Emma Thorne on the Blood Relic of St. Gennaro

Atheist Witnesses a Miracle! | Blood of San Gennaro Explained
Emma Thorne, 20 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItezDBMiqPk

5:49 Whom are you going to trust on Napolitan history?

Napolitan tradition?
Modern scholarship?

What you "looked up" is arguably modern scholarship.

Most of it is either Protestant or Atheist and either of these have a clearly vested interest in the relics not being real. Jews have less of that, but more of a general prejudice in anything Christian being bogus.

6:11 "mixed with legend"
Means what in this context? Legend basically means hagiography. Legenda means "things you are supposed to read" and that being hagiography.
6:13 "in a very idolising kind of way"
Idolising is an obvious jab from a Protestant ... I didn't quite think of you as Five Point Calvinist or High Church Anglican - and the latter would not even agree, but the Low Church Anglicans would.

Is a particular style of writing a reason for you to doubt historical facthood?

That in and of itself would leave only Modern Scholarship, written in much dryer styles than most styles of history writing, still available to you as "reliable" because "not tainted" ...

7:04 305 AD fact, 6th C AD text.

Like between Alexander and Arrian?

9:05 If you look at the Magna Charta in a museum, what is your "hard" evidence that you look at the paper that King John Lackland actually signed?

Relics, like San Gennaro's blood and like the Holy Cross, like Magna Charta or Declaration of independence are literally the hard evidence, but the hard evidence is only meaningful because of the soft evidence, the story surrounding it.

Rene Jean

Documents and 'magic blood' are hardly comparable. Not the same thing at all. Not all evidence is equal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Rene Jean The point was not that it was, but that the difference is established by what one could call "soft evidence" - i e reasoning.

Your view on the relative merits of San Gennaro's relic and of the Magna Charta belongs to the class of "soft evidence" or reasoning (some people reason with brains that seem very soft, either way an inequality in the force is a factor of "soft" compared to hard).

It is therefore misguided to ask "where is the hard evidence that this piece of hard evidence is also good evidence" you need to ask where is the reasoning that this piece of hard evidence is good evidence.

10:00 Santa - pronounced KeeAHrah.

Without the H, Italian would have pronounced it like "CHAHrah"

19:21 Oh, I will.

The pizza should be phenomenal, tradition has it what we now call pizza comes from Naples.

The exact claim that they are not making about fish and chips.

But presumably your generalised scepticism prevents you from believing fish and chips comes from England as well, doesn't it?

[separate comment]

Finally, Thixotropy.

How does this not explain the non liquefication at outbreaks of Vesuvio, World War II and COVID-19?

[separate comment]*

This reminded me, I had been hasty in pretending there was no precedent for "Saint John Paul II's" blood relics to go to Lourdes.

This is a precedent.

Well, San Gennaro's blood liquifies itself. Karol Wojtyla's blood liquefied the countryside, like Lourdes was flooded after the arrival.

* The previous one actually was final when watching. This last one was added on Pentecost Day.

Bodie Hodge on Satanism and Other

Why the Religion of Satanism MUST Be Stopped
Answers in Genesis, 31 March 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOkaKnv5oRY

4:45 Probably Job was told later, or Moses was told it.*

I consider Job was either simply handed down to Moses by Jethro, or Moses received traditions from Jethro, and revelations from God.

58:07 Nothing on how impossible it is for human language to emerge from ape communications?

59:01 Are you saying Roman Catholicism is different from Christianity in that book?

3. A Brief Introduction of Christianity............................................. 71
4. How Is Roman Catholicism Different?......................................... 75

75 - 111 or 112, 36 or 37 pages claiming Roman Catholicism is different from Christianity?

No, it's actually Protestantism in its many forms that's counterfeit Christianity. The best wish I have for some Evangelicals like you is, it's only incomplete, and not directly toxic.

For instance, I am glad Ken Ham pretended he was "both" Calvinist "and" Arminian, meaning presumably he acknowledges proof texts for both and adhers purely to neither. Roman Catholicism does so too.

1:03:27 Manuscript evidence will not decide whether the Gospels are fact or fiction.

The Church will. The Church will give evidence, She was not sending people to martyrdom over a fiction. Her leaders believed it fact, since they were often martyred.

And in 1500, which Church then on earth could claim to be the Church that wrote the NT?

Roman Catholicism, with some competition from Greek Orthodoxy.

The Protestant main confessions came after that, and Medieval semi-Protestant heresies have either been obliterated (as with Albigensians) or been adapting to Lutherans and Anglicans, as with Moravians, or to Calvinism, as with Waldensians.

* Actually the alternatives are:

• Moses inherited the human story via Jethro and was told about Satan's role;
• Job was told later by God, after his sufferings were over, when he wrote it down, and Moses already had it from Job;
• Job saw it in a vision already while the sufferings were going on, so he did not say so while he was not in a position to be heard, while the Job's comforters were going on and on, but he later wrote it down, and Moses already had it from Job.

This Book takes its name from the holy man, of whom it treats; who, according to the more probable opinion, was of the race of Esau, and the same as Jobab, king of Edom, mentioned [in] Genesis xxxvi. 33. It is uncertain who was the writer of it. Some attribute it to Job himself; others to Moses, or some one of the prophets. In the Hebrew it is written in verse, from the beginning of the third chapter to the forty-second chapter. (Challoner)

JOB - Introduction
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id1051.html

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her · Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

A) Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom"

"Evolutionist" Teacher versus Creationist Student
Gutsick Gibbon, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-JU2seTqjo

and B) I Answer Her

3:55 Is the hearing system really outside yours?

Apes acknowledged on all side as such and alive today have more robust parts of anything from outer ductus to stapes. This means, they cannot hear consonants, at the very least, they cannot hear front consonants, like labials or dentals. Doing the tongue and lip and teeth movements we do to produce a P or a T would possibly be physically possible to an ape, but it would be pointless, given that other apes could not hear them.

I think this is also the case for back consonants, and it's Australopithecus and Paranthropus that has ears that could pick out a K, if even that.

With no chance of articulating too many vowels, perhaps just ee and oo, and no or nearly no consonants that they can hear, they could never have had a sufficient phoneme repertoir to get a palette of phonemes not having, but distinguishing meanings. Hence no language structured in the typically three barrelled system human language uses, and all human language uses.

10:15 Is there any non-Lucy Australopith or Paranthrope with a foot size matching the Laetoli footprints? Or two of them with foot sizes around matching, or one of them with a foot size between what would match the two main walkers?

As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising.

I consider the different levels of volcanic deposit and sediment at Laetoli are all from the Flood, and yes, I have a mechanism explaining why older argon dates match older column "dates" - as volcanic deposits thickened, even with sediment / mud between them, the water was less and less good at cooling, so more and more argon escaped.

