Kristina Kusmic on outing sexual harassers

Warning, the video contains material NOT suitable for children.

#OutThem
Kristina Kuzmic | 16.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn9KOVyWXRc

I added two comments, which are suitable for children old enough to understand what they mean (probably toddlers won't):

I

The jerk started flirting with you without even knowing you had children?

And were therefore presumably married?

Apart, obviously, from his bad taste in wording of "flirting" ...

II

Here is how I commented under someone sharing this video on FB:

_________________________

Not just women, not just sexual harrassing.

As a Catholic Christian, I have had some bad comments from Evolution believers and also some Protestants.

Well, the debates have been republished on my blogs - in case they used youtube, with the screenname, since youtube has "post a p u b l i c comment"

In case FB, depends on whether person was public or not.

That said, everything she said was correct.

_________________________

Key concept : "not just". Not "not", but "not just".

Shrinks, freemasons and other wannabe mentors are about as unwelcome as a guy touching my butt, or nearly.

Thank you very much for doing an excellent job!

Oh, by the way, someone losing an argument is also not quite welcome to full privacy over arguing badly.

I think I have a right to document I have already heard argument x or y or z and have already responded ...

Again, thank you for bringing this up.

... on 15 Topics about Heaven (43 QQ overall)

43 Questions About Heaven
The Atheist Voice | 25.VII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjSMrsfpp1c

I

1) 0:21 whether you died at 5 or 95, you will probably be anatomically the age of Jesus, the perfect age, 33 years old, once you resurrect.

2) it seems I already answered that one too.

3) Once God assures that the adult we see in heaven is the lost baby, no problem.

9) Disabilities don't exist in heaven. Someone with Downs who was baptised probably still has three chromosomes 21, but it is fixed so this is no longer working out biologically as a disability. Similarily for those of them who die without baptism and go to limbo.

I have heard of deaf who don't want cochlear implants, I have not heard of deaf who will absolutely refuse to get normal ears, if offered, and that is what heaven would offer them.

10) so God fixes their hearing and it will not be against their will.

II

4) Unborn children miss out on baptism and will probably (like babies of pagans) be in limbo. Not heaven, and also not Hell as classically thought of. More like "natural happiness" which seems to be the atheist dream, plus some lesser love for God than the one enjoyed by those in Heaven.

They are neither rewarded with supernatural bliss, nor punished for sth not their fault.

Btw, the decision is not always the mother's it can be the grandparents if the mother is a teen or the mother's shrinks, if she's locked up.

Those are two categories other than unwilling mothers to do infanticide these days.

III

5) Even in limbo, the "partially formed" as you put it babies are grown up to say 33.

Nothing is "littered" with the remains of any man at resurrection, it is only up to then that some mass graves are and some other things (like where certain hospitals put their murder victims.

IV

6) No, jealousy does not exist in Heaven.

No sins do.

The only way to do that is most certainly NOT to make everyone in Heaven equal.

Suppose Little St Theresa (the nun in Lisieux Carmel) is a smaller saint than Great St Theresa (the nun in Ávila), it is certain she will not be jealous of Great St Theresa having more of God's glory.

It is a Communist (or perhaps Capitalist) myth that only way to avoid jealousy against superiority is to make everyone equal.

Variety is the spice of life in Heaven too and uniformity is definitely not the norm in heaven.

Every saint is different, St Bridget of Kildare who said if she were a king, she would offer Christ a swimming pool full of beer and St Bridget of Vadstena who put five red spots on the nuns' headdresses to remind of the five wounds of Christ on Calvary are also very different.

V

7) In Heaven, we do not need to eat food, but we are offered to eat of the tree of life, same tree Adam and Eve did NOT eat of (but they could have before eating of the other tree, it was not forbidden).

I don't think carnivorousness is an option in Heaven any more than it was in Eden, no.

All the first 2242 years of mankind, up to Flood, men were supposed to be vegetarian.

Only Genesis 9:2 after the Flood was carnivorousness generally allowed.

But probably some people transgressed that before the Flood.

I am in disagreement with Robert Carter on whether Neanderthals were pre- or post-Flood, he thinks post-Babel, I think pre-Flood. Neanderthals of Spain, according to analyses of dental plaque, were mainly vegetarian. Those of Belgium were eating woolly rhinos and other men.

And dead animals don't get to heaven.

8) spiders and sarcopts are blissfully absent from heaven, like intestinal worms ....

VI

11) If the person who killed you got to Heaven, and you run into him, first thing he'll say to you is "sorry".

And as you cannot die up there, you will have nothing to worry about, unlike with a murderer released from prison to relatives of victim.

12) If a family member is not bad enough to get to Hell, you will probably be committing a sin if you "really" don't want to see them again.

But as there is infinite eternity to enjoy, perhaps you'll have some thousand years of getting over the traumatism before you run into them. Just kidding, in heaven traumatisms do not remain.

And yes, wilfully rejecting Christ excludes you from this perspective.

Btw, going to Hell to join a loved one is not a solution.

13) so, you'd be happy for not making same mistake.

And whatever you loved in the loved one, you'd find again in God, who is the source of everything which is loveable, while the person in Hell would not retain loveability.

39) No, but whoever is in heaven can watch their loved ones whenever they want or whenever God tells them something is up. And some who have many things to watch are probably experiencing a time much longer subjectively to them, than the timeframe on earth.

40) Some cases of adoption, birth parents were prevented from keeping you.

41) If you have watched your grandson get a son after you died, or a daughter, wouldn't you enjoy it?

Genealogy probably is a great thing (with answers easily accessible) up there.

VII

14) No, you don't have sex in heaven.

15) probably no incapacity as such, but also no desire to use the potential and therefore 16) no need of privacy.

