Proto-Germanic Origins

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Fairly good overview, but two remarks · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Proto-Germanic Origins

Q

How did Proto-Germanic language emerge? What Indo-European languages is it most closely related to?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Proto-Germanic-language-emerge-What-Indo-European-languages-is-it-most-closely-related-to/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

studied Latin at Lund University

Answered just now

"How did Proto-Germanic language emerge?"

We don't know, because we don't know whether it branched off from Proto-Indo-European or was a language of its own that became Indo-Europeanised. On this issue, we have Grimm against Trubetskoy.

"What Indo-European languages is it most closely related to?"

Let's see ... it is a Centum language and it is what I would consider as North Indo-European : bh, dh, g'h, gh become b, d, g, (g)w in Centum and b, d, j, g in Satem languages. Or, since I emitted doubts on PIE being the common ground, instead of "become" say "correspond to".

Now, it has Celtic as other Northern Indo-European to the West, Baltic as other to the East, precisely as Baltic is between Germanic and Slavic. Celtic and Germanic are Centum, Baltic and Slavic are Satem.

Related will hold whether we talk of common proto-language or mutual influence and borrowings.

It may be noted, it has one commonality with both Finnish and Hungarian, non-Indo-European languages of the Finno-Ugrian family (which is looser knit together than Germanic or Celtic, but closer than Indo-European with both and Greek and Sanskrit), namely verbs have one past (except English where past simple and past continuous contrast, but the continuous form is a novelty, from French or Welsh influence, as I presume, and mainly later than Shakespear). In Indo-European languages you more often find a contrast between preterite (simple past) and imperfect (continuous OR iterated OR habitual past) - Old Irish has an imperfect 3rd sg in -ed or -ad after present stem, and a preterite 3rd sg ending as the preterite stem does, Latin has an imperfect 3rd sg mostly in -bat, a "perfect" (double service as present perfect and as preterite) with -it after a perfect stem, Greek likewise, where both imperfect and aorist begin in e- and end in 3rd sg in -e, but with present stem and aorist stem, while Germanic actually is content with one past tense, like Finnish and Hungarian.

It has one commonality with Hungarian, but not with Finnish, namely part of Grimm's law. Precisely as C - really K - in C-entum corresponds to Germanic H in H-und(red), so also Finnish K in K-ala(staa) corresponds to Hungarian H in H-al.

It may be noted, my teacher in Old Greek told me, Germanic has only 20 % of its vocabulary from Indo-European by heritage. This has been contested by others.

OceanKeltoi on The Interpretation Argument ...

somewhere else: Do Different Interpretations of Christianity Make God a Liar if Existant? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: OceanKeltoi on The Interpretation Argument ...

The Interpretation Argument
23rd April 2021 | Ocean Keltoi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1PKTk-eNqQ

I

2:41 Congratulations to having changed the dynamic of the conversation with Mormons ... I as a Catholic obviously had different arguments, and am now dealing with the not at all Mormon but Ruckmanite version of them (obviously Ruckmanites are as much against Mormons as against Catholics).

I think you can guess which one ... and it is somewhat relevant, I think, for the argument I think you are going to present, which I have given a somewhat less cavalier response to than Lita Cosner did (I don't think it was you whom she answered, or was it? - As you posted the video on St. George's Day, it is chronologically possible, and CMI notoriously don't always link to what they are responding to).

II

3:46 Omniscient - knows everything that is OR could be and therefore all true propositions.
Omnipotent - is able to bring about everything not logically contradictory or nonsensical and not going counter to His own nature.

Those are the definitions I go by.

As per your comment somewhat later, I should be done for ...

III

4:44 Premise I: for any event God wants, He knows how to bring it about.
Agreed.

4:48 Premise II: for any event God wants, He is capable of bringing it about.
Agreed.

4:56 C. Conclusion : therefore, if God choses to bring about a particular event ... it must occur.

Agreed, but, there is a but here. God can chose to actually bring about an event or He can chose to allow people the possibility of preventing it, in respect of their freewill. There is such a thing as God's perfect will - like God definitely chose to bring about the Perfections of Mary, they were NOT deficient from His plan. There is also such a thing as God's permissive will - like God chose to allow Judas to betray and Peter to deny. Peter repenting effectively so as to gain reconciliation, we are back at the perfect will, but Judas going to his perdition, still in the realm of the permissive will.

IV

5:44 New syllogism, premiss I.

For any message God wants to communicate, He knows how to communicate it such that it will be interpreted correctly.

Here I sense a lack of clarity. Do we deal with "so that it will be interpreted correctly"? Or do we deal with "so that it won't be interpreted incorrectly"? If we were dealing with only one recipient, these would be synonymous, but if we deal with multiple recipients, they are not.

"So that one or several or any reasonable number will interpret it correctly" does not equate to "so that noone will interpret it incorrectly".

Premiss II - dito with capacity. Same distinction holds here.

Now, on this ground, a result aimed at like "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly" would be somewhat similar to aiming at "so that no one will get damned".

This is not God's actual aim from Christian theology.

One could say "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly without his own grave fault" (a Feeneyist position, stating that no one dying as a heretic had any real excuse of ignorance) and one does state "so that no one will be damned to the Hell of pains without his own grave fault" but these are not synonymous to "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly at all" or "so that no one will be damned to the Hell of pains at all" and C. S. Lewis has argued that a God aiming to make Himself the eternal bliss of the blessed would contradict Himself if allowing none to damn Himself by rejecting His will or truth. See The Problem of Pain.

C. If God choses to communicate a message, it must be interpreted correctly.

Correct, but only if you add "by those who are saved" or "by most who are saved" (depending whether you prefer Fr. Leonard Feeney or St. Thomas on the salvation of those who at the outset are in error by no previous fault of their own, the Feeneyist being, they always convert if they are saved).

V

6:14 The Bible is meant to be "communication from God".

Sure, but reading the Bible without the correct Catholic background isn't (automatically) supposed to be that.

Let's speak of utility of Scripture? II Timothy 3?

Protestants often cite verses 16 and 17, but let's start at 14 instead, shall we?

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Note, we are not all in the rather specific position of St. Timothy.

1) he had from childhood known the books of the Old Testament, in a tradition which had not yet been corrupted by rejecting the true Messiah
2) he is not told the OT Scriptures of themselves alone are sufficient, but he is told "which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus"
3) and he is told to recall he learned Catechism by St. Paul.

A man who instead of that switches from Catholic catechism to Bible reading with no previous experience of it in a correct tradition (pre-Christian Judaism, continued in Catholicism), imagines that the faith does not need to add any hermeneutics to the Bible reading (obviously wrong for an OT only reading in a Christian perspective) and who does not recall the catechism from the Catholic Church is in a very different position from St. Timothy.

I added "automatically" because sometimes the Bible reading without a correct Catholic background actually does lead back to the Catholic Church. Sometimes it doesn't - back at the difference between God's perfect and His permissive will.

6:23 God would know how to communicate His message to men, such that it would be recorded ... the problem is, the actual wording of the record doesn't immunise a record from all and any misinterpretations.

God has told in the Scriptures that they do get misinterpreted:

II Peter 3, verses 15 and 16:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Note, I was going to make an argument he was writing this to Romans and that this is a prophetic warning against the Lutheran and other "Romans road", but Luther started out with Galatians when he went wrong, and in the former epistle, he adressed himself to:

to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Yes, our first Pope speaking of Galatians will do as well ...

6:27 ... recorded accurately => isn't the point.

Even an accurate message may be misinterpreted.

Aristotle in Latin has "ars imitatur naturam" and it is totally misinterpreted if you imagine that it means paintings should be photographic and music depict existing passions and even events, or else be failed as art. But that's not because Latinists were inaccurate in their translation. It's because each of the words has taken on exactly the overtones that are prone to make for a misunderstanding.

You are basically asking God in your argument to make it impossible for men to evolve new word meanings.

Sithen hwenne moston word ne sciftan? (For other readers, I suppose you know Anglo-Saxon : since when must words not be changing?)

6:33 "so if God wants His message communicated through the Bible"

Nowhere says "through the Bible alone" in the Bible ....

6:47 "according to this argument, it is impossible to misinterpret the Bible"

Well, if you are an actually Catholic pope speaking ex cathedra, it is ...

Here we get to the lack of clarity I was detecting at 5:44 - you are confusing "so that one or several or any reasonable number will interpret it correctly" with "so that noone will interpret it incorrectly" - the reasonable number being of course the number God has chosen for receiving the message correctly.

Getting to heaven is only for the elect and before that, being a Catholic is only for those elect to this grace (wider than those elect to Heaven).

VI

8:24 Can we safely conclude that the two pastors are Protestants? Like outside the Catholic Church?

To Some, Fighting "Paedophilia" As Such Primes All Other Decencies

Let's hope the girl won't be stopped from heeding my advice because of this ... God help her!

