Monday, May 15, 2023

Who's Abusing?


EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES: Urban Camper · New blog on the kid: Candace Lacks Candour, as in Fairness · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Trump's Comeout as a Commie · Who's Abusing? · Other Video Where I Comment on SSPX Getting too Close to Islam Some Places · Allie Beth Stuckey Too · In Answer to Tim Alberta

Why is "Getting Drunk" a Sin?
Dr Taylor Marshall, 14 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgo8Ii-pmGc


1:20 The same goes for hypnosis - while you are in it.

And sleep, while you are in it.

And the hypnotic states involved in going to confession or reciting the rosary.

If you check with Introibo, a Sedevacantist blogger and a lawyer, the earliest mention of hypnosis in Vatican definitions is, it is licit if done to procure natural results, but would be heretical to do to obtain supernatural results.

Compensating sleep privation and dousing stress are clearly natural effects, in and of themselves good, and therefore licit purposes for hypnosis.

Hugh Hutchins
Your making a point ☝️ . Meditation prayer , rosery , quiet reflection , might be self hypnosis. Maybe .

For sure being a salesman is sinful hypnosis . They're always using that Jedi trick on me .

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Hugh Hutchins Why do you open the door to them?

@Hugh Hutchins "Maybe ."

If not always, at least in ideal cases.

Rosary is God's hypnotherapy - or the Blessed Virgin's - hypnotic induction by repetition, therapeutic suggestions by the words and the 15 mysteries.


2:07 For some reason, Douay Rheims does not agree with your reading. Here is Douay Rheims:

Woe to you that rise up early in the morning to follow drunkenness, and to drink till the evening, to be inflamed with wine.

It so happens, addictologists are abusing the concept of "addiction" heavily, especially if they have some Evangelical, 7DA or Muslim cultural outlook.

Perhaps they are "addicted" to power.

For 5:22, you came at least somewhat closer to the Douay Rheims:

Woe to you that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness.

There is a following verse, that would seem to apply to people trying to stamp me as a drunkard (yes, such people do exist, unbelievable as it may be), here:

That justify the wicked for gifts, and take away the justice of the just from him.

A very good description of what shrinks, addictologists and likeminded seem to be up to with way more than half of their cases.

2:38 You would agree that Ephesians 5:18 is not speaking about alcohol doctors' definition of intoxication, like even from the first glass?

Because if not, you pretend priests sin when they celebrate Holy Mass.

Drunk is not euphoria of the first glass, as with eating chocolate, due to the calories, or slightly tipsy if you go beyond, drunk is when you continue past slightly tipsy.

2:48 Can we agree that the NT is briefer than the OT, so specifics on what "drunk" actually means can be taken from OT?

Isaias 5, verses 11 and 22.

The implication of what Heli told Hannah.

3:24 If certain persons, in order to cure your supposed drunkenness force you to an excess in food that's real gluttony, is it yours or theirs?

By "forcing" I mean things like:
  • giving you food while you beg for money for laundry
  • giving you food while you are asleep, so first thing you see when you wake up is a meal
  • keeping you irritated, since irritation increases the appetite
  • giving you food while you eat
  • forcing you to de facto negotiate a no thanks
and so on ...

4:03 I recall a poem of St. Brigid of Kildare, in which she wanted to offer the King of Glory a whole lake of beer ... probably not all for Himself, but clearly she was not aware the substance as such constituted immediate sin.

5:18 "if you cannot operate a vehicle you are drunk"

In the sense of "drunk driving" or the sense of Ephesians 5:18?

I think they are different.

Operating a vehicle takes lots of fine tuning and quick reaction capacity well beyond the actions of free will and sound intellect.

And what if you cannot operate a vehicle for another reason? Like sleep privations? They will make you look wasted next day too.

6:03 Ah yes, there we are.

Actually drinking with food comes in more categories than just mirth. That too.

Recall St. Paul to St. Tim, about not only drinking water? He was alluding to some medical condition.

