Friday, February 10, 2023

A Section from Bill Nye's Guided Tour with Ken Ham


Bill Nye Tours the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham
Answers in Genesis, 14 March 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPLRhVdNp5M


43:46 Part of the stone age we see is from the pre-Flood world, when it was ending. Bronze and iron were invented, but that doesn't mean all men had it.

If Montezuma grew up in a world of stone tools, where gold and copper was just a decoration, does that mean iron wasn't invented? If so, the Spaniards invented it very quickly.

Part is from the time of Noah after the Flood. It took some time to find ores again, and when copper and bronze begin before iron in archaeology, it's because copper, tin and iron were rediscovered at different times.

Quoting wiki.

"The Bronze Age is a historic period, lasting approximately from 3300 BC to 1200 BC"

That's how long it took between the rediscovery of bronze and the rediscovery of iron.

At least in the parts best searched by archaeologists, and if we go by carbon dates. 2100 years.

Now, what do I calibrate them to?

1200 BC in carbon = 1200 BC in real and Biblical chronology.

3300 BC would be after Genesis 14 in 1935 BC (dated to 3500 BC), it would in fact be 1868 BC, when Abraham was 147 years old, Isaac 47 and married, but as yet childless.

So, between rediscovery of bronze and rediscovery of iron, we just have ... 668 years. Some might consider some of those rediscovering either as sufficiently evil for it to be 666 years ... not sure. But the span sounds more realistic than 2100 years, more than 3 times as long.

44:28 For some, the palaeolithic lasted to near present or even into present. Check tribes in Amazonas.

But where the Palaeolithic was first exchanged for the Neolithic, if you ask me, that was Babel. A k a Göbekli Tepe, in the pre-pottery Neolithic. Yes, Göbekli Tepe near the present city Şanlıurfa is in Mesopotamia, and not in Asia Minor. Turkey has, barring islands, four regions from West to East. First 1) a small part of Europe. Then 2) Asia Minor. Then 3) one part that's divided N / S, with Zagros Mountains in the North and Mesopotamia in the South (the part of Mesopotamia that's historically Assyria), and finally 4) Armenia, with the landing place.

45:35 He couldn't parse the sentence.

"We don't see information coming from matter"
"I see information in the present which is ultimately in the past having come from matter" ...

Well, he doesn't see that ultimate past ...

48:49 "they died at forty years old"

On what evidence ...? I read about 60 skeletons from Anglo-Saxon times. Legal medicine specialists evaluated them to 40, or younger, without looking at gravestones supposing there even were such. Later, a specialists in teeth looked at the calculus, and concluded - no, some of them were at least up to 60.

I have had those 60 skeleta and the first analysis thrown at me as proof of Middle Ages all over Europe, and I have at least 10 times as many from the pre-modern ages, even just Medieval, looking at wiki, where the life expectancy if you survived to having a carreere (with non-nobles) or to having children (with nobles and royalty) was 65 for non-nobles, 56 for royalty and related nobles. As a median. Definitely people living up to 80 or 90 too.

49:12 without sewers

You don't have very healthy cities. How relevant is that for times when most of the people lived in the country-side anyway?

C'mon, Bill Nye is a silly guy ...

I made a comparison for a death toll one quarter year from Laon to what my studies in the Middle Ages gave me.

The lower quartile in Laon was like the median in the Middle Ages. The median in Laon was the higher quartile in the Middle Ages. The higher quartile in Laon was between the higher quartile and the maximum in the Middle Ages. The maxima and minima were comparable.

55:53 I believe there is a process by which the constant decay rate of strontium - rubidium (if that is the direction) can be measured wrong.

A very insignificant sliver of a curve is very unlikely to make one construct the curve correctly.

We don't have the same problem the same way with carbon 14, as carbon dates work (Biblical = archaeological) for the last over three thousand, but not fully four thousand years - but even there, it could be with a longer half life and a rising level, instead of the halflife we accept and the roughly constant level.

For instance, with twice the half life, the rise since Fall of Troy is such the the medium rise from Flood to Fall of Troy becomes 4 times instead of 5 times the present production rate. Meaning, with twice the halflife, three thousand years ago, you had 4 / 5 of the level, and the rise makes up for the longer halflife.

The curves would be different, but not as different as the wiggles on the level we have. Not as different as carbon 14 levels were under the Hallstatt Plateau, for instance.

56:39 "we have a process by which we eliminate that which is wrong"

How quickly? And how much slower than usual can it be with a bias at which Bill Nye is constantly being impolite to Ken Ham?

  • interrupting
  • saying "we can know for absolutely certain you are 100 % wrong"
  • referring to "science" in general when asked specific questions about specific scienceS, as if Ken Ham was a savage from Amazonas to whom sciences and science were new concepts ... which he must master first before going on to specifics ...


I think constant impoliteness is reflective of a very strong bias.

57:49 "we believe it comes from the nature of subatomic particles, based on evidence"

Subatomic particles have never been observed in and of themselves.

Electrons are supposedly what electronic microscopy helps us observe with - meaning that it cannot be one of the items observed.

So, Bill Nye will arguably defend electrons and other subatomic particles based on inferences from observations, but for some reason, he doesn't accept either minds or miracles being proven that way ... when in fact it is only minds that make inferences.

Hongo Tedesco
What? "based on inferences from observations" is so much different than "minds that make inferences". Those observations are *data*. Different minds should reach the same conclusion when presented with the same *data*. On the other hand, if all you're doing is "making stuff up in your mind", that's a whole different ball of wax. Ie, religions. They're all just made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco I was not talking about "making stuff up in your mind" and nor was I doing it, other than in the way people believing in subatomic particles are doing that.

The only known thing that can make inferences (other than mathematical equations) are minds.

To Bill Nye, an inference can prove a subatomic particle, but inferenceS don't prove minds. That's inconsistent.

@Hongo Tedesco To be clear on one more point. Subatomic particles are not observed.

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl So then I don't really understand what your intent is. Again, we don't have to "see" everything to know it exists. Eg, dark matter/energy. We actually don't even know what it is, but we know it's there. Ditto for subatomic particles. In general, we can do science around things we don't observe, or didn't observe. Like getting an age for the universe, or an age for the Earth. We weren't there to see it all happen, but we know with close to 100% certainty how old the Earth is and how old the Universe is.

And I don't believe Nye is saying anything different from what I'm saying. I watched the whole thing and his science was pretty much on point.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok, subatomic particles aren't observed, and so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco It means, you can't know subatomic particles without inferences from the observations.

Precisely like Scholastics claim to know God, angels and human souls are immaterial.

@Hongo Tedesco "but we know with close to 100% certainty how old the Earth is and how old the Universe is."

You only "know" that because you have, first, falsely concluded in favour or material causes only.

Something which you could have avoided by taking a look at St. Thomas Aquinas or even at C. S. Lewis' Miracles before making a hypothesis on the basis of "no miracles allowed" ...

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ok, comparing subatomic particles to "gods, angels, souls"? Really? Do you realize how incorrect that comparison is? There are theories about subatomic particles, how they come to be, how long they live, etc, etc. And you can conduct experiments proving these theories. I mean, look at all the brouhaha over the Higgs boson. Fantastic experimental discovery after decades of it just being predicted.

Cite one proven instance of an angel?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco Retrogrades and the movements mislabelled "aberration" and "parallax" - if Geocentrism is true, as it is for instance directly observed.

Plus historical instances, like the angels that liberated St. Peter and other apostles in Acts 5.

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "You only "know" that because you have, first, falsely concluded in favour or material causes only." Well yes, because they explain these things well. Ie, they work.

Sure, we can conjecture that the entire universe was created 5 secs ago by some god, and all our memories are just fake, he put them in there. We can conjecture all sorts of things like this, but what's the point? If you can't find evidence to back your conjecture, I toss it.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Precisely like scholastics claim to know god...". Um, no, just no. Again, for the umpteenth time, subatomic particles are observed via a scientific process. A well vetted one at that, it's objective truth that is being discovered. When somebody says I spoke with an angel (like Muhammad), are you just going to believe them, just like that? Aren't you going to want some evidence that that person actually spoke with an angel? You're comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco "Well yes, because they explain these things well. Ie, they work."

