... 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

... on Divine, Angelic, Lower Causalities and on Natural Law Never Causing Anything

TheThinkingAtheist : Understanding Christianese-Lesson 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpV9nHdRiiE

Has a few points worth considering. However makes a pseudopoint about saying grace over meals. The debate starts with me answering that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bless does not refer only to what nutritional content the food has, but also as to how well the body will digest it.

And how satisfied and peaceful with each other the people will be at the dinner table.

Not meaning God couldn't make a miracle about content too, if on any occasion it were needed.

Christopher Martinez

In order to understand the incorrectness of your logic, you have to understand the biological science of the human digestive system. Only then will you understand that digestion happens due to a chemical process, and not because of divine intervention. This is a proven scientific study with characteristics that can easily be replicated in a lab (wiki it). There is no registered proof anywhere of divine intervention, only belief through word of mouth and unverified scriptures.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What the lab does not prove for or against is however whether chemical processes (including those of digestion) happen as they happen because of inherent ultimate necessity over which no god has any control, or whether they are the usual way God works in his creation (when it comes to digestion).

Your name and attitude indicate you could be a Spanish or Hispanic anticlerical, thus heavily biassed against anything Catholic.

Emiliotheangel

Any physiological process in a particular organism is required for survival. Wheather it's about a protozoo performing phagocytosis, or the refined digestive system in complex animals such as ourselves. It's just how life works. As C. Martinez pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence of it occurring because of divine intervention; but there abounds evidence about the evolution of digestive systems, such as a serpent's, where digestion starts at the injection of venom by its enzymatic nature.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have still failed to adress the obtuse grasp your colleague took on my answer by yet another time using the concept of Christianity meaning "divine intervention in what could otherwise work very well without any kind of god".

That is not what Christianity means, since God is not just ruler of sth originating independently of him, but origin.

And your examples do not show that serpentine or human digestion is independent of God or needs no creator.

Emiliotheangel

Well, evolution by natural selección is the "creating force" -so to speak- of all the diversity of life forms and species and their particular treats and levels of complexity (i. e. nervious system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc.). There's overwhelming evidence for it; so much that evolution is a scientific fact.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to point out. Is it something like "evolution is real, but a god drives it" kind of thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Absolutely not, unless you mean microevolution (like black and white man both evolved their features after Adam or poneys and big horses have evolved from common ancestors or ...).

I am saying the world is real and at any moment for any aspect God is ultimately deciding what happens, even if allowing some free decisions to angels and men.

Both God and angels can affect without any "miracle" speed and intensity of a chemical process. God can also directly work miracles (changing process).

Emiliotheangel

Well, all humans alive today really are descendants of Y-Chromosome Adam, a ~500, 000 year-old male, I'll give you that. But no, ponies and big horses are just breeds of domesticated wild horses, both human-produced by artifical selection, wich is basically a man-made form of natural selection in small scale. There's evidence for all of these.

I´m just saying that if you're so sure of these angels and gods, you should bring evidence, too, so it can be considered feasible, at the very least.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In order to deny angels as well as God, you have to ignore or deny all miracles all over history, whether Hebrew or Pagan or after them Christian.

That denial is not feasible.

Emiliotheangel

There's absolutely no evidence to support those "miracles". Throughout history, humans have not always understood certain events. In this inability to give explanations to natural phenomena (or even deceit, indeed, by ill-intended people), they addressed to these as "miracles". Fortunately, science can now explain almost every aspect of the natural world, and we have come to know that these "miracles" have a real explanation, and science is continuously expanding its knowledge everyday.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yawn ... (really) ... you took maths and science, not history as a major, right?

Or literature or Classical languages for that matter ...

Emiliotheangel

OK, I think we're done here. ;)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine.

A nice little debate to republish on my blog assertedretorts (dot blogspot ...) and I will honour your statements to your youtube profile.

Christopher Martinez

What you need to do is take a critical thinking class. You are dismissing my argument because, according to you, I am an anticlerical Hispanic? How do you even come up with that? I grew up in a Catholic house hold. In fact, from my immediate family (Dad, Mom, brother, sister) I am the only one who doesn't practice Catholicism. I don't have any "attitude" towards the subject, I simply pointed out your flawed logic, proceeded by making a sound argument, and you couldn't even construct a sentence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry, missed this while taking up with Emiliotheangel.

You did not answer my argument about what the lab does not prove. As Emilio did.

You are a Hispanic. You are from a Catholic family. You are not a Catholic. The most widely known other options among Hispanics are Pentecostal, Santeria and Anticlerical Atheism with Evolution.

I mentioned this only because you mentioned "my logic".

Christopher Martinez (a)

Was there a question there? Your sentences make absolutely no sense. I quote, "...chemical processes...happen...because of inherent ultimate necessity..." What in the world are you saying? Notice how my statements end with a question mark, to suggest that the statement is a question and not a claim. It seems you're having trouble contextualizing what you're trying to say, but there's no need to question the digestive system. Like I said, it is a chemical process. Google "digestive system".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What the lab does not prove ... is ... whether ... or ..."