So, imagine someone from experience knows:

  • three cl pure alcohol will make him pee well before he goes to bed
  • and will not make him even buzzed half of the time


I think taking a pint of beer or a half pint of red wine is clearly licit for this reason - especially if lack of the measure means being too awake of one wakes up at 3 am, or even 2 am, and being more at risk for doing so.

6:31 In Spain, the tradition is not to wait to Santiago before you take some wine or beer.

Con pan y vino se hace el camino.

Alcohol has these properties, that are very relevant:
  • it gives you calories to walk with
  • and it does not burden your bowels with solids so you need to s***te more than twice as often as usual.

Friday, May 12, 2023

Who Really Hates Selfishness and Individualism - God or the Devil?


Satanism Goes Mainstream: This Is Twisted
Answers in Genesis, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dr-_Xc-JqI


3:28 It seems you are taking this as about individualistic heresy.

Real Satanic kings, starting with Nimrod, all the way up to Lenin, who seems a good candidate for "seventh king" in the long term view, seem to me to have been more like collectivistic heretics.

I don't know Hebrew, but as far as I have been told, "Nimrod" does not mean "I shall rebel" but "we shall rebel" ...

5:32 "systematised selfishness"

Some Protestants seem to buy into the Neo-Pagan Stoic philosopher (and Calvinist Modernist) Kant.

For Kant, "selfishness" = evil, and "altruism" = good.

I see lots of modern Bible translations that warn against "selfishness" whereas in Douay Rheims (and I presume King James) the word does not exist.

It sometimes is replacing a word for impetuous passion, namely "zelus" in Latin, and sometimes is for being quarrelsome, i e "eritheia" in Greek (if I recall the Greek correctly).

Actually, Nimrod's most probable argument for forcing people to join the project of the élite back then, the Tower of Babel, was something like "it is selfish if you don't" - and God's cure against the globalised tyranny was imposing sth which some have called the epitome of selfishness - nations.

6:07 I would say imposing common centres of world views, other than God, is definitely antithetical to the Biblical worldview - but then, I consider it a point to ponder that "Nimrod" apparently means "we shall rebel" - we, not I - and I don't promote translations that even contain the word "selfish" ...

6:20 Sure, some people would be terrible gods to themselves and others individually. But there is a worse one, collectivised divinity claims.

That would include things like some Evangelicals, not saying it's the case with you, saying "we are the body of Christ" (while rebelling against the Catholic Church which is the mystical body), and concluding that people who disagree with them are rebelling against God.

simply2sophisticated
Not sure you are square with your statement. I love some Catholics but if there faith is on the idols around their churches, the mother Mary, the sacraments or whatever else except faith the personage and the name of Jesus the only Begotten Son of the Father then you are part of an errant "mystical" system and I grieve your position

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@simply2sophisticated Well, whatever your personal excuses or not before God, your position is erroneous.

You are outside the household of God which St. Paul called pillar and ground of the truth.

simply2sophisticated
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Dear friend, let's put aside churches etc.

For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves lest any man should boast for we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus

If you stand on anything but Christ alone you are looking at a faith that cannot save you

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@simply2sophisticated You like truncating quotes, don't you?

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2:8 - 10

When we talk about initial salvation, from a state of original or mortal sin or both, no previous work on the part of the person saved is either required or even possible.

However, while this initial salvation, as one goes from a state of sin, is indeed not from works, it is in works - that is into them for the person himself, and often enough inside the ones of others (a priest baptising, for instance).


6:28 Checking, and it is noteworthy
God says:
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
Satan says:
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

God is the individualist. Satan is the collectivist.

If Aleister Crowley thought he was genuinely serving Satan when saying "do what thou wilt" he was a bungler ... or a devious false flag attack, misleading people like you to see Satan's influence in individualism.

7:28 As you mention the temptations, only the first and least evil of them was in any sense individualist selfishness.

The further on the devil went, the more collectivism there was to it.

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Burden of Proof - God or Evolution?


