Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: September 2021

Friday, September 24, 2021

Why is God Against Secular Humanism? Look at Göbekli Tepe and Jericho

Here, Matt Dillahunty has his say:

Atheist Debates - Tower of Babel
1st Oct. 2018 | Matt Dillahunty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ToK6c5_gE

Here, I give my answers, time signatures referring to when in the video he says what I answer:

I: 7:03 It actually doesn't even say "if this keeps up, they will", it says "they will accomplish anything etc".

7:51 It doesn't actually directly even say that God is objecting.

8:20 Where does it say "if this continues"? It doesn't.

8:30 Also doesn't say "and God can't have that".

8:50 The reason not given is Dillahunty's : "if the trend continues with cooperation and communication, there is nothing that they can't achieve".

The one reason given is a categoric, not a conditional, they will achieve.
II: 8:57 Why would a God not want people to achieve anything they can?

Well, it seems for instance God wanted to stop Ted Bundy from achieving more after killing Kimberley Leach ... that is an answer to the general question.

But to the question in this particular context, it doesn't say textually God did not want them to achieve.
III: 10:32 The word "punish" actually doesn't even occur in the text.

It is inferred from the parallel with Genesis 3:22.

If we look that up, we find, Genesis 3:22 contains the old fashioned conjunction "lest" meaning "so that ... not". In Genesis 3, it actually says God was trying to prevent something. In Genesis 11, it doesn't.
IV: 11:42 First, Genesis 11:1-9 is briefly referenced also in 10:25.

Second, if there was a global Flood c. 1000 years before Abraham was born (942 or 1070 depending on absence or presence of second Cainan) or even just 292 years before it (Masoretic, Vulgate, King James text version), there is no way people in Abraham's time would have spoken languages as different as Sumerian and Egyptian - unless there was something more to it. Like a miracle.

11:55 I'd feature the Babel event (city and tower) between the death of Noah, 350 after the Flood, and the birth of Peleg, 401 (or 529) after the Flood.

13:40 Table of Nations and Generations of Shem are obviously partly overlapping material, but as obviously, it is two different texts.

The third text in between them, Tower of Babel, answers two questions in the context between them : 1) what is the "when the earth was divided?" and 2) "why do we only concentrate on Shem after this?"

The first is definitely answered - and the second is hinted at : these descendants of Shem stood aloof from the stupid project and so preserved their original language.

The texts composing Genesis up to Genesis 12 are very short ones which could have been orally composed and faithfully transmitted, that also orally. Between Peleg and Abraham, the line of information may not have gone smoothly with say paperwork, it may have depended on what, for instance, Abraham could have learned from great-grand-pa Sarug, while pa and gramp were ignoring it to adore false gods.

14:12 No, the text in Genesis 10 is dealing with geography or ethnography, not chronology, nor heirs according to legitimate lineage from Shem.

The text in Genesis 11, verse 10 to the end, concentrates only on chronology and on Abraham specifically being heir of Shem, of Peleg, for that matter of Sarug, last generation before Shemites started to walk after strange gods. It has to deal with chronology so that Abraham is seen to have been able to speak to Sarug.

Now, Abraham learned both texts from Sarug and enlarged the second one.

Between them, he learned another one, less boring, more picturesque - Genesis 11:1-9.

14:32 Before they were writing, they were arguably orally transmitted.

When long afterward a certain Catholic bishop while on horseback after Mass divided the Bible into chapters, he considered the ToB narrative too short to be a chapter of its own.

But that the chapters weren't there from start doesn't mean the text was originally just one whole.
V: 12:35 Let's take demographic of Nigeria. Every year features a population 106 % that of the previous year.

Let's also be clear, after the Flood we don't start with one or two, but with eight.

Even by 101 after the Flood, there could have been 2000 people. By 401 after the Flood, there could have been more than there are now. Arguably there weren't, but just mentioning the actual maths of the population growth, it does figure, especially with a LXX timeline (Babel ending 401 or 529 after the Flood).

12:42 Check this for a more complete answer:
Creation vs. Evolution : Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/03/holy-koolaid-pretended-flood-to-sodom.html
VI: 14:55 Chapter 10 doesn't say much of what Noah's sons did.

Only action mentioned is Nimrod making an empire - around Babel.

Only other event is earth broken up in the days of Peleg, not necessarily, but arguably, when he was born.

Chapter 10 is geography. Chapter 11, second half, is chronology of one of the peoples. Chapter 11 first half tells why they are really different peoples as opposed to one people in several lineages spread out.
VII: 15:31 If you deny the global Flood or put it 10 000 years earlier back, you may have different languages without such a miracle, but, if you accept the Flood and its being global, there is exactly one possibility of languages being so different (unless people out of boredom started conlanging). A miracle. In Abraham's time, you would otherwise not have had languages any more different than for instance Swedish and Icelandic.

The question is not just whether it is an explanation, but also an accurate one.

In the case of a global Flood, it would arguably have to be that.

And note, all other traditions except the Hebrew one did away with even asking the question - if the answer was that embarrassing, they perhaps would.

17:00 "it's clearly, in my estimation, a passage to describe the origin of language"

Thanks Dillahunty, just one correction : of languageS. Language in the singular was there in Eden.
VIII: 15:49 Answer to contradiction - the texts chronologically overlap. Chapter 10 has a chronological reach beyond the birth of Peleg, for instance Ioctan would have been born after him, but first part of chapter 11 only reaches up to that point.

The verse just cited at end of chapter 10 means, when the dispersion happened, the main 72 branches of mankind did not each in itself get internally separated, they just all got separated from each other.
IX: 17:08 "it cannot be accurate"

As a linguist and a Christian : yes, it very well can. It's like saying, the six jars in Cana can't be accurate because what we know of ordinary wine production.

We do know very well, in Abraham's time there were languages which could not even remotely possibly have developed the usual way (mergers and splits and overall gradual changes) in the time available since the Flood.

There are now 6000 languages or so, in over 250 families, it is not over the top that these could have split out naturally from 72 languages after Babel in the last 4500 years. But 4000 years ago, it's not a question of how many, it's just, they would not have left the common language group; 1000 years after the Flood.

17:13 "this is not how the diversity of language is best explained"

let's hear ...