That should give you the base for the sentence, now you are able to parse it if you know any grammar.

That should also suffice to deal with your final pseudorefutation.

Christopher Martinez (b)

I never once mentioned why you believed there's a connection between Hispanics and anticlerical atheism, I was simply confused as to why you would dismiss my argument based on the fact that I'm Hispanic. There's your pseudo-refutation, used with the right context....but why am I wasting my time arguing with someone that doesn't even understand the chemical process of the digestive system, something that a 6th grader can figure out. Blinded by doctrine, this topic is beyond you my friend.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Between a straight statement sentence, and a straight question sentence, there is such a thing as stating something about a question.

Q: Are processes working the way they do out of a necessity inhering absolutely in themselves or because God wills and angels work?

Statement about that question: Lab tests will not tell you. Referring to them is thus a fallacy.

Put into one sentence it works out as I stated it earlier.

DemonlordHatty

....Are you dumb? Of course digestive processes work out of necessity. If not, we'd either A. Be dead, or B. Not have to eat food. Your brain is extremely incoherently wired. It is a mass of miss-firing neurons. Please go back and finish middle school before you go and make stupid statements and ask stupid questions.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

More like B.

Some of us do not have to eat food, except the Holy Eucharist. I think Maria Valtorta was one person kept alive for years eating only one Host per day.*

Actually, you even misunderstood the point. God usually does not allow people to survive without eating, nor to eat without surviving. But even so a particular process of digestion on a particular day can be more or less nourishing, more or less damaging (like flatulence, stomach ache and so on) without necessity being detectable.

DemonlordHatty

These are all explained phenomena... Man, people are nitpicking these days... Anything scientific is just wrong, apparently. I mean I understand arguing evolution since it is still a young theory, but fighting against the proven workings of the human digestive system? Give me a break. Have you ever opened a biology textbook in your life? Or was that the class you just kinda fell asleep in cuz your teacher didn't care enough?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not argue against how digestion works.

I did not say shit and energy from the body join together to become food, I know it is the other way round.

I did say the exact speed, intensity and initial needs of the process can vary very extremely according to the will of its Creator. God.

There is nothing in your biology book to disprove that. There is nothing in any lab test about digestion to disprove that. There are exemples that do prove that. Like Maria Valtorta.*

footnote:

*The person kept alive by one host per day - I think even without water - for years was not Maria Valtorta, but Alexandrina da Costa. Note that first time I mentioned "Maria Valtorta" in the role of Alexandrina, I wrote "I think". Maria Valtorta was a visionary, her visions have been verified in minute historical detail (in things that accompanied the miracles but could well be verified apart from them), and she had access to two books: Bible and Catechism of St Pius X. Alexandrina da Costa lived on one host a day. Not twenty for breakfast, twenty for lunch and twenty for supper as some seem to imagine. One host is usually the size of a coin, of unleavened bread. If God had not invisibly taken the place of bread, it could not have kept her a live for two weeks. Both cases have in common to have been minutely watched over by XX^th C. Medical Doctors for years and years.

Continued on:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Maria Valtorta and Alexandrina da Costa, Bedridden Miracles and Saints, and on Fact Checking Miracles
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-maria-valtorta-and-alexandrina-da.html

Here is another video, this time with Hitchens:

bdwilson1000 : Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbOUBUVLvKw

mrtadreamer

Everything atheists assert is impossible to believe.

darkdexou

That statement is so ridiculous its laughable... I'm an atheist and I assert all kinds of stuff that is very believable ;) Also, again, atheism isnt a doctrine, we dont 'assert' anything collectively, cause therre is no church of Atheism. However you assert there is a god, which there is no evidence for and should therefore be very difficult if not impossible to believe. Burden of proof mradreamer...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"there is no church of Atheism"

There is perhaps no hierarchic structure englobing all atheists as a whole, but there certainly is a sect animated by the late Hitchens and the still alive Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Congratulations to those who are not part of it.

To either of them, I wish for their conversion to Christianity.

steveb0503

"To either of them, I wish for their conversion to Christianity."

Why would you wish for their intellectual hobbling and subjection to delusion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because I do not. Because it is atheism - in particular the sect of Dawkins and Hitchens - that is a delusion.

steveb0503

Please explain to me how NOT believing in a god is delusional (no matter how vocal one is with regards to this particular perspective).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Involves believing Exodus never happened, though Israel are as likely to remember it correctly as US are to remember George Washington correctly.

Involves Flood never happened, though lots of Pagans recall it with slightly incorrect details and with incorrect theology.

Involves believing people whom God or the Devil or angels speak to are schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, even when highly functioning and in some cases miracle workers.

Involves mammalian chromosomes are limited to < / =48

steveb0503

I won't bother refuting any of those alleged events (even though there's little - if any - extra-biblical support of them, and plenty of contradictory evidence) - as they provide absolutely no evidence in support of the claim that this "God" character actually exists. Does a fictional "period-piece" provide any evidentiary support that the characters ACTUALLY existed (or experienced any of the actual events recounted in them)?