Q

My uncle raped and molested me. I am pregnant. I'm also 14 years old. What should I do? Should I abort the baby?
https://www.quora.com/My-uncle-raped-and-molested-me-I-am-pregnant-Im-also-14-years-old-What-should-I-do-Should-I-abort-the-baby/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered August 5

• 1. No, you should not abort.
• 2. In a decent society, you would have the right to marry.
• 3. In this case, however, not the rapist, even if you forgive him. Since he is your uncle.
• 4. So, in a decent society, you should not just keep the baby but also try to get a husband. It seems, Bill Clinton made US less decent, so you might want to let that wait to sixteen, main question is, will your parents or anyone else help you keep the baby while waiting? If so, go for it!

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

This is a candidate for posting to the ‘Dumbest f**king answer on Quora’ space. I refrain as I don’t want to prey on your delusional derangements, I know you’re afflicted, but Jesus, this is low…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

You have shown yourself right here and now an evil person, and a believer in false values opposed to true ones.

Plus obviously a jerk about pseudo-diagnosing me.

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

You have shown yourself to be a deluded theist, with a delusion of benevolence. To suggest a teenager aged 14 raped by her uncle should keep the baby, and seek to marry, is equivalent to what is touted by the Taliban. Nicely done. Glad you’re not in charge of anything, you are a theocrat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri, 20.VIII.2021

I am obviously a Theocrat, and you have made at least one argument for Talibans (not sure if you have made any against the moderate Muslims they are fighting, they might agree with me too).

You vastly overdo the field of “deluded” and you would be more polite to stuff your amateur shrink pretentions into a place one doesn’t mention.

Marc Robidoux

Fri, 20.VIII.2021

I explained the use of the term ‘deluded’ in another thread. As to being a theocrat, you don’t appear to be deluded about that, as you freely admit it. The Taliban, and ISIS and all those theocrats apply forced marriage of young teenagers, which is exactly what you propose as a solution to the problem of a young teenager raped by her uncle. That is theocracy, of the autocratic (dangerous) brand that the Taliban enforce. If you consider me stating facts such as this as an ad-hominem attack, I’m very sorry, but I can’t help you deal with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Islam allows forced marriage, Catholicism doesn’t.

Both allow arranged marriages, and both allow teens to marry.

So, forced marriage is NOT exactly what I propose, except in so far as the pregnancy as such would tend to put pressure.

As to the Catholic view of adolescents being matrimoniable, here is the theory:

The impediments of impotence, spell, frenzy or madness, incest and defective age (Supplementum, Q. 58) (article 5, about defective age, i e below 14 for men and 12 for women).

Here are examples of the practise:

Mariées (et mariés) à quel âge, premières noces? : Et encore, pour son mari?

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

These practices, in Islam, Catholicism, and within any religion, are archaic and steeped in backwards misogynist views (‘Talibanesque’) based on their superstitions and patriarchal BS. It is a well established fact that societies that allow female emancipation and freedom from such backward ignorance (coincidentally corresponds to societies that allow freedom of and from religions btw) thrive and progress, quality of life grows exponentially as evidenced by any number of indexes such as the Global Peace Index etc.

Suggesting a young teenager raped by her uncle (or by anyone for that matter) should seek a husband as a step to resolution of a rape situation is a total reversion to the darkest reaches of religious BS advice. What would patriarchal religious wingnuts, mostly bachelor males with 0 experience with females know of the best course of action for a young teenager assaulted by an older male?

I simply kept from posting your answer to ‘The dumbest f&*cking answer on QUora’ simply to save you from the scorn and derision of anyone with a conscience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

“are archaic and steeped in backwards misogynist views”

Archaic, thanks again for the compliment, as well as backwards.

Misogynistic, beg to disagree as to Catholicism.

“What would patriarchal religious wingnuts, mostly bachelor males with 0 experience with females know of the best course of action for a young teenager assaulted by an older male?”

I would definitely say, no experience of women as experience, unless the women happened to be Marxist feminist on top of being women, would warrant a conclusion of abortion.

As to sueing or not sueing her uncle, I think that’s up to her.

“Suggesting a young teenager raped by her uncle (or by anyone for that matter) should seek a husband as a step to resolution of a rape situation”

Or by anyone? Including by a friend whom she might later have married and who already said “sorry” for the rape?

Rape situation? The rape is over. The pregnancy does not constitute a rape.

And you seem to think that “young teenager” is relevant, for some reason?

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Given this question relates to a 14year old, perhaps you also think paedophilia is a good idea. I would not be surprised if you did, especially given its prevalence within the misogynistic patriarchal Catholic hierarchy. Rape, excused or not, is rape and remains rape, sexual assault against one’s wishes is rape, and there is no excuse for it, despite what your (“no experience of women as experience” tells you). Rape, “ by a friend“ or not is still rape, and the poor victim should not have any patriarchal misogynistic (inevitably based in superstitious religion) requirements imposed on her, not marriage, and not delivery of the baby. The product of rape results from the rape, it doesn’t excuse the rape or expunge it in any way. Abortion in such a case is certainly a viable option to expunge the rapists seed. Thankfully, outside of Talibanesque control in the Middle East, the world has mostly moved on from such archaic mysoginistic anti-female religious BS, so it is unlikely that your views would hold sway over much of anyone anywhere in earshot of you.

Your comments here are also strong candidates for ‘The dumbest f*&$king thing on Quora’ by the way..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

I think it would be an excellent idea to limit the use of “paedophilia” to men (mostly) wanting sex with people not yet reached their puberty.

As the girl is pregnant, marrying her might be hebephilia, not paedophilia. In this improved usage.

A N D as long as this reform is not observed, I think it is an excellent idea to scrap the word altogether.

“The product of rape results from the rape, it doesn’t excuse the rape or expunge it in any way.”

Depends on the rest of their relation. Anyway, a marriage would get her away from the uncle in this case.

“Abortion in such a case is certainly a viable option to expunge the rapists seed.”

No, since his will, not his seed, is culpable. You argue NS eugenics here.

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Given your apparent lack of experience in all these matters, I am not surprised to see you thinking that rape of a 14yr old is ruled out as being paedophilia. Not only do you rule it out, but in your ivory tower you even seek to define the word paedophilia and limit it to pre-pubescent victims, that in itself is worrisome, I don’t think I need to detail why. In thinking of the RCC and the words of Foghorn Leghorn, ‘I wouldn’t let my kids near that!’.

Keep digging, you may well find the nugget of bullshit at the heart of the mound of Catholic/religious manure you operate in.

Meanwhile, outside of Talibanesque middle eastern Islam, the rest of us are moving onward and upward, happily released from the confines of religious misogynistic paedophilic patriarchal BS as espoused by you and other RCC apologists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

While you rile, your definition of paedophilia, apart from being insulting to marriages you descend from if you go back to mid 19, certainly to mid 18th C, is used to kill the unborn by declaring a certain portion of the pregnant unfit to be wives and mothers. Onward and upward is a quote from the pilgrimage of Santiago, and should not be abused to glorify building higher and higher piles of killed unborn.

If I liked your manners of innuendo, I might already have wondered whether your eagerness to get the child aborted comes from your being the uncle, not that that is extremely likely, but he certainly would have some motive for getting rid of actual evidence for what would count as statutory rape and incest. Let’s say, no, I don’t think so, but you are doing such guys a service.

Marc Robidoux

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

Your lack of experience with anything outside your little small minded religious wingnut box is evident by your utterings.

A 35 year old coveting a 14 year old is paedophilia, it was back in the 19th century and it is now. It is possible that there are pedophiles in my or your ancestry, of this stripe or worse, and its also possible if not probable that most marriages back then took place between similarly aged people, a 17 year old marrying a 18 year old for example is not paedophilia. Forced marriages are a repugnant side effect of religious BS and should be eradicated. Having been the norm in the past does not justify it today.

I’m not surprised to see you going on and on about defending the unborn, obviously you care much more for the hypothetical unborn than for the hypothetical 14 year old girl in this question, that is wholly consistent with your lack of experience and lack of first hand knowledge of actual female existence outside of what you can read about it in your holy book.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

“A 35 year old coveting a 14 year old is paedophilia, it was back in the 19th century and it is now.”

• 1. No, not if of opposite sex, and not if intending marriage. (Actually, even if otherwise, not paedophilia as much as culpable hebephilia - puberty being the natural limit).
• 2. The very word paedophilia doesn’t exist until it’s coined by Krafft-Ebing in the year 1886.

“The minimum age requirements of 12 and 14 were eventually written into English civil law. By default, these provisions became the minimum marriage ages in colonial America.”

Marriageable age - Wikipedia - a linea Modern history, and the ages coincide with the Catholic requirement.

Citation 32 is:
Early teen marriage and future poverty - PubMed

“Marriages occurred several years earlier, on average, in colonial America than in Europe, and much higher proportions of the population eventually married. Community-based studies suggest an average age at marriage of about 20 years old for women in the early colonial period and about 26 years old for men.”

Note, “average” - doesn’t specify how much younger or older commonly occurred.