"given all of the available evidence"

Sounds like deliberately making the point obscure, when you could be clear. You could make three more specific claims, which I will adress, even if you didn't make them:

1) "Languages split when populations speaking the same language get separated over sufficiently many generations"

That is just one part of the language diversity, say between Swedish and English, or between French and Romanian (in fact only one of the aspects between the items of each pair too). It doesn't begin to adress the diversity between Basque and Spanish.

2) "Human beings developed language in several different places and so developed different languages"

Or got them later, like at Babel.

Alternatively:

3) "Human beings had one language 100 000 years ago, and it split naturally"

Or it split supernaturally, more recently.
X: 18:14 Neither punishment, nor arrogance is explicitly stated in the text.
XI: 19:40 I would argue God is against secular humanism on certain planes, yes.

When exactly did Tolkien write (in a letter, not a fantasy novel) about Babel builders? After the Yalta conference and/or the founding or plan to found UNO.

Why? Communist countries and some Capitalist countries were not exactly in agreement with God's definition of human rights and duties.

And arguably, Nimrod was not in agreement with God's definition of safety on earth.

You see, God had promised (Genesis 9:11) I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.

Josephus says, the plan, of which Nimrod became executive, was to get to Heaven which can't get flooded.

If I am right that this took place just after the Younger Dryas (which then didn't last 1000 years, unlike claims in secular science, and considering its conditions would have been very unlikely to leave us around if it had lasted that long), seas had very recently risen, like hundred or two hundred feet in some places. Someone not trusting God would then and there have put doubts on God's view of human safety - and started looking for other solutions. Actually arguably very daft ones. Like fleeing a "doomed planet" into "space".

Bc, I think God didn't stop the tower from being built, He delayed it for 4500 years, until it could be tested more safely from Cape Canaveral.

19:44 "bc He can't stand that"

Or because Nimrod's rocket would have neglected the most basic safety regulations in force at Cape Canaveral.

God never says "stop, I won't have it, you will never get this" ... He says the opposite - and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.

In other words, God gave them a delay to think it over and try again with some better knowledge of space and rocket fuels than available to Nimrod.
XII: 19:59 While it does explain why languages are as different as Chinese from Japanese or as Basque from Spanish, it also deals with other stuff. Including the beginning of human civilisation, if you see the parallel in chapter 10:8 and following Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. [9] And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord. [10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar. [11] Out of that land came forth Assur, and built Ninive, and the streets of the city, and Chale. [12] Resen also between Ninive and Chale: this is the great city.

If this is what happened at Göbekli Tepe and Qermez Dere ... we can see why Babylonians forgot it.

Now, Göbekli Tepe if it was Babel gives some gruesome insight on what secular humanism can be like.

Graham Hancock wondered, how all of this could have been built with any coordination.

Well, "the carrot and the stick" may have been the clue.

What was the carrot in GT? Beer. Now we know some people work at places where work morale is kept up with beer ... and then they stop working and the beer gets out of control ... they were probably alcoholics already while still at work, but they showed it too clearly once it was they who decided when to drink.

Then there is the stick. Heads have been found at GT and at contemporary layers of Jericho.

Heads with holes bored into them and strung onto a rope in GT. Was it a weird view of the afterlife and thinking one did someone a favour? Was it a weird view of the afterlife and thinking one did oneself a favour at someone's expense? Or was it just a way of displaying the beheadings of those beheaded for shirking and for spreading doubts?

I think the latter.

"the beginning of human civilisation"

I obviously mean the new beginning after the Flood, not the previous Nodian version.
XIII: 20:10 If Tower of Babel had been a "preposterous fantasy" ... why does the phrase "a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven" match what was seen at JFK space center on November 9, 1967? Only the top module went to the apogee ...

If Tower of Babel had been a "preposterous fantasy" ... why did Graham Hancock consider Göbekli Tepe looked like a rocket launch?

And, third, if Tower of Babel had been a "preposterous fantasy" ... why does Göbekli Tepe match geographically with Genesis 11:1, linguistically with a time before languageS were different, in carbon dates between a date for the Flood and a date for Abraham, when you recalibrate for Biblical chronology, culturally with involving cultural references to Australia and Polynesia, while it is in modern Turkey?

21:04 The one thing that was unclear is, what does verse 3 mean by "bricks and mortar" - in Jericho contemporary to Göbekli Tepe, you get this:

The rooms have red or pinkish terrazzo-floors made of lime. Some impressions of mats made of reeds or rushes have been preserved. The courtyards have clay floors.

Wikipedia, Jericho, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, a period of about 1.4 millennia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B_%28PPNB,_a_period_of_about_1.4_millennia%29

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Sungenis Also Answered CMI's Video

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

Video was here, but see below:

Geocentrism Debate: Carter/Sarfati vrs. Sungenis
"Première diffusée il y a 5 heures" | Robert Sungenis Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpWeDf6xNSk

Format of the (former) video : Sungenis and collaborators cut up the previous one by Sarfati and Carter and add comments.

Format of my post : I have already previously commented on their video, now it is about Sungenis' comments. I stop the video at the time signatures and then comment where I think his defense of Geocentrism needs some completion - or appreciation. It may be updated or get completions, as I get further around the video. Right now I am on 21 minutes of more than 3 hours.

I: 8:57 Kepler indexed 1664 ... note, the elliptical orbits were not the issue, solely Heliocentrism and perhaps also mechanic causes of moving celestial bodies were.

Riccioli advocating elliptical but otherwise Tychonic orbits and angelic movers was not put in that index as far as I know. His Almagestum novum was published in 1651.

On the first section, you missed that Buridan, Oresme and Cusanus were none of them Heliocentrics - or at least I don't know for Buridan. But it would somewhat surprise me.

Cusanus considered Earth is not absolutely immobile or center, since only God is such.

Oresme considered Heliocentrism theoretically possible, but pointless and therefore eschewable for reason of economy.
II: 11:42 Parallax and aberration could obviously be explained by Neo-Tychonian model - but also as a misjudgement of proper movements of fix stars performed by angels, by angelic movers.

The latter is a good answer to the distant starlight problem.

What the Doppler effect has to do in "proofs for Heliocentrism" is beyond me.
III: 18:07 It can be noted, one of Copernicus' arguments was "spirograph patterns are too complex to be regular and pretty and worthy of God's creation".

