Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

commenting on: Discovering Religion: Ep 03 - Purpose of Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dsz9erURvo
Hans-Georg Lundahl: 1) Yes, we hold that Christ is Risen - Happy Eastertide - and founded a Church, and that He and His Church have both spoken unequivocally for Genesis, and that Genesis does therefore not only have the human credibility it shares with other creation stories and flood stories, and not only the further human credibility it has by providing a credible geneaology between creation and known Jewish History, but divine credibility as well.

2) You lean heavily on the "proven" and "scientifically proven" old ages of say trilobites (which are partly forged for tourists in Morocco) or triceratops.

a) you do not here provide the scientific proof but assume it, except for ...

b) contrasting from beginning to end modern science with early Jewish bronze age tribes, as if it were a given conclusion which of them was more likely to be right, and ...

c) assuming the geological column. Wr has Tertiary Fauna bn found above Triassic on earth?

d) Just forgot about creation of petrol.

How can scientists prove or have proven that the ONLY way for it to have formed is by a million year perduring process, when they cannot even have tested it if it works at all?

And how can they have proven that it cannot be an original part of creation (ok, it's sticky, so perhaps it is not "very good" but it was very well hidden back then, so in no direct conflict with all was very good either).

3) We Catholics do not believe that wishing for Salvation and believing Christ died to give it is enough on our part to get Salvation. This means we are not Evangelicals, it does not mean we are no Creationists.

Council of Trent condemned the proposition that confidence in Christ's Sacrifice is enough, it did certainly not condemn the literal existence of the first two men who were the first sinners, Adam and Eve, man and woman, also first married couple.
xamarmm: So you believe in a deceitful god who tricks us into believing the world is 4500 milllion years old when it really is only 6000 years old just to test how far we are willing to ignore the evidence just to become saved? You worship a lying deceitful god? I feel sad for you.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is no active deceit in allowing scientists to deceive themselves by evaluating evidence with methods which really presuppose that God is left out from any explanation they are willing to accept.
xamarmm: You got it all backwards. It is not like scientists say "Let's assume there is no god and see where the evidence leads us". They say "let's see where the evidence leads us", they make no assumption of a god bu they also make no assumption there is no god. If evidence for god were to pop up scientists would announce "Proof of god found" and those presenting the evidence for god would probably get a nobel prize.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: That is the official program as officially stated.

I have caught arguments redhandedly in un-stated atheist assumptions, like - latest example when discussing small and young universe - stars supposedly needing to self ignite and therefore have a greater mass than Jupiter that has not self ignited.
RFIDeez: that preacher is hilarious, did he really say a retarded god who couldnt get it right the first time he wouldnt want to worship ?? isnt that EXACTLY why in the bible he summoned the so called flood? to fix what he messed up and regreted making man?? this is crazy, he dismissed his own beliefs himself, arggggghhh, religion makes me wanna puke sometimes
Hans-Georg Lundahl: No, the flood was not because God had bungled the previous creation, but because man had made him "regret it" by bungling himself.
and commenting on:: Discovering Religion: Ep 04 -The Flood (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wzD-4R2Ks
Hans-Georg Lundahl: First of all, I plead stumped for one. Extinction of Aquatic Reptiles.

Second, I claim you got one very wrong.

There have never been fossiles of vegetarian lions, they became carnivores just after the fall. Even man would obviously have eaten meat:

a) as a ritual part of sacrifice (like Abel who sacrificed a lamb),

b) as part of Nodian debauchery

It is only righteous man in ordinary circumstances (i e outside sacrifice) who started eating meat after the Flood.

Carnivores wr carnivores just as thorns wr thorns straight after the fall of Adam. By his sin death...

Third, if men and dinosaurs coexisted at the same time, it does not absolutely mean same places also.

One of the best fossile records for any one dinosaur is for T Rex - a magnificent total of 30 fossiles.

My theory is it may even have been not a created kind as such, but a Genetically Modified Organism - due to Nodian Scientists abusing their knowledge of Genetics. And that similar experiments were conducted on other kinds resulting in other dinos.

Fourth, timeline according to geological column.

Do we have one?

As far as I have verified for fauna at least, the Lagerstätten of such an era are not under or over those of such another era.

At a place, Triassic fossiles may need some diggng for, as far as I know you do not find Tertiary fossiles less in need of digging just above them. Anywhere on earth where paleos are looking for dinos and such.
no answers: were given me so far
and commenting on:: Discovering Religion: Ep 04 -The Flood (2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLdIJACeva4
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Distant starlight first. As already said, I challenge the distance measuring techniques for obtaining those distances, since I am Geocentric.

However, the "God stretched out" theory is not totally absurd. If stars were much closer when created and stretched out under such circumstances that light beams always continued to reach earth?

I think it may brake down, which is one reason I prefer Geocentrism - and discarding the distances offered by current scientists, "outside solar system".

Meaning of course, that I usually accept distances as given "within solar system" but that is far less than even one light year.

Next, dates of Flood and Cultures:

Roman Martyrologium for Dec 25 gives the birth year for Jesus Christ as:

"Anno a creatione mundi, ... quinquies millesimo centesimo nonagesimo nono; a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo; a nativitate Abrahae, anno bis millesimo quintodecimo; a Moyse et egressu populi Israel de Aegypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo"

Flood was in year 2242 after Creation and 2957 BC. Moses is about 1 C. earlier than in Protestant chrono.

And, point has been made by Creationists before, I am making it again: these cultures may very well be dated wrong, and too old by some centuries.

Like due to lower C14 content of athmosphere back when woods and bones etc. come from, making for apparent older age. One of the simplest answers, basically (though details may entail complexities) for a YEC.

Third, tectonics of new continents and Himalaya: Creationists generally believe these were created during flood, very fast, before Tower of Babel and thus before these post-Babel cultures you mentioned (some wrongly dated) and that tectonic movements have considerably slowed down since.

Hovind whom you love to hate so much has actually been very pushing about earth not having as high mountains before and during flood as afterwards.

Fourth, how did marsupial species get to Australia/(Ulimaroa and Tasmania) and South America (one or two live there too, I seem to recall) after flood? Can have been on floating vegetation drifting across the sea, by action of angels, and all under the ultimate providence of God, of course.

And fifth - I nearly forgot - how come the rivers of paradise stay in place after the flood?

I quote Haydock for Genesis ch. 2:

"Paradise lay probably to the east of Palestine, or of that country where Moses wrote. The precise situation cannot be ascertained. Calmet places it in Armenia, others near Babylon, &c. Some assert that this beautiful garden is still in being, the residence of Henoch and Elias. But God will not permit the curiosity of man to be gratified by the discovery of it, chap. iii. 24. How great might be its extent we do not know. If the sources of the Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates, be not now changed, and if these be the rivers which sprung from the fountains of Paradise, (both which are points undecided) the garden must have comprised a great part of the world, (Haydock), as the Ganges rises in India, and the Nile about the middle of Africa. (Tirinus)"

So, we do not know that all of Paradisal Tigris and Euphrates are all of present such, nor that all of Phison and Gehon are all of Ganges and Nile.

They may have continued outside Paradise.

If certain flat countries got little sediment during flood, river beds before and after flood may be near identical, due to preserved geodesics.

The Gehon which corresponds to Nile may have been both Nile and early narrow version of Mediterranean. And so on.
no answers: were given me so far

Sunday, July 14, 2013

... on Young Earth

Hans-Georg Lundahl [3 months ago]: 1) Yes we YEC do reject some radiometric datings. They are not historical documentary proof.

2) U failed 2 mention we find sediments probably due mostly to world wide flood. In these cases we YEC - all of us - find your presuppositions faulty.

3) Star light reaches us "from distant galaxies" at a constant speed ... my own solution is radical: the galaxies may be not at all so far away. Not showing parallax may not mean being far away. Showing it may not mean being close. Heliocentrism is wrong.

An aside which is really not about the issue here. I tried to post this at a library in Paris yesterday. The combox kept not getting free for text, or not accepting text when free. And it kept not accepting mouse click on publish button, or even closing down the session (I reopened more than once) when I pushed repeatedly.

Some old earth non creationists are jerks, not meaning you have to be that.
xamarmm: Yeah, when the evidence proves us wrong, we reject the evidence. Go back to watch your soap operas and other shows of similar intellectual level and block out everything that those atheist scientists tells us - btw, many scientists are not atheists but I guess that is also a fact that you choose to ignore, you don't seem to be a person who allow facts to disturb your beliefs.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Soap operas? Was allergic to them even before throwing out TV soon after inheriting it from granny.

Btw, my saying SOME radiometric datingS are rejectable was n ot directed exclusively against atheist scientists, I would insist and have insisted thereon as much in face of scientists who are my Catholic coreligionists.
xamarmm: Good you are not watching soap operas, but you really should stop watching that creationist propaganda also, they really don't know what they are talking about. Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)"

I have. That is why I do not trust age datings when there is no way to tell whether C14 level in atmosphere when sth was alive in it was present level or 64 times less (5 half lives or 25000 - 30000 years older in "measuring" than in reality).
Zan0s: That's because carbon dating only applies to recently deceased plant-based life forms. Carbon dating is only good for at best, samples from 65,000 years ago. Read up more on radiometric dating before you start going on about bullshit reasons as to why you don't trust something. If you think you are right, then I put it to you to submit a paper to be peer reviewed which explains why radiometric dating is wrong and why all the geologists and palaeontologists have it all wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: ALL the geologists?

Meaning Flood Geologist and YEC Tas Walker is not one?

Tell that to peer reviewed CMI where his essays are in part published!