No one here is disputing material causation works. What I am disputing is material things being the only causes and the only things.

"observed via a scientific process."

= NOT actually observed, BUT concluded from observations. I refuse to be Humpty Dumpty with you.

"A well vetted one at that,"

Aristotelic philosophy and its Catholic realisation as Scholasticism, on the side of Philosophy (and it has a side of Theology too) is an even better vetted one.

"When somebody says I spoke with an angel (like Muhammad), are you just going to believe them, just like that?"

Muhammed may very well have spoken to an angelic being, but not one sent by God.

When twelve apostles said they were liberated from prison by an angel, I do believe them. See Acts 5 for the occurrence.

"Aren't you going to want some evidence that that person actually spoke with an angel?"

They were out of prison.

"we can conjecture that the entire universe was created 5 secs ago by some god,"

Some point in time, within 168 hours of the first human couple, that was also the case, c. 7222 years ago.

"and all our memories are just fake, he put them in there."

I'm refusing to believe in fake memories, whether it involves denial of the past 7222 years or whether it involves denying the apostles were liberated by angels.

"We can conjecture all sorts of things like this, but what's the point?"

I gave you no argument that logically corresponds to such a conjecture as the universe being created 5 seconds ago (c. 7222 years after that actually happened).

"If you can't find evidence to back your conjecture, I toss it."

I gave all the evidence needed, Geocentric observations, and recorded history.

It's Heliocentrism which corresponds to baseless conjectures (except Atheism gives them a fictitious base). It's Heliocentrism which is saying without any evidence that what we see move is inverse to what is actually moving, both day and year.

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Muhammed may very well have spoken to an angelic being, but not one sent by God." How do you know gabriel wasn't sent by god? Same guy that supposedly told Mary about her, um, pregnancy.

See, all the evidence you gave? It's completely unvetted. Nobody really knows what happened during the time of jesus. A bunch of stuff was written but no separate accounts besides the bible. Do you believe jesus ran across some possessed men, exorcised them, and the demons entered pigs, which then ran off a cliff?

In fact, I just finished the "12 cesars" by Suetonius, written in 121 AD, which chronicles the history of the roman emperors from 50 BC until publication. At the time Judea was a province of Rome, not just "conquered territory". Not a single mention of christians, jesus, or anything magical happening. Nothing. Oh wait, I take that back about "magical". There were many instances such as "a bird with a worm in its mouth flew into the chamber before emperor X was about to make a decision...bad omen". Those guys were totally superstitious.

Bottom line, you have zero valid evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco "How do you know gabriel wasn't sent by god? Same guy that supposedly told Mary about her, um, pregnancy."

Because that "Jibreel" contradicted the one actually sent by God, as seen by the Resurrection of Jesus.

"See, all the evidence you gave? It's completely unvetted. Nobody really knows what happened during the time of jesus."

OK ... how do you know Julius Caesar existed?

"A bunch of stuff was written but no separate accounts besides the bible."

So? Most events from this time we have no separate accounts except one account, for Jesus at least we have four.

"Do you believe jesus ran across some possessed men, exorcised them, and the demons entered pigs, which then ran off a cliff?"

Obviously, yes. I am a Christian.

In case you intend to showcase "Christians" who don't believe that this happened as written in the Gospels, I don't consider such people as Christians.

"In fact, I just finished the "12 cesars" by Suetonius, written in 121 AD, which chronicles the history of the roman emperors from 50 BC until publication."

Showcasing Sueton for Julius Caesar existing is like showcasing a third century Church Father for Jesus existing. 50 BC - 121 AD = 171 years. 33 AD + 171 years = 204 AD.

"At the time Judea was a province of Rome, not just "conquered territory"."

Part of the time, yes.

"Not a single mention of christians, jesus, or anything magical happening."

By the time of Sueton, Christians and Jews were wildly disagreeing on what had happened 90 years later. Pilate's witness exists, but has been stamped as apocryphal. In fact, even if Sueton had access to it, and believed it was by him, he would have discarded it as "style enough" evidence, since Pilate was a protégé of Seianus, who fell out of grace with Tiberius. As for Velleius Paterculus, his Roman History stops in AD 30 or 31. Too early for the Resurrection.

"Nothing. Oh wait, I take that back about "magical". There were many instances such as "a bird with a worm in its mouth flew into the chamber before emperor X was about to make a decision...bad omen". Those guys were totally superstitious."

In Tacitus, at the time when Nero killed his mother, a woman gave birth to a snake. I'll not say she was pregnant with the snake, but God allowed a demon to snatch the baby away and put a snake in its place, so as to give the Romans an omen about how Nero had acted like a snake to his mother. It's in book VI of Annals in case you like to check.

"Bottom line, you have zero valid evidence."

You have zero credibility in your assessing of validity.

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Because that "Jibreel" contradicted the one actually sent by God, as seen by the Resurrection of Jesus."

All you're doing is saying "I believe nonsense X, but not nonsense Y". You have zero evidence that say, Mary was visited by Gabriel. In fact, it's rather suspicious that we have nothing about jesus life after birth (until his preaching). If the birth was such an auspicious occasion, why nothing? It's because the whole virgin birth story was made up.

"By the time of Sueton, Christians and Jews were wildly disagreeing on what had happened 90 years later."

Ok, but a), there was no discussion of this whatsoever, and b) he studied the chronicles that had been written by others over the years, including contemporaries at the time of the execution. Surely if something "interesting" had been found, he would've written about it. But nothing.

"In Tacitus, at the time when Nero killed his mother, a woman gave birth to a snake. I'll not say she was pregnant with the snake, but God allowed a demon to snatch the baby away and put a snake in its place, so as to give the Romans an omen about how Nero had acted like a snake to his mother"

And you actually believe this? Come on, you know this is just a story. [...], you just keep saying these things w/o evidence. You make the same mistake all apologists do, you presuppose the truth, and then you go into contortions to try and "prove" it. But let's face it, given the scarcity of evidence, it's just not possible to prove the outlandish assertions of christian mythology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco "All you're doing is saying "I believe nonsense X, but not nonsense Y". You have zero evidence that say, Mary was visited by Gabriel. In fact, it's rather suspicious that we have nothing about jesus life after birth (until his preaching). If the birth was such an auspicious occasion, why nothing? It's because the whole virgin birth story was made up."

First
The Gospels are within decades from the events, the Coran several centuries away.

Then.
No. It's because of a convention of describing people's lives from the entry into the actual business they are doing. No biographies like today.

Matthew has word count 18,346 words according to a quick seearch, not sure if it is Greek or English. A pretty short modern autobiography covering just "up to" is 76,000 words - Surprised by Joy. Or Humphrey Carpenter's of Tolkien, estimated word count 86,112 words. Didn't exist. Matthew is just 21.3 % the length. Nothing to waste on padding with lots of insignificant, but endearing and interesting detail. Nothing to waste on building credibility that way, that modern biographers do. You should know it from lives of the 12 Caesars. 116 000 words in Penguin Classics, take away the introductions and text critical apparatus and notes, that's a bit like Tolkien's biography by Carpenter. Then divide that by 12.

"Ok, but a), there was no discussion of this whatsoever,"

What would have been the most tactical thing to do?

"and b) he studied the chronicles that had been written by others over the years, including contemporaries at the time of the execution."

Closest contemporary would have been Velleius Paterculus, who finished in AD 30.

"Surely if something "interesting" had been found, he would've written about it. But nothing."

Why supposed that in a totalitarian and anti-Christian environment?

Why suppose he would have understood it, if the reference in Claudius' life is garbled?

"One passage in the biography of the Emperor Claudius Divus Claudius 25, refers to agitations in the Roman Jewish community and the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius during his reign (AD 41 to AD 54), which may be the expulsion mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2). In this context "Chresto" is mentioned. Some scholars see this as a likely reference to Jesus, while others see it as referring to an otherwise unknown person living in Rome."


Or if he showed bias against Christians, see life of Nero?

"During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,[14] a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city."


So, now for you.

"And you actually believe this? Come on, you know this is just a story."

I actually do not.

"[...], you just keep saying these things w/o evidence."

Tacitus had access to eyewitness evidence or purported such.

"You make the same mistake all apologists do, you presuppose the truth, and then you go into contortions to try and "prove" it."