Understanding The Burden Of Proof
The Atheist Experience, 27 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OykvSIawvc


Men speak.
Apes and monkeys - the class of beings we descend from according to Evolution believers (whether they state we still belong to it or not) do not speak.

The Evolution believer considers that ape communications (no three tier system of morpheme-phoneme-phrase) developed to human language (a three tier system of morpheme-phoneme-phrase) gradually.
The Theist considers God gave language to Adam.

Why should the burden of proof be on the more intuitive rather than the more counterintuitive explanation?

2:53 I actually do not hold to the school that as soon as a claim has been made at all, it stands until proven not true.

But I do hold to the school that as soon as a normally credible source of information seems to credibly make a claim, it stands until proven not true.

For instance.
A) a community's tradition about its own history is usually a credible source about its own history - this means, I accept the claims a community makes about its own history, until proven not true (claims about other, adversarial, communities, and their histories are less credible)
B) even if certain sense data can be interpreted otherwise than they seem at first sight, I hold the way they seem at first sight is how they are, until that is proven not true.

Example of the latter, B. I am a Geocentric. Why?

Even if what we see per day and year could be explained by Earth rotating, around herself, each day, and Earth orbitting, around the Sun, each year, what we seem to see is that the Sun orbits us each day at angles slightly changing over the year.

Certain physical factors could in and of themselves nearly certainly nearly only result in the larger body being the centre of a gravity based orbitation of the kind Newton discussed. However, the non-existance of other factors (God and angels come to mind) would be the only way to prove the limitation to such physical factors only.

But a Heliocentric would probably like the school that as soon as a claim has been made at all, it stands until proven not true.

Grabble
"I am a Geocentric. Why?"

Because you're willfully ignorant of all scientific progress. That's the real answer.

God is unfalsifiable by nature. Geocentrism is not. We 100% know it is false by way of literally all evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Grabble "Because you're willfully ignorant of all scientific progress. That's the real answer."

Not true. I have gone through both of Frédéric Chaberlo's books on the process of change in the Astronomic paradigm. He's a Swiss astronomer. AND a better historian of science than you.

One thing though. I refuse to term that process "progress" ...

"God is unfalsifiable by nature."

No, God would be falsified if nothing existed.

A personal God would be falsified in a purely material universe.

But in either case, we would not be around as conscious beings able to see that falsification.

"Geocentrism is not."

I think on some level St. Robert Bellarmine agreed with you. But not in a Popper way.

"We 100% know it is false by way of literally all evidence."

Like our seing the Sun move?

Jhon Voyage
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
You try to debunk things on a Youtube comment section that has been established pretty solid, instead of proving your claims, made them peer reviewed, and published.

Destroying the scientific method of reasonable people that served humanity pretty well so far.

So, don't waste your precious time here....

Chop-chop!

Also, while you are at it, check what Dunning-Kruger means! ;)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage "Destroying the scientific method of reasonable people that served humanity pretty well so far."

I got what Dunning Kruger means 20 years ago.

I know some who use that term are into psychology, also known as slave hunt. That's a thing I curse.

But when it comes to the scientific method serving mankind so well so far by pre-publication peer reviewed scientific journals, you are dreaming. Since that became standard, science has been involved in several crimes of slave hunt, while the really useful inventions came well before this procedure.

YOU are providing peer review by arguing.

And your preference for arguing over procedure is also an argument - in my favour, as per what it suggests about your ability to argue the actual issues.


3:29 It would seem pretty probable that JMIKE pretends to understand reality on the suppositions of:

  • Big Bang
  • Heliocentrism
  • Abiogenesis
  • Evolution of diverse species, genera, families, even orders, from originally one celled organisms
  • Gradual humanisation of man from non-human evolutionary ancestors.


Jhon Voyage
And here we have Hans!
A great example kids, to make sure you read books from valid sources....

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage "books from valid sources"

are they proof?
or are they brand building?

So, if you ask me, the Catholic Church is a valid source, and the Bible are 73 valid books from this valid source.

Why didn't I go for this argument? On your principle it would be ideal, right?