Geocentrism with Tychonian orbits involves Spirograph patterns:

The Strange Orbit of Earth's Second Moon (plus The Planets) - Numberphile
14th Sept. 2021 | Numberphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-g6mC1F0g

20:40 Ah, yes, exactly - "the precept that all celestial motions must be explained only by uniform circular motions or combinations of such" - thank you, I. Bernard Cohen!

Copernicus though spirograph patterns unworthy of God as Creator ...

From his "Revolution in science", 1985. p. 112.

Thank you Robert Sungenis Channel for the reference!

And for those to Kuhn and Feyerabend saying Copernicus did not add to exact predictions!

Vidéo non disponible
Cette vidéo a été supprimée par l'utilisateur qui l'a mise en ligne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpWeDf6xNSk

So, did youtube close the video for supposed copyright infringement, or did Robert Sungenis close it in order to not deal with my comments? I don't know.

It seems someone of these people, on CMI or on Sungenis' staff, is not OK with his material getting commented on by someone disagreeing./HGL

Monday, September 20, 2021

Jericho and Babel Contemporary?

Creation vs. Evolution : Bricks at Göbekli Tepe or Close? · Is this too modest in my expectations? Bricks revisited · Correction from Yesterday · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Jericho and Babel Contemporary?

Q: Was the city of Jericho built shortly after the time of the Tower of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-city-of-Jericho-built-shortly-after-the-time-of-the-Tower-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Answer requested by: Marc Bloemers
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered just now
Vigil of St. Matthew: I have looked up, and we have both huntergatherers even before Babel on my view happened, and pre-pottery Neolithic, same as in Babel (on my identification) under the earlier half of Babel, namely carbon dated 9500 to 9000 BC. Göbekli Tepe or Babel being in 9600 to 8600 BC, also carbon dated.

While Jericho is therefore older than my candidate for Babel, it cannot very well be Babel as a city on the Jordan is West of Euphrates.

So, some found the plain in the land of Mesopotamia, some went further South-West and made Jericho. These are not mentioned in the Bible.

But their architecture perhaps is …

The rooms have red or pinkish terrazzo-floors made of lime. Some impressions of mats made of reeds or rushes have been preserved. The courtyards have clay floors.

Jericho - Wikipedia
extra Q
added 3.X.2021: What kind of structure(s) is strongly associated with the city of Babel?
https://www.quora.com/What-kind-of-structure-s-is-strongly-associated-with-the-city-of-Babel/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
Answer requested by: Jaime Almodovar
Hans-Georg Lundahl: none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University
Answered just now: Abandoned building venture.

You find that at Göbekli Tepe.

Btw, if you think of “tower” it is not guaranteed that “tower, the top of which shall reach into heaven” was not meant to be what we now call a rocket.

In which case that would leave no structure. In the architectonic sense.

Saturday, September 18, 2021

Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment

First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible · Continuing with J7b Second · Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment

J7b Second: @Hans-Georg Lundahl so you agree the bible says solid dome, the words root it hammered out metal.

The bible does not say gas, don't twist the words, it says water, above the dome is water.

Now where is the dome? Where is the water?

Also how tall is god? I read conflicting accounts in your primitive myth, can you clarify.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @J7b Second "so you agree the bible says solid dome, the words root it hammered out metal."

The root would involve "hammering" and a thing like the magnetic field would qualify on that account - as it's hammered on by particles from space. The root does per se not involve metal. No, I did not agree.

Your way of twisting my words is one reason why - if you are a shrink - that profession is detested. And if you aren't, you remind of one.

"The bible does not say gas,"

// gas
mid 17th century: invented by J. B. van Helmont (1577–1644), Belgian chemist, to denote an occult principle which he believed to exist in all matter; suggested by Greek khaos ‘chaos’, with Dutch g representing Greek kh . //

A word not invented will be lacking.

"don't twist the words,"

Turning them around to see what they can possibly mean is not twisting them. The word hydrogen means "water origin".
מים ומימן
water and hydrogen - are related words. In Hebrew as well as in Greek.

"it says water, above the dome is water."

And apart from "dome" H2O qualifies as water, but so does H2.

"Now where is the dome? Where is the water?"

The raqia, if you ask me, is the quasi-fluid in which bodies (including atoms, maybe subatomic particles, even if none are seen) can move freely but is also a quasi-solid in which its movement's define the movements bodies have and for instance affect direction and position of anything "in free fall". If so, go to Foucault's pendulum and see it's direction of swing affected by the raqia.

I am not ruling out the magnetic field, and in that case the H2O and H2 in space are truly above it. Otherwise, didn't you translate sth as "in front of" that I have elsewhere seen as "above"?

"Also how tall is god? I read conflicting accounts in your primitive myth, can you clarify."

He would have been about as tall as other babies in Bethlehem and about as tall as other men, not the tallest, when going to Calvary or exiting from the Empty Tomb. Apart from the Incarnation, the question does not make much sense.

Now, I do hold to Biblical inerrancy. That's why I bother to answer about the raqia. However, if I didn't, the Flood account would not fall apart as history. It would just have been history taken down by people with a faulty cosmology and somewhat wrong explanations on where the water exactly came from. If I did not believe in inerrancy, I might say after looking at Göbekli Tepe (via internet) and seeing no bricks and mortar that the story was tampered with to suit a later style of Babylonian architecture. I am not doing that. I have taken informations from a Hebraist amounting to the possibility (in my view) the words could refer to another material. I have not given up the hope totally of finding bricks with associated organic material in Harran plain that carbon date to during or before GT. But even if there were an error in the account of the architecture (and there isn't), this would not disqualify the history as history.

The Global Flood would still be a good explanation both for the traces and for the stories, and it's being as recent as the Biblical chronology (the best we have, better than Egyptian king lists which you seem to trust) would still be a good way of explanaining why it's remembered so well. And if it is as recent, a miracle like that at Babel would still be a great explanation why languages were soon after the Flood as different as Sumerian from Egyptian. Because, we find them - in the carbon build up I envisage - in the position where the time span from Flood to Abraham would be comparable as that between Old Norse and the divergence of Icelandic from Danish. No matter what the - if so - mistakes on raqia or on bricks and mortar. I don't believe there are any, and I believe there are gigantic mistakes piling up in your dating methodologies, once you get back to the real year 3000 BC. But if by some diabolical miracle you could convince me there were a fault in the account of the raqia and the account of bricks and mortar, this would not add up to convincing me there are no mistakes of the order I envisage in dating 2000 BC like 4000 BC and 3000 BC like 40 000 BP (38 000 BC).