"older than C14-dating" = usually "geological dating" = other presupposition that may well be wrong (like how fast sediments form or whether fossile faunas found side by side could be considered "virtually lying on top of each other" or not).
Zan0s: "Part published"

Well then, the majority of geologists. Intelligent Design is not science, and pseudo-scientists such as Tas Walker and whoever the fuck CMI is who try to undermine actual scientific work are doing an injustice to the scientific method and those who put in real scientific, unbiased work. Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "unbiased"

If P Z Myers is "unbiased" how come he hid or deleted the latter part of comment thread under his blog post on augmenting chromosome numbers?

[Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html]

"Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge."

Extremely conservative, but biassed evolutionist.

"try to undermine actual scientific work"

Criticism is undermining, is it?
Zan0s: I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person - which is typical of theists, focussing their efforts on individuals rather than addressing the issues at hand. Evolution is not the polar opposite of intelligent design "theory", it does not matter whether or he is biased. And he's a judge, JUDGE, not an 'evolutionist'. Again, focussing on individuals and appealing to authority. Criticism is welcome, so long as it actually has some basis and is beyond the critical thinking of high school.

Secondly, why are there literally 10's of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, and not a single one that actually supports intelligent design "theory"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person"

The one who:

- a) offered an attempt of solution at a problem posed not just by me but also by an evolutionist back in february 1999

- b) when I criticised that ONE evolutionist attempt after a few weeks or months hid the part of comments where my criticism was.

Issue is increasing chromosome numbers, in mammals, not plants. PZM came in because he dealt with that precise problem. No other evolutionist does, and he does it dishonestly.
Zan0s: Now we're appealing to our own authority, are we? And you're certain not a single biologist besides you and PZ Myers have thought about your 'issue'? And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing? And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that "heliocentrism is wrong"? Really? You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century."

I take that as a compliment.

"And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that 'heliocentrism is wrong'?"

My senses, like eyes witnessing movement of sun and of moon and of stars, or like inner ears witnessing stability of earth. That is preliminary.

My logic says this has not been disproven by those who offered to do so.

"And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing?"

That might have been PZM's motive for hiding the parts of comment thread that started after 2009 with my commenting on the problem of his solution.
postoergopostum: Satnav makes it difficult to not laugh at you.

The phases of Venus, and particle physics make it difficult not to cry.

I understand the rationalisations you use to maintain your perspective, and why you believe modern science fails to make it's case. I do, however wonder why it matters to you?

You seem comfortable with a computer, it's not technology that scares you, so why astronomy?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Your exact point about Satnav eludes me. Please clarify.

Phases of Venus are as much accounted for by Tychonian system as by Heliocentrism.

Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html

Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-science-works-quote-co-dawkins.html

There are my answers to your other points.
branch off: from earlier
xamarmm: Rejecting radiometric dating shows an utter ignorance on how the physics of the atoms work and operate and ultimately is a rejection of how the reality works - a reaity which you claim was created by god - in other words, you have to reject the god you believe in in order to reject radiometric dating. This is complete and utter FAIL.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: No, I was not rejecting radiometric dating as such, I was contesting SOME radiometric datingS.

Kind of C14 from times when it becomes hard to check with independently datable objects that atmosphere had same level of C14 as now. Since that is a presumption that would falsify the dating of say a pre-flood dino with no traces of C14, if it happened to live in an atmosphere of very much lower levels of C14.
xamarmm: Then you have no argument. Biologists do not use ONLY C-14 radiometric dating, they use a battery of different tests and when they all converge to an answer that is when they make a claim as to the age of something. Indeed the C-14 radiometric dating is then used as evidence because it collaborates with other evidence, so disputing C-14 makes no sense.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts" - as I said in continuation post.

In such young things, C14 and dendro are basically only things used, excepting cultural dating.

In "much older" things there is hardly any C14 and I do not trust calibration of U-Pb or Th-Pb. Half life being too slow to check, results contradicting.
xamarmm: You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc. Aso, rings in antarctic Ice allow us to go even further back - so the young earth is solidly disproven - the earth is simply is older than 6000 or 12000 years or whatever you want to say. Finally, we wouldn't be able to see any galaxies if the universe was young, nearest galaxy is the andromeda galaxy which is 2 million light years way, we see that galaxy as it was 2 millon years ago so the universe is at least older than 2 million years just from that single fact alone. The galaxy that is furthest away that we can see is 13 billion light years away proving that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: All these distance measurings ultimately depend on:

- heliocentric view of the phenomenon known as "annual parallax of a star"

- a non-theistic causality of how stars ignite, i e self ignite at a sufficient mass, from which is concluded a minimum size/mass of a star, from which is concluded that smallness and closeness of stars would be physically impossible, as well as supposedly (see previous) optically disproven.
xamarmm: First off, the "annual parallax of a star" doesn't actally depend on a helioentric view. You are aware that th sun an th earth both rotate around each other around a common center of mass - it's just that because the sun is so huge and the earth is so small so that common center is somewhere near the center of the sun and the sun also moves in similar fashion around all the other planets and so in sum the sun remains relatively speaking at rest at the center of the solar system while the planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more useless this method becomes and other methods are used instead. In particular when considering galaxies that are million of light years away from us, that method you speak of is not used. Secondly, whlle a star have to have a certain minimal mass to ignite, thus giving a minimumsize of a hydrogen star, say, it is quite possible to find smaller stars - they are simply made up of mostly other materials. So, how exactly have astronomy been disproven you say?
[not answered here but see: ... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc."

I was aware of that factoid. It involves seeing patterns of thickness and thinness repeated identically at different levels in different trees. I have seen a diagram over some near gaps with few trees to bridge them and the identity of pattern is too loose to prove anything.

Usually there is no C14 in T Rex bones. Recently remains of a T Rex were found with both preserved soft tissue and preserved measurable level of C14. That level has not been used in dating it, since a measureable level of C14 is incompatible with the ages assigned to T Rex as died off some 60 mill. years ago.

I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts.

... on diverse matters, some of which make you want to pray "oremus et pro perfidis judaeis" while others indicate translatio sacerdotii

video is:
scishow : Facts about Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA

Debate continued from here:

... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-arc-of-noah-and-lineage-of-our-lord.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It very clearly says daughters can in some cases inherit - but not dispose of their heritage themselves, it is for their husbands to pass it on to their sons.

[Numbers 36 with Haydock comment
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id483.html

And where earlier blogpost left off:

]

Sophie Doon

Inheriting possessions is not the same as inheriting a family line. [!]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Might very well be. [Did I really concede that? I was tired!] But it is not totally unrelated either. [I got something right even so!] And if you had read Numbers 36 instead of trusting your husbands or your father's rabbi on it, you would have known that.

Sophie Doon

They are not the same.

Firstly, i’m not married and i didn’t rely on my Rabbi. This is a subject i have studied when i was younger and have also spent time in this region. For example, that picture on the left is me on Mount Sinai.

You can trace if you are Jewish through your mother, you can only trace your tribe through your father; this is Halacha, ‘Jewish Law’. Any child born to Mary, that wasn’t Josephs, is a ‘mamzer’ and had no tribal status.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A child born from adultery or fornication is a mamzer and has no tribal status.

As for "tracing if one is Jewish" through one's mother - is that even in the law or is it the Talmud? I think it is the Talmud.

Now, Mishna is younger than any book of NT, Gemarah is younger than many known Church Fathers.

We need not trust your Talmudic interpretations of the law for what the law was when the Temple stood and when Christ was born. And never again call Christ a mamzer in my presence, will you!

Sophie Doon

Yes it is in the Talmud, but the Talmudic explanation is of Deuteronomy 7:3-4.

Jesus was not Josephs child, in the eyes of Jewish Law, he is a mamzer. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s.

Having no Human father meant Jesus had no tribal line, could never be a Priest and could never be a King.

These are the Laws of God. For Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to break them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I’m sorry if that upsets you, but Mary had a baby that wasn’t her husband’s."

Any male child begotten of levirate is son of a mother who has a child that is not her husband's, since it is legally the child of her husband's late relative, her former husband.

That alone does not make a mamzer.

Sophie Doon

Irrelevant; God was neither Marys former husband or dead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

But God is not an adulterer either. He is Creator. He creates each human being.

Once without any human origin: Adam.

Once without any mother, originating only from a man: Eve.

Once without any human physical father, originating only from a Mother: Our Lord.

Every other time than those, originating both from a father and from a mother. And (excepting demonic and medical art. insem.) always by sex, only category where mamzer's can be made out of wedlock.

Sophie Doon

The terms of the conception aren’t listed to what does and doesn’t make a baby a mamzer or not.

In the story, Mary gave birth to a baby that wasn’t fathered by her husband.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The terms of the conception aren’t listed"

There is no such list in the Law. It may be derived from the law, but it is not in the law.

Jesus was legally the son of St Joseph, since he received him as such.

Sophie Doon

You mean because he was adopted? Two problems.

Firstly, Joseph would have to explain how Mary (his wife) baby wasn’t his. Best case scenario, he would be thought Mad; worst case, he would be executed for blasphemy, like Jesus was.

Secondly, you still can’t trace Jesus’ line through Joseph. You can only trace your line through your natural father. Jesus didn’t have a ‘natural’ father.

He had no human father, no line and so could not be a descendent of King David.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Firstly: Joseph would have to explain ... to whom?

To his adopted son? Yes. Even if as God He certainly knew that already.

To some Cohen Gadol, like the one who had designed him as husband for Mary after she left the Temple? Possibly.

To anyone else? No. We know it through Jesus and Mary, and we know their holy veracity by miracles.

Secondly: that reasoning I have already debunked as pilpul rather than Law. You have given no reason to credit it better this time you state it.

Sophie Doon

Well, the Roman authorities for one. They were supposedly travelling to Bethlehem for a census (6 years before there was one, but that’s not important), weren’t they? Do you think Joseph said God was the father, or lie and say he was? I’d say the latter.

