... on Abortion Debate

... on Abortion Debate · ... Gun Rights vs Abortion · ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

Pro-Abortion Students Get Cozy With Satan
TFP Student Action | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv6q5iYq8h0

Features a petition:

DEFUND Planned Parenthood Forever
May 05, 2017
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/petitions/defund-planned-parenthood-forever

Which I signed:



And I also commented under video:

I

2:12 "we have a thing called separation of Church and State"

Not from the founding fathers, at least.

One of them privately stated that as a motive, but separation of Church and State, literally so stated, or in synonymous terms, never became official policy of a state or federality anywhere before 1905 with Clémenceau, who on that line confiscated French churches from the Catholic Church and started looting sacred vessels. When Catholics stepped in to prevent this, they were shot by police.

He was of course your ally during World War I. Briefly, since you were not all that much involved in it.

Now, a series of Supreme Court laws actually do give you this "separation of Church and State" as pseudo-exegesis of one Amendment (II, I think*). That amendment doesn't adress separation or union of Church and State at any other level than that of Congress : Congress shall make no law concerning establishment of a religion, by which in context was meant one Christian confession.

Now, one of the court cases had sth called a "lemon test".

The Catholic view of sex and fertility actually would pass it.

• 1) Sexuality is meant for procreation, and limiting it to it (i e banning anti-procreative practises, eiaculatio extra vasum, pills, abortion) is useful so society continues to have a healthy balance of old and young.
• 2) We are people, not beasts. If two of us procreate, we need to speak about it first, and education of children on some level affects all of society, so, this requires making some kind of promise before all of society. That promise is called marriage. In marriage, man is the head, because there needs to be a "casting vote". Two people cannot have a majority vote about what to do. This means, by marriage, a woman is electing the head of her family, like a town's citizens elect their mayor or like US elector colleges elect a president. Obviously, her children normally can't make the election, since they normally aren't there.
• 3) Marriage makes a couple which is the nucleus of a family. Within the limits of letting sex be procreative and keeping the promise (not separating, but staying together while children are raised - in Catholic / sacramental marriage even for life -, not committing adultery, not raising children to apostasy or revolution) the family should be autonomous. Saves lots of tax money, reduces lots of unhealthy meddling élites, from CPS to shrinks on one hand or compulsory schools on the other, allows nature and nurture to go together for best results spontaneously possible from the marital promise.

None of this limits the morality to "one religion".

It is nothing like imposing a ban on strong drink or a surveillance of those using it to see if some risk becoming alcoholics, which is definitely a special pleading from Protestant sects like Mormons or 7DA or Methodists. Prohibition meant more drunkenness, not less. The surveillance system means less equality, not more sobriety.

In France, Muslims are pushing this also, at least some of them.

Back from comparison with "alcohol politics" to procreative morality. Yes, man being fallen it stands to reason that some will in fact not act according to the three principles just given. It would be draconic to apply this as if any deviation in any direction immediately merited the worst penalties.

But the worst of the deviations is trying to "repair" a deviation by murder of a child procreated in non-ideal circumstances. Therefore, abortion should be getting the worst penalty, both for participating medical personnel, and for mothers so chosing, or, with recent conditions in mind, I'd gladly add maternal grandparents or for that matter foster parents of a mother, who push her to abort.

NB, this last thing only has become an issue since it became senselessly difficult for teens to marry, work and raise children instead of continuing school, celibacy and non-parenthood. Therefore, marital minima ages should be lowered, some works at least (other than just pop singer) should be open to teens.

In all of this, while this is truly obedient to God per se, all is also truly comprehensible for non-believers with, on that issue, good will. None of it strictly depends on believing in God (except sacramental marriage being lifelong).

Going back to a little earlier:

0:46 "poor or unable to take care of that and decides not to get an abortion, obviously she's not even able to take care of it, it's gonna have a worse life, right?"