C. S. Lewis once compared wondering about sex in heaven to a child hearing about sex and asking "do you eat chocolate in bed" or "do you make mudcakes on the beach in bed".

17) Answered in the answer that you'd be 33.

18) Islamic views of heaven are anyway not relevant to the topic. Islam is a paganism or a heresy, therefore a false religion and a false view of certain things.

19) answered in previous.

20) answered in previous.

Btw, the fact that people who were widowed and remarried may get to heaven or even some who divorced "remarried" and repented is a reason why there is no sex in heaven.

21) I think you nailed one difficulty in Islam ...

VIII

22 & 23) Giving the word to Christ:

"In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you."
[John 14:2]

IX

24 & 25) Don't know.

Probably sleep will not be needed, adoring God is sufficient rest, but if wanted would not be forbidden or denied.

Before resurrection, you also don't have a body that can sleep. Or it's sleeping all the time in the grave.

X

26 & 27) Not sure you'll want to drive a Tesla in heaven, if you want speed, jumping between stars might be more exciting.

XI

28) Understanding things we did not understand on earth is definitely a thing, and depends both on getting info from the omniscient and on actually being smart fulltime as opposed to stupid most of the time for the first time.

If you don't get tired, if you don't have to delay things because of making stupid decisions or bc someone else does, you definitely can understand things.

Plus, as said, God is available, omniscient and knowledge (some of which is simply the missing key piece of the jig saw puzzle) is available from Him as much as you want. As in heaven you cannot sin, your wanting any knowledge will not be sinful and therefore not refused.

As two people who were raptured and are getting back to earth had millennia to learn any languages they wanted, I absolutely cannot imagine Henoch and Elijah would provide their message (if they were here) with automatic google translate, especially as in heaven they would have learned google translate doesn't translate and so doesn't always work accurately as translation service. I saw one video with such a message and a button offering automated translation, if it were them, why didn't they just write it down in every separate language which has speakers able to read it? Learning a language (unless you are prevented from getting full sleep) doesn't take all that long time even on earth.

So, if Henoch had more than 5000 years and Elijah more than 2000 years, probably close to 6000 and definitely close to 3000 years in Heaven, they will not need to make a document in English only and offer just google translate for those better in Italian or Spanish or German or Swedish. Or Hindi or Maharasthri.

29) Playing piano and proving mathematical theorems (that are correct and correctly formulated) will definitely be on the infinite possibilities list, if seriously wanted.

36) if most interesting stuff involves different opinions, it is partly because most interesting stuff is mystery.

In heaven, God will be fully available, and also the big mystery.

Since I already said one has time to enjoy other tings than the prayer only, actually learning the truth about all mysteries that intrigued you on earth will probably be on the to do list.

When definite truth is available, agreement is too.

XII

30) weather will be to everyone's wishes.

31) individualised weather is one possibility, or uniform taste in weather another one.

XIII

32) yes, in heaven one is happy all the time.

Not necessarily "having fun" all the time, that is more like limbo, but definitely happy.

And getting tired of being happy is already not being happy, therefore, it is not sth which happens in heaven.

[About his example of eating pizza:]

I am obviously not saying we will be eating all the time!

On earth we need breaks from happiness, because our condition is not perfectly happy and happiness is therefore not as appropriate a response as sadness always.

Those who die with a "mixed bag" but still making it to heaven will first be sad in purgatory for their sins and for how little they did for God, and then after a little while (ending Doomsday at latest) eternally happy for God saving them after all.

33) in heaven you have no temple, Christ is your temple.

34) bliss in heaven certainly means worshipping God for all eternity, but not so as to be incapable of enjoying other things, when wanted, but unlike on earth, after Adam sinned, that enjoyment does not stop us from worshipping God more.

If Church is boring, it is because one is inattentive.

If Protestant Church is boring, it is because it isn't even legitimately Church.

Also, eating breakfast before going to Church is a bad deal, like studying also praying is not best done with a full stomach.

In the Catholic Church, if you receive Communion, it is even illegal to eat breakfast first (or was to the time of Pius XII) or to drink anything but water. That's part of why going to Church Sunday evening was not a big thing up to some decades ago, unless it was for another service, Vespers.

35) If you try to avoid Christians who can't stop talking right now, it may partly be your fault, for not at all relating to God, which if you get to heaven, you will be able to avoid, partly their fault for talking badly.

By the way, have you tried Catholics who prefer using the God centred attention to talking to God?

In heaven, they will often be too busy praying to be talkative all the time.

37) Some of the types of music people listen to here probably aren't there.

I abstain from giving what I think my examples are, since some of the music I enjoy might itself be on the no-list.

38) And while weather is perhaps individualised, music arguably is only available if shared.

XIV

42) Most of the things you enumerated to those who would call your concerns strawmen are things which as a Catholic I reject.

If you have bad memories, they will heal, but not by amnesia. They will heal because you will be eternally safe.

You may think of people with bad memories that don't heal even when they are safe.

But part of the reason is, on earth we are no where near eternally safe. There is always at least some theoretic possibility some jerk or his double will start fucking around with you again.

Jews who survived harrassment as youngsters in Auschwitz still don't feel quite safe. Do I think a Nazi resurgence is a likely threat to their wellbeing? No. Do I think some such threat (perhaps where they weren't counting on one) is at least theoretically possible? Yes.

In heaven there is no even theoretical possibility of ever getting harrassed again in a way you don't like.

So, I most definitely think "your mind will be a clean slate" is heresy, for one of the worse things you enumerated as bad answers.

XV

43) No, we can't.

You are reconstructing the genesis of an idea, and one problem is, there is a history which suggests the idea had quite another genesis.