Citation 33 is:
The Effect of the Civil War on Southern Marriage Patterns

And:
“In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, U.S. states began to slowly raise the minimum legal age at which individuals were allowed to marry. Age restrictions, as in most developed countries, have been revised upward so that they are now between 15 and 21 years of age.”

Back to citation 32, already given.

“Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown.”

Citation 34:
What Was and Is The Minimum Age For Marriage in Scotland?

It includes this wording:

“However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown.”

That is, in early 20th C. Not necessarily in previous ones.

“Forced marriages are a repugnant side effect of religious BS and should be eradicated. Having been the norm in the past does not justify it today.”

Why do you go on about forced marriages? As said, Catholicism forbids and forbade them.

If you go back St Thomas, Q 47, article 3:
Compulsory and conditional consent (Supplementum, Q. 47)

On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.

Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot be the result of compulsory consent.

So, no forced marriages in Catholicism. If force can be proven, the marriage can be annulled. And this was the norm in the 13th C. as well as earlier.

Marc Robidoux

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

Of course, given your world is only 6000 years old, it makes sense that all that was done in the past centuries was the pinnacle of enlightenment.

It will undoubtedly come as a shock to you to learn that actually whatever was encoded in law in the past, and whatever was known to the point of being defined, does not make that whatever existing only after being defined.

If you actually discussed any of this with an actual human female, you may learn that marriage is not the solution to any problem.

A 35 year old with an eye for a 14 year old is a sick aberration, is paedophilia and was way back in time as well.

The Catholic church is in no position to lecture anyone on consent or paedophilia, or marriage or who should or shouldn’t marry, especially given their track record of child abuse and specifically covering up child abuse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

“A 35 year old with an eye for a 14 year old is a sick aberration, is paedophilia and was way back in time as well.”

I think you are basically quoting Clinton. Bill.

While his explanation “that is not sex” clears him of per-jury, it doesn’t clear him of per-version.

1994 or 95 a 12 year old girl had quit school legally while marrying an old man.

A per-vert in oval office decided that was too perverted …

“it makes sense that all that was done in the past centuries was the pinnacle of enlightenment.”

Given that morals make a claim of universal and eternal validity, it makes sense that moral questions aren’t decided by the “pinnacle of enlightenment” in the first place.

“The Catholic church is in no position to lecture anyone on consent or paedophilia, or marriage or who should or shouldn’t marry, especially given their track record of child abuse and specifically covering up child abuse.”

Not a big one, compared to that of enlightenment representatives … like teachers and sport instructors.

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread. I don’t know what the hell you’re on about suggesting Bill Clinton and teachers are somehow relevant to this discussion.

I ‘m suspecting that this question may have been posted as a troll to elicit stupid answers, yours is a great candidate for the stupidest one.

Older men coveting younger teenagers is paedophelia, this was true back when Shem, Ham and Jepheth were eying their young daughters and nieces, in addition to be toying with incest, as it is true today. I understand your dilemma, it’s hard to defend old men coveting young girls without seeming like a bit of a diddler.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

"I don’t know what the hell you’re on about suggesting Bill Clinton and teachers are somehow relevant to this discussion."

I am speaking of a certain guy who made certain teen marriages illegal. Correcting your impression about "older men and teen girls" always having been wrong.

I am also bringing up who has a far greater track record than Catholic clergy, which you attacked, when it comes to predatory behaviour (which is not the same thing as the age difference).

"this was true back when Shem, Ham and Jepheth were eying their young daughters and nieces,"

They weren't, they were married. OK, I can't say for absolute certain with Ham ...

AND, it wasn't true.

Besides:
"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

Pedophilia - Wikipedia

This is not what we are talking about. Girls age fourteen are not typically prepubescent, therefore not children.

"in addition to be toying with incest,"

They weren't that either.

"a bit of a diddler."

Or someone who wants to get married and his marriage to be fertile. An age peer would be in the climacterium.

"I ‘m suspecting that this question may have been posted as a troll to elicit stupid answers, yours is a great candidate for the stupidest one."

Someone baiting me would also be an alternative. I am not on record as defending the recent 18-18 limit, either in Italy of Cavour or in Soviet Russia of Lenin. Or in Prussia, for that matter, if it came earlier there.

I am on record as defending that girls normally old enough to get pregnant, physically, are also old enough to get married, morally. And that therefore "they are just children, too young to be mothers" is no valid excuse for abortion. The person questioning, as per terms stated (baiting or not) is not exactly "a young thing and cannot leave her mother" in the terms of Billy Boy.

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

Puberty does not a mother qualify or make.

Marriage is not a solution to a problem, any problem.

The track record of the Catholic Church, and specifically the Catholic clergy, with respect to predatory actions, anti-consent, paedophilic, and other vile actions as well as cover-up of such actions is, as is well recorded in historical and jurisprudence records, horrific. More revelations of this nature are coming forth constantly. Actually, it is so prevalent that it is even foreseeable that the Church may become bankrupt from paying out the lawsuits associated with these cover ups and horrific actions, within my own lifetime.

Notwithstanding that Shem, Ham and Jepteth were quite likely fictional characters, within the narrative you espouse, where they repopulate the earth from scratch, they would likely have needed to commit paedophilic acts of incest.

Answered twice

α and β

α

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

Puberty does a mother qualify, as a father, unless it comes unusually early.

Marriage is a solution to more problems than one, and that includes being with child with no husband at home with parents not willing to raise a grand-child.

// The track record of the Catholic Church, and specifically the Catholic clergy, with respect to predatory actions, anti-consent, paedophilic, and other vile actions as well as cover-up of such actions is // fairly restricted to US and France, Netherlands and Germany and to modern times. Thank you.

“as is well recorded in historical and jurisprudence records, horrific.”

What historic records do you refer to? Luthers account of Rome a few decades before Pope St. Pius V made a reform sharpening penalties?

Jurisprudence records of Poland say there is a c. 1000 paedophile offenders’ presence in prisons, and one of them is a priest. One. Not ten, not hundred, not a majority. O N E.

Jurisprudence records for US a few decades make modernity representatives you have no beef with - like sports instructors - a far weightier contribution to the LEGITIMATE worries of Foghorn Leghorn.

“More revelations of this nature are coming forth constantly.”

The actual abuses usually some decade back in time, if I recall correctly.

“Actually, it is so prevalent that it is even foreseeable that the Church may become bankrupt from paying out the lawsuits associated with these cover ups and horrific actions, within my own lifetime.”

As far as I am concerned US Conference of Bishops is not the Catholic Church.

If similar liability criteria were retained, US schools and sports clubs would be out of business already (as said, more actual offenders), but US culture being Protestant tends to be more lenient on those.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

In addition to denying the fact of Catholic atrocities committed and hidden from scrutiny by high ranking individuals throughout the Church, you continue to put out your Talibanesque positions as if it was normal and sane to do so. Very bizarre.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2021

Throughout the Church is false and even more so throughout history.

The positions you call Talibanesque were considered perfectly normal by the 16, 8, 4 and 2 ancestors each of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Nothing bizarre in agreeing with tradition!

Marc Robidoux

26.VIII.2021

Yes, exactly, “ the Church is false“ and the Taliban are enforcing 7th century “traditions” which you call “perfectly normal”. It may be “tradition” to you, but it is Talibanesque to the rest of us civilized folk. I take it you don’t deal with a lot of human females eh? That’s a good thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

No. The statement “throughout the Church” rather than “throughout US clergy” is false.

I see that it’s not really not seeing comments in context, you are capable of not seeing certain words in the context of their actual sentence.

“the Taliban are enforcing 7th century “traditions” which you call “perfectly normal”.”

The Taliban are enforcing some traditions that I don’t call normal, like pushing marital age down to 8 or at least 9, but some that I do call normal, like allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry.

That did not start in 7th C. Arabian peninsula, it is your 18–18 (or perhaps 16–16) rule that is a recent and limited rather than a universal tradition - as recent or more and as limited as pushing marital age down to 9.

“it is Talibanesque to the rest of us civilized folk.”

It is modernity against the rest of us civilised folks throughout history.

“I take it you don’t deal with a lot of human females eh?”

I take it, you don’t deal a lot with history? That’s a bad thing.

“That’s a good thing.”

You know, there are certain ideologies which deny people, on selective basis, the right to marry … National Socialism was one of them. Did your grandpa come to US after fleeing France in 1944 as a collabo, or sth? Or are they people from South Carolina and Alabama w[h]ere Black Gentlemen were sterilised as late as 70’s (and it began before Hitler)?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

The concept that the problems of the Catholic Church diddling and abusing people (often children) is exclusive to the US - Delusion.

The concept that allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry is ‘normal’ - Delusion , and Talibanesque.

“Did your grandpa come to US after fleeing France in 1944 as a collabo, or sth? Or are they people from South Carolina and Alabama were Black Gentlemen were sterilised as late as 70’s (and it began before Hitler)? “ - The one answer to this entire word salad of questions is: no.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

“exclusive to the US”

I did not say that, but adding France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium won’t make it “throughout the Church”.