W e l l ... I recognise that you don't recognise the 73 books of the Bible as coming from a valid source, nor the Catholic Church as being that.

I just offered to show its validity, if you had the courage to actually argue against it, which is different.

So, between us, I suggest that you come up with some other less partisan argument than "books from valid sources" - unless you are ready to meet the same challenge for your valid sources.

How about it?

@Jhon Voyage And what book from what valid source is supposed to explain any of the items on my list as possible?

Jhon Voyage
@Hans-Georg Lundahl And you have just represented that you have no idea what is valid, and what is not.

Have you heard the words like, peer reviewed, cross checked, demonstrated?

Dunning-Kruger! :D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did the Catholic church has ever Demonstarted in any way, that the Bible is true?

Ok, so when did the Vatican has ever proven that the Firmament is real exactly?

Dunning-Kruger! :D

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage Peer review is a superstition.

Post publication review isn't, that's called discussion. But making a pre-publication review in order to block certain things from even being discussed is Jewish Gatekeeping, it's like the Rabbis did with Isaiah 53. Not sure all the Jews are the worst offenders today, though.

Trusting gatekeeping of that type is superstitious.

As to cross-checking and demonstrating, which latter is either Latin for "showing / proving" or Johnsonese for "proving" - what about them?

"Did the Catholic church has ever Demonstarted in any way, that the Bible is true?"

The Catholic Church is the community of which the NT is the historic memory.

You are aware that history is proven by the communities it concerns, right?

"So when did the Vatican has ever proven that the Firmament is real exactly?"

In the 1500's by banning the idea it is in the normal sense of the word a solid body.

Aether works better, in Geocentrism, if it is the thing in which placed bodies are placed - since it means, if God made a globe of aether reaching from Earth to Fix Stars, He only needs to turn it around Earth, and heavenly bodies move in it for the daily motion.


I can't say, as previously said, this is less in need of a burden of proof than the existence of a God able (by omnipotence and all wisdom) to make some or all of these steps superfluous.

9:41 Anomalies (against a naturalistic world view) from a purely empirical and rational pov, which does not coincide with "Modern Science" but uses its empirical raw data:

  • day and night and seasons - the universe is so big, arranging the heavenly bodies to circle us is not sth my muscle power could do on a crank
  • day and night and seasons - the movements are so intricate, arranging them is not sth (perhaps unlike Heliocentrism) that at least unguided gravity and inertia could achieve

  • mind and body - our bodies seem made up of a matter that's apparently same kind of atoms that lifeless objects are made of: no way to arrange a mind by them (no, computers don't have minds)
  • mind and body - our bodies seem to have a mind as long as we are alive, while vital processes are on lots of levels analysed in ways that could work from purely materialistic conditions, this fact suggests that life is not materialistic
  • mind and body - also, no actual life has ever been created from purely material and non-living things
  • mind and body - between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus, there is a gap, Australopithecus clearly lacked and Homo Erectus on all checkable items had apparatus necessary for speech, no hominin has ever been found that was clearly halfway between them
  • mind and body - human speech has three levels, phoneme, morpheme, phrase (a word can have either level morpheme within a phrase or level phrase involving many morphemes, in the latter case it is specific as to other phrases by having them in a set order : "I love" = two words, one per morpheme, order can be reversed, "amo" = one word, involving the same whole phrase, and "-o" cannot precede "am-") - this arrangement, as well as the capacity to change meanings from present to past, future, negated, conditional, by adding morphemes, as well as the capacity to be aware of the subject as an individual lack in ape communications

  • history - miracles seem to occur
  • history - only the Christian history seems to have well documented miracles of the "highest order" (attributable to an omnipotent being, not merely a superhuman spirit)
  • history - Catholicism shows an unexpected stability over 2000 years as compared with simply human communities. Plus an unusual concentration of miracles.


Jhon Voyage
Ok, we heard your claims what doesn't work, now prove how those are work then!
GO!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage You are confused about proving and explaining.

Showing how sth works is explaining.