Someone came down from Heaven and told us about it. His name was Jesus, born in Bethlehem, but Nazareth was His hometown.

If "he" hadn't known what "he" talked about, "he" wouldn't have performed the miracles for the sake of which we believe His testimony on many things, including Heaven.

Not saying all I stated previous questions is His testimony, some is my personal favourite where people have guessed different ways.

Actually, the courage for martyrdom is very much needed to make this life worthwhile.

Too many atheists with too little hope being too easily intimidated by the bullies that society has is one reason why ending XXth and beginning XXIst CC are less worthwhile than some other centuries I could think of.

And no, "the real party in the basement" won't be as fun as some guys hope.

Devils in eternal pain and misery will take the one joy they still can have, heaping pain and misery on the ones they seduced. NOT my idea of "real party".

... answering Apostate Prophet

Why I Don't Criticize Other Religions Besides Islam (Although I'm an Atheist)
Apostate Prophet | 9.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbQm4G_xAkw

I

I would say Western Atheism is a belief system, based on rejecting the Christian (that is ultimately Catholic) parts of Protestantism, while keeping the anti-Catholic part (anti-miraculous bias is Protestant, like a typical historic Calvinist will go "Lourdes has to be fake, miracles don't happen between Apostles and Last Days, a Western Atheist just adds "well, Christ healing the lame must have been fake too, then"). Then they add some fairly elementary anti-Protestant observations (like Protestants claim to be non-ritual, while their Sunday worship is just a different ritual, "less classy" if you like or less Classic than Catholicism, or why not less Medieval).

To this basis have since then, from the first, been added Heliocentrism, then Evolution, allowing Deep Time to replace steady state eternal universe.

I like bashing especially two religions, both one of which I left : Western Atheism and Protestantism.

And while I claim all religions other than Catholicism are false, where they contradict it, they don't contradict it equally or on equally important concerns and therefore I don't think I need to bash all equally.

And yes, I contradict Islam too, but my blog against Islamic attacks on Christianity is not even a 1/30 against my blogs about Western Atheism (with other deniers of Resurrection, like Judaism or for that matter in a sense Muslims too) or Protestantism.

edit: I did not leave Western Atheism as such, only some of its credenda like Evolution etc. But I did have it in family background.

II

2:10 "even if I don't believe in that, I can respect that"

Hear, hear ... that would be the logical position of someone simply an Atheist.

III

• We are unsure about the origins ... well, as a Christian, no. Genesis 1:1 to 14:24 traces origins of anything from creation to known historic Egypt and Mesopotamia and the rest of the book traces a family which will become a nation and in both states is the people of God.
  
  
• We are unsure about the shape? No, perhaps the size, I used to think up to fix stars there is one light day. In each direction, along and in extension of poles and equatorial plane and between. I came to consider that might by now already look different on images taken by X-ray reception and sent from Voyager 1 to us, so perhaps it's more.
  
  
• We have no idea where we are ...
  
  Centre.
  
  ... or what the rest looks like.
  
  Visible universe has limits and most registered bodies ("outside solar system" as they say) closer to us than contemporary science supposes. Above that God has a throne room in which He is worshipped and where one day we may worship Him.

IV

3:29 I disagree about Crusades.

As you know, Christianity is born in Jerusalem.

As you also know, the Apostles were told not to use violence.

However, they were also told to convert all nations. That implies not just commoners, but also governments.

Governments do occasionally use violence to keep out invaders, and even to defend allies or expatriates on foreign countries. And governments are not made up of Apostles or of Apostolic men like bishops or monks, or even if a man governing should have such a status, he must not carry arms personally and his commanding armed men is sth other than his apostolic life, he is having two functions at once.

If you know what Islam under Omar did to Palestine nation (up to then Christians of mixed mainly Jewish, Samarian and Galilaean, but also marginally neighbouring and general Roman origin) under Omar, you will agree Islam acted as an invader.

Now, the brutality of Omar was not very good, but right then there was nothing we could do. Later, it had calmed down. Then came the Seldjuks. They worsened brutality to pilgrims as well as to Palestinian and neighbouring Christians. They were also pushing against Byzantine allies of the West (just recently there had been a schism in the Church), so going to Palestine was kind of indirectly defending Constantinople too.

I don't think all that happened during Crusades was good on the part of participating Christians.

It is partly a good job bungled by bad men on both Byzantine and Norman side (there had been a quarrel between the two on Sicily when freeing Christians there from Muslims in 1033). And when I say bungled, it was sometimes very badly bungled, I do not endorse massacres on civilians.

A Muslim theoretically could be forced to become Christian under two circumstances : he had been a Christian or he was attacking Christianity. A Muslim civilian who had not been a Christian could not be punished for anything and so not forced.

3:31 "neither do the dark ages, as we call them, historically"

Do we so call them? What's dark about them?

I think sunlight shone with equal intensity and clothing was less likely to be dark than in Victorian England.

V

5:32 No, penalties for apostasy in Roman Empire are not unchristian.

You see, while the New Testament has no ruling, it is written so it can involve a survival guide for times when Christians have no political power on our side, the Davidic kingdom would have punished someone apostasising to ... Dagon, Baal, Ishtar. Egyptian ones. In Maccabaean times, a Jew who worshipped Zeus had better flee outside Holy Land.

The completely non-military Judaism (up to Zionism, recently) is actually a decision of Rabbis after Jews got beaten by Romans. There have been exceptions, like Khazars, like certain pseudo-Messianic rebellions (Sabbatai Zevi aactually never carried out much against Turks, but he intimidated Jews rejecting him, but then came Lenin some centuries later).

6:25 So, as Jews are also now a bit remilitarised, I am not quite comfortable with singling out Jews for praise for a pragmatic decision.