“The concept that allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry is ‘normal’ - Delusion , and Talibanesque.”

It is a given over the ages. Agreeing with centuries of human experience, though not your own, is not delusion.

“The one answer to this entire word salad of questions is: no.”

Then, why do you make suggestions reminiscent of National Socialist or other Eugenics?

Apart from your being too upset to follow syntax that’s correct apart from misspelling “where” as “were” …

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Given the atrocities perpetuated by the RCC occurred and occur across most of the western world, and in Africa, India, and pretty much everywhere the church has ever been, I think you are seriously under-estimating by limiting it to US, and now adding just France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium.

So yet more gibberish : “ you make suggestions reminiscent of National Socialist or other Eugenics “, WTF? could you please quote me on those suggestions I make please LOL.

I’m so upset…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

“Given the atrocities perpetuated by the RCC occurred and occur across most of the western world, and in Africa, India, and pretty much everywhere the church has ever been,”

Would you mind telling me how many Catholic priests are in prison in India or in Nigeria over child or adolescent predating crimes?

Or are you pretending that atrocities, real or supposed, justified or not justified, of the Spanish Inquisition reasonably argue Catholic priests were buggering small boys there? They simply weren’t. The problem is modern and restricted to some modern countries, and calling this “delusional” does not absolve you from providing evidence for opposite claims.

Re meme : Biblical literalism does not imply a flat earth and that cosmology is not even the question here.

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Instead of spending your time pursuing maths trying to prove to yourself that it is feasible that the world was repopulated from the few fictional people on an impossible ark after a nonexistent flood, why don’t you do a little research on atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. This is not the exclusive purview of priests buggering little boys. Nuns, and non coms have been involved, from Residential Schools in Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia etc to Mother Teresa house of horror in India

Penn And Teller BS Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa
21st Nov. 2011 | ChristopherHitchslap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCaxHN-cY

and a lot of it covered up by folks like Ratzinger before he became pope, honestly, do your research before suggesting it is a limited problem to long past tense Inquisitions. Victims are living with the fallout of this to this day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

“Nuns, and non coms have been involved, from Residential Schools in Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia”

Takeover from English or US culture of such things.

While it was hideous to agree to run schools where the pupils’ parents had no choice, the idea did not come from Catholic hierarchs, but from Protestants doing policy about Indians.

One can argue, this contributed to the apostasy in and after Vatican II.

“to Mother Teresa house of horror in India”

As I believe Wojtyla was an antipope, I do not believe she was validly canonised.

Again, “part of Vatican II” before it started. It was bad, since a psychiatric ward, arguably no worse than others in India, but inacceptable for a saint to run.

“folks like Ratzinger before he became pope,”

You mean before he didn’t become Pope, since he was already an apostate with antipope Wojtyla since early nineties at the latest. Which is when he and his “Pope” decided to ditch - Fundie Bible exegesis.

“pursuing maths trying to prove to yourself that it is feasible that the world was repopulated from the few fictional people”

The math certainly proves that the fewness was no obstacle as far as present population descending from them is concerned with demographic statistics.

It seems from wiki that you misunderstood how Minimum viable population applies:

Minimum viable population - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

Your closest to a hit is here:

“Small populations are vulnerable to genetic stochasticity, the random change in allele frequencies over time, also known as genetic drift. Genetic drift can cause alleles to disappear from a population, and this lowers genetic diversity. In small populations, low genetic diversity can increase rates of inbreeding, which can result in inbreeding depression, in which a population made up of genetically similar individuals loses fitness. Inbreeding in a population reduces fitness by causing deleterious recessive alleles to become more common in the population, and also by reducing adaptive potential. The so-called "50/500 rule", where a population needs 50 individuals to prevent inbreeding depression, and 500 individuals to guard against genetic drift at-large, is an oft-used benchmark for an MVP, but recent study suggests that this guideline is not applicable across a wide diversity of taxa.”

Including Pitcairn Islanders:

“In 1790, nine of the mutineers from the Bounty, along with the native Tahitian men and women who were with them (six men, eleven women and a baby girl), settled on Pitcairn Islands and set fire to the Bounty.”

Pitcairn Islanders - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islanders

They are not extinct from bad genetics.

PS, I missed one part:

“do your research before suggesting it is a limited problem to long past tense Inquisitions.”

• 1. I am not saying that present atrocities overall are a less problem than Inquisitions;
• 2. I AM saying even present atrocities are only in some areas concerned with “paedophilia” (indeed some running residential schools may have imagined protecting poor benighted Indians from teen marriages, bc they shared your views)
• 3. and that Inquisitors were NOT paedophiles. Or for that matter involved in atrocities I would qualify as such.

The only of these I have some solidarity with are the Inquisitors. These have a coresponsibility with Bishops and Popes for - agreeing the Bible is true and … - agreeing teen marriages are allowed.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

Oh here I was thinking your were a Roman Catholic, but you’re actually a Talibanesque Traditionalist of some Catholic stripe. My bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

I’ll take that as a compliment … for one thing, the cover ups were done by Canon law decree (which wasn’t one) Crimen sollicitationis by Pope (who wasn’t one) John XXIII:

Crimen sollicitationis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Heh, well, I’ll give you credit for having what seems to be a modicum of a sense of humour, which is quite a higher order thing to have and a strong leg up on your brothers at the Taliban or over at ‘Catholic Apologetics’, the Quora space that fun forgot…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

I have a problem with some of them - they aren’t “Taliban” but Modernist.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

I have a problem with most of them (possibly including you), as they are Talibanesque, and critically, lack any sense of humour. ‘Apologists’ are basically in the business of making excuses for claims they have no evidence for, and the particular bunch here on Quora, led by Pismenny, are a particularly coarse bunch of entrenched right wing fanatics, very much aligned with the Taliban, the main difference being that they worship a different version of imaginary friend. Pismenny shares your specific opinion as expressed in this answer that a young teenager made pregnant by rape should avoid abortion at all costs, seek marriage as a solution to her problem, very much aligned with the Taliban view of women as property to be dealt with as the males see fit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

One little objection here : since the teenager in Catholicism herself is supposed to chose her husband (with approval, but not dictation from parents, usually), there is no claim of the teen age pregnant woman being just property.

I have more in common with Pismenny than with Hough, more with Hough perhaps than with Marsden, even if Marsden is more polite to me.

Hough and Marsden both hold that for instance Young Earth Crationism cannot be part of Catholic dogma.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

One little objection here myself: that Catholicism thinks that a woman, raped, is “supposed to chose her husband “, is totally insensitive to the needs of that woman. If that woman is a young teenager, that expectation is doubly insensitive and also extremely offensive, as young teenagers, male or female, should not be seeking to marry anyone, and shouldn’t be sought out by anyone for marriage. The only place in the western world where this might be considered an acceptable practice is in backwoods of inbred US states, where they claim to follow Ten Commandment type laws (aka Talibanesque) and teach their kids “Intelligent Design” instead of actual Science. Incidentally, these same states are where COVID is re surging because there is a high prevalence of vaccine skepticism there. Coincidence?

Pismenny is a shill who knows a lot about Soviet Russia, but his religious and political leanings are off the chart loopy right wing. Hough is a reasonable interface, knows his religion inside out, and holds pretty close to what I know of the Catholic position, no issue with him. I’ve tangled a bit with Marsden but this may have been because of misunderstanding of intentions, he made some very dubious claims which he later claimed he was only making in jest, so I give him the benefit of the doubt and generally leave him alone. David McCormick is another shill, who pretends to be exploring the edges of theism and taking a ‘scientific’ approach to it all, but he shills for creationist wingnuts and runs a space supposedly geared to theism-atheism contention where he rejects any anti-theistic content, and is very sensitive to criticism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5.IX.2021

"One little objection here myself: that Catholicism thinks that a woman, raped, is “supposed to chose her husband “, is totally insensitive to the needs of that woman."

Any thought someone is supposed to do sth is totally insensitive.

I gave the girl advice, not any threat of despising her should she chose otherwise (within the pro-life options).

I think this is the third occasion on which you more or less deliberately twist what I am saying to sth you can argue easier against.

However, Catholicism thinks that raped women can marry, as did OT Judaism, and also thinks that forgiving the rapist and marrying him (though not if too close a relative) is an option. In this case it is not optional for the rapist or seducer - El Alcalde de Zalamea is a play by Calderón where a seduced girl offers to marry the seducer, and the seducer being a noble declines to marry a non-noble, and the girl's father being mayor and in Spain that also means judge executes his daughter's seducer for refusing the reparation.

The two things girls are supposed to chose between now, as per modern society, namely aborting or offering up for adoption are definitely insensitive, apart from one of them being murder and the other kind of an admission of slavery.

"If that woman is a young teenager, that expectation is doubly insensitive and also extremely offensive, as young teenagers, male or female, should not be seeking to marry anyone"

Simply false.

"and shouldn’t be sought out by anyone for marriage."

Equally simply false.