People who hear voices ARE delusional (I've met them).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You totally forgot the evolutionists' great problem about mammalian chromosome numbers above 48.

"even though there's little - if any - extra-biblical support of them, and plenty of contradictory evidence"

For Flood there is plenty of extra-Biblical evidence.

For Exodus there is at least some of it. Routing of Egyptian army would for instance explain why Hyksos could just walk straight into Egypt, basically.

"they provide absolutely no evidence in support of " God existing.

If they happened, they do so provide it.

"People who hear voices ARE delusional (I've met them)."

You are wrong, at least about some, possibly even about all of them.

"Does a fictional "period-piece" provide any evidentiary support that the characters ACTUALLY existed (or experienced any of the actual events recounted in them)?"

Total misunderstanding of the "Sitz im Leben" of those tales. They were not meant as a miracle believer's counterpart to Scooby Doo or anything like that.

steveb0503

Didn't "forget" - I ran out of space.

I'm not sure what you are claiming the "problem" to be.

I'm unfortunately out of time at the moment, but will get back to you when I'm able (might be a few days) - I would appreciate some clarification on this "chromosome issue" (I've never heard of it, and a web search doen't seem to turn up anything). Seriously, I'm not one to shy away from challenges (especially when I know I'm right - which I am), I'll get back to you later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

do google creavsevolu letter to nature

in that blog message I link both to my own earlier writings thereon, and to my adversary P Z Myers who claimed to have a solution, which I have - to my satisfaction - refuted. Even in debate in his comboxes, since all of a sudden he hides comments later than 2009 (= comments involving me and people answering me and that I am answering).

steveb0503

I'll be honest - genetics is not my strong suit (the issue is too far beyond my knowledge base to address properly - at least without far more investigation than I am currently willing to commit to), but even if it would seem to be a currently insurmountable challenge, I put it to you that it does not exceed the imminantly greater challenge of ERV evidence (which is really a smoking gun) - it would be necessary to offer an alternate explanation of how that pattern arose without common descent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No idea of what ERV is exactly, but any argument for common descent is equally an argument for a common maker.

Any common trait may be either trade mark of a craftsman or trace of common non-intentional cause.

Whether genetics is your forte or not, maybe maths are?

There is no small step gradualism between 24 pairs and 25 pairs. Trisomy in one pair augmented to tetrasomy will not do: a tetrasomy is not same as two functional pairs, but a further degradation of functionality.

[In case he does not follow this up, here is the link to what I wanted him to google:

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

He did too follow up:

steveb0503

You "know" enough about genetics to claim authoratatively that it is impossible to go from 24 pairs of chromosomes to 25 (it is - it's just that the newly generated pair would not serve an immediate purpose, and unless it turned out to have a deleterious effect on the possessor's ability to effectively reproduce, will "hang around" until it mutates into another [possibly useful] form) - and yet you do not know anything about ERVs? Interesting.

See: watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI and learn somethin'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First of all, a tetrasomy is not an extra pair.

Second, a tetrasomy may and an extra pair out of nowhere will trigger an immunity system defense reaction and spontaneously abort the fetus.

You are reasoning as if mammals laid eggs and that is it. Hint for you: they do not. There is such a thing as gestation. Even a trisomy in a big pair of chromosomes (say human 1 or 3, excepting mosaica) is usually mortal.

If instead of ERV you had used full words, I might have known something about them.

Can't watch the video right on this computer, so you will have to put up with my answering the rest of your comment without having wtached it. BBL on video.*

Ah, there is good old wiki too:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus]

The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ('integration') of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. [...] However, most of these have acquired inactivating mutations during host DNA replication, and are no longer capable of producing virus.

Theistic YEC solution (offhand): its the virus that is secondary and the parts of the genome that are primary. Where they form virus, it is like cancer derived from host.

[* Video has full url and title:

cdk007 : Evidence for Evolution, Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

Beside that one there is another one:

jesse8857 : Debunking ERVs (Endogenous Retroviral Sequences)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsCj__ucBSo]

also by me, not answered so far, directly against Hitchens

"for actions which we are condemned in advance to taking"

... he thus argues that if Christianity were true (as it is actually), Calvinism would be true as well (as it is not).

On the following video is compared invisibility of God with invisibility of "invisible unicorn":

TheAmazingAtheist : Stupid Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFhlLHCWzk

I see a problem as to the logical parallel. A unicorn is by definition (insofar as it would exist at all, which might be the case) something visible. Before the end, we will be discussing what natural law is. Not the guy on the video and I, but another commenter and I:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.]

"Invisible unicorn"

A unicorn is by definition a horse with a horn where a horse has no horn and where the beast that has a horn is not a horse but a rhino (not to be confused with a rino=republican in name only).

Not so with God, who by definition is a spirit.