And our prophecy says, some of them at least will be doing things very badly to the end.

VI

5:54 Actually, the opposition between Jewish rabbis and Muhammed is a bit misleading.

Before Mohammed, Arabia had both Jews and Christians from Ethiopia, especially in what was then Yemen (bigger than the state so called today).

Ethiopian Jews had on occasion persecuted Christians (like the Falasha Queen Judith), and the Jewish tribe which was massacred by Mohammed had 100 years earlier massacred a Christian tribe.

Are you aware that much of the brutalities of Mohammed were initiated in an attempt to end sectarian violence between Christians and Jews?

For Arabia, it succeeded. Modern Muslims who reject sectarian violence will claim this as a "miracle" of Mohammed.

VII

6:10 The decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent refers to a gradual process of dwindling .... Buddhist sources also mention violence against Buddhists by Hindu brahmins and kings. Hazra mentions that the eighth and ninth centuries saw ... (quote from the next link)

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

Here is a discussion whether Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism itself ended Buddhism as a mass movement in India:

https://www.quora.com/Which-religion-was-the-main-destroyer-of-Buddhism-in-ancient-and-Medieval-India-Islam-or-Hinduism

Christians and Muslims Face More Persecution by Hindu Extremists in India, Groups Say
By Colleen Curry Mar 17, 2016
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/d39547/christian-and-muslims-are-facing-more-and-more-persecution-by-hindu-extremists-in-india

I would say, which religion is most violent on any given place varies, like in Birma, Muslims are on the receiving end of persecution by Buddhists.

VIII

6:43 Actually, there is no indication that Christianity initially condemned death penalties.

It condemned the unjust lynchings of Christians by Jews whom the Romans had forced to demilitarise.

It condemned how Roman powers abused the power to persecute Christianity or enforce idolatry.

But death penalty as such was not condemned.

One man sentenced to death said he deserved it, and he got the first canonisation of saints who died, when Christ said "today thou wilt be with me in Paradise". [quote from memory]

"early churches condemned the death penalty until the Romans messed up at some point"

Show me where in NT part of Bible death penalty is condemned?

Not unjust death penalty for Christianity, also not the lynchings conducted by Jews who had to hide to take up stones against one, but death penalty in general?

And show me where early Church Fathers say death penalty is a sin on the part of any government?

And what point are "Romans" (early Christians often lived in Roman Empire and often were Roman citizens, including those of Jewish or Samarian origin) supposed to have "messed it up"?

Constantine who ceased to persecute Christians?

IX

6:54 "reformed Christianity, by taking it out of the hands of such powers, and returning it to its fundaments"

Yeah, right, like Mohammed's claim to repeat what Moses and Jesus had previously said, or Muslims taking it out as "Jesus/Isa" came because Jews were all Apostates until he reminded them, or Mohammed came because Christians were Apostates if believing Holy Trinity ... or Divinity of Christ, or for that matter, they also said that these very fundamental Christian teachings are inventions of a teamwork between St Paul and Emperor Constantine.

While Catholics have suffered immensely under Muslims, this has also been the case under Protestants. And there have obviously been backlashes against both.

Sometimes governmental, like Crusades or like Spanish Armada trying to support the persecuted Catholics in England, sometimes "rebels" like the Irish Confederacy or like the klefti in Greece.

Picture says "Reformation brought more peace and spirituality."

From Reformation to c. 100 years later, schools in Sweden (my country) were in a decline, because the Catholic clergy esp. Friars who had been a mainstay of learning, had been done away with. Sometimes fasting during Lent was discouraged. Among militaries, being drunkards and lechers became the rule, and it was motivated by Luther's "simul iustus et peccator" (just[ified] and sinner at the same time) or "pecca fortiter, crede fortius" (sin bravely, believe even more bravely). Government (Gustav Eriksson Wasa, a k a Gustav I) took in most nobles into the scheme, because if someone's ancestors had donated to a monastery, he could take all donations over centuries back, except the churches the state deemed necessary.

Catholics (more particularly Carthusians) owned the one printing press in Sweden. Gustav Wasa took it from them and gave it to the Petri brothers, whose fanaticism learned in Wittenberg (but with a polite and learned façade, up to when Catholics started to win an argument) dominated all books coming out of it, except the Bible, their translation to Swedish (marginally mistranslated and miscommented in margins), and except the first book, a booklet about the Rosary by the Carthusians.

In Denmark (to which Scania belonged back then) a castle was built by stones taken from demolished churches, Malmöhus slott, it is now a museum, I enjoyed it, and in Ystad, the Franciscan monastery was emptied of Franciscans on the Danish king's orders, at first they tried to resist and one of the soldiers cut the head of the Prior in two halves, vertically, and the rest gave up.

In Sigtuna, where I went to school, there were about thirty churches, and the Reformation kept one, a big one, that of the Dominicans, but the Dominicans were chased away. That's where I was baptised by the way. The Lutherans there do or did memorise the event of the destruction of another church, where women of Sigtuna tried to make a stand around the old parish church, saying "one must obey God more than men". They failed, the old church there is a ruin.

In Calvin's Geneva, nuns were forced to leave the monastery and jeered at by the Calvinists and socially spammed by marriage proposals. Calvin claimed he was "returning to fundaments" like Genesis 1:28 (claiming the blessing of fertility is an individually obliging command, much like Muhammed did in relation to Christian monks) or like 1 Timothy 2:15, completely forgetting that St Paul had also made rules for the very first nuns, namely Church widows and Church virgins.

"where love and forgiveness were much more important than punishing people"

It so happens, in Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican territories, the acts for which you could receive eath penalty were on the increase after the Reformation.