"The only place in the western world where this might be considered an acceptable practice is in backwoods of inbred US states,"

So much the worse for the Western world, then.

Long live the old days, the Old West, which survives in backwoods ...

"Pismenny is a shill"

I don't think so.

"who knows a lot about Soviet Russia, but his religious and political leanings are off the chart loopy right wing."

In other words, as per his leanings, a sane guy.

"Hough is a reasonable interface, knows his religion inside out, and holds pretty close to what I know of the Catholic position, no issue with him."

Except he thinks it was OK to give Galileo house arrest for life for attitude problems about the private person of the Pope. Marsden thinks it's OK to accept the view that Adam is a metaphor it seems, and certainly that the first real men lived 40 or 90 000 years ago.

"David McCormick is another shill, who pretends to be exploring the edges of theism and taking a ‘scientific’ approach to it all, but he shills for creationist wingnuts and runs a space supposedly geared to theism-atheism contention where he rejects any anti-theistic content, and is very sensitive to criticism."

Shill sounds like you are somewhat - I will not use pseudo-diagnosis paranoid, but over-suspicious.

I ran an MSN site called Antimodernism, and no Atheist had his material rejected, one, a fellow Swede, was actually invited to provide such. I could obviously have commented under it, and would.

I don't know McCormick that much.

Marc Robidoux

5.IX.2021

TL DR, but in a nutshell, you are a right wingnut cut from the same cloth as Pismenny, with the addition of openly pining for the ‘good old days’ when the women were shacked up at home, barefoot, pregnant, and married to the first suitor/rapist to come along. The only daylight they were allowed to see was on their way to church, oh man, how lovely it was back in those days. Thankfully, the rest of the world (except for Taliban, Islamist, and rightwing led ‘Christian’ states like Texas) has moved on. You spew Bullshit at an alarming rate, but of course, you exist in your own little world of delusion, carry on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.IX.2021

I think the royalties enumerated in one of the posts I linked to would beg to differ from your way of descring their days.

Marc Robidoux

6.IX.2021

Royalties? I think you should be paying me royalties for wasting my time with your silly ideas that anything was better back in those days. The fact of the matter is that the answer you posted to this question is one of the dumbest f*&ing things I read on Quora , and ironically, I read much the same answer to a similar question, from Pismenny sometime earlier, and went ahead and linked that in to the ‘Dumbest F*u*king thing on Quora’ space where it garnered a lot of sensible ‘advice’ for Pismenny. I chose to spare you all that with this particular piece of stupidity, as I think you are beyond any sensible ‘advice’.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

If you authorised the printing and selling of our dialogues, for instance this one, as per your part of the copyright, you could actually get an editor to pay you part of the royalties and me part of it.

The point is, there were royal maidens married as early as 12 in one case and 3 to 5 of them out of 38 in the ancestry (and nearly ancestry, except for widowerhoods)* of Marie Antoinette and of Louis XVI were married at 14. (The two dubious ones would otherwise have been married at 15 - in some cases the mere years say 15, but it’s still 14 if she’s born later in the year than when she married).

It’s not as if they had no choice, in a Catholic society, a girl only had to say (honestly or not) she preferred the monastery to avoid getting married to someone she didn’t like - or if she was honest, even to someone she did like, but less so than loving Christ. One who was both house of Garsenda and ancestral to Bonnie Prince Charlie was married at 26, a Habsburg princess who was finally talked out of her monastic plans for her parents’ dynastic ones.

And getting away from an abusive husband was far from impossible. The wife of Charles Edward was very dissatisfied with him, ultimately (I suppose the jarring contrast between near Messianic hopes up to 1745 and very low expectations after Culloden would have done something to make his character less loveable to a wife).

“Meanwhile, Louise's husband Charles had become a drunkard again, as he had been a number of years before. In December 1780, Louise left Charles and took refuge in a convent. She claimed, and it is widely believed to be true, that Charles had become physically abusive to her. Louise received the support of the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, the pope, and her brother-in-law the Cardinal Duke of York, all of whom were unaware of Louise's ongoing adulterous relationship with Alfieri.”

Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern - Wikipedia

In other words, passing from parents’ property to husband’s property is not a thing in Catholic society, including historically.

*I did ancestry like 2, 4, 8 and 16 ancestors, with earlier wives and husbands to get for each person the age at first marriage.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

I don’t doubt your sincerity of belief, but the fact of the matter remains that the answer you posted to this question is one of the dumbest f*&ing things I read on Quora. Puts you in the same category as Pismenny, that should give you reason to pause…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

Would you like royalties for your contributions?

This is the condition attached to (nearly, except stated exceptions) all of my blogs:

A little note on further use conditions:*

And this is about posts where someone else has a claim on copyright too:

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

I’m not contributing to your blog, you are copying my Quora entries over to your blog. This contributes to highlighting the fact that you have way too much time on your hands. I’ll take that knowledge as satisfaction enough, no need for further compensation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Thank you, but I have too little time on the web, as writing my blogs, with hope of book publication (some of my blogs have only own texts, actually most of them), is my work.

I think people telling other people “you have way too much time on your hands” are jerks.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Heh, well if you have time to write stupidity like this answer, not to mention all the other answers you write for in multiple languages on Quora, and then respond and copy comments and dialogue over to some nebulous blog, you sure seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Call me a “jerk”, I don’t care, I just observe…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

OK … points for self irony granted.

There is however a difference between “a lot” and “too much”. Thanks for changing the vocabulary.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Is it any wonder that you’re sane at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcKBmdfpWs

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

I’m sorry, but if they call themselves Styx, they may be fake prophets. Believe doctrines of demons and such …

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

“within the narrative you espouse, where they repopulate the earth from scratch, they would likely have needed to commit paedophilic acts of incest.”

• they and their wives.
• no paedophilic acts are fertile.
• their wives were not sisters or daughters but married to them before the Flood.
• counting marriages with nieces and with first cousins as incestuous and invalid is an innovation by the Church during the New Testament - I would count that, by now, as “statutory” incest, if you see the reference.
• If you are really, really, really interested in how it would have worked here are some mathematics:
  
  Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People

On a wider scope, it is somewhat mysterious how you, by definition a believer in morality coming to mankind by an evolution, can nevertheless pretend that your criteria on paedophilia and incest are eternal truths.

Or perhaps you actually just imagined that they were in the position Lot’s daughters thought they were in?

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Or perhaps the whole thing with Noah and the ark is totally fictional, and your wild imagination shoehorns your detailed beliefs into the vague fictional narrative. Nice of you to quote yourself again, as you’re clearly. the defined authority for all this fictional bullshit you spray far and wide.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2021

You didn’t bother to check the maths on my in this case actual self reference?

You see, I had done a calculation about what 3 percent annual population growth means, if protracted 1000 years … and we know this population growth does exist locally today ….

It’s not about me being an authority, it’s about math being sth that works - and if I cite a previous calculation instead of making a new one, I like to take credit for my previous work …

Marc Robidoux

26.VIII.2021

Quoting yourself is:

a. bad form

b. quoting your own maths proving something that defies biological requirements and denies geological and biological evidence widely published and peer reviewed is totally pure delusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

I have no patience to wait till someone else does the research I need, so I do it, when no one else does and quote it when needed - bad form or not.

No mathematical requirement flouted, and you haven’t been precise about “biological requirements” (except that mythical beast minimal sustainable population) other than speed of reproduction to answer.

As to “geological and biological evidence” I am not denying any piece of evidence.

“widely published and peer reviewed”

I’m sorry, you seem to be bad at logica as well as history, what’s published and peer reviewed is not pure evidence, it’s conclusions from evidence as well, and those conclusions drawn within a school of thought with a strong collective delusion.

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

I may be bad at “logica” but at least I don’t suffer from the delusion that all that is true comes from the Bible. Not only do you exist in a delusion of biblical literalism, but you also suffer from a delusion of grandeur in thinking you alone can perform the calculations to ‘prove’ it. It is to laugh, but it’s not kind to laugh at the deluded, so I refrain.

In some cases, a picture is worth more than words, this is such an occasion:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

"I don’t suffer from the delusion that all that is true comes from the Bible."

Neither do I. If you were a bit better at logic, you would know that "everything that comes from the Bible is true" (which I believe) does not convert to that.

"Not only do you exist in a delusion of biblical literalism,"

Tradition of millennia, hardly something you can put down as a delusion.

"but you also suffer from a delusion of grandeur in thinking you alone can perform the calculations to ‘prove’ it."

I never said I alone can, I said, I happened to do that on this occasion. Do you see even some fine shade of nuance between the two positions ...?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

The Bible is a collection of (often badly written) fictions interspersed with some historical facts sprinkled in, written by mostly anonymous writers over thousands of years and cobbled together by other individuals centuries later. To consider any of it as factual evidence of anything at all is pure delusion, and the fact that people considered it to be factual over millennia does not make it any more factual, and doesn’t diminish the delusion in the slightest. Carry on in your delusion though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

“The Bible is a collection of (often badly written) fictions”

Your Atheistic and Materialistic and therefore Antimiraculous Bias forces you to this conclusion.