Explaining and proving are two opposite intellectual operations.

"I know the boss is in, because his hat is on the table" (proof)
"That hat is on the table, because the boss arrived" (explanation)

So, I didn't try to prove it, as we agree the evidence is Tacitus, I was explaining, given what I foresaw about your probable objections.

"But let's face it, given the scarcity of evidence, it's just not possible to prove the outlandish assertions of christian mythology."

I do not know why scarcity should affect anything. You have just as scarce or rather scarcer evidence of Caesar conquering Gaul.

Hongo Tedesco
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "The Gospels are within decades from the events, the Coran several centuries away."

What does that have to do with anything? The appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad is described in the Koran, and it was written pretty much right after Muhammad died. And 20 years later, when many versions were starting to pop up, one guy said "ok, this is going to be the definitive version", and it's been like that since. Much better pedigree than the gospels.

The gospels are several decades away, nobody knows who wrote them, and scholars agree that none were eyewitnesses. Then you have the 3 synoptic gospels that are all related. Nobody knows if there was a predecessor from which the 3 descend, or if one was written, and the other 2 descended from that. Plenty of room for invention, change, etc.

And I have no idea why you're going on re: word count.

And re: scarcity, you miss a very important point. Caesar conquering Gaul is something that happens. X conquering Y has happened throughout history. But, we don't have resurrections every day, nor virgin births. So for extraordinary claims like this, you need something better than the gospels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco "What does that have to do with anything? The appearance of Gabriel to Muhammad is described in the Koran, and it was written pretty much right after Muhammad died."

Not really. It was redacted orally, Sura by Sura, each Sura even Aya by Aya, while he lived and a certain Abu Bakr and a certain Uthman started and completed the process of canonisation.

"Much better pedigree than the gospels."

For the text as such, pretty equal.

"The gospels are several decades away, nobody knows who wrote them, and scholars agree that none were eyewitnesses."

Anti-Christian and Pseudo-Christian scholars agree on that.

"Then you have the 3 synoptic gospels that are all related. Nobody knows if there was a predecessor from which the 3 descend, or if one was written, and the other 2 descended from that. Plenty of room for invention, change, etc."

Matthew wrote first.
Luke investigated among scraps and items already written - not singling out Matthew's Gospel - and made his own.
Mark took notes as St. Peter read Matthew and Luke side by side, marvelling at their coherence and adding a few remarks of his own.
John (either son of Zebedee, one of the twelve, or a Cohen, a lesser disciple, still the beloved disciple) wrote last.

We have about as good evidence for this sequence as we have for the procedure around the Qoran. The great difference is, the Qoran is itself the preaching of their Mohammed, and separate from lives of Mohammed. The Gospels are not limited to the words of Jesus, and they are precisely biographies of Him. That's why they were written after His death and Resurrection.

Now, one more point. Or even two.

The appearance of Jibreel is not confirmed as sent by God, by Mohammed making any miracles. The appearance of Gabriel is confirmed as sent by God by all the miracles Christ wrought after this happened.

For historic knowledge of Jesus, Gospellers were lots better placed than the human author of Sura 5/

"And I have no idea why you're going on re: word count."

Because, modern biographies being wordier, they have more room for filler material. Modern biographies being about people who settle down and enjoy life for decades, that means childhoods are more interesting (as CSL remarked in his own autobiography). The Gospels had less room for filler material and are about a person who grows more dramatic as He grows up, not less.

"And re: scarcity, you miss a very important point. Caesar conquering Gaul is something that happens. X conquering Y has happened throughout history."

The specific conquest of Gaul (North of Provincia Narbonensis) by Caesar is not something that happens throughout history. It's a unique event.

"But, we don't have resurrections every day, nor virgin births."

So, they are unique events.

"So for extraordinary claims like this, you need something better than the gospels."

For unique events of the past, I need evidence like the one usually provided for unique events of the past. And for unique events 2000 years ago, that means scarce.


1:01:59 Bill Nye finds the resemblance of an "Amish workshop where people eschew modern technology" troubling?

Seriously.

The differences between 17th or 18th C. technology which is what the Amish use, and modern technology is not huge when it comes to basic useful things, and the differences are partly in favour of the Amish. Eschew the tractor = more people work at growing same amount of wheat (or maize or potatoes or ...) = less unemployment.

The thing I might miss, technologically, if I went to the Amish, would be the internet. Other aspects of culture and of the Catholic faith too, but technologically, that's about it.

1:02:40 "think of all the things you could do, all the help you could provide"

I think Judas Ischariot said the same thing about spending luxuries on God in the Flesh.

I thought I didn't like Bill Nye before, but in certain ways, he's becoming creepier and less likeable by the minute, as I watch this!

1:05:13 Bill Nye doesn't pretend to be a Christian. His "fun fact" which is not in the least proven at least openly admits there is a contradiction between what he considers "science says" and what Christ said in Mark 10:6.

Hongo Tedesco
Just to be clear, Bill is trying to explain the science that we know. It doesn't matter what the bible says, or anybody else says, or any other religious book says. What matters is the evidence, and what science has discovered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hongo Tedesco I dispute that being "science that we know" - I also dispute Biblical (or other) history not mattering for knowledge about the past.

Just to be clear, my point was directed at "Christians" who pretend what you call "die Wissenschaft" .... supposing you really are a Tedesco ... is hard knowledge.

David that other guy
@Hongo Tedesco The evidence that we know of is...

Thursday, February 9, 2023

Is "ben green" a Shrink or Just a Jerk? Anyway, the Consensus of Catholic Bishops is More Impressive than Pseudo-Consensus (actually bare majority) of Scholars


Yes, St. Paul Wrote Pastorals, Yes, Apostolic Succession Holds True · Is "ben green" a Shrink or Just a Jerk? Anyway, the Consensus of Catholic Bishops is More Impressive than Pseudo-Consensus (actually bare majority) of Scholars

Testify
One more thing that I should have included in the video: Be wary when someone says the "vast majority of scholars believe X". When Dan McClellan says "an overwhelming majority of scholars" believe that the pastoral letters aren't really written by Paul, this strikes me as a big overstatement. In a relatively recent survey, The British New Testament Conference (made up of biblical scholars across the ideological spectrum) held a vote on which epistles they think are Pauline and which are not. While more than half think Paul didn't write the pastorals, the votes were nearly evenly split between "yes" and "unsure". This is not a vast scholarly consensus. Not even close. Why does a large minority either support Pauline authorship or are "unsure" if the arguments are so overwhelmingly against my position? Would Dan say that the BNTS not be reflective of scholarship as a whole?

Integrational Polytheism
Well said. The argument from majority, or the similar argument from authority, often used by the likes of William Lane Craig or Kent Hovind (or Bart Ehrman, I'm not picking sides, he does it as bad as anyone) doesn't mean a thing. As many have said (Dr Robert M Price comes to mind) it's the strength of the evidence that should be considered.

Michael
I suspect his answer would be to argue that those who accept or are uncertain about Pauline authorship of the epistles are not "real scholars", in short the "no true Scotsman" fallacy

Hans-Georg Lundahl
So, there is a small quarter of the scholars who would probably convert to Catholicism after a few more considerations, another small quarter who very probably would do so on getting certainty about Pauline authorship, but skirting away from that certainty, and a big half who are decided to not convert and also not let Pastorals change their minds.

Thank you for the stats.

ben green
ah yes - the appeal to authority fallacy fallacy.

Firstly - The 'unsure's cannot be lumped in with the 'yes's. Unsure can mean, 'uncertain but probably not'. Even saying 'unsure' implies that there is some doubt to their authenticity. Let's look at religious commitments of some of these scholars. There is a very real chance that a religious scholar might be unwilling to be more positive in their suspicions that the letters are not by Paul. That is undeniable.

So we are left with a very significant proportion of scholars who say Paul is not the author, and that might well be a big understatement.

And here we get to the fallacy.

Isn't it funny that consensuses (?) mean nothing when you don't want them to. To say that most scholars have the same opinion on something is not something you can ignore. This isn't an ad populem appeal. This is a survey of people who actually study the sources. To claim that we must be wary of consensus is to assume that scholars are not taking care themselves. We should be wary of everything in scholarship, and I'm pretty sure that McClellan isn't telling people to blindly trust a majority opinion simply because it's a majority opinion. It was a polite way of saying that lay apologists who are making the claims they are making are not privy to the whole picture and not schooled in the critical skills of historiography.