TDeMona

No, who by definition is what ever the fuck you happen to decide he is at this particular minute. Don't you see? God is nothing more than your desires, bigotry and otherwise unjustified beliefs manifested into something you can always point at when you haven't got any better arguments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That would by definition not be God but "someone's superstition about an otherwise non-existent God as analysed by Freud".

Which is another question.

I said that God - as we Christians and a few others think he exist - is spirit. Which is what makes him different from "invisible bodies that should be visible since bodies."

Freudian "analysis" is convenient to cover up obvious atheist falws of logic by discovering non-obvious ones in a Christian so "analysed".

TDeMona

But your idea of God has changed all the time, like weather or not he makes the rain and some such. God is an idea, not an actual thing that you can pinpoint with accuracy and say "that is the definition of this". Take two christians from the same sect and they have a completely different idea of what god is.

And about the other thing, how do you know any of this? Making it up doesn't count.

And please inform me what flaws you find from "I don't believe in God claims". That's all atheism is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Take two christians from the same sect and they have a completely different idea of what god is"

We are talking about Orthodox and Catholic ideas over 20 C. Pretty constant.

God DOES let the sun shine and rain fall, wherever he wants to. No single drop of rain falls unless God wills or allows it anywhere in the world. That is what the word "omnipotens" or "pantocrator" of the creed means.

So you are an atheist, you used a flawed argument and then a non-sense Freudian one to cover up.

TDeMona

No, they aren't. Every single christian has their own god idea, and the sects are only a spring board to that. Show five different catholics any of the thousands of contradictions in the bible, and listen how they step dance around them. They all do, but they all pull different aswers out from their butts.

No, that's what we call natural laws. And if you think god is behind those, I'd expect pretty strong reasons to accept that hypothesis.

To Freud: I don't agree, and I'm not all atheists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I said Catholic and Orthodox ideas over 20 C. Not during the 20:th C.

You will certainly find five shades of modernism among no-traditional Catholics.

Besides, an idea contrasted with others about one particular problem of Bible interpretation does not amount to one idea contrasted with others about who and what God is.

Natural laws never caused anything. They are a description of how things are caused by natural causes, they are not the natural causes themselves, nor are these all causes.

TDeMona

What the fuck are you talking about? That could not make any sense even in your own head.

Explain the three first paragraphs again and try to have some semblence of rationality into them.

"Natural laws never caused anything. They are a description of how things are caused by natural causes, they are not the natural causes themselves, nor are these all causes." And you know this how?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3 §§: Catholic and Orthodox tradition has one unique definition of God. It does not vary because of different exegesis about lesser matters.

I know that natural laws never caused anything, just as I know the laws of arithmetic never put one penny or cent into or out of my pocket. Generally it was I who did so. Without contradicting the laws of arithmetic.

[For the last one I am grateful to Clive Staples Lewis for a certain chapter in Miracles (1947). It might seem he might have profited from a book on same subject written by a Catholic priest in 1916 in refutation of le Roy and Bergson.]

TDeMona

But wait, wasn't it catholics who'se Pope just said something about atheists going to heaven that caused a huge uproar and that got basically vetoed by some other high-ranking funny-hat-ones?

So you don't really know anything. Just as well I could say I know there is no God since I don't have any pink socks either. Good one. And that doesn't break the natural laws either. Also, if by some miracle your argument made sense, how do you come to the conclusion it's God's doing, let alone your God's?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1 Some of us are not sure he is Pope.

2 What he said was Atheists have inherent knowledge and therefore obligation to be good, as well as Christians have. Quite right as long as their atheism does not destroy it - or they destroy it to favour their atheism.

3 He did not say they could go to Heaven without becoming Christian first.

This is then an example of different ideas about the atheist's situation or about how much optimism one can voice without leading them on. Not about God's nature.

TDeMona

That is exactly what we were talking about. You are not sure he is pope, and pope is somebody who is ordained to be pope by god. So if he thinks he is ordained by god and you don't, you have a different idea of god. I'm sorry, that's how it goes. Besides, you white wash his statement quite a bit, but then again you are christian, so no surprises there.

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.

Discussion was continued on this post:

... on Christian Ethics (you know Crusades and holding Slaves and such)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-christian-ethics-you-know-crusades.html

... on Catholic Understanding of Biblical Inerrancy

Catholic Forums :What does the Church mean when she says the Bible is free from error?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=795193

ProVobis said:

I believe there is only one version of the Bible which the church, via a doctrinal council, has stated that is free from error.

Not quite. Trent said two different things about Biblical inerrancy:

• a) Original Manuscript by each Holy Author is totally free from error;
• b) The Vulgate (one of the versions) is free from error in matters pertaining to doctrine and morals.

Note that what Trent says about the Vulgate version is very close to what Vatican II says about the Bible as such.

What Trent does not actually state is whether factual errors crept into Vulgate through careless copying or translation from wrong Hebrew text can always or only sometimes be corrected through non-Vulgate versions.