You haven’t debunked anything. I gave you chapter and verse where the Torah clearly states that you can only trace your Tribal, Kinship and Priestly line through your father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You gave more than once chapter and verse for things not saying what you claimed them to say. Now to census:

If Jesus was not born while Joseph came, the question does not arise.

If he was it would still probably not have arisen, since Roman census was concerned with housholds or larger, not with mere individuals.

If it did arise, "Jesus is my Son" would not have been a lie, since St Joseph was His step-father. And legal husband of His Blessed Mother.

Sophie Doon

LOL, please, they all say exactly what i said they say.

Well, we are talking about a story here that is impossible to have happened. Until Judea was annexed as part of the Roman Province of Syria in the year 6, Judea was a Client Kingdom or Rome.

Client Kingdoms had to supply military assistance to Rome; they didn’t pay Tax, so no need for a census.

The Census of Quirinius was the very first Roman census in Judea. Nor did you need to travel anywhere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your quotes of the law were inappropriate for proving God's Eternal Son inacceptable as heir of King David or inacceptable as the ultimate High Priest.

Your argument from Roman History is considerably weaker, since merely human. It may also include a misunderstanding.

I have heard one explanation it was not a tax census but a loyalty census on part of all royalty and nobility. St Joseph was that. Only, he was not living in the royal domain, since Herod was living there. Hence Bethlehem.

Sophie Doon

They are 100% appropriate. Also, Jesus needed to be a Priest of the line of Aaron to be able to atone Sin and perform the Sin Sacrifice. He wasn’t, and never could be.

So why does Luke say it was the Census of Quirinius, are you saying the Bible is completely wrong?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I said I hear that explanation. Not that I bought it.

As to other, you mix around divine order between His priesthoods. Christ = according to Melchisedec (not Aaron)

Sophie Doon

Well then you either have to agree with me or accept the Bible is wrong.

Jesus’ death, according to the Bible, was so that he could atone all our sins. The only person who can atone sin is a Priest of Aaron.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Under the Law of Moses which ceased to apply according to the letter when God was crucified. Probable reason why he was condemned by a priest of Aaron, though.

I have heard false alternatives like "stimmts oder hab ich recht before". Now, I can assume the real census under Quirinius (whether tax or loyalty) happened as Bible told, but after Herod's child murder he backed out of responsibility and said his term started years later. Everyone agreeing because that responsibility was so awkward.

Sophie Doon

If you know the Bible then you will know that Gods Laws are eternal. If the Laws given to Moses by God ended when Jesus was crucified, then this means God was wrong and they weren’t eternal. Therefore you are saying the Christian God is fallible.

There was no slaughter of the innocents. Matthew claims Herod's slaughter of the innocents is a fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:15. This is not a prophecy and has nothing to do with Herod. It’s about the Babylonian Captivity.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are doubly wrong.

First of all, the Old Law was already the eternal law according to its essence, but not according to each visible sign. At the Crucifixion there was a change in the priesthood. Jews may deny it, but in that case there would have been no sacrifice for nearly two thousand years.

And yes, there was a slaughter of the innocents. Haydock on Jeremiah 31:15, here:

Ver. 15. High. Literally, "high places." Hebrew Rama. (Haydock) --- There was a city of this name near Bethlehem, where Rachel was buried. Benjamin was her son, and was conducted by this road to Babylon. (Chaldean) (Grotius) (Tirinus) --- Ephraim and Manasses were also her grandchildren, and she may bewail their captivity by personification. St. Matthew (ii. 18.) shews that this prediction was more fully accomplished when the innocents were slain. The same passage may allude to different events. (Calmet) --- All the people of God, both of the ten and of the two tribes, bewailed their captivity, and the mothers lamented for those slain near Bethlehem. (Worthington)

[One comment by Sophie Doon was noticed and answered later, see below]

Sophie Doon

Jeremiah is not prophesising about the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ this is in reference to the Babylon Captivity and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Also, the prophesy that the Messiah will come from ‘town’ of Bethlehem is wrong. The literal translation of the Hebrew is that he will come from the House of Lehem. Lehem being a tribal name, not that of a town.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You do not understand prophecy, so you do not understand its fulfilment.

Sophie Doon

I certainly do, it’s Christianity that wrongly associates completely unconnected verses with Jesus.

The Jewish Bible actually speaks very little of the Messiah. In fact, the word for a future Messiah is ‘haMashiach’, and this never appears once in the Jewish Bible. The prophesies associated with the Messiah, Jesus didn’t fulfil. A big no-no was dying.

In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"In Judaism, the most important part is achieving the Age of Perfection. The Messiah is simply the anointed King who oversees this Age."

He does. Age of Perfection, Reign of Thousand Years = Catholic Church.

"A big no-no was dying."

Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious". Uniting Judah and Ephraim, conquering Edom Moab and Ammon came after that verse. And so did the Church History after Pentecost. After Ascension, after Resurrection from Glorious Tomb.

Sophie Doon

“He does”

Does what? I don’t know what you mean.

“Not acc. Isaiah 11, "And his sepulchre shall be glorious".”

That’s not in the Jewish version of Isaiah 11?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You said the Messiah is he who oversees the age of perfection, I said about Jesus Christ "he does" namely oversee the age of perfection which is the Roman Catholic Church (by itself or with Orthodox possibly).

Check Hebrew for Isaiah ch 11 verse 10, here is Douay-Rheims:

In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.

Sophie Doon

The Age of Perfection is a time when there will be no sin, no death, the world will be perfect. Is the world perfect?

Exact translation of Isaiah 11:10

י וְהָיָה, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, שֹׁרֶשׁ יִשַׁי אֲשֶׁר עֹמֵד לְנֵס עַמִּים, אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם יִדְרֹשׁוּ; וְהָיְתָה מְנֻחָתוֹ, כָּבוֹד. {פ}

IN THAT DAY THE ROOT OF JESSE SHALL STAND AS AN ENSIGN TO THE PEOPLES; HIM SHALL THE NATIONS SEEK, AND HIS DWELLINGS SHALL BE GLORIOUS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can hardly deny that the nations have been seeking Jesus Christ for two thousand years now. Or close to.

I suppose leaving "grave" would have pointed too much to the resurrection, but even for the Tabernacle this version is true about Christ. [It is true about His throne in Heaven too, His ascension being witnessed by the eleven and His being there by a vision of Proto-Martyr St Stephen]

Catholic Church is a society in which sins are readily forgiven and in which death becomes the door to eternal life. It is perfect.

[Noticed and answered later this by:] Sophie Doon

Firstly, there is no ‘Old’ Law, there is only the Law. Secondly, ‘but not according to each visible sign’ i don’t know what that’s supposed means?

There was no change in priesthood. Also, there didn’t need to any sacrifices, as the Sin Sacrifice is the least effective way of atoning sin, (after Prayer and Charity) because it only atones sins committed unintentionally.

In fact, God himself says that he doesn’t want sacrifices, he wants Prayer and sincere repentance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is only THE law?

The law God gave to Adam or to Noah was no law then? And Abraham knew no law?

Aaronite priests were bringing forth bread and wine when Abraham came to Jerusalem?

Aaronite priests were first tying Isaac to the altar and then releasing him, when an angel from God held their hand back?

No change in priesthood, is that what you are saying? So destruction of Temple 40 years after Jesus Christ came was a bed time story? You could have fooled me!

Sophie Doon

Yes, there is only THE Law. The Torah was only written down at Sinai, that’s not when it came into existence though; it has always existed. There’s the Written Torah and there’s the Oral Torah, spoken by God. For example, Gen. 26:5 "Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torahs". Moses only wrote down the Law, the Laws already existed, they are eternal.

Destruction of the Temple...and?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Noah and Abraham did not feel obliged to abstain from shrimps or porc meat.

Destruction of Temple means end of the Aaronite sacrifices up to and including present. Not 70 years, but 1900 years. That either means sins are no longer remitted, or that priesthood has been transferred. There are OT prophecies of this transfer and they fit the Eucharist perfectly.

Psalms 109:4
The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

(Continued about New Covenant prophecy, but not posted yet due to "youtube bug":)

Who was this Melchisedech? He did not descend from Aaron, since he was contemporary with Abraham. And his sacrifice was - bread and wine. The starting points for the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, in its unbloody form.

Genesis 14:18
But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God,

So much for your claim "Jesus cannot have been priest, he did not descend from Aaron".

Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.

Sophie Doon

Sorry, i also remembered; Noah was a Gentile and so wasn't required to adhere to the Laws of the Torah.

Just waiting for the references to Abraham eating Pork and Shrimp now.

I'm not aware of any, so would need you to show me where.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Noah a Gentile? Or common origin of Hebrews and Gentiles (Nimrod being origin of gentile diversity indirectly and idolatry directly)?

Abraham came after the directives given to Noah and before those given to Moses. Check out what was kosher food just after the Flood.

I am not saying Abraham ever actually ate shrimps or porc or, if he did, that he ate much of it. I can only see no evidence he felt obliged to totally avoid it.

Sophie Doon

So, i’m not sure what your point is?

You said that Noah and Abraham didn’t follow the Torah by eating shrimp and pork.

Then you contradict yourself by agree that Noah didn’t need to follow the Torah, and also that there is no evidence in the Bible that Abraham ate shrimp or pork.

Doesn’t make sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I said that eating shrimp and porc after the Flood but before Moses was not yet against the Torah.

I did not contradict myself at all.

I thereby argue that the ceremonial preceps of the Torah (as in Exodus/Leviticus) are not identic to or integral part of the unique Law. They were just applications of it back between Aaron/Moses and Jesus who with His disciples kept them as long as there was a need.

Jesus also instituted the priesthood of the new covenant. Aaronite one was not eternal.

Sophie Doon

Well, clearly the Laws of the Torah did exist before Moses, as i already pointed out to you the verse in Genesis where Abraham obeys Gods Torahs.