This would obviously not account for any argon argon results, only for potassium argon results - but aren't the datings from the era when potassium argon ruled, and have they been repeated by argon argon since?

daft wulli

I think it makes sense to find arguments that are simple and undeniable. Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff. So flood layers are very distinct from anything else. There is no worldwide layer. So there never was a wordwide flood. And yes I know some creationists try to claim the fossil layer woiuld be a flood layer, but it look nothing like a flood layer and is highly ordered and structured. No flood could do that.

daft wulli

Quote :"As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising."

translation : as a creationist I just make shit up as I go along and try to shoehorn anything into evidence for my pet believes, no matter if they fit or not, and would not recognize actualö evidenmce if it hits me in the face

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Instead of trying to push this as a "translation" what about telling me what it is that doesn't fit the evidence, and how it doesn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Sorry for previous by me, I missed this one from yesterday.

"Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff."

Certainly applies to floods with no saturation or oversaturation of sediment, as this deposits only after turbulence calms down.

You are missing out on Guy Berthault's research about depositing in fast streaming water oversaturated with sediment, this works out in a different way.

Also, as to structure at Laetoli, you compare the year long Flood of Noah to one flood, with no or only one volcanic eruption.

I hold that when this happened, the streams with oversaturated sediment came more than once and that volcanic eruptions also came more than once. The latter being part of the mechanism opening the "fountains of the deep" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hey friendo...where did all the water come from that flooded the earth? Also, follow up question, where did that water go? Do you realize how much water you would need to flood the entire earth to the height of mountaintops?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D One km and close to two above sea level is feasible if deeps seas were significantly shallower up to the end of the flood. Mountains rose after the Flood.

I was obviously more specifically inviting to specifics about Laetoli, but OK ... at least it shows, you ran out of more specific ones quickly.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah. "If the world was magically and fundamentally different, then the math checks out". My man, why didn't you just say so? Of course it'd be easy to flood the earth "up to the mountains" if there weren't any mountains lmao

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Oh, there were, up to one km high.

I consider Noah took off from the highest known and actually highest mountain.

I hesitate between the Meseta of Spain, bc there he could have had inlaws of both Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage, or Calvary, for theological reasons.

Either of them qualifies as a mountain if Mount Everest and Alps are not yet on the scene, and not even the Pyrenees, at least not full present height.

"different,"

From what? What we see now? Your own theory also says it has been different from that.
Or from what you expect according to your theory? Well, being different from someone's theory is not a slight on the beauty of the world. The theory could be wrong.
Or, perhaps, from a certain thing you think traces imply? If so, that would be really worth a debate!

22:04 Genetically distinct.

Stronger.

30 % of their genome is still available in modern human specimens, but typically more like 3 % in a single one (I wonder how many % Neanderthal Hercules and Beowulf were ....) The 30 % do not include mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes, looks like their heirs went over a bottleneck (if a Neanderthal man had a daughter with a Cro-Magnon woman, the daughter would have no Y chromosome, since a woman, and no Neanderthal mitochondriae).

No Neanderthal actual body remain found carbon dated to later than 40 000 BP. (Gorham cave is carbon dated later by charcoals, and is tied to Neanderthals by Mousterian tools, not Neanderthal remains - there were however Neanderthal actual remains in a nearby cave, carbon dated to 47 000 BP).

Could this be a pre-Flood race, perhaps either Nephelim or closer to Nephelim than Cro-Magnon race was (Cro-Magnon a k a "Sapiens" but since Neanderthals are equally made in God's image ...?) but perhaps less close than the Denisovan / Antecessor / Heidelbergian race was? Would fit genetical distinction, would fit being stronger, would fit not having any Y-chromosomes or mitochondriae, if the only representatives on the Ark were a daughter or more of Neanderthal fathers and Cro-Magnon mothers, and herself or themselves married one or more of the three Cro Magnon sons of Noah? Could this be why fullblood Neanderthals are not found carbon dated to more recent than 40 000 BP, and could this carbon date be the carbon date of the Flood?

22:16 Creationists these days tend to be Baraminologists, i e believe tigers and lions differentiated after the Flood from a single couple on the Ark. Like hedgehogs (Atelerix algirus) and hedgehogs (Hemiechinus auritus). OK, get your point, not phenotypically identical, fair enough.

I think the young man is however overdoing the point of "they are human, not ape" (as in what all sides agree to call apes).

daft wulli

Well humans are apes too, so he is not making the least sense here

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli We aren't. Even from your p o v, you should admit we aren't what all sides agree to call apes.

And quit saying things like "doesn't make the least sense" about people who don't agree with your ideologemes, even if or even especially if, the ideologemes have some support in experts you'd refer to as "Science".

23:10 Claiming they are human and "Homo sapiens" should be renamed "Homo Cro Magnon" after very early skeleta found early on, since all are "sapientes" as in God's image might be less vapid, though.

daft wulli

Sapient does not mean in gods image, and there is a good reason why somne are homo sapients and some are not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli While sapient does not lexically mean in God's image, it presupposes being so.

There is no good reason why Neanderthals and Denisovans aren't Sapiens. Unless you'd argue one or both of them are giants, of which Baruch 3 says they did not find wisdom. For Erectus soloensis, they may have been victims of degenerating genetic experiments. Kind of like Saruman's orc breeding to take a fictitious example.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "This word means X"

"No it doesn't..."

"No it doesn't, but imagine if it DID..."

Hilarious response my fellow ape.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D I did not say "imagine if it did" I said "the actual meaning implies this too" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Right but it doesn't. Sapient doesn't imply we're made in God's image.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, it does, precisely as a rock being created not in God's image means the rock is not sapient.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I mean, that's not the definition of sapient doing the presupposition, that's YOU doing the presupposition. Sapience just means "greatly intelligent". You're presupposing that anything that is greatly intelligent is "created in the image of God".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, even anything that's intelligent at all (unless you mean pragmatic and emotive "intelligence" which beasts don't lack).

Comment on GMS' animosity against Matt Walsh

New blog on the kid: Personal Attacks on youtube comment threads within a week - samples I to IV · Am I Targetted by Anti-Theists Trying to Destroy my Faith? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Comment on GMS' animosity against Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh and the Case for Destroying Someone’s Faith
Genetically Modified Skeptic, 26 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoMq7UsVHho

6:54 YOUR religion condemns the rights of unborn babies not to be killed.

7:18 Well, I have long since discovered how atheistic or semi-theistic belief in Science extends its power grasp to others.

I had to defend myself against shrinks (or their institutionally very close allies) in 1998.

I was being more or less ostracised for refusing to wear the mask or take vaccines that were made from viruses cultivated on fetal cells.

Just in case you don't know what this is about. "vaccines with fetal cells" is not an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory, as I once thought. An article in NYT, international edition, 4 Aug 2020 about vaccines being prepared in Russia showed me that.