The Church Father St Augustine states that the LXX has a higher authority than the post-Christian Hebrew manuscripts that St Jerome was translating. The Martyrologium Romanum for 25 of December gives for birthyear of Our Lord (after Creation, after Flood, after Abraham, after Moses, after the Temple or King David, after foundation of Rome) not St Jerome's calculus after his own Vulgate translation, but his calculus after LXX.

If nearly all manuscripts of St Luke state that Emmaus is 60 (LX) stades from Jerusalem, and we know a city called in Arabic Amwaz that is 160 (CLX) stades from Jerusalem, there is after all one Syriac manuscript that has not sixty but one hundred sixty stades in the Gospel text for Easter Monday (if their Liturgy uses same Gospel for same day of Easter Week, that is).

There is a difference between there being two accounts of something and two contradictory accounts. There is a also a difference between apparent contradictions and logically necessary contradictions. When we see what appears to be a contradiction, it is our duty as Catholics to acknowledge that we have come to a misunderstanding of the text. Let me ask you a question. Why do you rest your interpretation of Scripture on the judgment of the Church when that same Church has judged Scripture to be free of error and contradiction?

Agree totally with QNDNNDQDCE. This has however been debated, by one VeritasLuxMea, and I intersperse here my comments:

There is a difference between there being two accounts of something and two contradictory accounts.

Yes, but there are contradictory accounts.

No. In pictorial art, there is no contradiction between a broad panorama and a close up on one detail. In cinema and comics you do it all the time.

Genesis 1 contains a panorama of the creation of all there is, Genesis 2 a close up on the creation of man and the special creation of woman.

There is a also a difference between apparent contradictions and logically necessary contradictions.

Yes, but there are logically necessary contradictions.

When we see what appears to be a contradiction, it is our duty as Catholics to acknowledge that we have come to a misunderstanding of the text.

Ironically, the same approach the Biblical redactors took.

Hoping we belong to the same Church as they, I see no irony therein. I take exception to the word "redactors" as if every final author every time were only redacting earlier collected material. That is of course true for Genesis, Paralipomenon and the Four Books of Kings (a k a Two Books of Samuel and Two Books of Kings, a k a Book of Samuel and Book of Kings).

OK, since when are Catholics Biblical inerrantists: is this new or have we been doing it all along?

We Catholics have been Biblical Inerrantists all along. Only very lately - perhaps before you were born - did certain theologians start to end this.

When we contradicted Protestants on the Mass, we did not say Epistle to the Hebrews was wrong, we said they misunderstood it. We pointed, for instance, to the verse "habemus altare". A verse which puts the Holy Mass in a parallel and an opposition to the Pagan Sacrifices and to the Temple Sacrifices not yet finished but already tainted by Kaiaphas' treason.

When we contradicted Protestants on Mary Queen of Heaven, we did not say Cananeans had any right to worship "the queen of Heaven" as in Astarte, nor that the Prophets were wrong to denounce Israelites taking part of that evil cult, we said that "Queen of Heaven" when applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary means something totally other, since Christ is King of Heaven, just as he is King of the Jews. And that among the Jewish Kings, it was the mother of the King who was Queen.

When we contradicted Protestants on prayers to the saints, we did not say that Exodus or Deuteronomy is wrong to forbid "consulting the dead" (i e through mediums, in cases like Shaul going to a Witch to conjure the ghost of Samuel or other practises to force or allure the dead to speak). We say that even when speaking to the saints, our prayer reaches them through God, not through magic, since God is the source of their bliss, including their right to intercede before his face on our behalf. Like the souls of martyrs under the altar in Heaven who pray for "revenge" - on persecution and not necessarily of each more or less participating in it. Thus for the freedom of the Church. Also in other ways can they intercede for the Church. We also say that the deceased are now in another position than Old Testament dead down in Sheôl, since now Christ has opened the gates of the final paradise for souls who die believing in Him.

When it has been said we were not literalists but believed the allegorical sense, it is not untrue that we believed the allegorical sense, like Christological senses in Creation story, like ecclesiological senses in the Flood story. But this does not at all preclude we believed the literal sense as not just true, but also inerrantly true.

Trent was directed against all the schisms and heresies of 1517. Luther is one of them. Zwingli and Oecolampadius is another. Münzer is a third. The uncle and nephew Sozzini are the fourth (Bucer branching out to Cranmer, and to Calvin, Knox are originally a kind of compromise between Lutherans and Zwinglians). Now, Socinians did attack Biblical inerrancy as well as the already dogmatised Christology of Nicea and of Constantinople, of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Therefore in defining the Bible as inerrantly true, Trent condemned what remained to condemn in Socinianism.

What do we have to gain from playing this game? Besides, does this approach really rescue the Bible? If we have to jam truth down the Bible's throat like pureed squash into a baby, are you really making the Bible any more credible than those who acknowledge obvious mistakes and contradictions?

I would not admit there are any obvious mistakes or contradictions in the Bible.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you rest your interpretation of Scripture on the judgment of the Church when that same Church has judged Scripture to be free of error and contradiction?