The consensus is the consensus because the academics best positioned to judge the sources have come to an agreement. It's not a fallacy to trust that process. It's far too common these days to throw expert consensus in the bin - just because that consensus makes life uncomfortable. We saw it in the last few years where people with no expertise rejected medical advice for political reasons and pure selfishness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green "So we are left with a very significant proportion of scholars who say Paul is not the author, and that might well be a big understatement."

Over the centuries prior to German Bibelkritik of the 19th C. an even larger consensus said they were genuine.

Catholic bishops.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green "We saw it in the last few years where people with no expertise rejected medical advice for political reasons and pure selfishness."

Normally, it is taking medical advice that's supposed to be a selfish act.

Meaning, normally it's up to you to take your doctor's advice or not. Fun fact, the word "selfish" is not in the Bible ...

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl you understand that there are different forms of consensus right? Like, it's consensus among Muslims that the Quran is true. And that there are distinct reasons for why we should not trust such a consensus.

So can you tell me which category Catholic Bishops are more likely to fall into - Muslim religious scholars or modern academic Biblical scholars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green I put "modern academic Biblical scholars" and Muslims in the same category.

@ben green There is also a big difference between assessing a book as true and assessing it as genuinely by its author. (Or "human author" if you think there is a divine too).

I do not believe Muslims on Coran being true, but I do believe each Surah was revealed to the community Ayah by Ayah on successive days while they tried to learn it by heart - and more often than not did a good job.

Michael
@ben green it isn't an appeal to authority at all... And I frankly wonder if you understood what he said.

However the argument that "the overwhelming majority of scholars deny the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles" is an appeal to authority and it's a rather weak one because it is based on a "consensus" which on code examination does not appear to exist. Slightly more than 50% with significant disagreement from some major scholars is not "an overwhelming majority" by any measure. I point out for example that even the prestigious Anchor Bible commentary on the Pastoral epistle, hardly a conservative or evangelical series, affirms Pauline authorship.

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
of course you do - because you are led by your religious bias.

Integrational Polytheism
@ben green also, the majority of scholars in the field of biblical studies and early Christianity are themselves Christians.

I actually don't think, therefore, that much weight can be put on the religious status of the scholar. You get unrepentant believers at one end of the scale (eg Gary Habermass) ready to jam any square peg evidence into the round hole of his presuppositions, and at the other end you get somebody like John Dominic Crossan, a Christian scholar that in no way lets his religious beliefs influence his conclusions, drawn from his research and evidence.

At the bottom of it, it really is the evidence that should count, and if an individual wants to weight their personal religious experiences heavily against that evidence, then that's their choice, but they should be honest about it.

As a polytheist I very much confess that my religious beliefs are not based very much on evidence and that's why I wouldn't really try to convince somebody round to believing what I believe. That's not the case with adherents of Christianity and one or two other religions.

Grant Gooch
@Integrational Polytheism Everybody likes to say this but it's completely unsupported by the sociological literature.

While theists score higher in dogmatism than non-theists when self-reporting, atheists and non-theists actually score higher in dogmatism and my-side bias when they are scored subtlety.*

Additionally, academics are extremely likely to exhibit anti-Christian biases against Christian ideas and their Christian colleagues and also score higher than theists in my-side bias and self belief superiority.

So really, it's the skeptical scholars who are more likely to agree dogmatically with their preconceptions and ignore contervailing evidence than Christian scholars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green So are you. The one for modern academia is a bias too, and it's religious too. It's religion says no Omniscient God has spoken, and the closest we come to Omniscience is modern academia.

That's why both modern Academia and Muslims will diss the Catholic tradition, be it about Gospels where Christ affirmed His divinity, in indirrect, but conclusive, terms, contradicting Surah 5, or be it Pastorals, contradicting the idea that Prussia is free to remodel Christianity, because the Original Version is anyway lost and needs to be restored.

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
yeah - I'm not really interested in your ramblings. Well done for representing your faith so well though. Not at all embarrassing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green Sounds like a tactic copout on your part.

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not a copout, I just don't need to waste any energy trying to engage with you. If my aim is to expose the inner workings of the minds of theists, then I don't think I could achieve more than you are doing on your own. Your lack of self awareness, your rambling incoherent and unjustified attack on everyone outside your religious denomination - honestly I couldn't have made my initial point clearer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green Why would you want to "expose the inner workings of the minds of theists" or why would you speak of "lack of self awareness"?

Are you a kind of shrink or sth?

If so, it's no news that your religion (it is one) is inimical to mine, shrinks in the Soviet Union have started taking over from the Gulags in the 70's, and they have had "scientific" collaboration with shrinks elsewhere, in the free West, which they are for some unfortunates making less free.

"unjustified attack on everyone outside your religious denomination"

There actually wasn't any.

I am classing secularism and Islam as two religions that have a need to get rid of the historic witness of certain books in the Bible. Moderate semi-Christian secularism is anti-Catholic, like in Prussia 19th C, hence attacks on Matthean priority, towting of Markan priority, attacks on Paulinity of Pastorals. Total secularism needs to get rid of all and any Gospels, hence compounds Markan priority with putting Mark too late to know. Islam needs to get rid definitely and openly of St. John's Gospel.

I don't need to get rid of the Surah that says an elephant bowed knees towards Mecca, or the statement that Lamar wrote a book about "true believer syndrome" as early as in 1976. These things are perfectly possible. I don't have a religion in need of weeding out the historic testimony of another religion's sacred books - I am even very moderate about criticising the historic statements in the Talmud.

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
interesting.
tell me about your mother...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green No, why would I?**

ben green***
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
interesting..
tell me - why are you so reluctant to talk about your mother?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green It's off topic.

I refuse the idea of your acting like a shrink, and I reported you to try to block you.

I'm here to debate in favour of genuine Pastorals, not to speak about myself, least of all to a shrink.

I had missed a section:

ben green
@Michael
I missed your response to me before, so sorry about that.

I'm not sure what you mean by, " it isn't an appeal to authority at all."

What isn't? Erik's claim that consensus doesn't mean anything?

Dan pointed out that there is a general consensus and that's it. I don't care about your attempt to pretend that the consensus isn't significant or your cherry picking of examples that you seem to think invalidate that consensus.

Dan was highlighting the all too common tendency for lay people to assume that their opinion is worth the same as the opinion of experts - that applies to any field by the way.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'code' examination. Did you mean 'cold'?

An appeal to authority fallacy is when you take the word of people who are not really experts in the field they are discussing. So if you were to claim that I should take Erik's word for it that the letters are genuine - that would be an appeal to authority fallacy - an appeal to false authority.

However, it is perfectly reasonable - logically encouraged even - to accept the authority of experts on subjects they are experts in. This is not to say they must necessarily be right, but the probability is in their favour. Because they spend their lives looking at all the data, and lay people aren't even aware of how much data there is.

It is therefore an 'appeal to authority fallacy fallacy' to ignore the academic consensus on the grounds that their expertise means nothing.

Erik might feel he has good rebuttals, but that's because he's not an expert and lacks the detailed picture of the issue. While you might feel shortchanged by Dan's brief reply of "but the consensus is that you're wrong", that doesn't mean Erik isn't wrong.

ben green
@Grant Gooch
I think you are presenting a very simplistic overview of the literature.

Can I ask a question - did you get your information from an Inspiring Philosophy video on this topic?

I suggest you look at the areas where atheists score more highly on dogmatism.

Because what the studies actually show is that atheists have a tendency to be more dogmatic about logic, while theists are more dogmatic about emotional/moral beliefs.

It means that atheists tend to favour cold hard logic over empathetic concerns.

As for the exhibition of anti christian biases in academia - how do you know these biases are not warranted?

And you should also take into account the prevalence of dogmatism in right wing conservatives compared to left wing liberals.

The takeaway is that leftie atheists are not swayed by emotional appeals, and conservative theists are not swayed by logic.

Responding:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green "An appeal to authority fallacy is when you take the word of people who are not really experts in the field they are discussing."

No, it's when it is taking the word of someone else's opinion, humanly arrived at, when you can't replicte their thought process before those contradicting it.