In proportion to how Confession to a priest and voluntary penances and reparations were on a very obvious decrease.

A Protestant parish council could punish simple sinners (like cantankerous women) like the Inquisition punished repenting heretics, namely by shaming before the rest of the parish (and the shaming was more intense with the Protestant church council).

An example of increase in death penalties, under Charles IX (usurping the Swedish throne of his Catholic nephew, also king of still Catholic Poland) one introduced death penalty for cursing parents.

In England, when the fight to abolish death penalty got started, you could get hanged as a thirteen year old boy for stealing a spoon through burglary.

In all the Catholic countries of the time, you could not find one where simple stealing or private property (not hallowed objects, that's another question) was punished by death. Or earlier in the Middle Ages either.

But death penalty for a burglar stealing a spoon was not perhaps only the Reformation it also owed sth to Enlightenment.

X

7:47 "no other religion causes as many problems in the world as Islam"

Enlightenment repression through psychiatry is no problem?

Communism is no problem?

Darwinists sterilising those unfit for reproduction was not a problem in two states each of Canada and US up to as recently as seventies, as well as in Sweden and Norway?

I disagree on what is worst. Communism is worse than Islam.

The previous part of the list, you could have said "Islam and Communism" and you would have been definitely more right.

Oh, and on abortion, would you class Islam as the worst abortion liberals?

XI

8:24 "women are still treated as garbage"

Was that your motivation for insulting Defne on Twitter, that she is a woman?

8:32 "no other religion is so concerned in peoples' private lives or bedrooms"

An attack I have heard about Catholicism too.

And I recall that France has banned the burqah, which is also intrusive. Not the hijab, though.

XII

8:57 "no other religion will grow up hating another religion like Jews?"

How many Jews and Protestants grow up hating Catholicism?

Searching "worst" in Bible, like a google:

"And Juda was put to the worst before Israel, and they fled every man to their dwellings."
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 14:12]

Here "put to the worst" is an expression.

"And I will bring the worst of the nations, and they shall possess their houses: and I will make the pride of the mighty to cease, and they shall possess their sanctuary."
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 7:24]

Here we do have "the worst of the nations" describing a group of invaders arguably in Holy Land.

Not knowing when this prophecy was fulfilled or if it is not yet, I am not sure which nation is described as the worst one or if it means more like rabble from more than one nation. But yes, "worst" is used to describe some people.

XIII

After peroration, I am a bit reminded of Salman Rushdie.

He got a death threat. He got refuge in the West. As a professor in Oxford I think it was, he makes third rate non-Classic literature which is offensive to Christians an entrance test for university, because he came to dislike Fundies all over the place.

Hope you don't end up like he.

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Colour TV Talk Show part + dialogue

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part · Colour TV Talk Show part + dialogue

Starting video at limit:

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism
Entertainment Infinity | 16.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A&t=264s

I

5:12 "unlike religious people I look at all religions equally"

That's like me saying (not quite true either) "unlike scientific people, I look at all scientific theories equally". I wouldn't say that, since I actually don't, I prefer the ones that square with my religion, perhaps a bit like you disprefer the ones that most dissquare with your scientific theory.

Congrats to loving science, many people from a working class background a generation or two before yours do or did.

I found, Christianity could explain more than "science" as it is usually conceived of ("God did it" not being a scientific explanation, evolution, heliocentrism and big bang being "discoveries" and so on).

• 1) History
• 2) Man.

If historic sources go "a miracle happened" I don't have to go "were they hallucinating or lying?"

If computers can't think at all, and apes can't learn to speak (they can't learn the meaning of "not" even if they certainly have a "don't do it", nor of past tense, nor of future ...), that is cannot learn to think rationally, I don't have to pretend this is what man's mind ultimately is akin to, and developed from or along lines of.

II

5:55 OK, in other words, your parents were not totally convinced, intellectually, their Christianity had a direct pragmatic value overriding intellectual concerns, and perhaps that is the same with your atheism?

My grandmother was a lot like that, and she was atheist (or on and off such, sometimes quarrelling with God over not hearing a prayer prefaced with "God, if you exist" and sometimes dissing her daughter - my ma - for giving me a religious education and very outspokenly).

I think, part of her reason of being atheist was, like her dad, she was a social climber. With poverty, well, in a way I am too. But I am not willing to barter Christianity away to climb socially.

III

7:20 "you're saying you believe because the alternative is too terrible"

Well, that would be one extra reason. Annihilation is not very comfy as perspective. I believe there is eternal damnation, because I don't wish even my worst enemies total annihilation.

IV

7:30 "I can't help what I believe any more than you can"

It's a bit like what one could say of any other lifestyle choice.

Not true.

When I look for a future, and means to it, it is actually my choice not to look for employment, but for editors - in the sense of printers and commercial sellers of what I have written.

Those who don't agree with what I write would, if not necessarily remind me, all of them, definitely remind themselves of that.

Obviously, Calvinists don't agree, they think God has chosen for you.

At least Calvinists as popularly thought of.

Similarily, if you think you are "thinking basically as a computer thinks" - that being a complex arrangement in matter and the output not being thought in or to computer, but being thought (or thought content) to those reading the screen or subjected to its alarms and disturbances, as homeless people are, sometimes (like where light switches on if you move an arm), to us this is the content of someone's forethought ... - if you ignore that the "output" needs a non-computerlike you for it to be actually "thought" even subjectively to you, you will of course think the accidents which "programmed" you make free will impossible.

V

7:40 "there are two thousand seven hundred eighty odd gods"

How many of them would if transferred to Christianity look, not like an alternative view of God, but like an angel or a demon?

How many further would look very much like how Scots and Irish and Icelanders view fairies?