Should I call it your delusion for that?

No, just a bad conclusion. There are two possible good ones :

• it is accurate history
• it is inaccurate history

“To consider any of it as factual evidence of anything at all”

is what you do with even inaccurate history. But with more caution.

“the fact that people considered it to be factual over millennia does not make it any more factual,”

It often happens that books previously considered as factual come to be regarded as either inaccurate or as fictional. B U T where do you observe the reverse process? Who is taking Superman or Spiderman, Pevensies or Bagginses, as real people? Note, making a fan fic about Susan Pevensie doesn’t mean I take her as a real person.

In other words, yes, the fact that people over millennia took it as factual argues it is non-fiction. As to accuracy, that’s another question, but non-fictionality is argued from having been from start or earliest observed readership or hearers taken to be such. And yes, I consider the Iliad and the Odyssey as non-fiction too, though the parts assigned to gods are more or less erroneous (best rendering - Apollon, a real demon from Hell and Homer is close to realising it).

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

Popularity of an idea says nothing of it’s factual veracity. Whatever all that other stuff you spout says, this is simply the issue with the Bible. That people do or have believed it to be factual does nothing to make it factual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

My argument was not from popularity, but from perceived impossibility that a knowledge of x being fiction shifts to a perception of x as true or false account of factual history.

You do agree that there is a difference between factually false and fiction?

On Katyn, there is the account that Germans did it and the account that Russians did it. Both can’t be true, but the one that is false is a lie, not a fiction. It’s not on the level of Indiana Jones fighting Nazis about the Lost Ark, OK …

We are not dealing with the probability of some having the wrong view of Katyn, we are dealing with the much wilder one of some taking Indiana Jones as a historical figure.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

The facts of the Katyn incident are much narrower in scope than so-called Biblical history, surely you agree to that? The simple fact that the Bible was written over many centuries, and by many different largely anonymous authors (by definition, not knowing who = anonymous, and means we don’t know why they wrote what they did nor what their biases were), makes all of it questionable. Given there is contrary evidence to many of the claims in the Bible and many contradictions contained within its covers, brings the entire thing into question. Given the Bible as it currently exists includes texts that were selected by (possibly deluded, possibly malicious, possibly uninformed, definitely fallible and biased humans) over other similar texts they rejected from inclusion, and many of it’s claims have been shown to be false, you simply can not rule out that the whole thing is a lie, and it is most certainly not literally true in any shape or form. Just because many people have studied it and come to their own conclusions about it does not make it any more literally true. It certainly could be a collection of lies, or a collection of lies, fictional accounts and interspersed historical facts cobbled together by ancient people seeking answers to questions they could not resolve by other means, but that doesn’t make it historically accurate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

I was not here and now arguing historical accuracy. Katyn was given as an example that a historical account doesn’t become fictional because it is inaccurate.

You have argued several different possibilities of error or deliberate lies, and I’d prefer to take that about narrower scopes.

You have not argued that any part started out as fiction (like no one is taking Indiana Jones films as historical accounts, even wrong ones).

Once we get rid of a generalised red herring “fiction!!!” one can more fruitfully discuss over each issue whether the history is accurate or inaccurate.

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Oh well, that was an inadvertent omission on my part, of course many parts of the Bible may well have been written as pure fiction I should have explicitly stated that, sorry. So basically the Bible is a collection of possible lies, possible fictional writings, interspersed with some historical facts and a lot of speculation, written over centuries by innumerable anonymous authors, and because of all this, none of it can be taken on face value as historical fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

Look here, any historical document in very pure theory could have been written as pure fiction, but there is a difficulty in transition from acceptance of a work as fiction and late acceptance of same work as history.

Also, any historical document in very pure theory could be a pure lie, but that is a thing that should be argued case by case - who had an opportunity and a motive, who was not likely to get contradicted and so on.

On the face of it, it is a historical document. Arguing any of it other should be done case by case with arguments specific to the case, not as an allegation with prior high probabilities. I go beyond that and think it is free from inadvertent errors and from lies too, but presenting it as mainly lies or fictions with a few historic facts interspersed and arguing no specific point is just slander.

The books are not innumerable, neither are the often unitary authors. The works that have multiple authors but also a final author are such that cumulate events over centuries - Genesis, Judges, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomena or Chronicles.

A pseudographic book is not the same as an anonymous book, and arguing traditionally attributed authors (including for cumulative works, Moses as final one for Genesis, Samuel and Nathan for first two books of Kings, probably Ezra for Chronicles, I don’t know who for third and fourth kings) are not the real ones is a thing to be proven, not assumed, as is also original fictionality for a work traditionally taken as historic.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

Well, look here now: The Bible contains several cases of “case by case” incongruity with history. Attribution of texts to characters in a story does not identify the author, much less when these characters can not be confirmed to have even existed. Authorship by the Prophets or the Evangelists is therefore anonymous, as we can not positively identify the authors as historical figures. The Exodus, the Biblical Flood, the Resurrection, etc etc., there are tons of “case by case” things in the Bible that are demonstrably false. By this measure, the entire thing can be dismissed as containing very little by way of any facts if any at all. Why these incongruities exist in the Bible, whether they came there by prose, fictional accounts written with an agenda, plagiarism from other sources, outright lies, or whatever, the fact remains that it does not contain sufficient factual content to warrant placing on a pedestal with other historical material and primary sources such as those from ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. Whatever your beliefs are about the Bible and ‘Divine inspiration’ for it is totally irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

"The Bible contains several cases of “case by case” incongruity with history."

Several is not one specific such.

"Attribution of texts to characters in a story does not identify the author, much less when these characters can not be confirmed to have even existed."

There are several characters of secular history for which only known act is writing a text.

"Authorship by the Prophets or the Evangelists is therefore anonymous, as we can not positively identify the authors as historical figures."

The tradition from when texts were written identifies them, and tradition IS the standard identifier of an author, and also obviously as said of fictional vs historiographic intent.

"The Exodus, the Biblical Flood, the Resurrection, etc etc., there are tons of “case by case” things in the Bible that are demonstrably false."

Tons of isn't one of them and the examples given show more of an antimiraculous bias than an actual argument.

"By this measure, the entire thing can be dismissed as containing very little by way of any facts if any at all."

Problem is, this measure is a very poor one when dealing with any historical documents from that long time ago.

"Why these incongruities exist in the Bible,"

You haven't shown even one incongruity to actually exist, so far. Plus, historiography without divine inspiration usually contains incongruities, therefore this would only be an argument against divine inspiration which I was here not arguing, not against historiography rather than fiction as genre assignment.

"fictional accounts written with an agenda," / "outright lies,"

That would not be "fiction" but "fake history" as one of the two accounts of Katyn is.

"plagiarism from other sources,"

Any historiographer would be a plagiarist, if judged by standards of literary property. There is no point in the charge.

"it does not contain sufficient factual content to warrant placing on a pedestal with other historical material and primary sources such as those from ancient Egypt and ancient Greece."

It is way richer in factual content than primary sources from Ancient Egypt, at least before New Kingdom.

As to Greece, the books closer to contact with Greeks tend to have a Greek ambition about biographical or other historiographical matters.

"on a pedestal with" is not a question of "history vs fiction" but of "how good history".

“Whatever your beliefs are about the Bible and ‘Divine inspiration’ for it is totally irrelevant.”

I actually agree. Completely. Even without divine inspiration, it would still be the genre of historiography.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

You call it “histioriography”, I call it non-history, whatever…

If you bothered to point to a single fact revealed in the Bible instead of asking me to explicitly point to all the flat out bullshit contained in the Bible, maybe I’d give more credibility to your long winded arguments.

You’re damn right, I have a “antimiraculous bias“, I also have a ‘delusion’ of realism, and this is simply because miracles are a total figment of your imagination, there is no evidence for any miracle or any supernatural event occurring at any time, past or present.

There may well be several characters of secular history for which only known act is writing a text, but we don’t take any of those writings as evidence of supernatural events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

"If you bothered to point to a single fact revealed in the Bible instead of asking me to explicitly point to all the flat out bullshit contained in the Bible"

If you want to argue the Bible is BS, you show one point where you think it is BS.

I don't need to have a point that's true for it to be historiography. It's just that historiography is at first face value evidence for the historic facts in it. Each historic fact needs to be disputed or the source needs to be shown unreliable. Very unlike fiction, where no amount of realism and coherence will be even prima facie evidence that Peter Parker is The Spiderman and works on Daily Bugle.

And BS does still not mean fiction.

But if you truly want me to pick a point, well, Genesis 6 to 9 tells us what happened to Neanderthals and Denisovans for one. And Genesis 11 why just c. 1000 years after the Flood, Abraham could be confroted with languages as radically different as, not Danish from Icelandic (a realistic example of 1000 years' language divergence), but Old Egyptian from Sumerian.