The authority of eye witnesses would obviously not be a fallacy - and that's the authority of tradition about authorship.

If you are a shrink, you are not an expert in the field of logic, and you are not in a position to tell people what is a fallacy and what isn't. But you are in a position highly susceptible to criticism, which is likely to defend itself best on the assumption of "we should blindly trust the experts."

On the actual subject matter, there is no expertise, because there is no feedback from the facts being studied. In archery or shoemaking there is. You aim and miss, you know you were aiming too far to the left. You make a shoe it doesn't fit, you know you made the "foot to last" transition incorrectly in measures. You make a shoe it doesn't last (other end of the pun), you know your seams weren't strong enough. No such thing in discussing authorship of ancient texts.

Also no such thing in discussing best way to deal with a pandemic, experts who got data saying "doesn't make much difference" were still promoting policies that curbed freedoms over whole countries. Or at best "we didn't do it wrong" if the policies are already ended.

There is an expertise in psychology, though. As with other arts of bullying, the feedback is, how do you best break someone down to reshape him. Interesting that you singled out me for that kind of approach.

Michael
@ben green the consensus doesn't mean anything if most of the “scholars” don't even know the reasons behind it and are just repeating what they heard from their own professors unthinkingly, which in fact, happens to the case

Scholar John Bergsma recounts a story of his time in seminary when he asked in a class on Paul how scholars know that Paul didn't write the pastoral.. He said the entire class laughed and the professor said that he didn't know the reasons but they must be right because it is the “scholarly consensus”, You have that happen to you a couple of times, get laughed at by all your peers and be told by those in authority that your question is stupid, and you’ll learn to blindly regurgitate the standard line too

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not qualified to give you the help you need, but I suggest you find someone who is - preferably a non theist who isn't going to just confirm your dissonance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green I was not here asking for help, but challenging atheists and their actual bias.

Produced in ways that Michael was just telling you.

Gaslighting - the exact same thing you try to do to me.

ben green
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I know that's what you think.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green Then, why don't you respect it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@ben green OK, you don't answer the question.

I'm not sure if I can tell you the answer, but I can tell some others the answer:

  • you are trying to gaslight me
  • because I was a more radical challenge to the usual arsenal of arguments you have.


That's at least one option.

* Note:
"scored subtlety" presumably "scored with subtlety" ...

** Note:
whereon I reported him, presumably only way to block him on youtube, right now. I'd have preferred to block without seeming paranoid about what could be a joke. His channel seems to be nature oriented, but this is not impossible for shrinks to have that as a hobby.

*** Note:
The blocking attempt failed.

Yes, St. Paul Wrote Pastorals, Yes, Apostolic Succession Holds True


Yes, St. Paul Wrote Pastorals, Yes, Apostolic Succession Holds True · Is "ben green" a Shrink or Just a Jerk? Anyway, the Consensus of Catholic Bishops is More Impressive than Pseudo-Consensus (actually bare majority) of Scholars

No, the Pastoral Epistles Aren't Forgeries
Testify, 6 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlRGlVrmqm0


10:03 "and these concerns are far more developed" ... than Liberal Protestants in Germany in the 19th C. wanted to grant to a fully Apostolic age.

Why? Because these concerns with a framework favour an interpretation of that framework being by and large Catholic.

Like, compatible with confessions:
  • Roman Catholic
  • Eastern Orthodox
  • Coptic
  • Armenian
  • Syrian
  • Assyrian
Like incompatible with anything Protestant.

Gotcha, Testify! You have to convert now!

10:24 It's not just a question of Pastoral letters containing bishops and deacons.

It's about them making admission to these ranks depend on acceptance by previous such.

When David Bawden assembled an "emergency conclave" in 1990, there was no immediate plan for when and by whom anyone elected would be ordained bishop. A layman may be elected Pope or bishop of any other city (St. Ambrose was not even baptised when elected bishop of Milan, he received baptism, confirmation, episcopal consecration (including priestly ordination) on the same day. But if accepting, he has to accept to be consecrated bishop as soon as possible. As mentioned, no bishop was present at the emergency conclave - not even any lower clergy. If there had been any, he or one of them, would probably have been elected in priority over David Bawden. This means, it took bishops confronted with his claim to be the real Pope 21 years before two of them accepted to "impose hands on him" ... because of 1 Timothy 5:22.

Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

This is a prooftext against the idea that people after the apostles and outside their immediate vicinity just need someone electing them to have an office. Or at least to exercise it.

And that it's officeholders who do the imposition of hands, i e in this case not confirmation, but ordination, consecration.

A bishop ordained by St. Timothy would have an episcopal lineage:
himself - 1) back to St. Timothy - 2) back to St. Paul - 3) back to the "prophets and doctors," in Antioch, Acts 13 - 4 or 3) back to one of twelve apostles or including one of them if Simon Niger was Simon Peter - 5 or 4) back to Christ, before Ascension.

The other direction of episcopal lineage is called apostolic succession.

Do you see now, why Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy more than Philippians is a challenge to Protestantism?

10:54 Yeah, precisely the point.

Philippians and Thessalonians allow the interpretation "or simply those that took the lead" - and that is exactly what the pastorals exclude.

Ellis needs to call it a "development" - if he had admitted that the directives given in Pastorals were always there from Pentecost, and therefore understood but left unstated in Philippians and Thessalonians, he'd have had to convert.

So, what you are saying is, this "development" is kind of optional for Christians these days?

That's where we Catholics believe all of the Bible.

11:13 Douglas Tenyon Silver misses that the Pastorals do not just give directions about qualifications for office, they specify that the personal recipients, who got St. Paul's hands imposed on them, are the ones who impose hands and doing so apply the qualifications.

Hence, the majority of Protestant scholars, being Liberal Protestants, more concerned with staying non-Catholic than with staying Christian, need to conclude that they weren't Pauline.

12:54 I'm much obliged that you, presumably while still a Protestant, make firewood of certain Protestant arguments.

Thank you!

Michael Lofton Heard of Quo Primum Long After I Did


Michael Lofton Heard of Quo Primum Long After I Did · Ecclesiology of Mgr Lefebvre - Compared to Pope Michael · No to 1988 Consecrations = Yes to 1990 Emergency Conclave · Marcel Lefebvre - a new St. Athanasius or a new Martin Luther?

Did Pope Pius V Say the Latin Mass Can't Be Changed? (Restream)
Reason & Theology, 8.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IKDf9CTfOU


3:18 Monseigneur Marcel Lefebvre concluded that the New Missal was at least uncanonic due to Quo Primum.

He was before this:
  • archbishop of Dakar
  • bishop of Tulle


- so are you saying he had no training, neither formal nor informal in theology?

4:50 Not sure that Catholicism (which Quo Primum clearly is) needs to be reconciled with "Paul VI" ...

6:22 Before jumping onto your bandwagon on John XXII as leverage against binding Vatican II "Popes" by Quo Primum, I'd at least need to ask for some details about what John XXII said and in what context.

One would also be able to question whether changing a rite is purely a matter of discipline if the principle "lex orandi lex credendi" gets involved. Indeed, if liturgy is ever purely a matter of discipline. Canonisation involves perpetually raising someone to honour of the altars across the world.

Most changes to liturgy since Pope St. Pius V have been adding new propria to accomodate new saints, sometimes with new but not incompatible spirituality. I may be wrong, but I don't think St. Thérèse Martin, of Infant Jesus and of the Holy Face, also known as "of Lisieux" from her Carmel just got the "commune virginum" ...

6:26 The Apostles didn't reveal all matters of discipline. Examples:

  • they did not reveal that Popes have to be chosen by conclaves by cardinals (first millennium Popes prior to 900 or 1000, but no longer from 1000 or 1100 weren't, but voted by acclamation by mostly laymen, like the persons of Milan shouting "axios" about a catechumen named Ambrose)
  • they did not reveal that Papal electors have to be more numerous than 6 (Pope Innocent II was elected in haste by six cardinals, and an Antipope favoured by the Emperor, none less, said that nomination was invalid)
  • they did not reveal that Popes have to be elected in Rome (after Boniface VIII, one was elected in Perugia and for decades they were elected in Avignon)
  • they did not reveal that Popes have to be bishops prior to election, or at least clergy prior to elections (St. Ambrose was not even a layman, just a catechumen, and Cardinal Bishops of Ostia have a tradition of consecrating popes that were not bishops prior to election)
  • they did not reveal what exact theological schooling a man needs before being validly elected Pope (Pope Michael seems to have had some catching up to do, between 1990 and his raising to episcopal ontologic status
  • they did not reveal how much of the Catholic world needs to accept a man for him to be Pope ...
  • they did not reveal a lot of the things that people are commonly using to discredit Pope Michael.