Dry-wax which eradicated smallpox had viruses cultivated on bovine liver cells.
Renal cells from vervets have been used (reminds me of one theory of how AIDS arose, by people getting too close to vervets in some ways).
Cancer cells from dead patients having died naturally have been used.
But now the craze is for cells from an abortion in the 1970's, a genetically modified immortal cell line from renal cells - used both by Astra Zeneca and by Putin.

You know the guy who invaded Ukraine about a year ago? Before that he had made sure every med personnel in the Russian federation took the vaccine or got sacked.

His chase for the vaccine came as a boon, since in 2018 he had faced similar trouble as now Macron is facing in France over pensions devaluation (it setting in later is a devaluation) rather than making an even moderate push against abortions and contraceptives which had produced the aging societies which deplete pension funds faster. Alas, both Navalny in Russia and CGT in France seem to miss this connexion.

8:19 these arguments are not the actual reasons

False. Wiki says:

"Walsh is a practicing Catholic."
This is footnoted 113
Robinson, Nathan J. (June 15, 2022). ""What Is A Woman?" Is a Feature-Length Exploration of Conservative Ignorance and Prejudice". Current Affairs. ISSN 2471-2647. Archived from the original on July 7, 2022. Retrieved June 19, 2022.

Now, the fact is, Catholics believe, revelation does not impose moral ideas not rooted in rational experience. Rather, the Christian revelation just reinforces the rational and empirical bases of the correct moral ideas, and exposes the sham character of some pseudo-rational and pseudo-empirical. Plus gives an extra motive for following the actually rational morality, even if it conflicts with:

• own egoism
• collective egoism or narcissistic "altruism"
• actual state directives, with even the potential to punish real morality with death penalty.

So, being a Catholic actually sets one up on a Crusade to expose the false reasons behind popular immoral ideas of morality.

Bad ideas lead to harmful behaviour. Killing babies harms them, fairly obviously, but it also makes a society get greyer, which is harmful on many levels, including but not limited to pension systems (it seems the US is still nine years behind France in this respect).

8:39 "simply because God told him so"

That's simply not how Catholics view morality.

God saying so is in and of itself sufficient, if you can't be bothered to reason why, but for us Catholics, there is always a tangible reason which can be pointed out.

9:15 "ancient blood magic" .... "superstition"

There are many of your former Evangelical ideas you shed, but it seems your anti-Catholicism is alive and well ...?

9:36 "we need science, for our benefit"

Yeah, right ... mask mandates are hurting children's development, vaccines are correlated to deaths and invalidity with blood clots involved (and anti-bodies, which are what vaccines should produce, do tend to blood clots, and vaccines for Covid seem especially good at it) ... but Fauci told you guys and Salomon told us in France, "science, for our benefit"

Science as such is silent on human dignity. However, one could scientifically have predicted free access to birth limitation without the irksome factor of chastity could very easily lead to an aging society. Which would be harmful for both old and young, the old competing with each other for attention and money from the young, the young being more harrassed by the old - and pension funds getting depleted. But "Science" stood up and said fertility is sometimes bad for a woman's health (true), and chastity is irksome (also true) therefore ... no, the conclusion is not true. But it is still very much part of what people mean when they refer to "Science" and shows "Science" is a religion with sometimes very harmful consequences.

I note how the guy is constantly interrupting Matt Walsh who is too used to polite people to come out impressively before similar loud "Science" bigots.

10:02 "whose only cited source is supposedly miraculous visions and dreams"

St. Luke cites quite a lot of people's eyes and ears with normal functioning at the time.

Is your deconversion starting to make you unaware of basic facts you used to know or are you going to make special pleading for "St. Luke didn't name them, so the source isn't cited" as if this weren't pretty standard procedure in pretty much all historiography? Including modern history text books.

10:25 So, men discussing issues in their own time = no relevance to a discussion in the 21st C.?

That applies for a distance of c. 2000 years.

But for some reason not for a distance of c. 200 years (Communist Manifesto comes to mind with your views on women's rights).

Is there a specific time limit, say 1100 years (medium between 2000 and 200)?

Can we bring in St. Thomas Aquinas, because he died in 1274? That's just 749 years ago, clearly less than 1100 years. Or is the time span even shorter?

Or, is the real rule you apply, you can refer to 200 years of reasoning within your sect, but Catholics cannot refer to 2000 years of reasoning within ours? Because, I am very sure, Voltaire would have agreed with Walsh, not with you. Voltaire would have been even more eager than Walsh to refer to psychiatry when it came to poor Mulvaney (I hope for his sake, he's doing a Tootsie type of flirt with a Lesbian).

Or, it is relevant, if it agrees with your modern ideas, and irrelevant if it doesn't?

How is that criterium not ... 1984?

Or your old Evangelical type of putting your agenda everywhere, but applied to a reversed agenda?

10:43 What science opposes the Catholic view of the Eucharist?

Miracles being impossible, because God doesn't exist? W a i t ... was that chemistry, was that physics, was that - materialistic metaphysics, perhaps? The latter, unlike gynaecology, not being exactly a natural science.

Veridicus Maximus

Magic is not science!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus Sounds like materialistic metaphysics, and therefore, what you appeal to is not an actual natural science.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not make an appeal. Appeals to gods are not natural - period!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus You appealed to an authority about "magic" and the authority you used was not an actual natural science.

Therefore it was to sth which is not an actual natural science. A philosophy. Materialism.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nope, no appeal to any authority in saying magic/miracles are not science. You should learn what science actually is! Science is not based in or upon supernatrualism, magic, miracles.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus I did not state that science is based on supernaturalism.

I said sciences are authorities of reliable information, but what you said doesn't come from one of them.

Veridicus Maximus

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I did not say you did say that! You seem to have comprehension problems.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veridicus Maximus You have comprehension problems about what you mean. I e about what the words you use mean. You recall Inigo Montoya's famous meme?

The fact that a specific information is not from natural science does not meant it opposes it. There is no natural science saying there is no such thing as miracles or magic or sacraments. That's not the kind of question that natural science studies.

So, do I just take your word for the obvious?

Or do I take it as what you seem to think it implies, just because you think it implies that?

Or do I ask what you have as assurance of the comment being meaningful?

The latter. You seem to have serious comprehension problems with the question. And with the meaning of the words you try to use answering it with.

10:43 bis

I was perhaps asking you the wrong question in "What science opposes the Catholic view of the Eucharist?"

Perhaps I should have asked, do you find it insincere to use science as a reliable (at least on occasion) source of information, and to not use it as the only such?

How is this not reversing your old views on the Bible by simple transfer from one loyalty to another one, as narrow, and actually less well based (which you seem too unaware of history to realise it is)?