• 1) That is sectarian and does not pass the lemon test! Growing up with a poor, illiterate Catholic mother is not worse than growing up with a rich, college educated and unbelieving one, except on the sectarian views of such unbelievers (ranging from sects like Puritan Protestant to sects like "Western Atheism" which is a radically de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 2) The prediction involves a religious sense of curse (over the poor) and predestination to what is ill, which, while not Christian is sectarian Calvinist (in case said by an Atheist, remember, Western Atheism is a de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 3) Even granting someone has a life worse than someone else born under other circumstances (which as said cannot be known in advance), this does not make it worse than being killed by an abortionist.
• 4) She is part of the problem, since she is part of a society making it hard for poor, young, uneducated parents to stay effectively parents and effectively in charge of their children.
• 5) This is why I not only signed the petition, but also promote family liberties for homeschoolers, for poor, young, and uneducated parents and also combination of both.

* (footnote)

Glad I wasn't too sure, II Amendment was the gun thing. I was thinking (looked it up) I Amendment. As you may guess, I am no US citizen.

II

2:42 "and they actually take care of their people"

Meaning Satanism cannot survive without imitating some virtues of the Catholic Church.

How much is apostasy being pushed, while Catholics are not doing what they should?

I'm not sure it is all it means, it may also mean Satanists control their people in ways reminiscent of ... Spurgeon sects. Or what I get as a gut feeling about some Evangelicals. There is a mainly black Evangelical congregation in Paris (and surroundings) which markets itself around repairing destroyed lives.

Apart from some of these repairs being adulteries, how much control are the new members required to hand over before getting their lives repaired? I don't know. Being Catholic, I haven't tried them. They have been nice on occasions, though, while knowing (I hope) I am not one of them.

"and they actually take care of their people"

Unfortunately, I have a feeling, it also involves Satanists, like PP, passing off "helping" a girl to abort as taking care.

See also:

Dr. Levatino Destroys Abortion in 2 Minutes
TFP Student Action | 23.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU

(c. 1200 abortions / c. 1461 days - credible.)

Debate on Christianity and Evidence

Jeff Boldgloom

When I asked people how we knew there was a God, I was told "because it's in the bible"

When I asked people how we can believe the bible, I was told "because it's the word of God"

That's why I'm an athiest

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Were they the same people?

Were these two answers all you got from all you asked?

Start travelling around a bit ...

Michael Lambert

Boldgloom? I like it!

Da Absurd Bird

@Hans-Georg Lundahl c'mon man. Trying to recruit dudes to your cult in an atheist comment section?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Da Absurd Bird It so happens, I have heard this meme about Christian evidence, since I was a not yet Catholic teen of 15. I have not exactly been fully acquainted with a Christian who actually said so, and lots who didn't say exactly that.

Sure, recruiting here would be nice ...

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Uh.. yes? I've never seen a reason to believe in God that isn't based around faith or logical fallacy.

Faith isn't a good enough reason for me to believe something. You're going to have to show proof that isn't wrapped up in some form of assumption or fallacy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Going to God of the Bible (that of the Catholic Church):

• there is a Catholic Church which started 33 AD (Catholics and Orthodox disagree on who of them continue it);
• there was before that a Judaism with a Temple, Catholics and the Jews without a Temple disagree on who of them continue it;
• there was a Babylonic captivity before that Temple
• there was another Temple before the Babylonic captivity
• there was an Israelite religion which split into Judaism of first temple and Samaritan religion after the ten tribes rejected Rohoboam the son of Solomon

None of these historic and present communities are doubtful. No body doubts they existed and that now exist Samaritans, Jews, Catholics and Orthodox.

Now, here is the rub:

• Samaritans accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Jews accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Catholics accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history
• Orthodox accept Genesis and Exodus and Joshua as history.

True, in each of the latter three communities at least, there is a modern faction throwing doubts on it, but it is recent compared to those earlier centuries when as far back as we trace, no one threw doubt on historicity of the books mentioned.

Now, if they are historical, there are sufficient miracles in each to warrant divine intervention in history.

If they are garbled, and garbled history happens, there are too many specifics of the miracles that defy explanation as garbled history.

By contrast, the pagan history contemporary to them do not show sufficient specifics on miracles to warrant an acceptance of their gods as true gods (example of insufficient specifics : divinity and pre-human creation events and perhaps mission of possible prophet revealed to that person through a vision or an apparition, with no miracles external to the experience of prophet to back these up).

This means, the God of the Old Testament exists.

Now, there are four religions claiming to come from the Joshua event, directly or with more after, namely, as said, Samaritans, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox. Three splits basically 1000 years apart. The middle one is most important.