"You’re damn right, I have a “antimiraculous bias“, I also have a ‘delusion’ of realism, and this is simply because miracles are a total figment of your imagination, there is no evidence for any miracle or any supernatural event occurring at any time, past or present."

There is plenty of evidence for miracles and omens in pre-modern historiography. ALL religions. Tacitus' overview of omens in the time of Nero comes after Cicero's atheism. Pretending "there is no evidence" is simply a bias shutting you off from actually checking the evidence.

Pretending miracle > BS > fiction > no source for any historic claims is a circular argument for pretending miracle > BS.

"but we don’t take any of those writings as evidence of supernatural events."

You don't, I very well may. I do take the writing of Sophocles as evidence that Laios, Iocaste and their son Oedipus were trapped into abhominable evils by the demon Apollo issuing a self fulfilling prophecy. And if you think Greek tragedy was meant to be fiction, think again. It was meant to involve fictional scenes and fictional dialogues, but to enhance the historic realities. Cf Persae. It was Greek comedy that was by genre limited to fiction.

I suppose you would count the demonic as supernatural, right?

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Very long string of ‘stuff’ supporting your “kook”dom here, but on your single point: “There is plenty of evidence for miracles and omens in pre-modern historiography. “ - This is categorically false. There is speculation, postulation, theorizing, obfuscation, extrapolation, expectoration, surmising, etc for miracles and omens in pre/current/post modern historiography recounted in all sorts of religious books and documents and in the minds of apologists all over the place, but there is 0 EVIDENCE of any miracle anywhere. EVIDENCE is the data and or facts that support a claim. If you claim there is a miracle, EVIDENCE would be data or facts supporting that claim, and would offer a repeatable methodology to obtain similar data given sufficient expertise and or expense, and these facts and data supporting your claim would be acceptable evidence to those who may not share your opinions or beliefs (Beliefs are things you hold without evidence). The claim that there was a miracle at Fatima for example, is not supported by any evidence. The claims of apologists around this “miracle”, is something like that thousands of people experienced a shared observation of a “dancing sun”, but there is no corroborating evidence of this anywhere. And in any case, even if those thousands of people experienced a concurrent vision of a dancing sun, that in no way provides any evidence for a god or that this god somehow made the Sun appear to be dancing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Evidence of historic facts are historiography as close to facts as possible.

In pre-modern historiography miracles and omens are often presented as precisely facts, with no more or no less doubts about factuality then other events.

Read Tacitus’ Annals, book VI, for death of Agrippina accompanied by omens. Speculation? That’s not how he tells it.

The actual historiography that does speculate is the modern one, where a historian will take facts from one pre-modern historian time after time, and then for exactly one category of facts, namely miracles and omens, will speculate with reservations like “is supposed to”.

But your comment is one I’d expect from someone whose reading of history, including Medieval and Ancient, is limited to MODERN historiography.

EDIT : I read on and found this:

“and would offer a repeatable methodology to obtain similar data given sufficient expertise and or expense”

I am sorry, you arguably don’t read history at all, since you have no idea even that historic facts are not repeatable and therefore cannot be tested in labs.

However, what is very repeatable is, if you pass from a modern historiographer to the sources he gives (most of them) they will be earlier historiographers that do give miracles and omens.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

So sorry I don’t live up to your learned status. It remains that there is NO evidence of any miracles, not contained in any historical (verifiable and non-verifiable) facts, at all. Sorry to break it to your learned self…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

I’m not self learned here, it was at university I read Tacitus and Greek tragedy, as well as Virgil … it was at university I read about biographical details on St. Bridget and it was an atheist professor (of Latin) who claimed that while she was (on his view) schizophrenic, it was eery how her prophecies always came true.

You are half learned, and your half of learning in history remains within the part where modern historiography is, after Hume, self learned.

Marc Robidoux

9.IX.2021

I may be half learned, but the half I learned taught me what evidence is. The “historiography “ half I apparently didn’t learn is not evidence. Attack away ad hominem, you simply have no evidence and you gish gallop bullshit, all well to continue doing a fine job of getting yourself “stamped as a kook” all by yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

You did not learn where historic evidence is got from.

And since you are unfamiliar with the word “historiography” you seem to don’t know the difference between “the actual history” (the facts, independent of whether reports reached us) and “historiography” (the way in which someone decides in his writing what reports shall reach us).

Even more, your criteria for how to determine whether a miracle is a historic fact have nothing to do with historic methodology.

It’s a perfect method for determining what no one has suggested, namely whether miracles should be accepted as another therapy or drug authorised by the national drug authority, it’s a medical procedure of criteria, but it is highly inadequate and even ludicrous if the question is about determining historic fact.

Marc Robidoux

9.IX.2021

LOL, this is very funny, I love how you persist in claiming miracles are a real thing, and how historical facts somehow support your view. THis is all part of your persistence in demonstrating your own “kook”dom I guess, but carry on, I’m entertained.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.IX.2021

In other words, you prefer ridicule over actually entering on the arguments …

Yes he knows

that I am mirroring the debate on the blog, see this exchange, starting with a link to here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

“You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread.”

Want to revise?

To Some, Fighting "Paedophilia" As Such Primes All Other Decencies
[link to this post]

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

No revision necessary, here you go quoting yourself, that says all there is to say on this matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

I am actually quoting us, and the post format is more overseeable than the visible parts of the quora comments.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Quoting yourself from another platform doesn’t make your arguments any clearer or easier to understand. It’s all Talibanesque bullshit, here and there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

No, I am mirroring THIS debate between US TWO on a platform where you don’t see just two comments above and below the one you clicked for.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Whether you post it here, or mirror it there and quote it back here, it’s still unbridled Talibanesque nonsensical bullshit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

Ah, you understand that much, in other words, you only pretended not to understand …

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Nope, I never pretended not to understand, I thought I made that clear by saying ‘ You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread ‘ . Your gibberish makes no sense, and it gets worse as we go along.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

Your temper tempts you to items like pretending I believe “everything true comes from the Bible” or “I alone can prove it” - neither of which are positions I have. Perhaps calming down a bit might be an idea?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Your idea that I am at all agitated is another of your delusions. Your gibberish makes no sense, and it gets worse (now you accuse me of being agitated? WTF?) as we go along.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

It may be a wrong conclusion, a better one might be you are trying to get me stamped as a kook. Or simply that you are not used to certain arguments and bewildered.

Actually, not really, you were attributing megalomania to me in a very dishonest (if calm) manner.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

LOL, I think you’re doing a fine job of getting yourself “stamped as a kook” all by yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

Ha ha, but I was not the one who claimed I was uniquely or believed myself to be uniquely gifted for calculating the real possibilities of population increase since the Flood - CMI actually also has a model, but I disagree with their version of Biblical chronology (Babel 101 years after Flood or soon after, very late limit 340 after Flood) and therefore didn’t find their calculation so useful - even if it was made with more skills put into it.

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Heh, well, you are inadvertently touching on what it is that helps you stamp yourself “as a kook” here again. Let’s just say, me suggesting you think of yourself as the only one capable of these calculations is pretty far down the list of the corroborating elements to your “kook”dom, LOL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

Well, I very clearly DON’T think of myself as the only one, I just this morning vindicated CMI* who would with 6 % annual population increase get over 2000 by the birth of Peleg (in their chronology) and 800 000 plus when he was a mere 100 years old.

No, if that’s what you were hinting at, believing this story certainly doesn’t a kook qualify either!

* Vindicated them on that point. Not all others. But actually, when there are few actors in a certain market, which there is in creation science publications, being best at some point is not all that extraordinary.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

OK, you’ve convinced me, you’re not stamping yourself “as a kook” at all, I was just missing the piece about “ vindicated CMI* who would with 6 % annual population increase get over 2000 by the birth of Peleg “ that was missing from my previous understanding… Your calculations are clearly 100% correct, so it must be all 100% true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

I wasn’t arguing truth, I was arguing possibility or feasibility which you had denied.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

Oh let me correct: Your calculations are clearly 100% FEASIBLE, so it must be all 100% true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

A g a i n - no.

My calculations are C O R R E C T, so the story is F E A S I B L E.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Even if your calculations are uber-correct, this in no way affects the paradigm of garbage in = garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

You did not content yourself with “garbage” you pretended “unfeasible” => argument about calculable feasibility. An argument which I met.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Pedantic garbage in = garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

It’s still pedantic.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Yes, you are still being pedantic, with your garbage in, which you process through your 100% feasible maths, and it still results in garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

The maths is not 100 % feasible, it is very close to that percentage correct. It means the story is on one item you attacked feasible.

Trilemma Revisited

Christopher HItchens on CS Lewis
19th April 2015 | TJ Whitehead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBCYY6-u1Yc

I

Christopher Hitchens misses that both in his personal conversion and in the book, C. S. Lewis had already shown that God exists - leaving Christ's claim at least one possibility.

As to whether Christ existed or not, to me as to Lewis, a man denying He was historically there is on par with a man denying Socrates actually was teaching Plato and then drinking the hemlock. In other words, not knowledgeable on history.