I never said you contradicted yourself, only that what you said didn’t make sense.

All the Laws in Oral and Written Torah are eternal, they are the same Laws; that includes Aaranite Law.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If it includes Aaronite law, how come then that:

Sacrifices were made before Aaron was even born?
Genesis and Psalms both note the excellency of the priesthood of Melchisedech who was clearly no Aaronite but on top of that sacrificed according to a ritual involving, like Holy Mass later on, bread and wine?
the Name of God is Holy among the Gentiles and a pure offering is born forth among them, outside Aaronite priesthood, outside the Temple (see Malachi 1:11)?

Sophie Doon

OK, firstly, just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?

So, what sacrifices are you talking about before Aaron and also, when you mention what the Psalms say about Melchizedek do you mean Psalm 110?

This one is a wrong translation into English by KJV.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sacrifices before Aaron: Abel's, Noah's, Abraham's, Melchisedec's, Moses Father-In-Law's.

I mean the psalm we number as 109:

"Juravit Dominus, et non poenitebit eum: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech."

And I am not buying that Catholic Church translated rather than perhaps Masoretic transmitted it wrong.

Ergo: Aaron's priesthood was not the eternal one, was not the perfect fulfilment of the Torah's given to the patriarch's.

"just to confirm you understand that Gentiles weren’t required to obey the Torah; and that Jesus, as a Jew, was?"

1) The Eternal Son of the Eternal Father was God before He was a Jew. Nevertheless He obeyed the Law as long as that was required.

2) You can call Melchisedec a Gentile after nationhood, but not after Paganism.

This lands you with Melchisedec's sacrifice being the one also prophecied in Malachi 1:11.

I e Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Transferred priesthood, as per Hebrews.

Sophie Doon

Doesn’t matter; Jesus’ mother, Mary, was a Jew and so by Jewish Law, he was also a Jew.

Malachi 1:11 doesn’t mean what you think it means, you are cherry picking one verse. Malachi 1:6-14 is condemnation of Jews for not rebuilding the Temple, to resume Temple services and have instead performed atonement sacrifices not in accordance with Jewish (Gods) Law. So, the Temple must be rebuilt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For not rebuilding the Temple?

Does not say that anywhere.

For sacrificing in the wrong spirit, yes.

And at same time is recommended the unpolluted sacrifice by which God is honoured among the Gentiles - Holy Mass later to be instituted by Jesus Christ.

If He was a Jew by His Blessed Mother, He was from Eternity God by His Father. Of Him Moses spoke. If you believed Moses and the Prophets, maybe you would believe Him as well.

Malachias:

Chapter 1 as per Douay Rheims
http://drbo.org/chapter/44001.htm

Sophie Doon

Sorry, you have lost me, your descriptions are too deep for me to understand your point?

What exactly are you suggesting Malachi 1:11 is describing without being to flowery with your explanation?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Malachi 1:11 describes Holy Mass.

A sacrifice.
Which is immaculate.
Which takes place among the Gentiles. From East to West all over the world.
A food offering:

"Clean oblation. The precious body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. (Challoner) --- This is denoted by the very word mincha, the offering of flour and wine. (Calmet)"

[source]

I am finding the "I don't understand what you mean" and "you have lost me" tiresome, possibly hypocritic.

Sunday, July 7, 2013

... on Girls in Roman Empire, before and after Christianity

Video Commented on (started commenting before seeing it through, at the point where it is said that four "Domitia" daughters became confusing):
TEDEducation : Four sisters in Ancient Rome - Ray Laurence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMgLxVxsrw

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Now, in Pagan times a daughter of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus would have obviously been Domitia, or possibly, one Domitia and one Domitilla. There being four daughters to one rich Roman back then is to my mind utopic.

The reason why a system of "Domitia" actually worked is that one usually had just one daughter - the rest killed off or set out to die or become slaves.

Christianity changed the killing, and also (through saint's names) the naming custom.
awsomeaaron1able: A girl that is going to [marry] at 12 and this is normal?
Battleguild: You must understand that in the time of Ancient Rome, human lifespans were much much shorter than today, with their average lifespans around 30 - 40 and if you're lucky 50. So in that respect, a girl of 12 years then would be comparable to a girl of 19 - 20 years today.
KrioGnosz: That's a misconception. It's technically true that the average lifespan was about that, but it's the high infant mortality that skews that statistic. If you did survive past age five or so, you had pretty good odds of making it to 60 or 70.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I quite second that.
awsomeaaron1able: A girl that is going to at 12 and this is normal?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The legal age was 14 for boys and 12 for girls.

In actual practise Pagan Romans sometimes married daughters off as early as age ten or eleven. Since Christianity was introduced that was stopped.

Twelve or at very earliest eleven and a half became strict miminum.

Two points more:

Gynaecologically speaking the ideal age for a first childbirth is neither 13 nor 30 (nec XIII nec XXX) but between, furthermore narrowed down to between 17 and 25. However, stiff hips at 30 are even worse than small hips at 13. I have this information from my mother as a medical student, and in theory gynaecology would have been her favourite subject. In practise she could not have her practicum in gynaecology, since in Sweden that would have meant collaborating with abortions.

Canonically speaking the nether limit of 14/12 remained in force as Roman Catholic Church law up till in the XX^th C. It has been raised to 16/14 with an added comment about obeying the state laws in that respect. However, 12 being legally acceptable for a girl all through the Middle Ages does not mean they were always married at that age. In Medieval cities in France for which "civil registers" (or parish registers, more probably) have been recovered, 25 seems to have been much more typical than 12. However, it may well have been somewhat younger in the countryside, and I have no problem with that. "Respect the farmer" was the best aspect of the Swedish Bonnet Party against the Hat Party, "respect the farmer, he's the daddy of the rest of us, it's his bread we all eat". In 1900 there were Catholic States that had a higher marital age limit even so: in France I think it had been 18/15 since Code Napoléon (and remained so to 2006, when it became 18/18), not just in the anticlerical Third Republic, but even during pro-Church periods (like start of Third Republic, 1870-78), in Austrian Empire it was 21 for a girl to marry without parental consent and 14 with parental consent. Church Law in theory did not require, but sttrongly recommend parental consent. "It is usually a sin to marry against the will of one's parents," not meaning it was always the case, nor meaning such a marriage would be invalid. But Spain still had the 14/12 limit without parental consent as requirement./HGL

PS, one thing more:

Most of the time when girls married as late as 25 while 12 was quite legal, they were not educated with boys not of their family, they did not listen to rock music, they did not stress for exams or for getting a work. They had far less sexual pressure in the flesh than avarage girls not married those ages have nowadays. And though less true about boys, it is rather true about them too. Coeducation, rock music, stress of industrial and post industrial society are making it harder to remain chaste up to marriage./HGL

Saturday, July 6, 2013

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

Hans-Georg Lundahl [to the young lady on the video]:: Autumn, was watching first six or seven of Discovering Religion a while ago.

My comments and ensuing debates on those upcoming on my blog assortedretorts (google or add blogspot domain).

[Instead of linking to this blog, I link to the previous message where I started keeping that promise:

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-apocalyptic-fears-of-atheists-and.html
I also saw and answered: jehovahuponyou: ACTUALLY YOU ARE A SPOILED LITTLE GIRL WITHOUT THE LIFE EXPERIENCES TO MAKE ANY DECISION ABOUT ANY THING DEEP OR MAJOR.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: If she is spoiled or not is not up to you. You are not her father.

She is no longer a little girl, and she has been mature enough to for instance marry since the age she decided to call herself an atheist, i e twelve. That was four years ago when she made the video and is five years ago now.

Yesterday was fourth of July. RCC celebrated St Isabel of Aragon, Queen of Portugal. She married at age 12.

*Christian* tradition has it a girl is mature enough for important decisions at age twelve.
jehovahuponyou: I HAVE AN OPINION, I SPOKE THAT OPINION - I AM NOT ADOLF HITLER'S DADDY, BUT I STILL KNOW HE WAS A SON-OF-A-BITCH.

MARYING AT 16, HMMM, YOU MUST RAISE HOGS AND DRINK MOONSHINE.

POPE POTLICKER MARRIED A CHOIR BOY WHO WAS ONLY EIGHT - SO WHAT.

I CAN TELL YOUR DAUGHTERS (IF ANY LIL LADIES ARE UNLUCKY ENOUGH TO EVER BORN TO YOU) ARE ALL HEADED STRAIGHT TO WHITE SLAVERY.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: White slavery?

You do not know what you are talking about.

Might have had a dad or grandpa who raised hogs and drank moonshine yourself, and you are ashamed of it.

Now, St Isabel of Aragon, Queen of Portugal married at twelve. She died in 1336 in Estremoz on a journey to reconcile two of her quarrelling sons.

Does not sound like white slavery to me, no.

Oh, one more thing, if you had a dad or granddad who raised hogs and drank moonshine, I do not consider that shameful in you.

Being excessively ashamed of it would be shameful in you. Just like it would be shameful to drink excessively much of the moonshine.

Hope home distillers learn how to filtrate after destillation, my own grandpa was an official monopoly distiller in Sweden.
jehovahuponyou: [Insult involving my mouth]
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Are you a magician?

I had toothache this night.

Either way, if you are or are not, you are a prejudiced and unpolite man.

[I might have been wrong, I might have fallen asleep while he posted the insult and the toothache may have had no supernatural cause at all or quite a distinct one - apart from natural causes like caries bacteria]
I also saw and answered: Narania234: Christianity

The belief that a cosmic Middle Eastern Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.

Christianity is a ''highly legitimate'' and ''intelligent'' set of beliefs according to neocons.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: You are prejudiced against cosmos, Middle East, Resurrection, Trinity, Eternal Life, Holy Eucharist, Prayer, Original Sin, existence of the Devil, and probably trees as well, at least those in Eden.

