Greater) in order to make a kind of claim about Jews not having lost the sovereign right to mete out death penalties.

A different way around the same problem would be to claim that death penalty isn’t part of sovereignty anyway. There is a Jewish connection to Badinter who argued for abolishing death penalty in France.

Another way would have been to make the national sovereignty accessible to Jews. Done for instance at French Revolution.

My theory very obviously presupposes that the boy in the Beiliss case, the boy in Xanten, St. Simon of Trent were ethnically Jewish. Not necessarily Andreas Oxner.

In fact, St. Andrew of Rinn might be a different thing altogether, if the uncle was the sole perpetrator, but he could still be a martyr for chastity. Instead of last words being “don’t cut there” the last words could have been “don’t touch me there” - a colleague of Charles Kwanga instead of such of St. Simon of Trent.

My theory got started at the family of Simon - with whom I had mixed up Andreas’ story - actually receiving the very small and for good or evil therefore very select Jewish community of Trent in their home. Suggests to me, they had some Jewish origin.

Other theories, see Ariel Toaff, although he abandoned it, and Chesterton’s idea it were Molochists, ethnic Jews but totally disconnected to the Jewish religion.

The cases exist, and from St. William of Norwich to Beiliss case, I think there were about 90. I only know a few of them.