You see poking at supposed weaknesses in my scheme doesn't cover up the ones in yours.
J7b Second: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not asking you what raqia means, we know what it means, it's a hammered out metal sheet. It definitely does not mean magnetic field lol, are you just inventing concepts to keep you myth belief on track rather than honestly addressing what the myth actually says?

Your book also says water, it uses the word for water, it also refers to oceans NOT clouds, NOT air, NOT gas, again you are twisting words and definitions to keep your conclusion alive.

Why not look at the evidence before you, then arrive at a conclusion. You have this entirely backwards, the confirmation bias and disshonesty is extreme, you're clearly delusional or very afraid of truth

But god, yahweh, how tall is he? A giant? The size of a normal man, or as you say a baby lol (the idea of the creator of the universe having nappies changed and backside wiped is amusing to me) I'm interested in this god character, people in your story met him, but those descriptions are inconsistent with one another, can we dismiss the witness accounts as unreliable, or do you harmonise the descriptions somehow?

Convincing you of mistakes in your methodology- lol, you have no methodology, you take the conclusion, invent numbers which fit that conclusion and declare magic did it as justification for those numbers. Using your methodology you could literally argue the tree ring data for the previous century is incorrect as god slowed the earth so a year was in fact 2 years etc etc. You'll just insert magic into any hypothesis until it works, your pseudoscience is a joke.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @J7b Second "I'm not asking you what raqia means, we know what it means, it's a hammered out metal sheet."

No, you don't know it means that. You know the root meaning of the word is a verb meaning, among similar things, "hammer out" and that it can be considered as "hammered out" - which is fairly close to "hammered on" and therefore to what happens to the magnetic field.

// The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon (the go-to single volume dictionary of ancient Hebrew) defines "raqia" as the following: "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out);....2.) the vault of the heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it..." (pg 956) //

How the Hebrews came to regard it is beside the point, except as they include hagioographers. Note, the word "solid" in brackets.

// The Hebrew noun raqia is derived from the verb raqa, which means “to spread abroad, stamp, or stretch.” This word is used in the Old Testament in several places for the stamping out of metal into a sheet. //

So, etymology meaning would mean sth stretched, stamped, spread.

All the views of raqia as a solid are at least better suited to my view of raqia as a quasi-solid (not directly contradicted in the text) than to views of raqia as a complete non-solid.

"It definitely does not mean magnetic field lol, are you just inventing concepts to keep you myth belief on track rather than honestly addressing what the myth actually says?"

You are confusing my belief in inerrancy, which requires I account for raqia as something real, with my primary confidence in the story as history, which logically could come before that and where the surviving observers (Noah, his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, their four wives) might just in theory have misanalysed in wrong concepts how the Flood was happening.

"Your book also says water, it uses the word for water, it also refers to oceans NOT clouds,"

Do you consider there is water in the clouds?

Do you feel any need to document that "waters" in the context necessarily means "oceans"?

"NOT air,"

Hydrogen is not air.

"NOT gas,"

Do you consider that gaseous H2O is water?

"again you are twisting words and definitions to keep your conclusion alive."

Twisting is a word presuming YOU know the meaning and therefore know MY meaning is the wrong one. You have so far not shown that you know the meaning, you have only claimed it.

Again, it presumes an intention of twisting. In other words, that it would be some kind of dishonesty to use modern knowledge in modern terms and see what Moses could have used for them, rather than stick to your anthropological approach.

Again, you speak as if "the Flood happened" is "a conclusion", but it is not just a conclusion of inerrancy of the text but of at least two other factors, namely the text as history and not fiction (which doesn't need any inerrancy, which could be worded in ultra clear flat earth terms contradicting what we know of the earth, because the observers who wrote it down were flat-earth cosmologists and wrong, it would still be history) and also the traces of the Flood.

"Why not look at the evidence before you, then arrive at a conclusion."

The kind of conclusion you want me to make is that Flood story is false in physics and therefore in history. It doesn't work that way. The kind of evidence you present is an anthropological over confidence in knowing exactly what the terms of an ancient author meant, especially if it proves him wrong in physics. Doesn't work that way either. Homer was an anthropologist believing Greeks and Trojans had iron weapons. Medievals were anthropologists believing Greeks and Trojans wore plate armour of the type used at Crécy. Why would modern anthropologists be so much more inerrant about something lying even further back then the Trojan war?

"You have this entirely backwards, the confirmation bias and disshonesty is extreme, you're clearly delusional or very afraid of truth"

I have an ugly feeling someone hired a shrink to debate me.

David Dufresne spoke about how it was inadmissible to face off the Yellow Wests with police from the BAC, who normally face drug dealers and organised crime violence. They imagined they were facing something they weren't facing. Hence some Yellow Wests got their eyes gouged out by rubber balls. They weren't treated as protesters, they were treated as organised crime.

Hiring a shrink to debate me is about as much overkill and barbarism.

"But god, yahweh, how tall is he? A giant?"

God in His godhead has no size. He is not in space and time, that doesn't mean He's excluded from them either, it means space and time are in Him.

"The size of a normal man, or as you say a baby lol (the idea of the creator of the universe having nappies changed and backside wiped is amusing to me)"

This may be one of the reasons why God chose Incarnation.

"I'm interested in this god character, people in your story met him, but those descriptions are inconsistent with one another, can we dismiss the witness accounts as unreliable, or do you harmonise the descriptions somehow?"

God took appropriate different appearances according to what He was trying to convey.

[I meant intending to convey, "trying" would imply a risk of not succeeding.]

"Convincing you of mistakes in your methodology- lol, you have no methodology,"

Yes, I most certainly do, but if you are a shrink, that's about as much a waste of my breath as a Yellow West telling the BAC they are standing up for citizen rights.

"you take the conclusion, invent numbers which fit that conclusion and declare magic did it as justification for those numbers."

The problem is, ANY calibration of C-14 takes the "conclusion" (namely how old it is) and makes the "numbers fit it" rather than apply the numbers from the C-14 test strictly as they stand. You are accusing basically all scientists involved in calibrating of doing the same thing, unless your one exonerating circomstance for them is that they strictly "leave magic out". In other words, share your

"Using your methodology you could literally argue the tree ring data for the previous century is incorrect"

It most certainly wouldn't. You are not even twisting my words. You are PUTTING words into my keyboard with no relation to what I actually wrote.