There is the God of the Bible (not too many alternative versions), there is the Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrism, there is Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva of Hinduism, there is the Platonic God, there is the Aristotelic God, there are the "retired creators" in Amerindian lore. Or in Lithuanian Paganism (where God is less important than Perkunas the Thunder-God, where Velnias is more Hades than Satan ...).

That's about it. Oh, there is of course the Muslim one as well ...

VI

8:32 If life is all there is, what do you do facing martyrdom?

I'm not saying all Christians do prefer martyrdom over apostasy, over changing sides, if given the choice, but some of us do, and on our view, rationally so.

VII

9:12 Injustice makes your blood boil? Sounds like a hangover from Christian morality.

VIII

9:24 Oh, religious intolerance is of course nothing you could be guilty of ... how about irreligious intolerance, then?

IX

9:47 "the other is an organised body that uses that for power and corruption"

Extremely bleak view of organised religion, you definitely have some intolerance against that.

If not a religious, perhaps an irreligious one.

But you know, would your distinction be sth you applied to science?

I respect the thirst for knowledge, as long as it's an individual need, you know, but there is a scientific establishment which is an organised body using that certainly for power and money and perhaps (at least against Young Earth Creationists) for corrupt cornering of opposed intellectuals.

X

Dialogue under I:

T Jones

Hans-Georg Lundahl you made a faulty analogy. Ricky is saying that he believes religion is all false, that’s how he treats it. Your analogy acknowledges you don’t treat all science as false. So not comparable.

Now Ricky does (as most atheists do) cherry pick the specific examples of religion he mocks - which means certain extreme views like creationists. He also disparages Christians much more than Muslims. So in truth his statement is false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T Jones There actually is one religion he believes is true : Western Atheism.

[T Jones]

[Hans-Georg Lundahl man that was one long strawman logic fallacy by you - you didn’t address what I actually said and instead made this entire fairy tale of my position. That’s two posts by you and two logic fallacies.]

[Hans-Georg Lundahl]

[@T Jones I posted a continuation of my previous post before seeing yours.

It was part of an ongoing comment on the video.]

XI

Dialogue under II

T Jones

Hans-Georg Lundahl now a black and white fallacy by you. It’s not a socially climb OR keep religion as you suggest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T Jones I was replying to his concern about his parents having a pragmatic reason for Christianity.

But it is often true that people raised lower class do have pragmatic concerns, somewhat overriding intellectual ones.

... on "Hate Speech" vs Freedom of Speech

Twitter Declares War on Ex-Muslims (Jack Dorsey vs. Apostate Prophet)
Acts17Apologetics | 10.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgQ30cS3IJ4

I

1:00 "he would reply"

Did you check the image for Defne?

Doesn't look like "he" to me. Or is "he" the new gender neutral?

Now, I also checked the name:

http://www.babynamewizard.com/baby-name/girl/defne

Yes, Defne is Turkish for Daphne.

(Reservations, if it was only the subtitles that were garbled and you actually said "she").

II

2:47 Fact box:

4069 It was narrated from Anas that Ibn 'Abbâs said: "the Messenger of Allâh etc said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'" (Sahîh)

I have actually changed my religion twice mainly, and some minor ones apart from that:

• 1) from Evolutionist to Christian
• 2) from Protestant to Catholic

I have made these minor modifications between them:

• 1b) from Church hopper to Lutheran a few months before baptism
  
  
• 2b) from Novus Ordo Catholic to a preference for Le Barroux and Society of St Peter
• 2c) to a preference for SSPX
• 2d) to back to a conservative Novus Ordo
• 2e) to Palmarian Catholic
• 2f) to general sede
• 2g) to conditionally non-sede and even Novus Ordo, while I thought Ratzinger was a good idea
• 2h) to back to SSPX after St John of Malta parish gave an intro course on Kabbalah
• 2i) to Romanian Neo-Himerite, technically, with a preference for both Palaeo-Himerites and SSPX
• 2k) to SSPX again, but with Orthodox reservations
• 2l) dropping the reservations
• 2m) back to sede after being disgusted with Ratzinger for the second time (both times bc he endorsed psychiatry)
• 2n) to provisionally sede perhaps going to accept Bergoglio
• 2o) to accepting the other Argentian Antipope, Alexander IX
• 2p) to rejecting him over his endorsement of extreme Feeneyism (not just canonised Fr Leonard Feeney, but dogmatised his understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) and provisionally accepting Pope Michael, whom I knew since back in the Palmarian days
• 2q) to definitely (so far) accepting Pope Michael after "canonisations" in 2014 made me sure Ratzinger and Bergoglio were Antipopes.

In this context, I think, I do very well to avoid Muslim countries, and I also think, if Muslims are not out killing me, it is because they have agreed to stamp me as mad instead.

And a lot of people are complying who are not Muslims.

There are certain schools of psychiatry who think, if you are a convert, you are mentally challenged.

Are you one of these?

2:49 The Apostate Prophet resumes what was in above fact box as "Islam orders the killing of Apostates", and while that is true, the wording is such that it could be used of:

• Church Hoppers
• Converts to Catholicism
• Converts within Catholicism away from the Novus Ordo (away from the pseudo-saint Koran kisser).

I think I have a legitimate concern about Muslims, and telling me "they are understanding" is not very reassuring, since that could tend to mean, they take me as a madman to whom none of above applies, bc I totally or mainly lack responsibility for my actions.

So, how many others are going to join the ones who for this specific reason (very unwelcome to me) do not want to kill me?

III

6:52 I am reminded I was (if I recall correctly) banned from a forum in Sweden, Haket. Mainly for poetry and short story writing, but also debate.