Not neocon prejudice, perhaps, but prejudice nonetheless!
Narania234: It's all made up bullshit.

Hebrew Bible is the original one, while chrisitan bible is a FALSIFICATION.

There are FOUR CROWN PRINCES of Hell, not onel.

Their names are Belial, Lucifer, haSatan and Leviathan.

The evil catholic church exterminated many millions of inncocent people with their Inquisition, Knightly Orders and witch-hunters.

Judaism was opressed for 1900 years.

christianity is nothing more than a renegade Middle Eastern sect, a heresy of Judaism and never 'll be anything else.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: As for oppression and heresy:

Jews defected from God by rejecting Christ, as Samaritans had done about a thousand years later by rejecting Rohoboam the son of Solomon.

Oppression of Judaism was a divine punishment for that defection.

Christianity was the true covenant, as through it idolaters have been converted to the one true God.

Now, the Old Testament has come down to us in certain variants.

Hebrew Masoretic text - and Masoretic seems to mean "compromise" or "peace" (as between divergent readings).

It is the latest known among Hebrews.

Before that we had at one time Septuaginta and Samarian text, of which the Septuaginta was a miraculously accurate translation to Greek of oldest Jewish - non-Samaritan - variant.

Between original of Septuaginta and Masoretic text, you have original of Vulgate's OT.

Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. He guided the morning star around the sun before falling down to the mean office of being an accuser.

The Catholic Church is not evil, did not exterminate millions, did no war on innocents, Inquisition was a response to Albigensian evil (there were similar responses to Baal worship under OT), Knightly Orders were not always faithful to the Church. Worst witchhunts were Protestant.
Narania234: Isaiah 43:10-13, haShem himself says there is no savior and all men must contact haShem directly. Ergo, your Jesus was a false prophet.

Jesus was the enemy of Judaism, he claimed that Old Testament ''should be ignored'', therefore he was a heretic.

According to the witnesses your Jesus insulted the Roman emperor Tiberius.

Insulting the Roman emperor, consuls and senate was puunishable by death.

According to the Roman law your Jesus was justly executed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Isaiah 43:10 says there is no God after or before Holy Trinity. Same verse specifically mentions the chosen servant, the Son made Man.

43:11 says there is no saviour beside Holy Trinity, but the Son made Man is not beside, but within.

43:13 says none shall deliver Israel out of the Hand of Holy Trinity. Now, it is precisely in incarnation of the Son that God gets hands.

"Jesus [...] claimed that Old Testament ''should be ignored'' " - says who? Your false witnesses?
Narania234: Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism are false religions, so is the fake religion of the Druids, and the fake religion of Odin (not sure whether he was a Druid or a lapsed Samarian Cohen), and as for the Greco-Roman religion, the Maccabees considered it the Abomination of Desolation.

Between Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism on the one hand and Islam on the other hand, One God in Three Persons is the golden mean.

So it is between Talmudic monopersonalism and kabbalistic doctrine of 11 or 22 sephiroth.

"Even the protestants reject it."

Protestantism started 1517, one and a half millennia after Christianity. Unlike Orthodox and Catholics.

Even so, most Protestant sects (exceptions: Socinianism, Deism, Atheism, Transcendental Philosophy, Russellianism) accept Holy Trinity same as Catholics and Orthodox.

"The actual god from Hebrew Bible, haShem has NO SON."

Oh yeah?

Psalm 109: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. "

If the Son of David is only son of David and not of God, why does David call Him my Lord?

"With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee."

Father speaking to Son.

"It was true that your jesus claimed that there is a greater power and authority than the Roman emperor, consules and senate and it was indeed punishable by death."

Why after hearing that claim did then Pilate say "I find no guilt in him?"

The Jews who protested became idolaters and apostates by saying on that occasion: "we have no king but Caesar".

Friday, July 5, 2013

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more

Apocalyptic fears of Atheism :

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more · Truth and Risk (quora)

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

Video I commented on:: Discovering Religion: Ep 01 - Ready-Made World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfLGb1uOSHQ
Part I: My original comment up to branch out
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Your fear that Apocalypse may be a self fulfilling prophecy is a fear that may be a self fulfilling prophecy.

You try to act on that fear, politically, as they do here in France, you run head on with Christians, Jews and Muslims.

When I look at some things these days, it's like some people behind governements have decided sth like "oh well, let's do the things they did in apocalypse before the world ends according to it, the world won't end, so we'll have disproven Christianity".

And what if that precisely is the beginning of those degradations, both of morals in general and of Security of the Church (relatively speaking, it has been persecuted before), that makes Doomsday a boon in preference to what such are doing?
xamarmm: I don't see much of that - I see more of christian funnymentalists who wishes the apocalypse welcome - let's get it started so we can see Jesus coming from the clouds to save those of us who believe while the rest can screw themselves, so let's get those bombs going! It is scary but there are people on the far religious right in the US who think along those lines - and if one of their people become president, we are all doomed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Feel free to link to one fundie who does exactly say what you attribute to them. Unless you do and until you do, I feel free to attribute to you the evil deed of slander. Charitably I will presume you are venting your honestly felt prejudice rather than inventing stuff to denigrate people you happen to dislike for other reasons.
xamarmm: I won't do what you want me to do. First off, you started the slander game by claiming that people in government, for example in USA, would want to disprove christianity - almost all of them are christians but let's just forget about that because we have a slander to tell. And then when I come with something opposite you're telling me I am telling slander? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: My words: "it's like some people behind governements have decided sth like ..."

Your version of my words: "people in government, for example in USA, would want to disprove christianity"

1) behind vs in

2) governmentS vs government (sg)

3) it is as if sth like vs claiming that ...

I think I stayed clear of slander. I think you just slandered my integrity therein, shall I presume it was by bad memory?
xamarmm [branch out comment]: I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity, I don't know of anyone else actively trying to disprove christianity - there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first, until then any such effort would be a waste of time and energy. Also, what would be the point of disproving christianity? I don't see Islam as being much better and if disproving christianity would make some people convert to Islam there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity"

How many are funding the sham sciences of heliocentrism and geocentrism? How many are funding an AntiCatholic view of History (a k a History with a Whig bias)?

The former does not always work and the latter sometimes DOES encourage people to become Muslims. In France and Sweden more than in US though.
Part II: From first part of branch out comment, on Medical Miracles
xamarmm: I don't know of any government anywhere who is actively spending time trying to disprove christianity, I don't know of anyone else actively trying to disprove christianity - there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first, until then any such effort would be a waste of time and energy. Also, what would be the point of disproving christianity? I don't see Islam as being much better and if disproving christianity would make some people convert to Islam (cont 1)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: " there's nothing to disprove, christians would first have to prove christianity first"

We have. Christ proved Christianity to the Eleven and a few more by Resurrection (after all his other miracles). St Paul proved it to St Luke by resurrecting a boy who had broken his neck falling asleep and out of a window while listening to his sermon. And miracles have continued to follow the Church ever since.
xamarmm: I wonder how it would work if physics or mathematics could prove things this way: Professor, I swear the theory of relativity is true, Einstein proved it to his students back in 1915 and they wrote it in this book here, see? If that was how people argued in favor of relativity theory it would never be accepted as a theory in physics. I want to be able to see this proof that christianity is true by myself here and now even if that is not actually possible because I would have to use equipment or somthing, I would atleast in principle be able to see the proof for myself given that I could get hold of such equipment and that the equipment was documented so that I wouldn't be forced to go to a specific vendor for getting it. Also, while such miracles yu speak of happened all those years ago, the "miracles" that happen today is more "our church received enough funding to restore the benches" which just means that enough believers provided enough money - not a real miracle in other words. Real genuine scientifically verfiable miracles today are hard to come by.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: step one: doctor makes a diagnosis of such a disabling or killing disease

step two: he makes an admission medicine has done all possible and failed

step three: patient goes to Lourdes

step four: doctor in Lourdes makes diagnosis patient has not got the disease he had (only atheists can apply to be doctors there)

has happened 67 documented times since 1854 or whatever the year of the apparitions was

some diseases earlier healed miraculously have become curable since, as tuberculose peritonitis.
xamarmm: Ok, you got me convinced - show me proof of an amputee who got his amputated limb growing back out and I'll be a believer!
Hans-Georg Lundahl: the stages of tuberculose peritonitis we are sometimes dealing with back then clearly correespond to that: vital tissue around stomach destroyed - and then healed
Part III: From mid part of branch out comment, first of two, on Geocentric Answer
xamarmm: (cont 1) there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore (cont 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes."

What about keeping evolution and heliocentrism and similar pseudosciences out of class rooms? Wait, you are yourself a victim of such pseudoscience, never mind, shouldn't have asked you ....
xamarmm: If you by heliocentrism mean that the sun is the center of our solar system then that - just like evolution - is today an established fact. If you mean that the sun is the center of the universe, we have kinda left that idea a couple of centuries ago.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Your established fact now ... it has turned quite a few away from the Church that condemned Galileo. Catholics falling away due to shame. Others not converting due to disgust.

Serves Satan pretty well, I clearly suspect it is not a fact but a factoid.

Whatever its support within astronomic community
xamarmm: it follows from the fact that the sun is the most massive object in the solar system and has more mass than all the other objects combined. It then follows by the laws of physics that the sun i relatively speaking at rest (well, it travels around the milky way, but that is outside of our solar system) while all the other objects moves in orbits around it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is circular reason involved, since mass of celestial objects are determined by orbits according to heliocentric view of them and newtonian view of their causality.

But even if this were true, it would only follow if the newtonian view of their causality were the true and provenly so one.