Showing a thing that only works a certain way and no other, is proving that certain way.

So, naturalistic evolution with big bang materialism won't explain this - any of it.

God omnipotent creating us, and partaking in the story of His creation, will. It will explain all of it.


10:30 With mechanistic hypotheses, you can get success either everytime, or everytime there isn't an obvious obstacle.

With personal hypotheses, this is not so.

So, predictions that work is somewhat overrated.

Except for omniscience. If a book collection contains prophecy after prophecy that is fulfilled and no credibly attested fact claim that's contrary to credibly attested or proven facts, we can predict that the next anomaly for that book collection will not work to debunk it as ignorantly human either. As you may have guessed, I refer to 73 books called a Catholic Bible.

Chum is Fum
😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chum is Fum Enjoy the laughter, would you mind telling me what's hilarious?

Jhon Voyage
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Big Words Hans at it again....

Chum is Fum
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your claim is humorously insane. 🤣

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage No big words.

Just acknowledging God's big deeds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chum is Fum Again, you are being highly imprecise about what is supposed to be wrong about my claim.

Jhon Voyage
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Words but no evidence.
Next!

Chum is Fum
I think the entire Book of Genesis destroys your Bible’s credibility.

And that’s LITERALLY for starters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage I think Chum is going to be providing an opportunity to make them good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chum is Fum Yes, I said that the Bible contains "no credibly attested fact claim that's contrary to credibly attested or proven facts," - this means, taking Genesis literally is certainly implying credibly a lot of fact claims, but none of them is opposed to any credibly proven facts.

I know you disagree on that point, don't be shy.

How about proving the universe is 13 billion years old or man evolved from apes, with no primeval couple?

If you can. And, no, "peer reviewed publications" and "scientific method" are not proof to me. They may be sources of proof, to either of us, but that a claim has that label is not proof to me it is factually true.


15:38 Why would investigating scientists be better at deciding that than people like, apparently, the caller, and then people like William Schnoebelen and some more?

It is a historical claim that it has happened, and it is a historic view point whether the testimonies are credible.

I don't think that of John Todd is, it involves presumable false witness about JRRT and CSL, and its claims about discs being "blessed by druids" involve no proof of supernatural effect. But that doesn't invalidate the whole genre.

Chum is Fum
It’s a literary claim. That is all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Chum is Fum I wonder whether you can distinguish between "historical" and "literary" claims coherently?

Jhon Voyage
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, just because you are a well read person, doesn't makes you reasonable.
Get a grip buddy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Jhon Voyage I think I detect an ad hominem.

If I also detect some kind of conspiracy to "make up for" my pretended lack of good sense, I object of course.

So, apart from being or not being well read yourself, and thinking I am well read, what is your qualification to be "reasonable"? Opportunities to band together against my liberties given and taken?

God curse you if that is the case!

Monday, May 8, 2023

Catholicism vs National Socialism


Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church
Brian Holdsworth, 6 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J7PUYTZjko


2:10 The pictures of people in clerical dress offering the genuine Hitler salute are in fact Protestant clergy.

One famous such picture was used, if not by John Cornwell, by his fans at least. The page in question is now down.

The two "Catholic Bishops" depicted were in fact:
  • Landesbischoff of Saxony = a Lutheran in Communion with Calvinists
  • Reichsbischoff = a Calvinist in Communion with Lutherans.


Evangelische Kirche is a bit like United Church of Canada, but instead of Methodist + Calvinist, it is Lutheran + Calvinist.

Before it was invented in the 19th C., Saxony was mainly Lutheran, Berlin mainly Calvinist.

The salute which Catholic clergy are seen doing is in fact the Dollfuss salute.

Right hand holds thumb and pinky together as in the two natures of Christ, and three fingers between them stretched out as the Three Persons of the Trinity. The arm is stretched out at 90°, purely horizontal, like a flag pole in mourning. The words that went with that in Austria, probably not pronounced by clergy in the presence of Hitler, was "Hoch Dollfuss" ...