Mikolmisol

Science is not a faith-based knowledge system, but an evidence-based one. It's invalid to pretend that trusting science is equal to trusting religion. The former is evidence-based, the latter is faith-based. They are a different type of thing, hence why religious people can still trust science.

Your question is loaded with the assumption that, apart from science, there is any other evidence-based system for approximating reality. I certainly know of none.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol Science, like all of history, involves having faith in sources one cannot check - because one believes them reliable.

"I certainly know of none."

History and journalism are nothing? Your own personal memories are nothing? Neither of these is science.

@Mikolmisol So, for you, I take it, the answer is "to accept science as at least on occasion a reliable source is only consistent if you accept it as the only one" ... interesting, but I was first and foremost asking the producer of the video, since his question about Matt Walsh seemed so skewed - like you do.

Mikolmisol

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, science does not require faith, past the faith that there is an objective reality, which all humans require to function.

In what sense can you not check those sources? You can read a research paper and examine the materials and methods. If something feels off, you can contact the authors of the paper. If you see errors, you can write a letter to the editor of the journal and get it published. Methodologically flawed papers get retracted.

None of what you mentioned is an evidence-based system for approximating reality. The knowledge that your senses alone give you is superficial and cannot be used to understand nature. History and journalism are simply recording and reporting existing knowledge.

Oat Miser

Why did you post 8 separate comments

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Oat Miser Because I commented on 7 (?) different parts of the video, at 10:43 this is the second one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol "past the faith that there is an objective reality, which all humans require to function."

That faith also implies general reliability of information taken from others - on faith.

"History and journalism are simply recording and reporting existing knowledge."

Sure. So are the Gospels, the knowledge existed since the Resurrection and Ascension.

I have nothing against superficial.

@Mikolmisol Me: "involves having faith in sources one cannot check"
You: "In what sense can you not check those sources? You can read a research paper and examine the materials and methods. ..."

I cannot go out into the field to repeat the observations for each and every one. And I cannot be on all 0 - 90 ° N, 0 - 90 ° S, all 360° meridians to observe what journalists observe.

11:05 Yes, we believe God is a mystery and we worship God.

You worship man, and as a result, you come to treat man, ourselves, as a mystery.

Not quite as much of a religious necessity for us who worship God and not man.

Mikolmisol

Wrong, I don't worship anything and anyone. Don't project your worship onto others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mikolmisol Are you GMS?

I adressed the "you" to GMS.

My words also don't mean that you do acts you would classify as worship, it means what you do amounts to worship, of the collective self and of individual selves.

11:11 Yeah, in the Middle Ages exactly one man in the kingdom of Sweden was burned at the stake for denying the Eucharist.

In England, the grand total of Lollards burned at the stake is 283 or 282 or sth ... very close to the total of Catholic martyrs after that.

HOWEVER in Spain, your side killed 12 bishops, 3000 religious who weren't priests (including nuns) and 40 000 priests.

11:31 Yeah, right.

It's been quite a while I have followed your channel, and you pretty constantly seem to prefer psychological blabla over cool rationality and hard evidence.

13:10 You just proved St. Augustine right in his prophecy of pluralism.
It's tolerant of every error, but not of the Catholic truth.

Genetically Modified Skeptic

Of course the first video with the new mic would also be the one where I have Covid voice. Enjoy!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did you get it after a vaccine, or did you have the sense to not take those things?

Abrahamic vs Eastern

Q

Catholic Apologetics : Unlike many Eastern faiths, why do Abrahamic religions worship scriptures like the Bible, Quran, Tanakh? What makes billions of people really believe that their quirky books are the true word from God? Are they naive and their beliefs a giant hoax?
https://catholicapologetics.quora.com/Unlike-many-Eastern-faiths-why-do-Abrahamic-religions-worship-scriptures-like-the-Bible-Quran-Tanakh-What-makes-bill-1

Submission accepted by

Theo Fessenden

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

24.V.2023

“Unlike many Eastern faiths,”

Not the two biggest ones, which in their traditional versions tend to worship Tripitaka or Ramayana and Mahabharata. A somewhat smaller one tends to worship the Analects. An even smaller one, the Avesta.

“why do Abrahamic religions worship scriptures like the Bible, Quran, Tanakh?”

Any given such collection of texts has a community making about it certain claims:

• about the human authorship
• about how this ties in with (presumed or real) divine authorship.

The different communities and the different claims may be very similar to an Easterner, they are even so not equivalent or interchangeable.

“What makes billions of people really believe that their quirky books are the true word from God?”

I’m not sure whether someone worshipping Mahabharata or Avesta is in a position to speak about quirky.

Again, different communities make different claims, involving different bases for these claims.

“Are they naive and their beliefs a giant hoax?”

Supposing there is no such word of God - yes. But so are Eastern books that parallel claims are made for, not in relation to a unique God, but even so in relation to a unique source of truth.

Supposing on the other hand there is such a word of God - yes, most such claims, as well as the Eastern parallel claims, except for one.

Does this discredit the one along with the parallels? Not if the claims are assymetrically better than those of the rest.

"Distant Starlight" - Only Distant for Heliocentrics

If The Earth Is Only 6,000 Years Old, How Is This Possible?
Answers in Genesis, 29 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R618vzhDfU

I stop watching at a synopsis which tells me my solution is not even being considered, so here are my comments on first four minutes, minus some, of a 52 minute 25 second long video:

0:49 What exact ongoing processes would preclude this being only 1 light day up?*

2:04 They obviously saw stars.**
If the stars were just one light day up, as I believe is the case, they had already been there for fish and birds to see or sense the day before - some of them orient by the stars.

3:47 From the synopsis here given, it seems you are still not considering:

• stars are just one light day up
• beyond that is the Empyrean Heaven, which is where God has His throne room, his "dwelling" not meaning his "bedroom" but more like his "reception room"
• and all this takes is "parallax" not being parallax and alpha Centauri not being four light years away.

Your plethora of solutions reminds me of how Evolution believers explain language or life.

* Ongoing processes preclude this being starlight created in transit.
** Adam and Eve on the evening of day 6.

I Still Advocate for a Lowering of Marriageable Age, Cases in Point, the Blessed Virgin and the mother of St. Francis of Sales

Marian Dogma Refutes Muslim and Secular Critics of the Virgin Birth
The Counsel of Trent, 22 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aklPXqeWp88

0:06 I wonder, will any place in the video show a Muslim quote actually denying the Perpetual Virginity?

Teen pregnancy is both a descriptive term and a loaded term.

Descriptively, it means a pregnancy occurring in the teens.

Loadedly, it means a pregnancy occurring in the teens because of fornication, because one girl in her teens and possibly the male also in his teens, found no opportunity for getting sex inside marriage.

The latter is obviously very heretical and blasphemous to state about the Blessed Virgin, or of Our Lord, but the former isn't.