So, do you have a better reason why David Bawden's emergency election cannot have been valid than "John Paul II" was Pope, despite Assisi 86, despite the anti-YEC positions he towted in the early 90's (when on the conclavist view he had become formally schismatic as antipope against an extant one)?

8:45 Do you believe that a consensus of fathers when it exists is binding, is a matter of faith, and is what is meant by Session IV of Trent?

Bc, demanding an absence of opinion in all matters where the fathers do not agree would be grammatically possible as a reading, but absurd.

The Fathers have not unanimousmy agreed on LXX vs Vulgate chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11 - does that mean I cannot use the LXX without the second Cainan (some manuscripts in Alexandria have that) chronology of the Christmas proclamation?

But the fathers do agree that Genesis 5 and 11, correct text version, whichever it be, correctly adds up to the time distance between Adam and Abraham.

9:29 Lefebvrist Apologetics have already adressed that point. Changes to Roman missal after Quo Primum typically involved adding saints and adding propria.

It did not involve adding or subtracting from the Canon Missae (Pope Michael and his now surviving "camerlengo" do not accept the 1962 Missals where St. Joseph is added to the canon).

11:10 I distinctly recall Clement XIII and his changes being mentioned - with above qualifications.

9:57 Yes, Father Cekada did pass away. RIP.

I'd very much like a link to whatever video or online document where Fr. Cekada admits Quo Primum could be revised.

12:02 You got the date right.

When I was 1 month old, mother took me from Vienna to Sweden to visit my grandparents, and we stopped in Munich, there was a Mass, she attended, and it was, certainly, the preconciliar one.

Now, did "Paul VI" believe he was just doing what Clement XIII had done or what St. Pius X had done?

There are indications he did not believe it. He allowed, under certain very restrictive circumstances, the older missals to be used. How I know this?

He allowed retired priests without people attending to continue using them. One who retired to profit from that dispensation was the late Rev Bryan Houghton of venerable memory. That's how I know, it is in his book Unwanted Priest.

12:33 Saying "nobody had a problem with it" is false.

The liturgic reform is when some non-Feeneyites start getting Sedevacantist. At the council or so, you may aleady have had Saenz y Arriaga (while "y" means "and" it is not two people, but one man's double surname), but lots of others turn up around the Mass Reform.

Monseigneur Lefebvre, Rev Houghton and Fr Gérard Calvet withdraw to be able to continue the old missal. All of them will have some degree of modification of the withdrawal to meet perceived pastoral needs, and they all consider they can ignore the "suspensions a divinis" which at least the larger two harvest up to 1988.

Since this date involves the presence of Antonio de Castro Mayer too, recall that in 1969, he obtained the dispensation to maintain the older books in his diocese.

If "Paul VI" momentarily had been dreaming of doing sth like St. Pius V - he was certainly able to see this as not being so, when giving dispensations right and left to not use the new books.

Which is one reason to believe that even if he had been Pope (which I am not granting), he would not have been doing coherently anything like St. Pius V, and he definitely was doing, by an unnecessary liturgic reform, the laying of foundations for the "biritualism within the Roman Rite" which "Pope Francis" is now so eager to end.

1:13 "someone who will go unmentioned"
12:47 "so much for this being a defeater to Catholicism"

If you refuse your hearers the access to what you are responding to, we have no word but yours for the one you answering being an Anti-Catholic.

A Trad could have made the claim.

I think Pope Michael in an interview June last year (before he got the disabling stroke from which he did Aug 2:nd) referred to Quo Primum, might want to rewatch it.

June '22 Interview Of Pope Michael
6th July 2022 | vatican in exile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0UBHcNZu4U


[Breaking off after 1:st third or so, here]

Pray for Michael Lofton, he gave us this masterpiece:

Did Pope Leo III Deny the Filioque?
Reason & Theology, 9.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWBUbAOaYMY

Sharing


Toxic Mom Culture | Ep. 90
Candace Owens Podcast, 8.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s61saSMGh9M


Two, three comments of mine:

0:17 I take lozenges sometimes when I have a sore throat.

When I have toothache or abcess I don't take pills. I take blue cheese and rince with distilled liquors, and I want the pain and its regress to indicate when those things are really working (the alcohol actually momentarily desensitises as well as kills caries bacteria).

0:21 At the utmost, when I am either too stressed or too tired to do good work on the internet, I go to a hypnosis youtube, generally an energising power nap of generally no more than 15 minutes (or 20 rarely when I'm very tired). Look up Alicia Fairclough, registered hypnotherapist, and she does several things on video (some therapies obviously can't be given to strangers online, and she can't do everything for free, or she couldn't live on it). She does some of those.

8:54 There would pretty certainly be people around where I am who are trying to drive me mad by sleep privation. They don't like homeless people getting up into "a position" on their own or above "he's getting help now" either. So, they don't enjoy the prospect of my getting any earnings from my writings.

Tuesday, February 7, 2023

Friendly Atheist Gets Unfriendly


The Jehovah's Witnesses are no longer a "religious community" in Norway
Friendly Atheist, 26 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKCHu5d2J_A


I

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:10 "nor should any group hurting kids"

Why is the Norwegian CPS still funded by tax payers then?

More seriously, CPS have a history of deeming parents guilty of hurting their children's rights and taking the children away over peanuts - or over parents being too overtly Christian.

A mixed Romanian-Norwegian couple, the Bodnarius, had their five children taken away because the CPS considered they (who were roughly speaking Pentecostals) "were too Christian" ...

There were protests by Romanians before Norwegian embassies in more than one country, and rightly so.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2:41 I think you were a bit unfair when speaking of a "giant barrel" - you dismiss public education that has similar or greater offense statistics on that count than "Catholic" clergy?

NoMoon777
Public education is not a "religion", it actually serves a purpose.

Also it would be interesting for this point to check what proportion of these cases in the public system are commited by alleged christians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@NoMoon777 "it actually serves a purpose."

To KKK back in 1868, it was meant to serve the purpose of combatting a specific religion, namely Catholicism. Which makes it confessional.

"check what proportion ... by alleged christians."

Or rather, how much more or less the Christians are perps than on those workplaces.

NoMoon777
@Hans-Georg Lundahl About your point on the KKK: Sometimes knifes are used to kill people, is it the purpose they are made? No, does it make them bad? No, does it make so that their real purpose is no more? Also no. Just because some groups try to use does not mean it does not have a purpose in existing. SO this part of your coment is useless.

On the next part, i just wanted to call attention to the fact that not all crimes commited by the ""holy"" happens at churchs. And that the information about how many of the sexual offenders call themselves christians would be a intersting number to analise.

On the point of abuse happening in the public eduation context, i though i was clear but perharps i failed:

It is still a problem that needs to be solved. Yet there is not a option to just close it down because it serves a purpose. Churchs on the other hand as organizations do not, specially when the money used for charity is coming from the government, which is absolutely stupid. Why can't the government do the charity then? why would need to pass by more hands and end up in the pockets of so many religious leaders?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@NoMoon777 "Sometimes knifes are used to kill people, is it the purpose they are made?"

Prior to KKK, the parents in the US had a perfect right to decide for themselves to educate their offspring in schools or not to, and to chose school form within their means.

The Casati laws targetted Austria and Catholics, KKK targetted Catholics, Jules Ferry and Émile Combe targetted Catholics, Lenin targetted Christianity, Azaña expanding state-operated secular schools targetted Catholics, Hitler Bohrmann targetted any kind of Jewish even indirect influence, including Catholic one.

"Just because some groups try to use does not mean it does not have a purpose in existing."

I think you misunderstood me. KKK did not try to make every US citizen become a racist. KKK targetted the mentalities which in a racist manner they despised, including the Catholic religious education.