"as god slowed the earth so a year was in fact 2 years etc etc. You'll just insert magic into any hypothesis until it works, your pseudoscience is a joke."

Any scientist will insert anything into his hypothesis until it works. Or until he gives it up.

Now, I do not adress these words to you.

I adress them to the readers of our debate, but you, I am blocking. You already got the previous two instalments of our debate, you will find this one too.

I consider you a criminal, and I am turning stones for finding a way to get you stopped from harassing me.

J7b Second is now blocked.
Until next avatar ...

Friday, September 17, 2021

Spirograph Patterns

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

The Strange Orbit of Earth's Second Moon (plus The Planets) - Numberphile
14th Sept. 2021 | Numberphile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-g6mC1F0g

2:00 Exactly the thing that Copernicus considered too ugly and irregular for God to create, hence geocentrism went out with him ...

3:38 Explanation : God and the angel moving Cruithne thing the pattern is (don't tell Copernicus!) ... pretty and therefore the angel performs it.

6:09 If gravitational physics were proven to be the sole factor affecting orbits of heavenly bodies, geocentrism would be impossible. It isn't and so it isn't.

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue · Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

We are still on this video:

Can a Christian Believe in Evolution?
22nd Oct. 2018 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXM5Qk_XsXk

I: 4:30 In fact, all of Scripture needs the literal interpretation, while all or parts also need each of Allegoric, Moral and Anagogic. The famous quadriga Cassiani.
II: 4:43 "both written in the style of myth"

You misrepresent mythology by taking "myth" as a style or genre.

Some of it, like much of Hesiod's Theogony is only and all of it is presented as "prophecy" - Hesiod meets the nine Muses.

But tragedies about Oedipus or epics about Ulysses (both Iliad and Odyssey include him) are presented as "history". Actions done by and to men, and visible to men surviving them and hence told.

Now, Genesis 2 is fairly obviously autobiography of Adam, hence history.

Genesis 1 is, most of it, Moses' vision of creation, hence prophecy.

BOTH involve creation of male and female and their vocation to fertility, and therefore both are consistent with as second is saying, man was created in one primordial couple. We need to take this as a historic and also dogmatic or dogmatically relevant datum.

4:53 If neither is scientific, both are historic.

Genesis 1 is history reached by prophecy, namely Moses' prophecy.

Genesis 2 is history directly accessible to a human observer, namely Adam.

Scientific or not is a red herring. Historic is the important point to keep in mind.
III: 5:01 "allegorical in nature"

You are misrepresenting the historic Catholic reading of Genesis.

Sensus allegoricus is an extra on all of OT history, as prophetic about Our Lord, Our Lady, the Church, their enemies. The kind of thing Jesus exposed to Apostles during 40 days, after Resurrection, and which Bereans checked very carefully, if it fitted or showed a discrepancy.

The idea of Origen and St. Augustine of Hippo to not take the word "day" at face value was a minority position.
IV: 5:12 I note your quotemining leaves out whether the problem to St. Augustine is, as you state, a literal reading or sth else.
V: 5:56 "but saw no intrinsic conflict between the theory and Scripture"

I think you miss several important nuances. He didn't say there was no conflict, he also foresaw a debate (which people like you by misrepresenting Humani Generis have foreclosed) between both those seing a conflct and those not seeing it, both those defending the traditional position and those accepting evolution.
VI: 6:06 Ratzinger's position was not held by Pius XII in Humani Generis.

He refrained from holding a position either favourable or unfavourable to evolution, and allowed the exact debate which you are still stifling. And antipope Ratzinger ignoring.
VII: 6:48 Yes, indeed, God created. Past tense.

Challoner on Genesis 2:2 states:

[2] "He rested": That is, he ceased to make or create any new kinds of things. Though, as our Lord tells us, John 5. 17,"He still worketh", viz., by conserving and governing all things, and creating souls.

6:58 God is still upholding His work and He is still creating souls.

Even more, while God is inherently capable of creating, He is freely so, He is not inherently obliged to create.

He created us because He wanted to, not out of some kind of incontinence.

B U T suppose you had a point, God could if so be creating universe after universe, there could be a "wood between the worlds" and if you go up from the pool connected to our world, you can go down the one leading to Charn or to Narnia ... on the other hand, even that vision seems flawed, since the vision of Charn, with a sun hundreds of thousands of years old and therefore red, and a "Harmageddon" showdown between two evil and corrupt representatives of the Charn dynasty and the most evil of them destroying her own world, and the evil having lasted generations and generations with no counter-balancing good ... I can't see God having upheld that.
VIII: 7:17 While the genetic code may not have existed before, or may have done so, it is not created out of nothing, but out of that of the two parents.

But the problem is, you are reducing the credenda to "God creates" - as opposed to believing also thereabout "in perfect goodness, omniscient wisdom, and He followed a certain order involving angels and men, some of the angels falling and soon after that man fallen, and man was promised a redeemer from the first year or the first few years of the universe."
IX: 7:38 Karl Rahner - haven't read.

Teilhard de Chardin - famously said "before there was life, there was pre-life, before there was consciousness, there was pre-consciousness" and I forget whether it was C. S. Lewis or Rev. Bryan Houghton who replied in his books that one could parody it as "before there was light, there was pre-light" with the remark "which normal people call darkness".

Oh, by the way, Teilhard de Chardin also hailed the Piltdown man.

He was either incompetent as palaeontologist, or accomplice to this fraud.
X: 7:54 "truth cannot contradict truth"

And the Bible, unlike the conclusions of philosophers, is guaranteed to be God's truth, so the choice between two contradictory options is easy.

And I do not find myself the least wading in waters of uncertainty on that one.

8:05 And what exactly did St. Augustine mean by empiric evidence in this context?

He actually meant evidence that was actually empiric.

"the earth is flat"
- Eratosthenes showed it was bent
"the stars are glued to the disc of heaven"
- at least those called planets, as well as sun and moon (also called planets back then) seem to move with some freedom against the zodiac.

You do NOT have anything remotely equal to such empiric certainties in the evolutionary reconstruction of a millions or billions of years long past.