Shaun Steele

the word "teen" itself is a fairly modern term. Historically, people didn't think of human development like we do. There was childhood, and then there was adulthood (somewhere around the age of 13). There was no transitionary "teenage" period like we think of today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shaun Steele I used "teen" as referring to the human years that end in -teen : thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen.

But you made my point, as adulthood was around puberty, at least in relation to marriage, de facto teens in the mathematical and chronological sense, were pregnant.

2:56 Please note, in the pre-1917 code, the minima were 14 for the male partner and 12 for the female one.

YoungBabyTate

It's important to remember that this canon would be disciplinary and can be fallible. The important teaching is that the parties are capable of free consent. As we progress, we learn more and more about which ages people can/can't give consent at.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@YoungBabyTate I think you have just put yourself into conflict with Syllabus Errorum, perhaps even Vatican Council.

A canon is in and of itself not an infallible teaching, but it is a very good hint about such. A canon that has stood for centuries and been widely applied, cannot be an incentive for what is de facto mortal sin, like de facto forcing non-consenting brides.

And, yes, the canon was widely applied, even down to the actual minima. Not as in 12 being median age of marriage of a girl, the minimum will normally not be the median, nor as in it being more than half the cases, then it would unusually enough coincide with the median, but when I take nobility marriages as samples, for instance in the ancestry of Lewis XVI, I find 1 / 15 women married at 12, one or two at 14, five at 15, that's a full third just that year of age, one or two at 16.

If a girl married at 12 is raped, the Church encouraged rape on large scale.

If the Church did not encourage rape at all, then a girl married at 12 by saying herself yes and people being sufficiently sure she's not unduly pressured = married, not raped.

What you say about us understanding consent better now is at odds with Christ giving the Apostles the fulness of the Holy Spirit, so they were able to teach correctly on all matters doctrinal and moral, the latter ones obviously involving what constitutes valid consent to marriage.

Dei Filius, IV De Fide et Ratione, canon 3.

3. Si quis dixerit, fieri posse, ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia propositis, aliquando secundum progressum scientiae sensus tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quem intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia; anathema sit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Correcting my stats, the 5 married at 15 involved 4 men.

Females married by before 16, both Marie Antoinette and Lewis XVI, and both physical ancestry and other brides of male ancestry or things like that, 38 women, 1 married at 12 = 2.632 %, and overall between 15 and 19 % married before 16.

Aaron Mueller

@Hans-Georg Lundahl When a state sets a minimum speed limit on the highway, they are not encouraging people to drive that slowly. Similarly, when the church puts a minimum age for marriage, it does not mean that are encouraging younger marriage. If they were trying to do that, they wouldn't have an age limit at all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Aaron Mueller The traditional limits set by the Church, from before St. Thomas Aquinas to 1917 are 14 / 12.

There are gynaecological benefits for a woman to marry early.

As men have longer fertile periods than women, and many women slow down sexual activity at the climacterium, there is a trade off for a man, either to marry young, a contemporary, who will stop wanting sex before he does, or marry late, someone younger, after enduring celibacy for a long time before that - meaning of course involuntary celibacy due to lack of partner or resources, not the voluntary one of monks, friars, or men like St. Benedict Joseph Labre.

3:25 I am sorry, but did I hear "in the best interest"?

This is a phrase which is very good to consider for actual physical parents, whom God placed over their own children, "honour THY father and THY mother" ...

It is a lot less good to consider when it comes to someone else's children. Like CPS are at least in Sweden and Norway ill reputed for destroying families, and in Norway for having a bias against Christian ones (outside the Lutheran very liberal "Church").

It is a kind of slave hunt when it comes to people who no longer are children, as is at least in the marital respect, as St. Thomas defended it, not the case with teens.

If you are yourself in the habit of using the phrase, don't do so any more. If you have a priest who does, ditch him as not a Catholic!

3:33 "Even the Church will not marry people for a shotgun wedding or because someone got pregnant"

She certainly did in Renaissance Spain, otherwise there would have been no point in executing the noble who had deflowered the mayors or Alcalde's daughter in Zalamea.

I think St. Thomas also defends making someone pregnant as one of the obligations one can have to marry her (apart from solemn verbal promise in words "de futuro").

What you say, if true, is an argument against your Church being the Catholic Church.

If this is not so, please explain.

Lydia Bergeron

The point about the shotgun wedding refers to men and women who marry unwillingly because of pressure due to the woman becoming pregnant - either pressure from the man or from one or both of their families. It’s possible for a wedding of a man and a woman who becomes pregnant, but only if it’s them consenting to the marriage of their own free will. A lot of what we call “shotgun weddings” are forced or pressured into it by family or loved ones, so not freely chosen therefore likely invalid. (Just addressing the specific quote there, not the Aquinas reference, I’m not familiar with that)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lydia Bergeron I would say, family pressure is in fact not invalidating the freedom of consent.

It would need to be very intense before it did that.

Most of the weddings one would call shot gun weddings today are in fact not involving any shot gun, since that intense family pressure would not just invalidate consent, but actually be punishable by US courts of law too. So, mostly, it's on the level of "hey, you really should" - which leaves someone free to disagree, and does not viciate the free consent.

3:44 Getting married for a pregnancy is not free from obligation, but it is free from actual force.

Hence, your Church is not recognising the traditional limits on human freedom.

5:34 a menarche at 14 is actually rather late.

90 of women have their menarche between 11th and 14th birthday (5 % down to 9 and 5 % up to 18, outside this), and the medium is a few months above twelve.

Old canon law, 12 as at least roughly half of the females have bled (and one wants to set the limit on a birthday).

New canon law, 14 as 95 % of them have bled.

Each of this is true for the male as well, add two years to anything, except the outer limits of 9 and 18.

@alonso19989

The limit was not based on menarche, but on the age of reason. As knowledge on the subject evolves, so does the number.

It's also a teaching of the Church, not dogma, which is why it could be changed at all!

Please learn your own religion.

@hglundahl

@alonso19989 The age of reason, sir, is SEVEN.

Case in point. An older sister (perhaps 8 or 9) at her brother's seventh birthday: "congratulations, you can now go to Hell"

Obviously NOT a marriageable age.

Whether you are a Catholic or not, you are not in a position to correct me about Catholicism.

If you believe 12 or 14 is just barely the age of reason, you are also a menace to liberty.

@alonso19989 "As knowledge on the subject evolves, so does the number."

The problem is, knowledge cannot evolve over and above that accessible to the Apostles in matters which are relevant for pastoral, which age of consent obviously is.

Can't find the reference in the Summa right now, but it is there. I made extensive reading back in 1996 - 1998, and again some in 2000 - 2004.

In matters that aren't, yes, it can evolve.