Now whether the Church founded in AD 33 was Catholics or Orthodox, or something in between, and whichever side continued it after 1054, it claims, since both Catholics and Orthodox claim and this is also backed up by earlier splits like Copts, Armenians, Nestorians, and even dead ends like Arians and Thondrakians, that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are history.

Same story. If you suppose they are garbled history, you must explain how the garbling came to include miracles which hadn't happened.

And if you accept the miracles, you have to accept the Christian side of the split around AD 33. Since the Jews clearly do not claim any miracles of a major divine kind contrary to the Christian miracles.

Now, once you accept miracles are proven by even possibly garbled history (like some kind of Trojan War is proven by definitely garbled Iliad), you will have to accept God worked them, and once you do that, you will have to accept He founded Christianity and therefore gave either a Church or a Bible or both to faithfully preserve His revelation, and this leads to accepting inerrant history as well. Which was not needed to prove God, but we as Christians need to believe it to avoid certain errors.

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not a historian so I have no way of knowing if anything you're explaining to me is completely true, so I'm going to check this against both religious and secular historical sources. Thanks!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Do so!

And try to first of all learn a difference dear to historians, even if I am just an amateur in the subject:

• a history book is a history book, it's a modern analysis of sources
• a historical source is from or as close to from the time of events that we get.

Best wishes!

Jeff Boldgloom

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hm. That seems to me like preemptive damage control. I have some questions for you.

Where did you find this information?

Where did you fact check this information?

Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?

caleb robinson

That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give, being a Christian myself, hearing this quite upsets me, we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "That sounds like an extremely brainwashed answer, I don't believe that is an answer God would want one to give,"

What is "extremely brainwashed" about it?

NOT being brainwashed in modern prejudices of history?

NOT being brainwashed in Protestantism being original Christianity with absolutely no proof to back it up?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jeff Boldgloom Glad I was not talking over the head of you while you were factchecking and should be given the time to do so.

"I have some questions for you."

Fine.

"Where did you find this information?"

Many sources, and I am not sure I can give you each I originally came across.

I gave a reasoning, my synthesis, on more than one historic fact question.

"Where did you fact check this information?"

On which of the topics? I'd be glad to give a good fact check on each you would like to ask.

"Would scholars that do not have a religious bias agree that this information must prove the existence of God?"

These informations in this reasoning.

As they these days usually either are in an anti-religious bias (like Richard Carrier) or working in an academic context where the religious implications are methodologically left out (like my Catholic or Neo-Catholic Historian friend in Lund, Professor Yvonne Maria Werner), no, they would not.

Richard Carrier would try the dodge to say when a source includes the supernatural it is unreliable, more or less (he wouldn't do that wholesale on Tacitus, but he would be sure Tacitus had had unreliable sources for, for instance, the omens in Rome when Nero was probably murdering his mother, this is in book VI of Annals, btw).

Yvonne Maria Werner would definitely not as a historian on behalf of the institution do so, I suspect she might do so as a private person.

As I have no academic position to defend, I also don't have to comply with that methodology.

Now, go to Annals of Tacitus, and some more ancient Historians, go to Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and then get back and tell me reliable historic information is not even to be gleaned from sources including miracles.

I had Annals book VI at university (my Latin was so good back then I could somehow manage Tacitus), and read about omens in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle somewhere in the context of Vikings, so it should be like from before the attack on Lindisfarne. I take this as typical, if you don't, well do a better fact check.

THEN go to modern syntheses about Rome after Augustus but before Tacitus set to work, or about England from Roman legions leaving in 411 AD to 1154, especially the latter part, close to King Alfred's time, when the original manuscript (which was later updated) seems to have been made. See how much they after all do rely on Tacitus or Anglo-Saxon chronicle for non-miraculous and non-ominous events.

AND, as a third step, if you still disbelieve the miraculous, ask yourself why you take one source as reliable when it is non-miraculous and as non-reliable when it is miraculous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson again, here:

"we are told in the scripture to be able to give an account for the hope that lies within us"

Exactly what I am trying to do.

"and I feel like these answers were extremely void of any substance, I'm sorry about that."

Perhaps because history, while key to a real substantial answer, is not your best subject?