"And that the information about how many of the sexual offenders call themselves christians would be a intersting number to analise."

In order to analyse it correctly, one would need to take into account whether they are overrepresented or underrepresented. For instance, if in US schools 70 % are religious in the personnel, but only 60 % are so among the sex offenders, that would mean the religious are underrepresented, even if they are in the majority. I think you could make some kind of similar observation against them in countries where they are rather rare in public schools.

"L'Education nationale est secouée par plusieurs affaires de pédophilie. Un directeur d'école de Villefontaine (Isère) a été mis en examen pour viols de onze élèves, qui auraient été commis entre décembre et mars 2014."
"Cette figure de l’enseignement privé catholique a été mis en examen pour “agression sexuelle sur mineur” sur un élève de 14 ans. Il conteste les faits."
"Najat Vallaud-Belkacem : « Dans l’éducation nationale, les réponses aux abus sexuels n’ont pas toujours été à la hauteur »"
...


"Yet there is not a option to just close it down because it serves a purpose."

Compulsory education in schools serve no necessary purpose. Societies have done very well without it.

"Churchs on the other hand as organizations do not,"

The Catholic Church normally speaking serves the purpose of getting people to Heaven. Accessorily, it provides a mentality better suited for good policy making than public schools do.

NoMoon777
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hold up, i am confused, are you defending only private schools existing cutting off all the "poors" from any chance of education and a better life?
Or are you defending home education, which is in most cases impossible, given that the vast majority of the population do not the formation/capacitation to teach any subject in a high level?

And on the KKK thing, do you think they did it on the whole world? Are you insane? I am not american and i have public education as well.
The reason education pushes people away from religion is not a conspiracy by the KKK, it is just the fact that the more scientific knowlege you have more obvious all the times the church has been wrong, which is pretty much everytime they go against science.
And then it gets really hard to take the 3k years old book written by goat farmers seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@NoMoon777 "And on the KKK thing, do you think they did it on the whole world?"

I enumerated other situations where people conspiring against Catholicism are involved in pushing compulsory education.

For completeness, I could add that KKK are a specially virulent branch-off from Freemasonry, which Communism also is, with predecessors like Carbonari.

For completeness, I could add, the Enlightenment was basically European intellectual culture getting hijacked by Freemasonry.

Note, I said European. That leaves out the KKK per se and only involves their more distant relatives like Voltaire.

"I am not american and i have public education as well."

When you spell "analise" I take it you are Hispanic or Spaniard? For Spain, I already said what I think of Azaña ...

Now, you asked what I am for.

  • 1) Parents should have the right to send children to apprenticeships and to keep girls at home up to marriage with only cooking and baby sitting on the curriculum, if that is what they want.
  • 2) Parents should have the right to homeschool, no questions asked about the quality, since, see previous.
  • 3) Parents should have the right to chose confessional schools, private ones being one obvious possibility.
  • 4) If the state choses to make public education available, it should not make it compulsory, or near compulsory for most by ruling out option 1.
  • 5) If the state choses to make public educaiton available, it should not order one sided promotion of either Evolution or Heliocentrism. It should make confessional choices available.


In Austria, when I was a child in late 70's, before my ma decided to homeschool me (which is perfectly legal in Catholic Austria), she had to decide what Catechism I should get. No Lutheran Catechism was available, she only had Calvinist or Catholic, and she chose Catholic.

Schools certainly existed in Spain before Azaña and in Russia before Lenin. Publically financed. Available to the poor. But two big differences - they were not compulsory (not sure Azaña changed this, but Lenin did), and they did offer Catechism (which Azaña outlawed as much as Lenin).

You mentioned private schools being available only to the rich. This is not true. There are élite schools where the rich are the priority, because they pay. There are also confessional schools, which are partly run as charities - the parents who can pay and some non-parents for the age group contribute to the school, so it can also take poor children without them paying full tuition fees.

Finally:

"it is just the fact that the more scientific knowlege you have more obvious all the times the church has been wrong,"

More like a few key concepts for world view, being pushed as "Science" and wrongly so called.

"And then it gets really hard to take the 3k years old book written by goat farmers seriously."

I think King David who wrote psalms had more sheep than goats. Moses had an education at a Pharao's court. St. Luke had a professional formation as a physician.

NoMoon777
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Incredible, i was having fun debating with morons about religion. But once again i hit the wall.
The wall being someone with such absurd vision of the world that there is no "agreed reality" and therefore no argument will do anything, no amount of logic will convince.

As always depressing, "keep girls at home up to marriage with only cooking and baby sitting on the curriculum" this says enough about you, the fact that you feel like this is not only fine but the correct.

Well, it is what it is. The only consolation that i have is that each year there is less people like you on the planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@NoMoon777 "that there is no "agreed reality""

Do you agree:
  • that what we see with our eyes prima facie looks like Sun turning around Earth?
  • that sciences are supposed to start with evidence and start from what it prima facie looks like, at least on some level?
  • that the societal past is accessible to books?
  • that different people depending on where they stand can interpret it differently?
  • that people may come to stand on certain issues depending on how they interpret history?
  • that some interpretations of history are absurd because they involve heroising cruel people?
  • that I might know history better than you do, if I am a history geek at age 54 and started being one age 10-11?


"this says enough about you, the fact that you feel like this is not only fine but the correct."

In fact, I didn't say it was the universal correct, I said it was fine. How about learning to read?

If your reason for thinking it was my version of "the" correct was my putting it at position 1, I did that to get a misunderstanding out of the way, that one being that the priority is to get children into the same curriculum (which was a priority for the evil people I've mentioned, including but not exclusive to KKK).

I hope your consolation, which seems genocidal on a KKK and Margaret Sanger kind of plane, will be taken away from you quickly.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl
8:28 I am reminded of how Swedish CPS was isolating me from my mother, 40 weeks per year, namely the school weeks ... from 9th to 12th grade.

True, only 9th grade was actually enforced. 10th grade, I wanted an international education to help me out of Sweden (IB of Geneva). ...

But Swedish CPS basically punished me and ma by such isolation for my:
  • being YEC
  • roughly speaking National Socialist sympathiser (having as yet heard little of other Fascisms which I definitely prefer over Hitlerism), even if I was so with reservations, and preferred the Middle Ages
  • believing it was OK to get engaged to and plan to later marry someone when one was in 8th grade ... and consequently trying to talk a girl into it by being a "very young stalker" ... who didn't stalk all that much.


Secularists in Sweden and Norway, in the CPS, are treating teens and children as bad as JW's treat rebellious children ... or at least comparably bad, if not as.

IV

AMG Guy
Russia outlawed Evangelicals... once Putin saw how Murderous, Worthless, Racist, Hateful, Adulterous and Treasonous Evangelicals are in America. . . Putin said: OH HELL NO. EVANGELICALS ARE ILLEGAL IN RUSSIA. Sadly that mean most must remain in America.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
You agree with Putin's assessment of the Ukraine too?

Sunday, February 5, 2023

Matt Dillahunty Spoke of a Problem in Evangelical Usage of Terms


Atheist Debates - Calling Christianity a myth is offensive
Matt Dillahunty, 1 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJ0VoAWJyw


3:45 You mean they are Greek pagans, rather than Lithuanian and Nordic?
Or you mean your mythology class covered Norse myth?

4:41 Exactly how often does the Bible or Church Fathers go out of their way to say "myth" is false overall?

Note, in a certain context, probably of Gnostic heresies, St. Paul was comparing that to remote origins myths like Gaia and Ouranos ... and St. Justin martyr had some things to say on Greek myths ending with so and so becoming a god ... (like it was the devil who lied to some to make them believe Perseus and Andromeda were taken up into the sky as stars).

But I don't find any common allegation that all myths and hero legends overall are false. For instance, when Aeneas rescues the statue of Athena in the Aeneid, St. Augustine makes a point about those gods being bad debtors - but doesn't question Aeneas existed. When Paul the Deacon says Gotan did not decide the victory for the Vinniles, he had two arguments:

  • it's only the true God who decides victories (bad argument since the situation of the story could be interpreted as Gotan being visibly there and acting as referee - Paul the Deacon meant the providential decisions in real battles)
  • and besides, Gotan was really Mercury - a Greek magician who lived 1000 years earlier.