Alonso B

@hglundahl That's not how the Church works.
We have dogma and the teachings of the Apostles and, indeed, it is well known and unchangeable from this that one needs to reach the age of reason, because it requires a free will and absolute consent

When does a person reach the mental faculties for a free and informed consent was often left for every community to decide, under the guidance of their bishop. Confirmation age here (Archbishopric of Lima) is 16, marriage also 16, but it is higher in other places. Some have it lower.

A Church wide minimum is not dogmatic. It's Church teaching, it's canon, yes, and it must certainly be abided by all Catholic clerics BUT it's not unchangeable. If anything, the anomaly is having a Church wide minimum!!

The only truly unchangeable in the Church is the depositum fidei.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@alonso19989 "it is well known and unchangeable from this that one needs to reach the age of reason, because it requires a free will and absolute consent"

Free will, certainly. I am absolutely less positive about "absolute" consent. Sounds like modernese for "if there is some tiny scrap of doubt on the consent being freely meditated, it's not consent" which would make lots of lovematches impossible for marriage as long as being in love lasted.

"When does a person reach the mental faculties for a free and informed consent was often left for every community to decide, under the guidance of their bishop."

I don't think it is all that frequent.

"Confirmation age here (Archbishopric of Lima) is 16, marriage also 16, but it is higher in other places. Some have it lower."

Up to at least 1917, it was world wide (at least Latin rite) marriage 14 / 12, which was also the civil law in Spain, and arguably also in Papal States while they lasted, up to 1870.

"It's Church teaching, it's canon, yes, and it must certainly be abided by all Catholic clerics BUT it's not unchangeable."

I was not saying it was. An argument for the new canon law in 1917 (or while that code lasted, resumed in 1983) changing it to 16 / 14 means c. 95 % puberty rather than c. 50 % puberty, and that is a precaution in a more chaotic world, where young marriages are under attack. In Italy, Alessandro Serenelli and Maria Goretti could only have married before she was 18 if she had been pregnant - sth she obviously refused and is a canonised saint for refusing.

What I am saying is this:

• the ideas we have need to be compatible with Church law
• and especially with Church law over centuries.

We cannot afford to have an idea, the consequence of which is, "the 14 / 12 limit facilitated what amounts to rape, even if they were too ignorant to realise that" - that is a proposition which must be condemned. Firmly.

And that's exactly what I am doing.

Check out the limits in Lima for before the Peruvian independence, while Peru was under Spain! Please do!

6:13 Here is the distinction.

Islam has any puberty, at least any normal and according to this scholar even precocious.

Catholic Christianity traditionally has medium age of puberty, or by now, since 1917 (or so?) an age of near total "puberty coverage."

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

Not really. Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even whith an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe This means, Islam has puberty for consummation.

At least some degree of puberty and in - let's say more humane - schools, puberty.

As to the marriage contract being prior to this, well, there were times when Medieval royalty called child betrothals marriages, but obviously waited to later with consummation and actual sacrament of marriage.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, it means marriage can be consummated, even before "puberty", as long as the female can bear the penetration with out injury.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe If taken literally, unfortunately yes.

I spoke about humane schools.

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe Btw, why quotation marks around puberty?

9 years old is a very early, but not precocious, puberty.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It is permissible in the 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali); and the Imamiya.
What "humane schools" did you have in mind?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Because I'm quoting your use of the word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe My usage is about the medical fact.

Near 100 % of puberties occurring are between 9 and 18.

90 % of them are however between 11 and 14 for girls and between 13 and 16 for boys. 5 % go out on each side, either down to 9 or up to 18.

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe First, when no harm is to be feared is not too far from natural puberty if it is early, second, I believe you have studied this, but have you considered each of the schools could have a humane "wing" to it?

Just asking.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Is that a:
you can't name any "humane schools"?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And that changes absolutely nothing about Islamic law codes permitting marriage at any age, even with an infant. While consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe It seems, all of your named schools have Arabic names.

Semites in general have early puberty.

Now, all you have said changes nothing about the fact that I am slightly less critical than Islam than you, I would not endorse consummation of marriage at 9 even if (as can happen) puberty had occurred, and I refuse to make the "18" rule, getting to the upper extreme of natural puberty get a free pass, just because Muslims tend to get to close to the "9" rule, the lower extreme.

I have a preference for the 14 / 12 rule, when c. 50 % of boys / girls are in puberty, and an understanding of the 16 / 14 rule, when it's 95 % of each sex.

What humane school of today's secularists would deny the 18 / 18 rule as "reasonable" legislation?

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Does that mean you can't name any of these "more humane" schools, that you introduced?

As for the reset of your post, it seems utterly irrelevant to what I have said. I'm also not sure why I should take your assertion as anything factual.
What you refuse or prefer is also of no relevance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe If you are this dismissive, why did you chose to interact with me at all?

What I have said about puberty (measured in menarche and first ejaculation, depending on sex) is from a natural science or medical journal, which I found in a library in Sweden back in 2001 or sth.

If you are interested in that topic, which is perhaps relevant for your condemning tone on Islam, and your total lack of condemnation of the modern Occident, how about checking with a gynaecologist, and not a psychologist?

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Does that mean you can't name any of these "more humane" schools, that you introduced?

What you have said about puberty is irrelevant.

I provided correct information about Islamic law on the issue. Your digressions have no relevance to the facts I presented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe How humane or otherwise Islamic law is depends on when puberty is.

It is absolutely no digression at all.

If you are under the delusion that puberty is "around 15" as if there were no leeway between 9 and 18, you will incorrectly conclude that a girl of 9 is automatically pre-puberal.

As for what I can name, I consulted one Islamic institution connected to Sheikh Imran Hossein, will see if they reply.

Our debate is on a blog post I sent them the link to. I suppose you found my initial comment by that blog post, but just in case this is not so, it's the second highest up on "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere."

Apart from that it is loutish to presume the angle you chose is the only relevant one for any and every purpose.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You introduced "humane" in 'humane schools'. I'm using your words.
I don't recall saying anything about "digression. I said the rest of your, at this point nonsense, has nothing to do with what I stated.

I have not made any statements about the "age of puberty". So your preference is irrelevant to what I stated.
I did not even introduce "schools". You did.
I have no clue what you are talking about with "Sheikh Imran Hossein", and I did not ask about any "Islamic institution". I asked what "schools" you were referring to. Not "institutions".
Do you even know what "schools" means in an Islamic context when talking about Islamic law and jurisprudence?

What debate are you on about? Blog post? Where do you think this is? This is the comment section of a youtube video? I found your "initial comment" there while listening to the video. This not some blog post.

The "angle I chose", is the only one relevant to me. I'm attempting to point out that anything you respond to me with, that does not respond directly and on point to exactly what I stated is irrelevant.
It is not that difficult to understand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe "I provided correct information about Islamic law on the issue. Your digressions have no relevance to the facts I presented."

