Donut Squad on Catholic Hate

How To Deal With Trolls & Catholic Hate!
That Catholic Couple | Ajoutée le 13 mars 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSzD_JNYQBE

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

On the ones arguing there shouldn't be Catholics on youtube, I have argued, if Catholics do go to cinema, there should also be a Catholic Hollywood:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Michael Matt Overpraised Legion of Decency and Denigrated Greydanus beyond Demerit
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/michael-matt-overpraised-legion-of.html

It seems you are fans of Bishop Barron ... I don't count him as canonically bishop of that place in ... Tunisia? ... and I have some issues with his theology. I nicknamed him "Robber Baron of theology" and here is a post involving him:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... when even the "Robber Baron" (as I often call him) gets sth Right!
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2018/03/when-even-robber-baron-as-i-often-call.html

One where he gets sth right, just to be charitable ....

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I wonder, how many times have I been taken for a Protestant troll in Catholic clothing because I am a Creationist and how many times have Catholics prayed for me to get confronted with someone debunking sola scriptura, which I don't believe in anyway ... I think that was even how I came across Lizzies answers back when she was still a Church of God member but no longer sola scriptura.

Shelton Hatton

...what? Are you a Christian or..?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am a Roman Catholic Christian, yes.

By the grace of God!

Avery Reich-Norris

Hans-Georg Lundahl I am curious as to why you believe you should be specifically a Creationist. I can tell you that I don't believe we need to take the creation accounts so literally that we ignore the scientific discoveries, but I am curious what being a Creationist means to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, we do need to take the creation account, general overview in Genesis 1 - 2:3 and closeup on day six in Genesis 2:4-end, literally, allegorically, morally and anagogically, because that is how the Church takes them throughout 2000 years. Chronology needs to be taken within the parameters tha Church has found acceptable. LXX based and Byzantine : Creation in 5509 BC, LXX based and Roman, Creation in 5199 BC, LXX overall having Flood in Anno Mundi 2242, Noah born in AM 1656. Vulgate and Masoretic have instead Flood in AM 1656. The leeway is not for ten thousand years and certainly not for a million let alone a few billions of years.

Second, I am not ignoring scientific discoveries.

I am not ignoring the fact that carbon 14 has a halflife of 5730 years, I am not ignoring that objects found in Göbekli Tepe show a carbon 14 ratio about 25 % of the one in recent objects and in atmosphere, and I am not ignoring that would mean on a certain condition two halflives, these two halflives being 11460 years and these 11460 years being already a few thousand years beyond the Biblical chronology.

I am however saying, the condition on which GT objects would be from c. 9000 BC, namely that they came from an atmosphere with same carbon ratio as today, is not necessarily fulfilled.

Actually, if the Catholic Faith is true, it cannot very well be fulfilled (or some other condition isn't).

Instead of these objects, whether charcoal or skulls having been mistreated, having gone from 100 pmc (percent modern carbon) to c. 25, which would take about 11460 years, they can have gone from less than 50 pmc to c. 25, which would take less than 5760 years.

Meanwhile, they can have been coming from an atmosphere in which carbon ratio was going up, because carbon 14 was formed faster than now, so that the original pmc's go up between earlier and later material in a way which makes for about 1000 years difference in the misdatings.

But perhaps you were thinking of some other scientific discovery supposed to contradict either Biblical chronology or some other datum in the Bible and its traditional exegesis?

Avery Reich-Norris

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was merely interested in your viewpoint. I will say however that there is more evidence than carbon dating which can be used for determining the age of the earth and universe. This evidence is usually extraterrestrial in origin (meaning not from earth). Thank you for sharing your viewpoint I am glad that you have put some thought into it and can have a conversation about it.

T F

St Augustine disagrees with your assessment of the creation stories in Genesis...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You might want an exact quote from where he says so on the exact subject.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Avery : "I will say however that there is more evidence than carbon dating which can be used for determining the age of the earth and universe."

Now, carbon dating is never directly used for that, but to determine origin of objects in it.

However, that is one of the lines of argument I have to defend, insofar as I keep this up.

"This evidence is usually extraterrestrial in origin (meaning not from earth). "

With U-Pb dating, where Matthew Hunt, mathematical phycist, tried to defend the general outline, there are other reasons why we don't know how much there was at first of radioactive isotope.

U238 decays to Pb205.

Now read this:

HGL's F.B. writings : Matthew Hunt Defending Carbon and Radiometric, Me Defending Carbon in Relative But Not Absolute Dates when Old
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2018/03/matthew-hunt-defending-carbon-and.html

If you meant Distant Starlight, I am Geocentric and think the stellar distances are moot. Light from Sirius seen now left Sirius, not years ago, but about yesterday.

T F

Wickipeejuh : Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your point being?

Truth of an allegoric meaning does NOT imply non-truth of the literal one.

I have time after time seen this glide "Catholics believe in Allegoric senses" (true), "therefore" (!) "we need not take Genesis literally" (false).

Or this quote?

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. ... "

I totally agree - with St Augustine.

But the sentiment is not to the point, since St Augustine being a Geocentric and a Young Earth Creationist clearly did not count Heliocentrism or Deep Time as rational knowledge accessible to everyone.

Here is on that quote:

Creation vs. Evolution : Was St Augustine against Literalism?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/10/was-st-augustine-against-literalism.html

Here we have someone ridiculing Church Fathers because they were not into modern science - and me answering:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Answering a site that ridicules Church Fathers on Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2012/01/answering-site-that-ridicules-church.html

And here, about St Augustine being Geocentric and YEC:

New blog on the kid : St Augustine was - Literally - a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, and he was Right
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2014/03/st-augustine-was-literally-young-earth.html

(I maybe should have referred instead to book 2 chapter 1 or book 1 chapter 2, not sure).