So, they don't even question some people have been wrongfully deified, but otherwise rightly recorded. Saturn was banished to Italy by his son Jove who succeeded him as king on Crete ... Christians have had a tendency to say "OK, no problem" ... and I think Historia Scholastica takes that route.

Obviously I believe the identification of Gotan with Mercury is not a proof that only one such magician lived, and if you analyse similarities between Norse and other myths, I think you might end up concluding "wait, isn't this the Ancient Near East?"

5:24 You say Christians changed how the term was used. What Christians and when?

As you may know, most Evangelical Christian communities are younger in ecclesial communities than the lifespans of Paley and Locke.

In the Renaissance, St. Francis Xaver was asking himself whether the god of the Japanese, Bodda, was a real person or a total figment of the imagination. He concluded for the latter as it was said that he had become wise over 9000 years of reincarnations, and St. Francis Xaver didn't agree (obviously) that a man's soul could have a background of 9000 years of reincarnations.

7:48 Given that the type of intervention you speak of is likely to result in losses of freedom, there certainly is something "negative" (i e bad, in plain language) about what they would be trying to do.

9:05 When it comes to remote origin stories, like earth being a female goddess and the first biologically organised and conscient being or like earth being the carcass of a monster, they clearly contradict what the Bible says.

When it comes to 100 Flood "myths" it's more like independent support. I think Flood stories are also referred to as "origin myths."

Lots of other parts of pagan mythologies could well be historically true, even if seen from a theologically false angle. Greek tragedy taught me, Apollon is not a figment of imagination, as much as a demon. Homer and St. John both called him Apollyon.

9:29 "Christianity is not a religion"

Not said by Roman Catholics.

10:00 Has it occurred to you, that the parts of the Bible that precede the present and the New Covenant, and also are unobserved by any men, like most of Hesiod's Theogony, are about 1 chapter of the Bible? And that the rest is about things observed, if true, or claimed to have been observed, like Homer's epics?

10:41 Islam and Buddhism are more practical philosophies than myths.

The "myth" part of Judaism is compatible with Christianity (except saying Melchizedec was Shem and so a proto-Levite, making Levite ancestry mandatory for priesthood). The myth part of Hinduism can also largely be historic, namely Mahabharata for before the Flood and Ramayana from after it (even if Hindus swapped the chronology to make the Flood more remote and certain glorious Nodian men of renown more close to post-Flood dynasties).

11:07 The line I draw between Christianity and Greek myths is more like this.

Suppose Homer and Greek tragedy and Gospels are both historic truth.

Greek tragedy and Homer can be very easily reinterpreted (as I do) about demons interfering with heathen, who did not have the protection of God, as they had fallen under idolatry.

But the Gospels can't. If you refuse divine intervention, your sole option is, they are false. As history even. That's pretty unique for myths. And if Egyptians tried to make the Exodus story first a story of demonic intervention, then about a remote foreign god, which the Greeks took over, that was hardly fair on Moses.

Irrelevant Noob
Why couldn't it have been Loki just messing with desert-dwelling goat-herders for his own entertainment?

Also, what did you mean by that "As history even"?! Because i'm pretty sure the greek myths can be viewed as similarly a chronicle of ancient-er history...

And lastly, what's fairness got to do with any of this?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Irrelevant Noob I think I said more than once, Greek myths, excluding most of Hesiod, but including two epics by Homer and Athenian Tragedy is correct or nearly correct history.

It's just that it's better evidence for demons (or Loki) pushing people over the brink than for the God of the Universe making a covenant with a people. I e, it is historic events much easier to divorce from the theologic interpretation.

"Why couldn't it have been Loki just messing with desert-dwelling goat-herders for his own entertainment?"

I believe we were created in God's image and therefore refuse to believe we could have an entire people fooled into false memories. You seem to be highly patronising against people living in a desert or holding animals that give wool - by the way, what is your evidence Israelites preferred goats over sheep?

@Irrelevant Noob "And lastly, what's fairness got to do with any of this?"

Demons plotted the deaths of Laios and Hippolytos to humiliate the former's son Oidipous and the latter's father Theseus.

That's a very fair interpretation of what happened in two Greek tragedies.

It's very unfair to compare Moses to that.

Irrelevant Noob
@Hans-Georg Lundahl oh so it's the argument from personal incredulity... Quite convincing, then. :p

Why would i need to have such evidence, i never said what they preferred ... they just had herds of goats, like they also had of sheep, pigs, poultry, etc... and i just selected one of them arbitrarily (or maybe my subconscious selected the first one in alphabetical order, idk).

Of course Moses didn't "plot" anything, he was just the messenger of a sadistic and brutal higher power. Still don't see why fairness should come in.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Irrelevant Noob "oh so it's the argument from personal incredulity"

Over Hebrews preferring and obtaining larger herds of sheep than goats?

"they just had herds of goats, like they also had of sheep, pigs, poultry, etc"

Well, why not name them as herders of the majority livestock, then?

Plus, most books (psalms being a clear exception) did not have shepherds as authors.

"he was just the messenger of a sadistic and brutal higher power."

What's sadistic or brutal about delivering a people from what amounts to slavery?

@Irrelevant Noob Was this the item with "personal incredulity"?

"Why couldn't it have been Loki just messing with desert-dwelling goat-herders for his own entertainment?"

Well, an entire people suffering hallucinations is a very unordinary claim which would require very unusual evidence.

Barring such evidence, it should be excluded, and the claims of an entire people be taken as evidence.
Irrelevant Noob
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "Over Hebrews preferring and obtaining larger herds of sheep than goats?" -- no it's about "therefore refuse to believe we could have an entire people fooled into false memories"... How would you even detect if "an entire people suffering hallucinations" when it's the result of a deity inducing those experiences? How do you know how such experiences would manifest, and whether there is even anything detectable as "unordinary" that was going on?

"why not name them as herders of the majority livestock, then?" -- because what was the majority livestock isn't really important when it comes to their knowledge and credibility.

"What's sadistic or brutal about delivering a people from what amounts to slavery?" -- the way it was supposedly done, with genocide and mind-control. Guess he didn't practice as much with teleportation (like how the devil took a grown man from wilderness into the holy city) yet... he wasn't able or willing to solve the issue without bloodshed and strife.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Irrelevant Noob "How would you even detect if "an entire people suffering hallucinations" when it's the result of a deity inducing those experiences?"

The argument "how would you even detect" is overrated.

Suppose the universe were shrinking each day to half its size, everything in it, and the constants were constantly adapting.

I would probably be prepared to say "there is absolutely nothing indicating that" and you could then defend the theory with "how would you even detect it?"

There is no reason to believe entire peoples were suffering hallucinations, even pagans weren't suffering more than distortions of judgement, which is something else, like Oidipous believing it was a good idea to hear the Oracle of Delphi.

And as long as there is no reason to believe in collective hallucinations, there are very good reasons to believe the Exodus happened.

"because what was the majority livestock isn't really important when it comes to their knowledge and credibility."

Oh, you mean you were using goatherders as a slur, about the knowledge and credibility, and don't care five cents whether the slur is accurate or not?

Well, so much for your intellectual honesty!

"the way it was supposedly done, with genocide and mind-control."

The killing of Canaaneans was to rid exactly one country of religions involving child sacrifice. If they were ready to sacrifice one son each (at times at least) to false gods, they can't complain if the true God found them all worthy of death.

"he wasn't able or willing to solve the issue without bloodshed and strife."

He wasn't willing to solve the issue without bloodshed and strife, because strife was already there and bloodshed was already there. He just put the balance in for the right side.


11:26 Ah, yes, your own version of Apollo worship involves incantations that result in oracles about "4.5 billion years" ...

And you obviously call it Science with a capital S - like a proper name.

12:13 Myth could be any unreligious or not so religious story as well (Persian wars being the myth of a play in Greek tragedy).

Superstition is on the other hand definitely a question of trademarking - it's the oracles that aren't (unlike Hagiographers, Church Fathers and Popes) from the one true and omniscient God.

Now, is a story known as history, or by an oracle?

For Gospels or Homer, I say, "as history."

For Genesis 1 or for Hesiod or for Primordial Soup to Man, I say "by an oracle" - and at least two of them can't be true, since all three contradict.