So, you did use the word digression. If you changed it to nonsense since, too bad, I already copy pasted it onto the blog post.

"I have not made any statements about the "age of puberty"."

Implying, you absurdly consider age of puberty irrelevant for the discussion of when one can marry. Your absurdity, not mine.

"I did not even introduce "schools". You did."

Admitted. A guess, and for the Arab speaking world at least you seem to have been acquitted, since you have better knowledge on that than I. Of lying - but not necessarily of absurdity, see what I said about puberty.

"The "angle I chose", is the only one relevant to me."

Fine, we have a divergence on opinion on what is irrelevant or relevant. Your opinion is an absurd one, inhumane another and probably worse way, since it is indirectly pushing for abortions in the case of teen pregnancies.

"What debate are you on about? Blog post? Where do you think this is? This is the comment section of a youtube video?"

On the comment section, you can change what you already stated, even after I answer it. I have copy-pasted the debate to a blog post of mine. Take it as a kind of candid camera. The interaction is not a film. However, it is being filmed. It is being made visible via a film. Our interaction is not a blog post, but I am sharing it on one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe "anything you respond to me with, that does not respond directly and on point to exactly what I stated is irrelevant. It is not that difficult to understand."

This is a claim of correcting me. Of me answering to you, but you not to me. Of me never correcting you.

It is the claim appropriate to a slave hunter. A bully.

Thank you for telling OUR readers what a jerk you are.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You are correct. I did say digression. I did not recall that. And was reviewing again when you posted.

The 'implication' is I have no interest in your takes on "puberty" or the "age of puberty". I'm also not interested in your takes on abortion or pregnancy.
I have not given my opinion on on any of those things. Since I have not given (and am not going to give) my opinion on those, your comment that:
>"Your opinion is an absurd one, inhumane another and probably worse way, since it is indirectly pushing for abortions in the case of teen pregnancies."<

...is just ignorant. My opinion on any of those is entirely irrelevant to what I stated: Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even with an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.

That is just fact. Not my opinion. Here, let me provide a brief quote:
"(2) Ibn Hajar:
“Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.”
Source: Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari . Vol. 11, Pg. # 347"

Should I take it that your lack of response to my questioning of your knowledge of "schools" to mean that you do not know?

This is not a 'debate'. This was me providing correct information about 'Islamic law', and just that. Followed by you somehow failing to comprehend that, telling me what my statement meant, and deciding continue on about things utterly irrelevant to what I stated, such as Medieval Royalty, Semites, puberty and ejaculation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe I think I already answered that my hunch about divergence in Islamic schools is not the leeast meant to be a statement of definite fact, but of possibility, and I deferred to you.

Now, two things.
1) My initial statement referred to consummated marriage, like Aisha at 9, not to the legal marriage, like Aisha at 6, obviously. Now, I think "until she can bear it" has a tendency to be close to puberty. If I am wrong, tell me medical reasons for that, but as far as I can tell, certain parts need to be able to swell to make intercourse bearable, and this ability comes at or close to puberty.
2) You have been specifically asked with your knowledge of Islamic schools superior to my own, and vastly so, to tell me whether there is an application within one or more of the four schools you mentioned, that actually puts the limit at puberty, i e at menarche, you have not only refused to answer, but you have basically told me it was wrong of me to seek information from an Islamic institution. This is suspicious.

The quote you gave, to the best of my knowledge, would perhaps involve a margin of up to a year before menarche.

Islam is still vastly superior to certain secret societies who actually, even if only in simulation, f**k toddlers, unless all the reports about that are fake. As you mentioned the distinction between legal marriage and consummation, this could perhaps partly exonerate Jewish customs stating a girl could be married by her fathers consent (unless she said no) from 3 years, six months, one day. It would not be consumed. One may hope.

Giving a marriage contract legally binding force when about a child is wrong, but it is a different question than that of the pedophiliac perversion proper, attraction to prepuberal beings.

And if you disagree with what I hope, I'd like more specifics than quotes intended to shock, but which ultimately can be taken in more than one way.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl >"I think I already answered that my hunch about divergence in Islamic schools is not the leeast meant to be a statement of definite fact, but of possibility, and I deferred to you."<

I think I was asking for names of the "humane schools" you referred to.
I'm still waiting for you to directly and clearly state that you can not name any.

>"1) My initial statement referred to consummated marriage, like Aisha at 9, not to the legal marriage, like Aisha at 6, obviously. Now, I think "until she can bear it" has a tendency to be close to puberty. If I am wrong, tell me medical reasons for that, but as far as I can tell, certain parts need to be able to swell to make intercourse bearable, and this ability comes at or close to puberty."<

My initial statement referred to both:
Under Islamic law codes, marriage can happen at any age, even with an infant. Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.

What you "think" is of no relevance to what I stated.
When you attempted to tell me what my statement meant, I corrected you:
No, it means marriage can be consummated, even before "puberty", as long as the female can bear the penetration with out injury.
Note I used the word you chose, as indicated by the quote marks. It is not a word I used.

Again, what you "think" is not relevant to my statement.

>"2) You have been specifically asked with your knowledge of Islamic schools superior to my own, and vastly so, to tell me whether there is an application within one or more of the four schools you mentioned, that actually puts the limit at puberty, i e at menarche, you have not only refused to answer, but you have basically told me it was wrong of me to seek information from an Islamic institution. This is suspicious."<

You have been specifically asked:
Do you even know what "schools" means in an Islamic context when talking about Islamic law and jurisprudence?

Now, I asked that question, which I'm failing to find a direct answer for (a direct answer would be a 'yes, I do' or a 'no, I do not'), in response to you introducing someone named "Sheikh Imran Hossein" and something about Islamic institutions.

I have not, "basically" or otherwise, "told" you it is "wrong" to seek information from an "Islamic institution". What I "told" you is I have no clue what you are talking about and that I did ask about any "Islamic institution".

If I had wanted to tell you it is "wrong", I would have said that.
What is suspicious is your inability to answer a straightforward direct question with a yes or a no.
What is suspicious is your inability to read what I write and respond directly and on point to it, without telling me what you want to think I said, and attempting to change to something else (Occident, condemnation, Jewish, menarche, Medieval, ejaculation, swelling parts, Semites, secularists, pedo... etc).

Are you capable of responding to what I stated without reading what you want into it?

I have specifically stated:
It is permissible in the 4 schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali); and the Imamiya.
and:
Islamic law codes permitting marriage at any age, even with an infant. While consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury, which would require restitution.

Your "question" was answered. Is it too difficult for you to understand.

>"The quote you gave, to the best of my knowledge, would perhaps involve a margin of up to a year before menarche."<

The quote I gave....:
"(2) Ibn Hajar:“Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.”
Source: Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari . Vol. 11, Pg. # 347"
...lacks the word you want to read into it.