If I am wrong, name one person who belonged to YOUR type of Christian Church and who lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It sounds brainwashed because that person if they are giving answers like that dont know why they believe what they believe, yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner. Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "yes it is something God has told us is true through his scripture, but it doesnt offer any substance to the one asking a question, and i feel thats where the answer fails, I too believe that the scripture is the truth, but i feel that one should be able to give an account of their belief in an analytical, logical, and rational manner."

Well, didn't I?

"Having faith because the evidence shows it to be so, and i do believe that there is enough evidence to suggest God is real and Jesus was who he said he was."

So do I. I consider the chief difficulty is believing Gospel is evidence and I adress that through nature of historic evidence as such and through specifics about this case.

What's sounding brainwashed about that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "You realise i am not replying to your comments dont you? I am replying to the Original comment made, in which this thread is continuing."

Oh, I actually didn't until I was just now beginning to suspect it.

But to me it sounded not brainwashed, but fictional.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Again if you read my comment, it was not aimed toward you.

I am from the church of christ, and all the apostles were from this church Peter, Paul, John, all of them. The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yeah it happens sometimes thats why i should tag the people im talking to in the future. aha sorry about the confusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "The church i attend is structured and runs the same as the first churches did. I do not know who Lived in 750 AD."

I have a fairly good idea what major known groups of people did, and none of them had as far as I know both your Church Structure and your doctrine.

In fact, since part of your doctrine is a doctrine about Church structure, but also for other reasons, this means none had your doctrine back then.

This means, you can't have the same Church Structure and Doctrine as Apostles, see Mt 28:20 "all days"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson I should have guessed even without a tag, but was tired.

caleb robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl well studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them, and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible. we hold steadfast to the apostles doctrine that they wrote down for us, and also gave to the christians living at that time.

But i do not remember speaking about doctrine, we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all.

The Truth

So much delusion in this thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@caleb robinson "studying through the scripture you begin to see the apostles were giving the doctrine as it was being revealed to them,"

Partly, but mostly, they were given the doctrine by Christ and giving it as occasions demanded.

"and they wrote it down, which is what makes up the bible."

NT has 8 authors. Sts Matthew, Jude and Peter were of the 12. St John may have been of the Twelve or may have been just a namesake of the son of Zebedee, not same person. In that case, the beloved disciple was the Gospeller, not the fisherman.

St James was the Brother of God, not the son of Zebedee.

Sts Mark and Luke were definitely not of the 12.

Suggests to me, the 12 had some other function than writing NT, besides, NT is not all of the Bible. Any reference in NT to "Scripture" usually primarily refers to the OT.

So, what else were the 12 doing, and what else are you steadfastly holding to, except the doctrine written down in NT, as you interpret it?

Bc, what you just said is NOT enough. St Matthew, one of the twelve, did write down a promise involving ALL DAYS, right?

To have the overall right interpretation of NT, you have to have a Church which has been in place since the 12 heard that promise (or 11, Judas not yet replaced by St Mathias). You don't.

"we just do what the bible says and structure it accordingly. Thats all."

In order actually to structure it accordingly to what the Bible says, you need to find a Church which was there in all days, therefore also in 750.

This guy was born that year:

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

So were these:

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegrim_of_Ch%C3%A2lons

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodulf_of_Orl%C3%A9ans

These men died that year:

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bressal_mac_%C3%81edo_R%C3%B3in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burchard_of_W%C3%BCrzburg

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

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

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

There is nearly one person of these who definitely was not a real Christian in my book - the husband of Tzitzak, Constantine Shitname (who survived her by 25 years).

Some of the Irish were perhaps schismatic, the rest were Christian. So, the promise in Matthew 28:20 is fulfilled as to 750 AD.

@The Truth Like what?

@caleb robinson I missed St Paul, an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

@caleb robinson And Tzitzak, like her husband, was probably clpable of iconoclastic doctrine.

... on Historicity of Genesis

The Origins and Evolution of Language | Michael Corballis | TEDxAuckland
TEDx Talks | 14.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q

Alllii F/O

There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages ...so how the he'll human learnt all these language ? If you smart enough answer me

Beni Venetta

Can you just repeat the video if you didn't hear him??

Aquilla Fleetwood

Alllii F/O...God gave man the first language! The word "semitic" came from "Shem" who was one of the sons of Noah!
Then those people disobeyed and refused to scatter over the earth! So, God confused their language!
Then they....scattered!
Get it???
Shalom...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There are more than 2000 languages ...don't tell me that Adam and Eve ,earn there kids all these languages"

Adam and Eve taught their children Hebrew.