I had told a girl, note gender, that if sodomy, lesbian acts, use of condoms and pills in "heterosexual" acts, abortions continue to be legal, when that generation gets old, there will not be sufficient Swedes around raised by them to take care of their financial needs by pension system (the pension system was reworked in 2003, I am not reassured about how it actually will work out, the change was cosmetic), or personal needs either at home or at caring homes. THEN Swedes of that generation will be dependent on immigrants, some of whom, very reasonably, are against sodomy, lesbian acts, use of condoms and pills in "heterosexual" acts, abortions in their mores more than Swedes are and who will therefore, understandably, if not sth I desire, be despising the old people they take care of.

Being in a caring home run by people despising you is not sth I would wish my enemies.

She called this Nazi hate speech. Immigrophobia (invandrarfientlighet).

From the other Forum, where I know I was banned, it was Sockerdricka, I was banned as "pedophile," for arguing to lower marital age back from 18 to 14/12.

All of this happened before I left Sweden back in 2004. I think there are some guys who have supported basically banning me, if not from forums (though I recently did get banned from Quora under one account), at least from being listened to and taken seriously.

And there are people among these guys who have stamped me as Muslim or as idealising Muslims, because I have said "they are right" on a few topics where I think they are right. There is no religion which is false on all topics, though some are false on more topics than others. I don't believe in singling out one religion as the false one as if all others were true, I believe there is one religion which is the correct one, founded by Jesus Christ.

IV

7:49 "It seems to me that people who have survived some sort of threat or abuse, or people who are under ongoing threat from a particular ideology, should have every right, on every platform that has any respect for human rights, to criticise the source of the abuse or threats"

I don't believe in "human rights" as defined by the UNO charter, or European Convention.

For one thing, European Convention says, homeless people can be locked up (one of the exceptions from right to liberty), and it also says police may shoot those legally (under national laws abiding by the convention, obviously) deprived of freedoms who are trying to run away.

It's a bit like what happened to [Amy] Winehouse, a bit before she overdosed on alcohol, since her tolerance had been lowered during desintoxication treatment. She ran away, and an armed guard pointed a gun at her to force her back. "For her own good" he would no doubt have said.

I think I have, on your principles, every right, including on your platform, to criticise Swedish feminism and psychiatry. I have not been giving threats to right or left, I have been under a rather outdrawn often implied threat to have my freedoms cut by psychiatrists who do not share my enthusiasm for Catholicism, and whose enthusiasm for feminism and psychiatry I do not share myself, and who just happen to coincide with some Muslims who would consider my conversions would normally be reason to kill me (which they can't very well do here) and who are taking my presumed mental problems as an excuse for letting me live and even being materially friendly to me.

I do however believe in the human rights that can be derived from the Ten Commandments, from the duties we have to God and to each other in these. And while I do not regret the Inquisition, I have stated it would be a mistake to bring it back, as far as death penalties for heresy and apostasy are concerned.

samedi 27 juillet 2013 = Saturday July 27th, YooL 2013:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : I do not agree with religious liberty in all cases for all religions
https://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/07/i-do-not-agree-with-religious-liberty.html

"often implied threat to have my freedoms cut by psychiatrists"

Not necessarily existing ones, not necessaily not so, but also definitely not just my imagination running wild, there is such a thing as giving broad hints.

V

8:02 Islam growing due to birthrates and Islam becoming violent ... well, why not fight for bringing Western birthrates up to competitive?

Both for that reason, and for saving old age pensions as long as they can be (I think the system as such is doomed).

By the way, in France I would not say "radical" in the context that Islam conveys certain threats in some adherents for terrorism, you see, in France, a Muslim saying a gay couple deserves death (which is true) even if he is not posing a threat, or who says he doesn't believe in Evolution (also fairly true) is seen as "radical".

Think of what a word means, and what it may mean to someone else, before you use it. If you catch me not doing so myself, be free to call me out on it. Oh, and "to someone else" doesn't necessarily mean to an easily triggered girl who was told killing spiders was a sin. But perhaps that is not the kind of people we should be taking on anyway .... not sure. She was there, and some were getting a kind of impression Islam is no threat at all.

Also, in France, your tirade is very easily answered by pointing to a long row of Muslims who are definitely not socially perceived as radical.

I can say for me, I have had kindness as to food and non-alcholic drink from both and perhaps a bit more friendliness as to freedom of my speech from "radical" ones. And you might perhaps prefer a radical who supports a Christian creationist over a radical who goes terrorist?

VI

8:51 "if your platform allows people to promote an ideology that calls for violent deaths of apostates and critics, but doesn't allow the targets of the violence to speak out in their own defense, some of the blood of the victims is on your hands."

Does "your platform" mean the platform you own and moderate?

Or does "your platform" mean the platform you use? Was some of the blood of Terrorist victims on Apostate Prophet's hands, as long a he had a twitter?

I think, for platforms we use, we have a right to be somewhat opportunistic.

VII

dialogue:

Maximillian Keyes

I only have two words: Asia Bibi.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, she was recently NOT re-charged.

I specifically thanked Pakistan for that.

im GOG

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I thank GOD that she is NOT killed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@im GOG Good idea, but hardly a bad idea to be polite to those sparing her either.

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism, Black and White Stand-up part · Colour TV Talk Show part + dialogue

Ricky Gervais | Religion VS Atheism
Entertainment Infinity | 16.I.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnjDCZUV6A

Error on my part, you can read it in advance, St Lucy was not martyred at Catania, but at Syracuse. St. Agatha was martyred at Catania, by very enlightened Pagan Romans, one can presume?

I

1:39 three observations:

• earth being flat is not myth, it is false science
• earth being flat is not a stopgap, it is essentially part of Osiris myth (could have been a pre-Flood memory)
• earth being flat was not universally believed up to discovery earth is round.