The rest of what you assert is just a continuation of your ignorant nonsense attempts at reading your desires into what I stated while also trying to shift to things I did not say anything about.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe "Consummation is only supposed to happen when the child can bear the penetration with out physical injury"

Would that still be in all respects a child?

That's where the question of puberty is important, while you ignore it.

It would be a child in many cases according to modern legislations, which are highly irrelevant when it comes to moral evaluation of a different legislation.

It would quite probably often not be a child according to the Catholic criterium, historically that being c. medium age of puberty. But it would quite obviously often also be a child. However, as they are not baptised, they are not under canon law.

I cannot name Islamic schools in general, and I cannot name an Islamic school which specifies in so many words what you asked me to specify. But you cannot name one of the four you named that clearly specified that "bear penetration without injury" can be well before puberty either.

You have the expertise I lack on Islamic schools. But your pretty obvious view on what one can reasonably call no longer a child is lacking expertise on when puberty occurs and what puberty changes.

Here

I blocked him. Or her. Seems "Maranwe" means "Destiny" in Quenya. Someone this eager to denigrate a person as "ignorant" and as spouting "nonsense" at every turn in a disagreement truly is a jerk, and not what I want to have around. Or tried to block the following came through:

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl >"I cannot name Islamic schools in general, and I cannot name an Islamic school which specifies in so many words what you asked me to specify."<

I asked you to name the "schools" you introduced.
Note: you introduced "more humane - schools", and then when I respond to your inaccurate claim about what I meant with my statement (and just that, I said nothing about 'schools'), you continue with a "I spoke about humane schools". After which I questioned you.

But it turns out you are ignorant of the subject.
It is very "suspicious" that you would make statements about something you don't know about.
Why would you try and do that....
It seems very dishonest.
I even made an attempt to get you to clarify your understanding when I asked if you knew what 'schools' meant in reference to Islamic law and jurisprudence.

The rest of your post is just a continuation of the ignorant irrelevant nonsense you keep harping on about.
As I stated, I'm not giving my opinion about the subject. Nor whatever subject you want to turn to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe One thing you gave your opinion on.

When one is a child.

Some other commenter, whose comment disappeared, not from my feed, but from the comments under the video, mentions the Coranic deity calling Mohammed the model of conduct for all times. This he is obviously not. But disagreeing with this tenet of theirs is not a reason to deny the possibility that Aisha had bled when consummation occurred, so the most basic requirement was still respected, and it is also not a reason to get so obfuscated by Islam we forget our own tradition and fall for heroising progressive era decorums because they are at polar opposite compared to Islam.

7:55 Here is a text more trustworthy than the priest or brother or even layman behind that Catholic Encyclopedia:

8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judæa, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

Proto-Gospel of James.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

Catholics are divided if it's genuine, Orthodox (and probably most Eastern Rite Catholics) are for it.

Dave

I don't see how you can say Catholics are divided on it, we already have the canon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Dave Catholics and Orthodox are not divided on whether it's in the Bible canon - it isn't.

But on whether it is actually genuine, historical, which is a different question from canonical. Canonical means inerrant.

I went a few lines further on, and found sth which makes me question its historicity, it says Augustus demaded a census in Bethlehem. My reading of the census problem (which some posed as a problem against Gospel veracity) is, Joseph in Galilee would have been under a Roman census if he had agreed to say "I'm of Nazareth" or "of Sepphora" - but by saying "I'm of Bethlehem" he escaped to Judaea, where there was as yet no Roman census at all.

The Proto-Gospel on the other hand suggests there was no such attempt at tax evasion against an occupant - if it's true, my own solution to the census problem is wrong. If my solution is right, the Proto-Gospel as we have it is not by James the Brother of God.

Tar-Elenion Maranwe

@Hans-Georg Lundahl As the "Proto-Gospel" is a mid second century+ gospel, it would be rather difficult for James to write it. He was dead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Tar-Elenion Maranwe That's one theory about the authorship.

If it contradicts my solution about the census issue, one way to get around it is that theory.

Another is, the contradiction is seeming, St. Joseph could have had the habit to say with some Jewish humour "oh, you know when Emperor Augustus ordered me to go to Bethlehem for the census" and St. James not being much older than Our Lord could have misunderstood ...

I tend to be very sceptical of those theories otherwise. The ones that seek to contest traditional author assignments. I have seen such attributed to Bible books, pretending to divide both Johannine corpus and Isaias into more than one author.

8:39 In a very true sense, the Blessed Virgin was entrusted to St. Joseph's protection. Yes. And she remained virgin.

But it remains that the legal form of this was marriage:

his wife shall she be.

This would not have been the case if normal marriages were only from later on. And a normal marriage, normally implies sex.

In an older version of Jewish Encyclopaedia or Encyclopaedia Judaica, from before Israel made the legal age 16 for both sexes, it says, up to twelve, a girl may be married by the sole consent of her father, without her own. From twelve and a half, with her own, even without her fathers. Between 12 and 12 and a half, getting married is fairly complicated, easiest case, she can marry on her own if she is an orphan. To each age, add one day before the limit is fulfilled, so, she can marry on her own from from the day after 12 years and 6 months.

Nanterre University Library has made a replacement during the years before the confinement, so last time before the confinement, I could not look this up.

a) the dispositions for before twelve are probably a later deviation, since not parallelled in Christianity
b) but the disposition that 12 or 12 and a half is when she can finally chose a husband totally rings true, it is consistent with pre-1917 Church Law, it is consistent with Roman law of the period and later merging with the Church law, and so on.

9:01 No, I don't. I don't have to concede that.

The cultural norms of 1st C. Israel were the cultural norms of the people of God, and therefore (mostly, except obvious exceptions in OT kashrut) still applicable to Christians.

The cultural norms of early 7th C mid Arabia were the cultural norms of a people which was not the people of God. Even Muslims will concede that Arabians were divided into Jews, Christians and Star worshippers, none of which qualify as Muslims.

9:20 I definitely think a fifty-five year old man could licitly impregnate a 12 year old previous to that virgin - provided they were married.

The mother of St Francis of Sales was born 15 years before himself, roughly, 1552 and 1567, while the father was actually born 1522. Thirty years older, according to Mgr Francis Trochu, La Maman de Saint François de Sales.

10:11 This thing is obviously the reason or one of the reasons, why courtship was supervised by the bride's parents or chaperons so often.

So to avoid undue pressure even being made.

12:00 First of all, God did not explicitly "ask" Mary, though He waited for Her "yes"

Second, desire of reward is not coercion.

Third, I don't think the way you are going adds anything about the dispute with those Muslims - since most girls who married at 12, indeed all but Herself, were not immaculately conceived.

12:54 I think that you have misunderstood what the freedom is, when it comes to those who receive efficient grace.