"denying what the whole scientific community accepts"

He very obviously used no such words, because "the entire scientific community" didn't exist then. It only became a community through universities founded by Roman Catholics who were both Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric.

Besides, you do not even now have an entire scientific community accepting millions and billions of years, or heliocentric acentric Newton cum Big Bang cosmology.

All the team on CMI are Young Earth Creationist, and a majority of them are scientists. One friend of Robert Sungenis in Croatia is both physicist and Geocentric - I think his name is Luka Popov.

But even if you had, a consensus of all of a community concerning themselves with empiric evidence is not the equivalent of actually having such empiric evidence.

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue

Franciscan (Or Something) Wrong on Creation Evolution Issue · Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

Can a Christian Believe in Evolution?
22nd Oct. 2018 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXM5Qk_XsXk

I: 0:21 Did you notice, Pius XII in Humani Generis actually foresaw a controversy - with conditions:

* both pro-evolution (believing Adam had "parents" that weren't parents because they were animals) and anti-evolution (traditional stance) needed to be represented by experts who were doubly so, in Bible and in science;
* both sides needed to be prepared to submit to the decision of the Church.

Note, Pacelli was a jurist before becoming a Pope, and this means, one might do well to read the "fine print" - he didn't say the decision of the Church needed to be a future one.

This means, supposing such a decision falls within the powers of papacy (it's obviously in this part not a dogmatic one, and the conditions on a debate are wildly different from earlier times, when free debating wasn't banned) I can claim to abide by that through the fact of abiding by Council of Trent.

Session IV involves Biblical inerrancy as per patristic reading (it seems this lacks a canon with condemnation of opposite view, so could be disciplinary), but Session V involves individuality of Adam (as obviously explicitly upheld in Humani Generis too, that part worded as a dogmatic presupposition on both sides before the debate).

I would argue, accepting the full, up to date evolutionary scenario in its uniformitarian chronology (with things not available to Pius XII decades ago) would involve ultimately denying the individuality of Adam.
II: 1:45 change in the gene pool over time is obviously accepted by both sides.

If I accept my blue eyes and Neil de Grasse Tyson's brown eyes are determined by some group of genes, and if I accept we both descend from both Adam and from Noah, this means, changes in the gene pool over time have happened.

As obviously, this is not all that some scientists mean when they say "evolution is a scientific fact" ... but I'll hope you come back to this, otherwise I will comment here under this one.
III: 2:57 "over the course of millions and millions of years" ...

Pius XII could imagine this extension of Biblical time concerned only creation dayes prior to Adam.

The methods telling these existed are less good than C-14 which is actually used for useful things (if you think it is useful to detect a Rembrandt is really from 19th C. and therefore not by Rembrandt, for instance, or determine whether a house found with no clothed inhabitants or paintings was from Viking or Vendel period).

Now, in a Young Earth Creationist scenario, I can motivate C-14 being at 1.45 pmC at the Flood, but if the world had been standing for millions of years in 2957 BC, I would need to take the atmospheric level as c. 100 pmC and therefore the carbon date for 2957 BC as c. 3000 BC, and the carbon date 40 000 BP as being from 40 000 BP.

This will have some implications for human history.
IV: 3:05 "New features evolving" is one of the things about evolution never observed - only deduced by accepting millions of years and very extensive relations beyond the family level of taxonomy.

You know, like accepting cats and dogs had a common ancestor or things.

3:35 For the YEC scenario, the very radical founder effects after the Flood would leave no need for "hundreds and hundreds of generations".

I consider all 16 hedgehog species, perhaps also all 9 gymnure or moon rat species came from one couple of hedgehogs on the Ark.

I don't know how long a hedgehog generation is, but perhaps 3 or four years, meaning the 5000 years since the Flood would leave 1250 generations for divergence, in their case, but some beings have longer generations.
V: 4:00 Ah, you are taking the innovative idea mentioned in Humani Generis for granted.

No, if we and monkeys shared a common ancestor, that common ancestor would either have been a man or some kind of monkey, and we would either have had men degenerate into monkeys or monkeys of some kind evolving into men.

But humanity is not a gradual difference from irrational beasts, it is a multiple but still sharp and clear cut one.

To make Adam with a human soul from parents lacking such would be as great a proof of God's omnipotence as what we read in Genesis 1, but not at all as great a proof of His infinite goodness.

Adam would either have shared much of non-human "parents'" life which would have warped his humanity, or he would have needed to become orphaned before God made him a man - meaning God did not make him as man as soon as He made him a living creature. Unlike what Genesis says.

And having grown up with no humanity and miraculously acquiring it would involve a humanity somewhat warped by memories from earlier on ... or amnesia.

In other words, the scenario you propose would make God an abusive Creator instead of a good one.

Moreover, Adam would have needed a human anatomy (Broca's area, human version of hyoid bone, human version of ears, human proportions between vertical and horizontal dimensions of the breath coming out of the mouth) while these would have been useless to a non-human being. Does this leave Adam as transformed as "Beast" in "The Beauty and the Beast" or his "parents" handicapped beasts or himself a handicapped man?

Some left of the video .... see: Wrong-Believing Franciscan, Second Part of His Video

"Was anyone 1,000 years ago as smart as someone with average intelligence today?"

Q

Was anyone 1,000 years ago as smart as someone with average intelligence today?
https://www.quora.com/Was-anyone-1-000-years-ago-as-smart-as-someone-with-average-intelligence-today/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Hans-Georg Lundahl - since I have two profiles and saw the question from my other one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered just now

There are very obvious reasons to answer yes.

Pope Sylvester II - Wikipedia (technically outside the scope, since he died 1018 years ago)
Gerhard of the Moselle, Count of Metz - Wikipedia
Mhic Mac Comhaltan Ua Cleirigh - Wikipedia
Hugh Magnus - Wikipedia
Eustathius of Constantinople - Wikipedia
Burchard of Worms - Wikipedia

I think anyone of above would have done things needing more than our average intelligence.

Then 1021 events:

November – Emperor Henry II conducts his fourth Italian military campaign. He crosses the Brenner Pass with a 60,000-strong army, and reaches Verona, where he receives Lombard levies. Henry proceeds to Mantua and then into Ravenna, to spend Christmas there.
The Taifa of Valencia, a Moorish kingdom in Al-Andalus (modern Spain), becomes independent from the Caliphate of Córdoba (approximate date).