What makes you so sure God is not daily turning heaven around us, and an angel or angels the sun back around the heavens?
xamarmm: No, it's not.There are other ways to determine the mass of an object than to measure the orbits of objects around it. Oh well, you can keep your bronze age world view - the rest of us has made some progress. What I don't grasp is how you can use a computer - that represent modern science - you should shun it. Nah, you enjoy the fruits of modern science when it suits you, you only object when it goes against your pet bronze age world view which you believe because you believe.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Your other method - the main one - depends on counting with surface material and size. But it has been tampered with in ways making certain heavenly bodies (including earth which is not one) have a core calculated for density by the method first mentioned.

As to other argument, do google "assortedretorts" (where this debate will go too) and "... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)". It has been answered elsewhere.
Link mentioned (here I can link so you need not google):: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-science-works-quote-co-dawkins.html
Part IV: From mid part of branch ou comment, second of two, including true Scotsman and credibility of anti-Christian bias among scientist
xamarmm: (cont 1) there would be no positive gain from doing such a thing. Any attempt at disproving christianity would be a waste of time. Better to spend effort keeping creationism and other pseudo-sciences out of science classes. What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy? It's also a good idea to sped effort to make the separation of church and state become genuine again - removing "in god we trust" from money and "under god" in pledges would help restore (cont 2)
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "What's next? Should we allow alchemy in chemistry or astrology into astronomy?"

Alchemy and astrology are older names for the sciences.

If you mean looking for the stone of the sages or making horoscopes, no it should not be let in. But evolutionism and heliocentrism are not all that much better.

They are attempts of trying to disprove Christianity, they are prime examples of what I was referring to.
xamarmm: No, they are nto attempts of trying to disprve christianity - fact:Some biologists who think evolution is true are christians, do you really think any of them would try to disprove christianity? They are convinced that creationism is false though, but don't really need to atempt to disprove creationim - it disproves itself.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Not only "is disproven", but even "disproves itself", how is that?

"Some biologists who think evolution is true are christians,"

Christianity comes in many shades of belief and disbelief.

"do you really think any of them would try to disprove christianity?"

The kind of Christianity that believes more than they do? Definitely yes, they would.
xamarmm: Can you hear the bag-pipes?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: What bag pipes? If you are enjoying the Edinburgh tattoo, unfortunately I am not over where you are.

And what has that got to do with my argument?

Do you want to avoid debate on my take that many "Christian" either scientists or politicians are simply not believing what Christians are historically supposed to believe?
xamarmm: I was referring to the "no true scotsman fallacy" look it up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I did not claim no true Catholic supported Hitler.

Oh, sorry. I see it was about "what Christians are historically supposed to believe".

Well, there is such a thing as consensus over the centuries over areas where modernist Christians are opposed to part of it.

A Scotsman is defined by Scottish parents. But a Christian is not defined by Christian parents. Nor by identifying himself as a Christian. Since in solme contexts it is used as synonym for "good" (according to Xtian standards) and "unchristian" as bad (same qualification), some people would be ashamed of identifying as "not Christian", even if they believe things like evolution or reincarnation.
Part V: From last part of branch out comment, on secular government, part 1/3
xamarmm: (cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm: In god we trust DOES violate the separation of church and state. True, most of the founding fathers did believe in some god of some kind, but the fact that today there are people who do not believe in any god and they too re citizens of USA, it is a clear violation. You divide the citizens into "first class" who share this god belief and accept the "in god we trust" on their money and the second class citizens who do not - but they don't count as they are lesser worth, they are "untermench".
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Does "violate the separation of church and state"? But "the separation of church and state" is not part of the first amendment.

It is one kind of ideological reading of first amendment, but not a literal part of it.

Speaking of "untermenschen", in Soviet Union Christians really were treated as such, in North Korea they still are. On considered purpose.
xamarmm: That is because both soviet union and north korea are and were in effect theocracies. In soviet union it was an atheistic communist theocracy but it was dogmatic and irrational - the hallmarks of theocracies and as christianity is a competing dogmatism, they were persecuted. North korea is most definitely a theocracy where Kim Il Sung is deified and so christians are persecuted because they will not accept Kim Il Sung as god and savior. The lesson is that dogmatic systems are bad.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The lesson is certainly that non-Christian theocracies are bad.

That thing is not what free Pagans or Jews suffered when Christianity took over, generally speaking.
xamarmm: All theocracies are bad - christians included.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I would on the contrary claim the best societies we have had on earth were Catholic states.

Like that of St Louis IX, King of France.
postoergopostum: A system that led directly to The Terror. No matter how great a monarch like Louis IX may be, eventually the throne will be occupied by a dangerous mind.

A system without adequate checks and balances will eventually become tyranny.

Societies exist in time, and can't be judged by a snapshot. Louis IX's rule like all benevolent theocracies are merely respites from institutionalised tyranny that failed to fix the structural flaws in their society.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Directly? No.

It was its overthrowal by the Revolutionaries (as good secularists as the man in the video) that led to The Terror.

L'Ancien Régime did have adequate checks and balances: not within the secular power of kingship, but between secular and religious, between kingship, regional powers, local powers.

The Revolution did away with that and tehre was The Terror and the Napoleonic Wars.

Tyranny and secularism went hand in hand (partly before Revolution too).
Part VI: From last part of branch out comment, 2/3
xamarmm: (cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm: Next logical step would be to arrange to place all who do not want to say "under god" in a ghetto and have them wear a mark on their clothing saying "atheist" or "non-believer" or some such, so that the police can easily round them up. The death camps comes later.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: We Catholics do not believe in taking "the next logical step". Which is why Catholics resisted Hitler.

Distinctive clothing has been applied by Catholic authorities, but that was way before there were police to round people up who wore such.
xamarmm: Catholics did not resist Hitler - SOME catholics resisted Hitler - but not all, just as SOME protestants also resisted Hitler but not all. All atheists resisted Hitler. If that was because he persecuted all of them and they never had a choice or if it was because they are upright rational people who will never follow Hitler in the first place we will never know.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "All atheists resisted Hitler."

Meaning, mostly, Communists.

You can as well say that most Pantheists with national bent supported him.

And Pantheism is close enough to Atheism, as compared to Christianity.
xamarmm: I think the fact that Hitler went on a book burning campaign against atheistic literature is part of the reason why atheists didn't care much for Hitler's ideas. Hitler was a most definitely a theist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Mit brennender Sorge, an encyclical by Pope Pius XI, disqualifies him from that, since he believed necessities of societal kinds could trump the decalogue.

Pius XI : Mit brennender Sorge (English translation from German)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
Part VII: From last part of branch out comment, 3/3
xamarmm: (cont 2) the costittion and make USA once again a secular state.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: US was not founded an actively secularising state. Btw, it was not founded "a state" but a "confederation" or "union" of 13 states, remember.

Belief in God o f : s o m e : k i n d was assumed as part of natural philosophy and thus not of the confession which congress should neither establish nor disestablish (but state legislatures could do either of these).

"In God we trust" and List of Ten Commandments do not violate the above. Nor does disestablishing school.
xamarmm: Belief in God of some kind was common back then but that doesn't mean that USA was founded as a christian nation. Many of the founding fathers was not christian but was deists but more importantly, many people living in the US at that time fled from religious persecution in europe and so they wanted to found USA as a secular state exactly in order to ensure that no religious denomination would be persecuted in their newly founded nation. The separation of church and state was in part to protect religious minorities. In modern times, christians have forgot that and gang up together to shit on the constitution and want to turn USA into a theocracy. It is possible that they all believe that such a theocracy will tolerate all variants of christianity and only persecute non-christian religious minorities but in this they show a lack of knowledge of history - History tells us that such a theocracy will soon persecute anyone who do not follow the ruling theology.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I have asked you for evidence they want to persecute atheists. You have reaffirmed, but linked to no evidence.

"History tells us that such a theocracy will soon persecute anyone who do not follow the ruling theology."

History of which "theocracy", now?
xamarmm: Atheists is one of the last minorities it is socially acceptable to dicriminate against in the USA today. Thre are numerous stories of children being harassed even by teachers when they find out he or she is atheist. There are numerous stories. People being told to move out when the people of the town finds out they are atheists etc.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: That is not a political attempt to establish theocracy, it is a popular attempt to establish consensus against supporters either of Communism or of Compulsory Evolution and Prohibited Creationism or of Abortion and so called Gay Rights (including to adoption).

It is thus a popular defense against Atheist Inversion of supposed Theocracy.

It sucks, but atheists getting out of those issues might help. Like if AronRa agreed to homeschool his son or put him in a private school for atheists, if he's so against his son hearing any thing about creationism in classroom.

I would want atheist parents in that situation to use the liberties you have rather than attack the liberties we Christians are finally getting back. Or rather than promote the pseudo-liberty of dealing out death and infertility.

... on Christian Ethics (you know Crusades and holding Slaves and such)

This video I have already commented on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFhlLHCWzk

Back on this post:

... on Divine, Angelic, Lower Causalities and on Natural Law Never Causing Anything
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-divine-angelic-lower-causalities-and.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Your words, with my highlight:

"So if he thinks he is ordained by god and you don't, you have a different IDEA of god."

(Possibly of him, he knows himself better than I know him)

My earlier words, with highlight:

"Catholic and Orthodox tradition has one unique definition of God."

A definition of God - relevant to praying bf you eat - and an idea of how much he puts up with in the case of heterodox statements or statements some suspect of being so though really not, are two different things.
TDeMona: That is such pointless word chewing. The point was, you use god to escape all the nasty and evil shit you do and claim it moral. He is a walking stick, and a one we have no reason to believe in. Or if we do, I'd sure like to know some.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: A person too impatient to take a distinction is one I have little patience to argue with.

If you ever get converted you may get so by someone sharing your small love of distinctions or bear with my hairsplitting.
TDeMona: Even meaningless, pointless distinction which's only reason to exist is to confuse the person you are arguing with? Yeah, I can imagine you beign little impatient without that.