It depends what you mean by "free of error." On more than one occasion, the Bible says both X and ~X are true. If the Church, likewise, is saying that both X and ~X are true, then the Church is assaulting the laws of logic and the gift of human reason. In which case, no one can acknowledge the credibility of the Church because it would be physically impossible: we would be living in a world devoid of any meaning, heck - even this conversation that we are having about the subject would be meaningless.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that the Church doesn't want us to think that way.

I do not think the Church or the author of the Bible wants us to think that way either, that is the one point where we agree. Let's take the rest one by one.

It depends what you mean by "free of error." On more than one occasion, the Bible says both X and ~X are true.

Never in the same sense and applied to the same context, no.

If the Church, likewise, is saying that both X and ~X are true, then the Church is assaulting the laws of logic and the gift of human reason.

The Church - I speak for historical Catholicism, not for reinterpretations that found favour with modernist bishops - more usually has been pointing out what is the different occasion when X and ~X are respectively true. Or why ~Y is not ~X, or why X is not Y. Which is not assaulting the laws of logic, though it may appear so to an impatient rhetoric monger who sadly enough borrows his rhetoric from the laws of logic.

In which case, no one can acknowledge the credibility of the Church because it would be physically impossible: we would be living in a world devoid of any meaning, heck - even this conversation that we are having about the subject would be meaningless.

Has or has not the Church of St Thomas Aquinas the kind of credibility this guy acknowledges?

Believing the world was young and earth its centre and angels moving the stars and planets did not seem self-contradictory to St Thomas Aquinas.

The kind of "science" that now seems to stamp Creation story or Joshua chapter ten as erroneous would not have seemed meaningful to a man for whom human science (as opposed to divine, whether kept in God's privy or revealed to man) was limited as to not being there of:

- the contingent past (confer palaeo-sciences)
- the contingent future (confer climate scare and population scare)
- the contingent absent (confer stellar distances) or
- the contingent hidden (whether inside the neighbour's heart or inside a closed room or box)

The kind of harmonising which to the writer I am quoting would have been "squeazing truth down the throat of the Bible" did not seem at all meaningless to St Thomas.

There is another earlier comment by VeritasLuxMea I would like to comment on:

We know that Gnosticism is not "true" because the Church tells us, not because it isn't represented in the Bible. It is.

Gnosticism is represented in the Bible, not as truth but as error. If you count Simon Magus as a gnostic or if you refer to certain warnings against gnosticism in epistles.

Biblical inerrancy is not equal with "Bible alone" or disbelieving everything not explicitly found in the Bible (even if not contradicting it). The Church condemned Gnosticism because it contradicted the Bible as much as because it contradicted tradition. What the Church says is not our ultimate source of religious truth, but one proximate one, not optional, but neither replacing what are the sources of the Church itself: Bible and Tradition. Which means that if Catholic Hierarchs or what seem to be such start contradicting Bible (as previously understood by Catholics, obviously, not as misunderstood by Protestants) or Tradition (whether against Lutherans or against Socinians) it cannot be real Catholic Hierarchy.

It is possible that Trent is a true council and Vatican II not, but hardly that Vatican II is a true council and Trent is not. Even if it could be imagined that Orthodox Churches were in 16th C real parts of the Church, that would not have left automatically Roman Catholics - Latin Rite and Uniates - outside the Church, and Trent would at least have been a local council - like its Orthodox part parallels, Jerusalem and Iasi.

At last, unless someone accuse me of Gnosticism in denying Heliocentrism and Billion Years Old Earth, here are some earlier parts of this blog:

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

... on Geocentrism being arrogant or disproven
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2013/06/on-geocentrism-being-arrogant-or.html

... on Arc of Noah and Lineage of Our Lord

After Commenting on this one, I got tracked in these side issues. Here is the video:

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) pretty sure some Church Father said sth about angels helping in the process

2) the five species [that I gave as examples of speciation of pseudospeciation by microevolution after Flood] are examples.

Insects, trees, plants, fish needed no place in the ark to survive.

3) We say the Flood happened, we do not say it happened purely by natural processes without any miracle, and we do not say the survival was all non-miraculous either.

But miracle does not imply contradiction in terms.

As to food, look at Jesus' food miracles, twice over.

Sophie Doon

1)...and where did this ‘Church Father’ read that angels helped Noah.

2)Maybe Noah only took one species on his arc; LUCA

3)What about mucking out....miracle?

As for Jesus’ miracles, i doubt they ever happened. Seeing as Jesus’ birth and death break Laws created by God (himself), Laws which Jesus (supposedly) said he was here to fulfil; I think you have to question if he even existed. Most likely a character in a story written by people who didn’t understand Judaism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you doubt that Jesus' Miracles happened, check out when and by whom Gospels were written.

Would you care to explicitate which laws of God Christ's birth and death are supposed to have broken instead of fulfilled?

Being innocently condemned is not breaking a law of God. Nor is being a miracle.