After Babel, there were 72 new languages.

After that languages have changed, split, merged, merged and split again etc. So, c. 4000 years later we have 6000.

Linguists consider they are splits from 32 language families. Less than just after Babel.

[other schools have considerably more unrelated language families]

Bernie Basset

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Forgetting of course that Adam and Eve is just a story. It never happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bernie Basset Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.

satid 56

@Bernie Basset its not a story its. Reality

Doctor Drywell

@Aquilla Fleetwood lol...you are nuts.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just because something was taken as history, it doesnt mean it is history. Nice fallacious argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell I'll repeat what I said in extenso, and read all of it:
____________

Genesis was by its earliest traceable audience taken as history, not as fable.

Precisely as Lord of the Rings is by its earliest traceable audience taken as fable, not as history.
___________

What's fallacious about it?

If you had replaced the word "history" with "true" it would be fallacious, since some people think false things are true.

But simply history as in not a novel for entertainment, I think tracing the reception of an account to earliest traceable persons knowing it, whether it is meant to be factual or meant to be just plain fun, that is pretty much the best we can go on.

Now, history is not always the same thing as true and accurate history. Iliad is probably accurate in saying there was a Trojan war, but as probably inaccurately transferring events from battle of Kadesh and other Hittite wars to Trojan war and similarily inaccurately omitting Hittites.

I believe Genesis is history, true history, and divinely preserved in recording inerrant history. These are three different levels of "historicity" and the argument given suffices for the first level.

Doctor Drywell

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, since you believe Genesis is history, real history, you have a burden of proof to demonstrate and justify that perspective.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Doctor Drywell The fact it was from first taken as history is sufficient prima facie evidence it is history. If you want to pretend it was at first made as entertainment, the burden of proof is on you to show entertainment only was a first reception and it was later replaced by the reception as history.

This is the first step.

The accuracy is then - step 2 - proven by the fact that you do not have definite more accurate histories from neighbouring people in conflict with it.

And the divine claims are - we have step three here - proven by miracles which must be accepted if the history is accurate.

What is NOT proven?

Answering Shermer

Answering Shermer · On ID vs Abiogenesis, debate part I · debate part II

Stephen Meyer Destroys Ignorant Atheist
ByRTD yO | 2.II.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5tEAINU3wc

Michael Shermer's line:

"I have a commitment to science and the scientific method requires that we look for natural explanations for natural phenomena, there is no such thing as the supernatural, or the paranormal, there is just the natural, the normal and all the stuff we can't explain yet"

My answer, Stephen Meyer's being somewhat different:

I wonder, since when does "the scientific method" require this precise commitment?

In Riccioli's time, it didn't.

To C. S. Lewis, our existence as rational beings (on his view fairly on and off, mostly off, I don't quite share that latter view) requires something other than the natural.

Because "nature" (as viewed by naturalism) while it can be an object to be explained or manipulated rationally, cannot be sth which produces that rationality which is capable of understanding, explaining or manipulating.

Note well also, a manipulation may be rational as to the ends chosen to a given means, but deeply irrational as to the choice of means. Example, when Dr. Mengele used captives for human experiments, the suffering he imposed was totally irrationally out of proportion to some of the petty insights he could gain.

And yes, moral proportions are (unlike the view of amoral scientific rationality) a very clear part of the rational. Or aspect.

We can already explain the rational, if we assume there is conscious rationality before there is such a thing as nature. If we assume there is someone imposing a norm and sharing it with some on whom He imposes it, by how He creates their rationality. By its being a share in His. If we assume that is there before the normal is.

Considering a supernatural like this some kind of equivalent to the paranormal is irrational, since missing important distinctions.

So, where does this rule come from? Who coined it? Was there someone before Jerry Coyne who did?

And we can prove the supernatural if we assume both the natural exists and we too do, considering it as natural, and then exhaust natural possibilities of us forming as rational entities.

Both of which are given in our experience.

If you go on and say natural possibilities are not exhausted even if every analyst has exhausted all he can think of, you are turning basically the "natural" into the paranormal, into sth as paranormal as The Swamp Thing.

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.