If I ever get converted it won't be by a complete brain dead cunt like you, but rather someone who has something to offer that is actually worth a fuck.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Kiitos for the sarcasm.

Do you think that the letter Å is ugly too?

[Note: not A, but A with a ring on it, Å, it is a Swedish letter]
TDeMona: Well, that kinda depends. It's not really a part of my language or anything, so I don't find much use for it.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I kind of thought you might be "äktfinsk".

Resenting Swedish Crusaders (I am Swedish by the way) without taking into account that:

- Finnish Pagans had been pretty bad neighbours with Finnish Christians under the Swedish Crown (and remember, Sw[edish] Conqu[est of Finland] began under Adils, well before we were Christians)

- Finns enjoyed a pretty free Christian Republic under pretty loose Swedish protection under Dominican leadership in the Fourteenth Century (Trettonhundratalet).

Is that what's bugging you?
TDeMona: No, I'm just the an average finn.

But I am not my people, I can't change the history and I wouldn't even if I could. So no, I don't really care about that.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah, sorry, then it was not the Crusades you meant when you talked about "all the nasty and evil shit you do".

What were you referring to?
TDeMona: What the fuck has that got to do with anything? I don't care if you come from a long line of Moon-nazis, you should see the cruzades were a horrible mistake and an excercise in human cruelty.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: So it was the crusades (among other things) after all?

I see the Finnish Pagan criminality to Christian (and newly Christianised) neighbours which provoked the Crusades of St Erik and of Birger Jarl as horrible mistakes and exercises in human cruelty. And greed. And some other things too.
TDeMona: Yeah. The difference how ever is that the crusades are condoned by the bible. I never said all non-christians have always been benevolent and good, but if you have a ideology that basically tells you to oppress others, it doesn't help.

Besides, crusades didn't really have a huge effect here. I was talking more in a larger scale.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "if you have a ideology that basically tells you to oppress others"

Not the Christian one generally, barely that of the worst crusaders. Certainly that of Pagans who think "better oppress than be oppressed".

Larger scale like what?
TDeMona: Oh, the bible isn't a general christian book then?

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

And before you just yell "Out of context" or something suchlike, I'd like you to share the context that makes those pretty and nice.

As in the world.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: 1 Peter 2:18 - mistranslated. Good translation: "not only to the good and gentle but also to the badtempered". (Dyscolis in Latin).

Exodus 22:18 - in NT death penalty has been reserved for cases when by sorcery the warlock or sorceress has achieved someone's death. More usual penalties, at least in Spain: Pilgrimage to Santiago as Penance (after abjuring any contracts with the devil).

1 Timothy 2:12 - Yes, I am against female priests or bishops. That is why I left Swedish Lutheran Church > RCC
TDeMona: So it's okay to be a slave to a badtempered master but not to a cruel one? Okay, that obviously makes it slavery much better.

Why then include the sorcery in there at all? Unless it's a double standard where if you are a woman or "in league with the devil" the punishment is more harsh. There is a reason why we don't have laws like "all murderers must die, except leprechauns".

So you are also a sexist cunt? Nice. Also, what you think is immaterial. This is supposed to be *the ultimate truth*.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "So it's okay to be a slave to a badtempered master but not to a cruel one? Okay, that obviously makes it slavery much better."

It does, once Christianity is applied and slave owners found out as cruel are obliged to liberate the slaves that were victims of their cruelty. In Spanish colonial law, a slave refugee from his master was normally an offender, but not if the master had either seduced to sin or been physically cruel (like maiming or raping or killing a relative).

"Why then include the sorcery in there at all? Unless it's a double standard where if you are a woman or 'in league with the devil' the punishment is more harsh"

Sorcery is a crime because of being in league with the devil in order to get such powers, and not at all because of sex of offender.

Exodus 22:18 Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.

Wizards - male noun, useable for either sex. In Swedish "hexmästare" is derived of "hexa" but "trollkarl" and "trollkona" are equally derived.

[from troll - ogre, often credited with magic powers]

It is about the ultimate truth, but questions of mere discipline are not part of what is truly unchangeable. However, according to Tradition, the Sacrament of Ordination (of Bishops, Priests, Deacons) cannot ever apply to a woman and that was mainly what St Paul was talking about.

There have been prophetesses and abesses "teaching" men in another sense as in giving advice and lessons. St Bridget of Vadstena for one.
TDeMona: Yeah. But according to anybody with half a brain cell the whole concept of slavery is dead wrong. So there goes your bible with it's great morals and other bullshit.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "But according to anybody with half a brain cell the whole concept of slavery is dead wrong."

In what cultures?

Western, yes. Why? Because of Christianity.
TDeMona: What? Fuck you! The bible *especially condones slavery and even gives you guide lines on how to go about it*. Are you telling me, the bible is wrong? Well why then have a religion that is based on it?

The slavery ended because of the progress of human kind. Somebody got into their heads the idea that maybe enslaving other people isn't very nice. And sure, the church had to adapt to that, because the only other option was to lose and disappear. It comes from evolving morality, not christianity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Progress of human mind" and "evolving morality" are two false gods, sometimes credited with miracles of the true God (like abolishing slavery) and sometimes honoured for false and damnable miracles (like bringing back abortion).

"The bible ... gives you guide lines on how to go about it"

- and those guidelines, already under OT even for Canaanean slaves, but especially under NT (see Epistle to Philemon) insist much more than any Pagan, much more than Finnish or Swedish Pagan ancestors of ours (who sometimes sacrificed salves to the gods, at least ours did), that slaves are human people with human dignity, our fellow Christians. That is how slavery was abolished.
TDeMona: Your ass is a false god. Are you saying our minds haven't progressed? Maybe you spend your days as a hunter gatherer banging two rocks together to create music. But some of us have kinda evolved beyond that, socially at least.

And what the fuck do you have against abortion?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Are you saying our minds haven't progressed?"

Yes.

"Maybe you spend your days as a hunter gatherer banging two rocks together to create music."

That is a technical level, not a level of the mind. According to us it was not even the original technological level, but a setback, after Tower of Babel.

Abortion is murder. As most people knew in Sweden or Finland till a very recent setback of MORAL levels.
TDeMona: Fuck you. Not only do you know what murder is or what moral is, you also have no understanding of even what a mind is. Or evolution is. I have tried to play nice and have an argument, but it's a bit difficult when one's opponent puts his fingers up his ears and yells "LA-LA-LA-LA" when ever you try to say to him something.

Do a bit of research on evolution sciences, anthropology, psychology or fucking anything. Right now you are the kid quoting Harry Potter on a math exam.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: If Harry Potter includes a valid observation on mathematics, why not quote him any math exam where that is relevant?

However, quote any of my posts and describe how that is "la-la" rather than answering your argument.

Then read the one I am answering right now. V e r y carefully. If it included any answer to my previous argument, it slipped my no doubt very childish mind's attention.

[I had however missed the following comment, which I only now answered:]
TDeMona: Slavery was slavery. Slavery is slavery. Especially the biblical slaves, as the book gives you strict rules what to do with disobediant ones and how to trick them to be your property forever.

I'm ashamed for the whole human race for the fact I have to even tell somebody why slavery is wrong.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Trick them? The ones who could be "tricked" into being slaves forever where the ones that married inside the slave personnel of one master.

No modern companies do similar things to keep employees?

Now, that rule was however in Old Testament. And it is the New Testament that has conquered the world and abolished slavery by making it impossible to treat slaves as things that happened to be able to talk.
TDeMona: As evil as McDonald's or whatever is, it's employees are not it's property. So once again, fail.

And the Old Testament vs. New Testament -thing is just hooey. The New Testament especially reinforces the old testament. Even Jesus says in it, that he is come to uphold the traditions and rules of the old testament. So that doesn't really hold up.

And even if that was true, why not take the good bits and uphold those, and trash all the evil shit? Much more simple than this tap dance of yours.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "As evil as McDonald's or whatever is, it's employees are not it's property. So once again, fail."

What if McDonald's and similar give an employee the right to say goodbye, but at same time make sure next employment leaves him similarily without a family or a future other than serving things like McDonald's and similar?

Jesus said he came to uphold the law. He also gave a date for when it ceased to literally apply: His Crucifixion. When Heaven and Earth passed away.

"And even if that was true, why not take the good bits and uphold those, and trash all the evil shit?"

Supposing you know in sufficient good detail without the Bible what is good and evil. If you support abortion, you clearly do not.

"Much more simple than this tap dance of yours."

Said every revolutionary ... Hitler and Lenin included.

Seriously, NT adds to requirements above OT, including in fair treatment of slaves. That is how it disappeared: with NT rules one could as well hire for cash[.]
TDeMona: And if you don't support abortion, neither do you even with your bible.

First of all, Hitler was an devout catholic, so he doesn't really aply here, he hold the whole bible as the truth. Lenin, on the other hand, threw it all away to rise himself to basically into godhood. So that doesn't really make sense. I wouldn't concider either of those as some great pillars of moral rightness.

Yeah, but it still supports slavery, something you'd think all knowing and all loving god would be against.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: No, abortion is and remains murder.

"Hitler was an devout catholic, so he doesn't really apply here, he hold the whole bible as the truth."

Catholic? He was baptised and made a first communion, possibly, but in adult life he did not practise. Devout? Not a chance, unless he repented of his ways between 45 and whenever he died.

Held all of the Bible as truth? No, he was a Darwinist.

Sorry, not my fault your education includes more than one big huge lie.

Bible still supports slavery?

In a sense, in a very limited sense.

Hebrew masters could not do to their slaves what Canaanean master had thought they could do to theirs or Babylonian masters to theirs.

Christian masters were enjoined (see letter to Philemon as well as that chapter in either [I or II] Ephesians were masters and slaves are treated after husbands and wives and fathers and children), to regard their own slaves as their brothers and God as the common master of both. That only ended slavery.
TDeMona: Yes, we have progressed as a species. And now it's time to take the next step and abandon the hooey of the past.