You need more than our average intelligence to lead an army. And you need more than our average intelligence to make a region independent.

Then there is the reason why someone either posted the question, or, if he wanted answers like I gave, why someone provoked him to pose the question - by answering it in the negative.

No, our generation is not the most talented in history. Get over it.

A somewhat less idiotic version would be “great minds back then, people who could have been Nobel prize nominees if they had lived now, even so knew less than an average high school student right now”. The point is of course, all changes in collective knowledge assessment are supposed to be gains in knowledge, nothing is simply forgotten, and at least no very important thing is forgotten, and every thing that is added is a genuine discovery, the mistake was all on the side of those who lived before. I don’t believe that. It doesn’t seem to make sense considering how many fewer are taking Latin and Greek, how neglected Metaphysics is, and the fact that people were then were equally talented. It also doesn’t make sense if we consider that many of things which we now (in my view in many cases rightly so) realise were mistakes weren’t always believed but once upon a time came to be believed as “discoveries.”

FFAF - Trent Horn takes on Narcissists with a Psychologist

FFAF - Trent Horn takes on Narcissists with a Psychologist · Richard Greene Continued

FFAF: How to spot (and handle) a narcissist
10th Sept. 2021 | The Counsel of Trent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6RUIwcUB5A

I: " the vice of narcissism."

Excuse me, but is there a Bible passage uniformly so read by Church Fathers that makes "narcissism" a vice or even a thing?

"people who score really high on a scale"

Doesn't seem to be the Christian view of vices. There are limits, not cumulative high scores.

"it's a personality disorder"

Doesn't seem to be the Christian view of vices either.
Pat Aherne: Of course you are right. Look along the demoniac story in the bible to get the source of narcissism. But there is a cross over with modern psychology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Pat Aherne I think one would do a very good job to distinguish between what exorcists would want to call demonic and what psychologists are likely to call narcissistic.

I therefore think, the cross over means there is a conflict of how you judge people and that priests who are taught modern psychology by that fact are taught a heretical way of judging people.
II: "won't take responsibility for lack of empathy which ..."

Case a and case b ... are you saying Jesus scourging merchants in the temple and Job telling his friends he actually didn't deserve his misfortunes are the overt and the covert narcissist?
Clint Resler: I would say if you took that statement by itself, you could come to that conclusion, but at the beginning of the video the overarching context you have to take that in is that what drives the narcissist is an inordinate love of self. We know exactly why Christ did what he did, out of zeal for his Father's house. So, I would say no, Christ was not an overt narcissist. I would even argue that Christ knew well that this wouldn't go well for him, but did it anyway as an example of driving out that which doesn't belong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Clint Resler But "inordinate love of self" is a secret motivation, just as ordinate love of self after God is.

The video was about spotting the Narcissist, not about being a Father confessor to someone confessing to that. Or about being God who scrutinises heart and kidneys.
Kaimuri Magu: @Hans-Georg Lundahl we, Christ being the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnate God, I don't see how He can be accused of inordinate self-love, being Love Itself
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Kaimuri Magu I would say, the Pharisees did not know that and at least did not start out knowing that.

The problem is, with the rules given here for spotting a narcissist, and considering Christ STARTED His carreer by driving out merchants from the temple, how would they not consider Him a narcissist?

My point is not against Christ, my point is not to adopt the rules by which the Pharisees rejected Him.

We do know from His promises, Christ Himself is not the only one they go after, so, we can count on them doing similar things to Christians.

Hence my concern that a very recent obsession with "narcissism" - spotting it, dealing with others having it and so on - could be one stage in a persecution against Christians.

So, once again, little rabbi from Babel on visit to Jerusalem has just paid what he needs to get a sacrificial animal, and in comes Jesus with a whip, and he can't make his sacrifice. How is this little rabbi to know - on your rules for narcissism - that Jesus was NOT a narcissist?
Richard Greene: @Hans-Georg Lundahl I have read your posts, and I am trying to understand you. I believe that you misunderstand what narcissism is. I don't think you realize that it is a disorder. It's not about someone presuming a big ego (we are all guilty of that to some extent). Narcissists have an organic lack. They lack empathy, and they have no remorse. They can never fulfill this lack. So, if you are thinking about the word "narcissistic" as we use it in casual context to describe someone with a big ego, you are wrong. It is a psychological diagnosis.

I can't make sense of your temple analogy, either. In the time of Christ, no one knew what narcissism was. Just like the bible says, they thought Jesus was a blasphemer. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter whether they came to believe Jesus or not by the time he turned over the tables in the temple. Just like thousands of Jews later, their chance to believe came when Jesus rose from the dead. And that certainly is not a sign of a blasphemer...nor even a narcissist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Richard Greene My point is, the psychological diagnosis pretends to read hearts and kidneys.

Men can't do that.

Hence, what you call narcissism cannot be diagnosed. When people nevertheless do so, they risk calling people narcissists just bc they have a big ego and on occasion refuse to let empathy stop what they are doing.

Sorry I read only first paragraph, but people telling me I misunderstand when they show they didn't understand my point exasperate me.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
added:: @Richard Greene "In the time of Christ, no one knew what narcissism was."

Not even the apostles?

Bc, St. Thomas says that the first bishops of the Church, the apostles, were given ALL knowledge necessary for the care of souls.

This means, discoveries in "psychology" or "psychiatry" made since their days are highly suspect of simply being heresies in moral theology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
added:: "It doesn't matter whether they came to believe Jesus or not by the time he turned over the tables in the temple."

He did so twice, beginning and end of His public ministry, and both times He was explicit about having a theological rationale.

"Just like thousands of Jews later, their chance to believe came when Jesus rose from the dead. And that certainly is not a sign of a blasphemer...nor even a narcissist."

Most people don't rise from the dead in this time, only after Christ returns. Most people also don't have 100's of disciples to defend them against being mistreated as either blasphemer or narcissist. Therefore it does matter for most people whether the shrink concerned with them would have been one who'd have perhaps called Our Lord a blasphemer on such an occasion - btw, in Matthew 21, they didn't. In Mark 11, they didn't. In Luke 19 they didn't, that being the second time. In John 2, first time, He prophesied about His resurrection, but the ones hearing Him did not call it blasphemy then and there.