No bone was broken, as was prophecied. His flesh counted his bones, as was prophecied in a psalm he quoted. And believe me, St Matthew understood Judaity. (Judaism not around yet).

Sophie Doon

By who they were written? Well, two were supposedly written by people who never met him. The other two have too many errors to have been written by Palestinian Jews.

Well, the Laws Jesus breaks are far to numerous to fit in 500 characters.

However, to start you off; the prophesied messiah had to be a direct descendant of King David, through his son Solomon. If you read Numbers 36, you can only trace your line through your father. Jesus's father was God, so he wasn't a descendant of David.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Mosaic law recognises adoption. The genealogy of St Matthew is directly the one for St Joseph, God's Stepfather.

Sophie Doon

Yes, Mosaic Law recognises adoption. However, you only ever trace your family line through your natural father; not your adoptive father.

Jesus had no natural father, therefore he was not, and never could be, a direct descendent of King David.

This simple fact rules Jesus out as the prophesised Messiah, assuming he existed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are making the Old Testament contradict itself.

It said God, the LORD, is eternal king of Qahâl Israêl, it also said that the throne eternally is King David's.

If one cannot imagine God becoming descendant of King David, OT would be self-contradictory.

It happened because His Mother is also fully a descendant of King David. Someone who has a mother but no human father physically - there is only one - would trace his physical lineage through his mother. Both physical and adoptive count.

Sophie Doon

Wouldn’t any King of Israel contradict this statement then? God is only described as being ‘eternal’ to emphasise that he is God.

How do you know Mary was directly descended from David? There are 2 lines in the NT and both are Josephs.

You can’t trace the family line through the mother, that’s Gods Law. I’ll assume you incorrectly mean the line in Luke, this one passes through Nathan and so is void anyway. The line must pass through Solomon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As said below, I looked up Numbers 36, and there was no rule I saw that barred tracing lineage through mother.

There were rules from which it appears that this was not usually done if there was a father who was both human and lawfully wedded to the mother.

I just looked up Numbers 36. Verse 8 has a comment in Haydock to our purpose:

Ver. 8. Women. Hebrew, "every daughter that possesseth an inheritance....shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father." Commonly the females were debarred from inheriting land, when they had any brothers. The Levites were not concerned in these regulations, as they had no inheritance; and hence, we need not be surprised to find that St. Elizabeth, of the daughters of Aaron, (Luke i. 36,) was related to the blessed Virgin, who was of the family of David. The mother of St. Elizabeth might be of the tribe of Juda; or a maternal ancestor of the blessed Virgin might spring from the tribe of Levi. (Calmet) --- Tradition determined the lawfulness of such marriages, and in this case, St. Augustine (Consens. Ev. ii. 2,) admires the providence of God, in causing his beloved Son, the great anointed, to be born both of the regal and priestly tribes, in which an unction was required, before the priests and kings were put in possession of their respective offices. Thus Christ was both priest and king, and such were anointed in the law of Moses. (Worthington)

The Luke line of St Joseph is via one stepfatherhood and is also physical line of St Mary.

St Mary was also descended from Solomon, the one in Luke was one of the lines.

Descending from Swedish tyrant Gustav Wasa is not really a glory, but a legitimate claim to our throne, and our King does so through four different lines.

The two offered in the Gospels were convenient selections.

Sophie Doon [on my main argument]

So you are saying, the Law in Numbers 36 doesn’t apply to you if you don’t posses land? It applies to everyone.

Like i say, you can only trace your line through your biological father. Numbers 36 is only one example of this for tribal lineage. This is also shown in Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15 for Priesthood Lineage; and Genesis 49:10, I Kings 11:4, and I Chronicles 17:11-19 for Kingship Lineage.

Only the father, never the mother.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Numbers 36 does not say "only the father, never the mother".

Sophie Doon [on quote from Haydock comment]

Also, there never was a ‘priestly tribe’. The males of one family of Lévi were (and still are) the kohanim, but the other families of that shévĕt were all just ordinary L'viyim and had no ‘priestly’ status in any sense.

It makes about as much sense to talk about a ‘male tribe’ because some of its members were men.

The priesthood was given to Aaron, Moses’ brother. Aaron just happened to be a Levite, that’s all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A levite had a right to be serving in the temple if designed by the kohanim.

They were also scribes and as such sufficient notaries for marriages and repudiations.

In such a manner the whole Levite tribe was sacerdotal, although non-aaronites in a lesser degree than the kohanim.

Our Lady was of kohanim stock, she was some kind of first cousin to St Elisabeth, wife of one who was serving as Cohen Gadol in a certain Gospel Context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (repeating what she answered last)

Numbers 36 does not say "only the father, never the mother".

Sophie Doon

Does it say you can trace your line through your mother or your father? 

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.

[Of the other passages, the first she cited for Aaronite line speaks of "children of Aaron", even if the rest speak of his sons. Once she speaks of Exodus 40:15 when it is 40:12.