II

3:05 These are all valid syllagisms:

• trilemma, not evil, not mad -> God
• trilemma, not evil, not God -> mad
• trilemma, not mad, not God -> evil

So, C. S. Lewis did complete the syllogism. He just did it with another set of premisses than you prefer.

jeffrey lee robinson

complete perhaps. the argument was that it isn't sound.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson The argument is that CSL made a sounder choice of premisses than Hitchens.

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl again, that's not detailed - thus not an argument. the premises are not remotely encompassing. and they are by 19th century Victorian ideas, not 1st century mythology weaving realities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson what do you mean by "not remotely encompassing"?

If you only meant that the trilemma didn't deal with the hypothesis of "myth", CSL answered that elsewhere.

And no, the trilemma would certainly hold by 1st C. ideas as well. That's why some took the other positions "possessed" and eventually "evil".

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the point I'm trying to make here is that this hard and fast "trilemma" doesn't hold.

for one, the lack of historicity, which you claims he deals with elsewhere, is still a valid criticism to this proposition.

Jesus could also be self deluded - but that doesn't make him a "monster." And given the outrageous claims of all religions, would this trilemma also imply that all Christians are lunatics' should their truth claims prove untrue? That hardly seems sound from experience either.

But Christians, interestingly, cling to Lewis's writings as if they were scripture themselves. Another projection of this deep need for infallible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson "for one, the lack of historicity, which you claims he deals with elsewhere, is still a valid criticism to this proposition."

It is so not, since it is formulated "a man making these claims" which is not in and of itself supposing historicity that He did so.

Yes, as I, like Hitchens, have read both Miracles and Mere Christianity, he does deal with historicity of claim being pronounced. Have you heard his view on that subject? It's about like this : most people of the antiquity, we known nothing about, several we know as names attached to one or two facts, some we know more facts about, but TWO and TWO ONLY we can, from the texts claim to quasi know personally : Socrates and Jesus.

"Jesus could also be self deluded - but that doesn't make him a 'monster.'"

It would rather fall within lunatic.

"And given the outrageous claims of all religions,"

Like Atheism claiming atom structure, galaxies and stars, planets and life, langue and mind came from very inadequate prior things?

"would this trilemma also imply that all Christians are lunatics' should their truth claims prove untrue? That hardly seems sound from experience either."

No, it would not, since delusion about one's personal status is not just the same thing as chosing a wrong belief system. Even so, St. Paul himself rather than CSL would consider Christians very pitiful if wrong.

"But Christians, interestingly, cling to Lewis's writings as if they were scripture themselves. Another projection of this deep need for infallible."

As you cling to Hitchens .... CSL is a good arguer in the century I was born in (I don't know your age), like St. Thomas Aquinas was one 700 years earlier. Today, Christian have confrontations of a type leaving us some arguing to do, I'm a poster child for that, and so we have a tendency to valuate those who argue against the things we have to argue against.

After above, I sent him a link here, so now he knows our words are coming up here:

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

" but TWO and TWO ONLY we can, from the texts claim to quasi know personally : Socrates and Jesus"

Socrates still may or may not have been - most likely was, but we only have Plato's account. That's it. As for Jesus, we only have the gospel accounts in which, unlike Plato, none were written by eye witnesses. That's a bit less than credible for the sake of history.

"It would rather fall within lunatic."

That would mean, if Christianity were true, I'm a lunatic for not finding the evidence compelling. Or, should it be false, every Christian is a lunatic for believing it. That's simply over the top language that's trying to sell something that simply isn't true. Delusion or misapprehension doesn't automatically make one a completely out of touch with reality crazy person. It's hyperbole.

"Like Atheism claiming atom structure, galaxies and stars, planets and life, langue and mind came from very inadequate prior things?"

Firstly, "atheism" doesn't claim that. The sciences do. It's demonstrable - not a matter of faith, it's based on the available evidence. And the use of the term "inadequate" is a judgment call. Review the evidence and supply a counterpoint. Again, emotion based language. Not factual content or rational deduction or induction.

"No, it would not, since delusion about one's personal status is not just the same thing as chosing a wrong belief system. Even so, St. Paul himself rather than CSL would consider Christians very pitiful if wrong."

earlier you seemed to imply it does. and for Christians "personal status" and their "belief system" are part and parcel the same thing. And, given Christians damning rhetoric and false humility lamely attempting to disguise gross arrogance and knowing truth with a capital T - yeah, it is sad. It's shameful. It's dishonourable given their moral damnation of themselves, others, and the planet that simply isn't justified on the weak grounds they provide.

I'm not "clinging to Hitchens." Where do you get that idea? Simply because I'm defending him here? Fallacy of tu quoque. "Well you're doing it!" A, that doesn't respond to what's writ, B, it's not true. I'm speaking historically. I'm speaking of Lewis books that ended up anonymously in my mailbox when I left xTianity. I don't go around as Hitchens apostle as I've watched Christians do for Lewis over the years.

In other words I argue my points myself. I don't refer to someone else to make the points for me as I've experience over the years with Christians and their reliance on Lewis as "defender of the faith" - when they themselves cannot.

I'm not saying the man is unintelligent. He's quite sharp and well spoken. That wasn't a strike against him as a thinker. It's a strike against Christians in their infallible hero worship.

I'm not quite sure I got what you were saying in the last bit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson "Socrates still may or may not have been - most likely was, but we only have Plato's account. That's it. As for Jesus, we only have the gospel accounts in which, unlike Plato, none were written by eye witnesses. That's a bit less than credible for the sake of history."

We have Plato's and Xenophon's plus a spoof in Aristophanes, actually.

MOST people we have no eyewitness accounts unfiltered for, but the accounts were filtered with decades and centuries of delay.

If we stay as close as we can to recorded facts, Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts, Marc and Luke filtered but within contemporaries. That's extraordinarily good for the two centuries around BC/AD shift, for first C. BC and for first C. AD. It would be less than good for 19th or 20th C. AD, but those are far closer and involved a civilisation with much more paper and writing.

Because, you see, as early as 150 AD, Papias attributes the Gospels to the names and the one doubt is whether John was the Son of Zebedee or another disciple. Even in that case he can very well have been, as he claims or borrows pen to hearers to allow them to claim for him, he is.

"if Christianity were true, I'm a lunatic for not finding the evidence compelling. Or, should it be false, every Christian is a lunatic for believing it."

Not the least. You or I would be lunatics for claiming to be the Creator of Heaven and Earth if we had either no memories or false memories of doing so. A statement like "before Abraham was, I am" which translates as "I am still around since before Abraham lived" is lunacy if not true. Or a very weird attempt of manipulation. It cannot be reduced to merely a theological position.

So, no, it is not hyperbolé.

"Firstly, "atheism" doesn't claim that. The sciences do. It's demonstrable - not a matter of faith, it's based on the available evidence."

No, they do not. Scientists do, and some of those who do are believing Atheists, like Krauss or Dawkins, and others who do so are Syncretists between a more traditional religion and Atheism. No demonstration has been given, except such that depend on presuming in advance there is no God or if any, at least not exactly like in the Bible.

"for Christians "personal status" and their "belief system" are part and parcel the same thing."

It is not the same thing. If I claimed I had already died and gone to Heaven and not gone back (there are those who claim that with no lunacy), but still were a blessed soul without a body, that would be a delusion about personal status. As to the belief system, we are not lunatics for being Christians, though in some situations we would be losing out on very much, if we were wrong, and chasing a non-extant compensation, and you are not lunatics in the clinical sense for being Atheists.

"gross arrogance and knowing truth with a capital T"

I am sorry, but you just did that yourself when claiming sciences had demonstrated certain Atheistic credenda. Again, arrogance, like lunacy, is about personal status, and "knowing the truth with a capital T" is a very bandied around claim and therefore not about personal status.

"Simply because I'm defending him here? Fallacy of tu quoque."

Fell into the trap, did you? I was not clinging to C. S. Lewis. I was defending him because I found his argument here very sound. As a Catholic, I definitely find him grossly in error on some topics. But those were not the ones he brought to the discussion in Apologetics, usually. As a creationist too - the syncretists who add Atheistic credenda to Christianity would in some periods of his life include CSL himself.

"I'm speaking of Lewis books that ended up anonymously in my mailbox when I left xTianity. I don't go around as Hitchens apostle as I've watched Christians do for Lewis over the years."

Oh, you are an apostate, how sad for you, objectively! Out of courtesy, let's not mind that here, and unlike whatever Christian friend or x-friend did that, I did not send you anything anonymously (unless you live in Paris and surroundings and I dropped a right wing paper or a slip of paper with a URL, but that was "en masse" and didn't target anyone), and I came here because Hitchens was attacking CSL. I also came here with my real name, unlike perhaps some who have sent me suggestions for certain youtube videos. Not sure if it was the case with this one.

Is your last quip supposed to mean, if I use an argument that CSL already used, I am somehow not defending the faith myself? That's something of a double standard coming from you, but luckily for both of us, it's wrong.