Continued with Richard Greene here: Richard Greene Continued
III: "psychology is missing a part of the human person"

... or is it a heresy about the human person?

Suppose narcissism is a real thing about real humans, where do you find it in the Bible? Where do you find it in either Prima Secundae or Secundae Secundae of the Summe Theologiae?
IV: 19:17 Here Trent is speaking of the vices of pride and jealousy.

The extreme pride of Satan.

Obviously, one in five being a narcissist as a personality disorder doesn't match one in five being proud as Satan, at all.

There are however some sects that deny the difference between venial and mortal sins, and within each also the difference of degrees between sins.

To these, a mild vanity, and they are willing to pretend non-vanities vain, would be "before God's standard of holiness" the equivalent of the pride of Satan.

Could the diagnosis "narcissism" come from such sects? I think so.

Would they react differently to shepherd little David offering to combat Goliath, or to Child Jesus getting praise from all of their elders at age 12 in the temple?
V: some guys seem to have spotted the same problem:
Jake Kelly: How can a narcissist be a good Catholic?
Patrick William: That is an interesting question! I don't think they could ever be "good" in the sense of being truly humble, truly charitable etc, but they might outwardly appear to be a "good" person. For example, it seems narcissism would be incompatible with a love of God - i.e. submitting yourself to God - but some narcissists see in God something they admire and think that they can have some of what God has; They idealise Him and try to introject "God-ness" into themselves so that others will admire them. Really they are only using God to elevate themselves rather than truly serving Him, but unless you were digging down, superficially it could look like they were "good".
AlexADalton: @Patrick William sure bud. They're just evil people with no hope of redeeming. Sounds legit. Narcissists can't be saved! It should be in the creeds to save us time! Now that this podcast has taught us how to spot em, why bother even sharing the gospel with them?

Saturday, September 11, 2021

Catholic Truth Channel Takes on Ray Comfort about Reformation

A Catholic DEBUNKS Ray Comfort and Living Waters (Their False Catholic History)
1 sept. 2021 | Catholic Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwX2yQN42K8

I: before watching, dialogue
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah ... their false Catholic history ... when will you do one about yours, when you still pretend, some of you, a Fundamentalist reading of the Bible is Protestant, while both Trent (a real council) and "Vatican II" (a fake one but with remaining nuggets of Catholicity) in Session V on original sin and in paragraph 3 of Dei Verbum argue the history from Adam to Abraham is real?
Catholic Truth: If you don't accept Vatican II you are not even a Catholic, but a schismatic. We will pray for you, and that's not what this video is about. We will have videos on this topic soon though. If you would like to make an actual comment on the video and what we discussed, feel free, and your comment will stay. God bless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Catholic Truth If you accept either Trent or Vatican II or both, you are either a Young Earth Creationist or a Heretic according to the councils you accept.

I was thrown out from Catholic answers for defending that and Geocentrism.

That said, you tell me when a new video adresses that - as for the topic, I have done several answers on it myself.
II: 3:58 It can be noted, in 1517, 95 theses, he was more like Jansenist than properly speaking Protestant.
III: 4:45 Zwingli and Oecolampadius disagreed with Luther right away.

Bucer and his continuators Calvin and Cranmer after Bucer tried to mediate between Zwingli and Luther.

Calvin got denial of Real Presence from Zwingli and Predestination by going just a little bit stronger than Luther did in De Servo Arbitrio. He and Zwingli agreed on Presbyterian organisation, while Anglicans went with continuing to have - but with no true apostolic succession, soon - "bishops". Luther considered than an adiaphoron.

But yes, Protestants disagreeing with each other is fairly much Protestantism in a nutshell.
IV: 7:44 My bottom line - if you have a link to an online text of Tetzel's theses, I'd definitely like to share it.

Btw, the Comfort video stated the 95 theses started the split, not that they immediately consumed it.
V: 8:06 Luther didn't launch any Reformation in 1517, but he certainly did so with his new liturgy in Wittenberg which left out the canon prayer from what he still considered as Mass (except for words of institution) and when he reduced the sacraments to three. See what happens after his return to Wittenburg March 6 1522:

"Luther next set about reversing or modifying the new church practices. By working alongside the authorities to restore public order, he signalled his reinvention as a conservative force within the Reformation.[94] After banishing the Zwickau prophets, he faced a battle against both the established Church and the radical reformers who threatened the new order by fomenting social unrest and violence.[95]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Return_to_Wittenberg_and_Peasants'_War

If you scroll up to previous paragraphs, you'll find:

"In the summer of 1521, Luther widened his target from individual pieties like indulgences and pilgrimages to doctrines at the heart of Church practice. In On the Abrogation of the Private Mass, he condemned as idolatry the idea that the mass is a sacrifice, asserting instead that it is a gift, to be received with thanksgiving by the whole congregation.[84] His essay On Confession, Whether the Pope has the Power to Require It rejected compulsory confession and encouraged private confession and absolution, since "every Christian is a confessor."[85] In November, Luther wrote The Judgement of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows. He assured monks and nuns that they could break their vows without sin, because vows were an illegitimate and vain attempt to win salvation.[86]"

So, by 1521, Luther most certainly was launching a reformation, though not the same as that of Ray Comfort.

8:20 While I agree he made things worse, I don't agree with the implication they were bad before, and he did not content himself (or for that matter consider he was doing so) with dividing, he set out to eradicate practises he thought erroneous, and which we hold to be dogmatically obligatory.

It's a bad play on words to say he didn't launch what is known as the Reformation, just because he didn't actually reform things correctly. Unlike, for instance, St. Ignatius of Loyola.
VI: 9:03 "schism is one of the biggest condemnations in the Bible"

Yeah, second to heresy, like when Our Lord condemned Sadducees for not believing the Resurrection or an afterlife while waiting even, or when both St. Paul writing to Timothy and St. John state that the last days will see an upsurge of errors.

N O T
TO
M E N T I O N

how St. Peter prophecies errors against Creation and Flood.
VII: 12:54 Unfortunately, Jacobus Latomus was contradicted by Luther.

Jacobus Latomus insists that Abraham was justified for no previous works, in the instant he believed what God was telling him. But he also insists, this does not mean one can live as sinfully as one likes after being saved. Or that one need never do external works of penance. Luther contradicted this.
VIII: 19:59 Thank you for the editing, Kate!

Continuing with J7b Second