Of the Kingship parallels, she one of I Paralipomenon 17:11-19 and the one from Genesis 49 are Classic Christian prooftexts that Jesus Christ is the Christ promised. Genesis means he must have come before the Jewish nation lost sovereignty, as in the right to execute criminals. And when Jesus was a child, Herod could order a vast crime and no Roman punish him, when He was adult it had become a lynching offense and a rebellion against Rome to stone a criminal.

And the eternal throne is only possible for an eternal King, which is what we believe Christ is, "King of the Jews" in Heaven as He was "King of the Jews" on Calvary. Precisely what would be a contradiction if God had not become David's Son]

... on Side issue on "Science Works"

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"

Martin Willett (answering "you do not believe Evolution, you understand it or you don't")

Not true. There is a difference between understanding and believing. I understand sympathetic magic, demon possession and fate but I don't believe in them. I understand enough about astrology to know there is no reason to believe in it. Similarly it is (I deduce) quite possible to understand evolution and yet not believe it is a full or adequate explanation. I believed in evolution for nearly thirty years before I understood it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, you do understand evolution, now!

I did not have patience with it for thirty years.

What was your explanation again of differring chromosome numbers in mammals?

Do you second P Z Myers' take on it? My understanding of it is, that it is a flawed explanation.

But since you claim to understand evolution ....

Martin Willett

I understand how evolution works, the basic process of non-random unguided selection through replication with variation. That doesn't mean I understand every detail of biology or that I care to find out or if I did that I would want to discuss it on YouTube with somebody who acts like a bit of a nob.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"nob" = ? (not being either British or US American, I do not know all of your slang).

If you change your mind about this, do google "creavsevolu" and "Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals".

To me it seems you do understand how evolution works as long as chromosomes are constant or decreasing in number (or increasing by polyploidy in plants and some non-mammal animals). Which to me seems to coincide with what we Creationists call "microevolution".

Martin Willett

Do you know a single scientist who pays any attention to the idea of creation who does not also regard Abraham as a prophet of the One True God rather than a figure of Hebrew mythology?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Do you know a single historian who pays any attention to the idea Abraham was a fiction of Hebrew mythology who does not also regard Darwin and Dawkins as good biologists?

Martin Willett

Can you answer the question please?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I can answer both of them: no. That means I presumed to answer for you as well.

Martin Willett

Doesn't that bother you? Nobody pays any attention to your crackpot ideas unless they want Hebrew mythology to be true and a literal account of the past. Hindu, communist and Buddhist scientists have no interest in "flood geology" or any of the pseudosciences of Young Earth Creationism. None whatsoever. Hindus have no interest in your prophets or your stolen Jewish mythology regardless of whether or not they believe in or understand evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hindus might prefer us to worship the evil magician Odin who (maybe not totally unlike the historic Krishna) persuaded people to worship him. Hindus and Buddhists anyway believe in "Maya" = "illusion". Both of them and Communists as well have a heavy record of Antichristian bias.

Prechristian religions of Irak and southernmost Balkans (=a k a Greece) would have a greater interest in the Flood.

Puranas claim Krishna prophecied one before dying, though it is claimed to be a local one.

Also, Krishna's death is dated to just before the Flood.

It is claimed to have been one major epoch break between eras of history - just as other people claim for the Flood.

Funny enough, Mahabharata is about a war between two sets of siblings that are cousins - and Genesis genealogy of Kain ends with two brothers (it began with a brotherslaying evil brother). I see sth fitting in the two stories. Even if Mahabharata is theologically defigured by idolatry.

This same Willet also on comments under another video attacked sincerity as being proven by martyrdom. He gave as an example people getting executed for adultery. But usually adulterers are sincerely desiring the sex, at least. Or each other. Meaning that his counterexample makes him seem ignorant about what lust is./HGL

... on Zeno's Paradox: not necessitating limes, nor a valid reduction of Prima Via's impossibility of infinite regress

youtube : numberphile : Zeno's Paradox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY

[Hans-Georg Lundahl:]

You can actually solve both problems in diagrams, without "limits".

Horizontal=distance, vertical=time.

In Achilles and tortoise you get two lines differently slanted, in hand clap (if hands meet) you can actually use "negative distance" for distance covered the other direction, so slant will be same but crossing like a St Andrew's cross, and in arrow paradox the target will be a verticla line.

Then you analyse the paradox part of it: in tortoise example you need to draw lines horizontally and vertically between the two slants, and they will be smaller and smaller and divide it less and less, in arrow example you subdivide the arrow's slant into one half, into a quarter and so on.

But they will not be infinite equal parts added together making a rally infinite process, they will only be shamming an infinite subdivision of a movement.

Which is where St Thomas' Prima Via on impossibility of infinite regress differs from the Zeno paradox.

Bergson thought he had refuted Prima Via thereby, but he was wrong to reduce it to a Zeno paradox. He started out as a fan of infinitesimal calculus before he became concerned with philosophy.

You see, divisibility of a continuum and addibility of separate steps are two different things.

Commented on in Friday 7-VI-2013,
Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus,
from Library Georges Pompidou/HGL