It was believed by Osiris worshippers, since in their view, the Sun went to the land of the dead under the earth, when it was night.

However, it is easy for that myth to accomodate Round Earth, as long as not too much of it is discovered, just place the land of the dead west of the land of the living, that way the sungod also gets to sea the dead after seeing us.

The default option is actually not having a definite view of the overall shape of the earth. Definite flat earth views come about bc of descriptions that are accurate, leave out roundness as hard to detect, and then are overinterpreted, when you press the descriptions.

But pressing them is about as optional, pre-Eratosthenes and pre-Magellan, as beliving Osiris.

II

2:04 "We know it is fun to tell children"

Santa Claus, fairies, etc.

Since when do "we" know that?

A late nineteenth and early twentieth century acquired a lot of knowledge of paraphernalia of religions it (usually, in England) didn't believe, like St. Nicolas of the Catholics, fairies of the Irish and the Scots and so on. And the Protestant-to-Atheist Englishman, as well as American (though around 1900 the type was rarer in US) found these things fun, and found it fun to tell his children about the fun, and some of them found it fun to tell the children about it and wait to when the children figured out it was (on daddy's or mum's terms) just makebelieve.

And as this figuring out often came early, and as children's brains are like sponges, to some children this experience was a life lesson about scepticism, which they never got over.

This doesn't make it universal knowledge. Norwegian children don't hear all that much of the tooth fairy, I think (if I'm wrong, sorry søte bror!) and Swedish children also don't. And Lucia ... well, both Lucy's and starboys are too much rooted in Christian tradition to remain a cute fun falsehood to every Swedish child. After all, some Christians like Catholics and Orthodox do believe Lucy of Catania was killed for her Christian faith, and all Christians believe St Stephen was killed for it.

III

2:27 Yes, and famously, atheists are often enough born with the right atheist parents to tell them that Hindus are born in India and Muslims in Pakistan and Christians in America ... there are also exceptions.

There are ex-Fundie atheists. And here is an ex-Evolutionist, ex-Heliocentric, ex-Big-Bangist Catholic.

Either way, from a psychological rather then moral standpoint, these would be labelled "converts".

And either way, whether they come from the right or the wrong community, they risk being treated as apostates by it.

... or, by now, as victims of sectarian indoctrination!

IV

2:39 When you say "medieval beliefs" do you refer to beliefs believed in or about the Middle Ages?

And, by the way, so far you haven't defined what they believed in the middle ages, or why it would be wrong (or even just strange) to hold on to it.

Example, in the Middle Ages, certain rules of courtship prevailed and also in the Middle Ages, Chaucer tells how Troilus and Cressida became a couple. Now, that couple did not quite follow the Medieval rules of courtship, so Chaucer added:

"for to win love in sondry ages, there sondry been usages"

Do you think it is strange some hold on to a typically Medieval Belief (as in things believed in the Middle ages) like Cultural relativism?

Perhaps it would be more adequate to sane reason to stick only to one culture, the one taught by the parents, and interpret everyone else's culture according to it, and if someone was so unluckily Medieval as to learn cultural relativism from his parents, let him be an outcast! I don't think so.

V

2:45 Yeah, right.

When was the last time you challenged your belief that:

• there is no God?
• there is no serious reason for anyone to think there is a God?
• there is no Santa Claus (I mean outside the version that is made up for fun)?
• there is no reason to believe in any Saint Nicolas?
• socially embarassing (in your particular culture) has the last word?

VI

2:48 "that's what science does, it doesn't constantly try and prove itself right"

• And when did you last challenge your belief that scientists always live up to that?
• Or your belief that those who don't are found out by competing scientists?
• Or your belief there is never collusion among scientists not to be found out on some point (if for instance a creationist comes up with a good argument)? Do you also believe that free market left to itself never develops any kind of trusts?
• Or that a creationist who really has an argument for God could win the Nobel prize if he proves it, as if Nobel committee in Sweden were not hardline atheists and evolution believers? I mean, knowing Sweden, as I do, you should!

2:58 "it tries to prove itself wrong"

Name three studies where evolution believing scientists tried to prove Creationism was right or even possible, and then they stayed evolution believing scientists because they failed ....

3:24 "it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time"

It has been made, Eratosthenes-wise by Aristotle, Magellan-wise by Adam, Noah, Moses and a few others since then.

But is your scientific expertise going to tell you openly about Aristotelic philosophy, or Thomistic philosophy, or Biblical history?

I think you show abstinence symptoms after being told the tooth fairy was just for fun, you are being childishly naive!

3:33 text in clip image

"the bible is not evidence, it is not a history book"

Are history books evidence of history?

To my best knowledge, historian analyticists and so on write history books, summaries about historic events with their filter on them, from historic sources.

Now, unlike the item "history book", it's a bit less easy to dismiss the Bible being a historic source, like, for instance, Anglo-Saxon chronicle.

3:39 Present history books are written by people sharing your bias about the supernatural. But apart from that bias, precisely history - historic sources, not modern history books - are very good evidence for the miraculous.

Tacitus and Anglo-Saxon chronicle also deal in it, not just the Bible.

And before you dismiss scientific side of evidence, take a look at medical doctors' commission in Lourdes.

VII

4:24 I am not the least agnostic about Santa Claus.

I am very sure he slapped the heretic Arius at Council of Nicaea, I am very sure he had been in prison for confessing Christ previous to Ponte Milvio, and also very sure (this is where the meme comes from) he once threw in bags of money to a poor household just in time to save the daughters from prostitution.

I am also sure the correct pronunciation is Saint Nicolas.

Just Promoting

A Saint in Hiding
St. Genesius Films | 4.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLK6mUjcKpY