Well, this comes from Jesus: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Can you imagine more heinous stance?

You probably yell mistranslation and bad interpretation and all that shit. It doesn't matter if Jesus says "Eat eachother and fuck children", you would still stand up to him.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Look four verses further:

Ephesians 6:9 (Douay-Rheims) "And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him."

I can imagine more heinous stances yes.

Like telling slaves to do another Spartacus (if you've seen the Hollywood movie you know where that led to) or like telling masters to use the advice of Cato Censorius. (Borrowed from Carthaginians, same as crucifixion).

Jesus never said eat each other and fuck children, but people saying it's time to take the next step and abandon hooey from the past did say "fuck property, fuck the church, we want to kill someone who was less unfortunate than us" (Lenin/Trotski, basically) or "fuck the church, fuck the Jews, fuck the Gipsies" (very base, but not inaccurate translation of Mein Kampf & Portschy's errors & Mythus des 20:ten Jahrunderts taken together).
TDeMona: Yes. So what? They did that because of their own dogmas, something most atheists today disregard altogether. What's your point? Them beign assholes doesn't make your oppressive, horrible religion any more true or proper.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Well the thing is, their "dogmas" (as you chose to put it) very much center on "Yes, we have progressed as a species. And now it's time to take the next step and abandon the hooey of the past." (As you also chose to put it.

And slave owners freeing their slaves en masse, from old Romans to Robert E Lee did it out of respect for their Christian dogma, that a slave is as much of a man as a freeman.
TDeMona: No, really, they weren't. Stalin and his ilk were fast to make themselves basically into gods, while Adolf very much embraced the hooeys of the past; such as occultism, racism, patriotism and xenophobia. Both of them also saw no problems with making their political parties the focal point of their new, totalitarian states.

So? If christianity would not been around they would have done it inspired by something else. Like Spartacus tried to do, before christianity was even invented.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Stalin and his ilk were fast to make themselves basically into gods,"

I e rejecting Christianity.

"Adolf very much embraced the hooeys of the past; such as occultism, racism, patriotism and xenophobia."

All of them modern rather than traditionally Christian, excepting patriotism which his enemies embraced too.

"Both of them also saw no problems with making their political parties the focal point of their new, totalitarian states."

Key words: new, totalitarian. Get it?
TDeMona: You can't honestly be this stupid.

We were talking about dogmas. They had their dogmas. You have yours. I don't. Get the fucking difference, or do I need to paint a picture, or something?

It doesn't matter what kind of fucking divine rule book you have, bible or party book, it's all the same especially when they are filled with horrible injustice, cruelty and bloated sense of self-importance. Bullshit is still bullshit. You get it, you cunt? Please, at least stop pretending to be this dumb.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: They got their dogmas, the ones they or their recent predecessors invented.

I have not got my dogmas but those of the Church, given by Jesus to His Apostles two thousand years ago.

Apart from the fact that you refuse to call your dogmas dogmas, which of above comes closests to your own position?
TDeMona: Yes! You follow the commands of some assholes in funny hats based on an ancient book that can be interpreted to mean pretty much anything. And you see no problem with this?

And I don't have an dogma, I'm sorry, I know it would be much easier for you if anybody was as brainwashed as you. But I don't, I'm an atheist, sorry. So neither one of those comes any closer to my position. Now you got to ask yourself the question, which one yours comes closer to: another evil dogma or no dogma at all?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Ah, now you clarified your usage of "dogma" a bit.

Having a dogma is being brainwashed.

Being an atheist is not being brainwashed.

Ergo, being an atheist means not having a dogma.

What about the dogmata of Lenin, then? Was he brainwashed or an atheist?

As you clarified dogma, so should I clarify Catholicism and Bible.

No, Bible cannot be adequately interpreted to mean pretty much anything. It can be inadequately interpreted by those who reject the right interpretation. And that one is connected to a series of men starting with twelve disciples and leading up to present guys "in funny hats", most of whom are not assholes, but there was one (called Judas) among original twelve, so we can always count on some of them being there.
TDeMona: Ah, the beloved "no true scotsman" fallacy. How come then there are thousands of different denominations of christians, who can't agree on anything? You tell me all the others are wrong, yours is the only right interpretation. Well, how do you know that? Who says? And most of all, who cares?

Why follow a book you have no reason to believe has an ounce of truth in it? Why study real, demonstratable science to see how stuff actually works, and think things trough with empathy and common sense?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Now, ever heard of 1517? OK, the brothers Petri in Sweden and Agricola in Finland came a little later.

How many "sects" or denimonations were there before 1517?

Some of them, like Albigensians, died out. Others, like Valdensians, joined the 1517 crew.

There were four who did neither: Catholics, Orthodox (what you sometimes call oikeaoppinen in Finnish, though we Catholics claim that too), what is often called Monophysites, what is mostly called Nestorians. Disagreed on very few things.
TDeMona: The year 1517 has nothing the fuck to do with anything, as usually. Actually, none of that does. What are you even talking about? The fact that your faith is maluable and new people can just come up and dream new interpretations only strenghtens my point, not diminishes it! Why don't you address the actual point instead of dreaming some crap from acient history that has nothing to do with anything?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Why don't you address the actual point instead of dreaming some crap from acient history that has nothing to do with anything?"

Why don't you do some fact checking to see if my points are dreamt up and have something to do with something?

"The year 1517 has nothing the fuck to do with anything, as usually."

1517 - theses of Luther (who later became Protestant)

1517 - Protestantism of Zwingli and Oecolampadius

1517 - rising of Münzer

1517 - preaching of liberal theologians and arians uncle and nephew Sozzini

Check out what sects majority of present day sects lead back to? Right, Luther or Zwingli ... plus baptists owe at least one trait to Münzer ... plus Atheists agree with the Sozzinis even more than they did themselves.
TDeMona: *I don't have a dogma*. What the early christians and catholics or pagans or the flying reindeer of the moon did doesn't make your dogma any better. Please try to comprehend this. It isn't so difficult. Your book is full of errors, horrible guide lines to life, horrible, evil characters that it tells you to worship and most of all it's so badly written that anybody can interpret it to support their actions, as long as they are malevolent. Wheather it's a bad interpretation makes no difference.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: OK, you don't have a dogma, you are an atheist, then Lenin had no dogma either.

What exactly do you mean by dogma anyway?

Someone else's opinion you don't share? A dogma.

Your own opinion? An opinion.

Dogma happens to be Greek for "opinion" just as "doxa" is Greek for praise.

Orthodox translates as oikeaoppinen in Finnish. Because -dox comes from dogma meaning opinion.

Since you are not oikeaoppinen I wish you were at least oikeamielinen. With your opinion on what dogma means - you are not.

When you say that our book is full of errors, you are agreeing with uncle and nephew Sozzini.

Only they thought it was at least basically good, so you are agreeing with their heresy more than they did.

You are showing exactly what I said, that Atheism is a Protestant sect.

If Atheism meant exactly just "not believing in God or gods", it would not so often be coupled with ultra-Socinian hatred of Holy Writ.
TDeMona: That is insanity. I am not agreeing with anybody but myself and common sense. If you one day aquire either of those things, your own free will or common sense, write back to me then.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: Believing a dogma is not loosing one's own free will, and if you choose to call what is common between Socinianism and yourself "common sense" it does not mean people who are not agreeing with you and Sozzini Refomers also need to call it "common sense" or that we are unable to call it a non-Catholic dogma. Sorry if that hurts you, but that is the case.
TDeMona: Yes, it kinda is. If your bible forbits wearing two different fabrics at the same time, you have two options: a) pretend it doesn't (the normal religious response) or b) do what the book says (which is impossible due to all the contradictions). Please show where the free will lies in all this.

And the rest is wrong too. I may believe grass grows. I'm right. But I might believe that for various different reasons. Believing it because of evidence and science is the reasonal one (=common sense).
Hans-Georg Lundahl: We believe grass grows. We are right.

Believing it because of evidence is one reasonable reason.

Believing it because of science is in this case a good reason too, since in this case (science of the ordinary, of the present and perpetual) science is a set of doctrines that are very closely related to evidence.

"Science" of the remote past or distant is not science in same way.

Any injunction gives us free choice to obey or not and leaves our free will intact.

When the Old Testament forbade Hebrews to wear wool and flax in same garment, or to grow wheat and rye on same field, it symbolically means for the New Testament that we must avoid mixing the pure Christian doctrine with Pagan falsehoods, and it is thus simply put another way to forbid heresy (including Lutheranism), and in that manner it obliges, just as Jews in Jesus' time (He Himself too) were obliged to wear clothes either pure linen or pure wool.
TDeMona: And that makes a difference how? Are you still afreid of the "pagan falsehoods"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: I certainly am.

Pagan falsehoods like allowing abortion and contraception. Pagan falsehoods like allowing mercy killing of innocent people. Pagan falsehoods like denying the One God in Three Persons and the Two natures of Christ, Son of the Father and Son of Mary.

You see how many mix certain amounts of Christian truth with falsehoods such as these, nowadays, don't you?

I am very much against that, and if I should catch myself on the verge of a heresy it makes me afraid like a snake.
continued on:: ... on Abortion
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2013/07/on-abortion.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise

Sunday, July 14, 2013

... on Young Earth

... on diverse matters, some of which make you want to pray "oremus et pro perfidis judaeis" while others indicate translatio sacerdotii

Sunday, July 7, 2013

... on Girls in Roman Empire, before and after Christianity

Saturday, July 6, 2013

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

Friday, July 5, 2013

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more

... on Christian Ethics (you know Crusades and holding Slaves and such)

About Me

Fighting Totalitarian Takeovers