I don't think there is any picture of Catholic clergy offering the Hitler salute.

I saw a meme on Spanish quora where a "Catholic nun" was asking for Hitler's signature.

First, the "Catholic nun" was more like dressed like a Protestant "deaconess" as the word has resurfaced with a changed meaning.
Second, the signature could have been one of granting a donation or a privilege, not a signature collected by fans.

7:36 Fascism doesn't necessarily do so.

Austrofascism did not abolish the federal system of Austria.

In fact, the worst thing done by Austrofascism is what Trump proposes to do - camps for tramps. In Austria, they were for vagabonds, in US, he proposes they will be for homeless doing urban camping. B U T the thing is, only one of the nine Länder really implemented that with an Aufenthaltslager.

Those who were in it when Nazism took over in 1938 were in bad luck.

7:56 All Fascisms were at some point very much involved in serving the needy.

You may or may not think that the Novus Ordo Catholic soup kitchen of St. Eustache is a really Catholic thing.

But if it is, all Fascisms at some point had a really Catholic thing.

All Fascisms at some point had soup kitchens for the destitute.

8:01 Eugenics were embraced by:
  • Liberals
  • Communists under Lenin, but Stalin abolished it
  • Social Democrats
  • National Socialism
  • Marshall Mannerheim of Finland.


It was not embraced by:
  • Mussolini prior to 1937 (15 years after his takeover, 6 years before he was deposed)
  • Franco or the Falange
  • Dollfuss and Schuschnigg
  • Corneliu Codreanu
  • Admiral Horthy


15:38 I have somewhat of a devotion to Father Kolbe.

No, he did not publically denounce Nazism. At least this was not a major issue.

He was put in a camp because he identified as a Pole.

In Nazi Racism, Poles were supposed to be inferior, not to be worthy of having clergy of their own, and so, a German clergyman could have been fine (the surname was a German word, and his looks were more German and French than immediately identifiable as Slav), but he insisted he was a Pole. That wouldn't do.

By contrast, a nun in Vienna was arrested exactly one year before the execution of the White Rose. Her arrest was before they started. She had written a poem lampooning Hitler, and if she had agreed to become a normal laywoman, she'd have been fine. Maria Restituta insisted she was a nun.

She also did not publically retract the poem.

The HORRIFIC Execution Of The Nun That Stood Up To Hitler
TheUntoldPast | 7 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOoBGV7f1kk


19:08 If any Catholic you know has depicted me as a Nazi, I invite you to be better than that.

I am a Fascist, and an anti-Nazi. I won't even say "but" here.

The Church never condemned Austrofascism, Austrofascism never persecuted Jews.

The Jewish music theorist Schenker died peacefully in Vienna in 1935. His widow was deported to Theresienstadt.

To me there is a wide gulf between Austrofascism and Nazism, and I judge different parts of Mussolini in power according to how he's closer to one or the other.

That said, I subscribe, not only to Mit brennender Sorge, but also to the much milder criticisms of Mussolini in Non abbiamo bisogno. The one encyclical that concerns Austro-Fascism is Quadragesimo Anno. Dollfuss promised to make Austra "ein Quadragesimo Anno-Staat" - and no Pope objected to that claim.

Some French Catholics are so wildly anti-Nazi, that anything reminding them of Nazism, even by flimsy associations, triggers their N-adar, if you see what the portmanteau is meant to mean.

If I uphold the council of Cologne in 1860 and its condemnation of Darwinism, since that is "German Catholicism" - even just that, or denouncing Hochhut, makes me a Nazi to some over here.

Friday, May 5, 2023

An Unexpected Turn


Creation vs. Evolution: Is It Christianity at All? · New blog on the kid: "Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White ·Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Dr Joel Edmund Anderson - a Fraud or a Dupe? · Magisterium and Polygenism · An Unexpected Turn

I think I'll skip
the final 15 minutes for now.

Pretending St. Paul did not affirm the historicity of Eve, or Our Lord of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, or St. Peter of Noah and the Flood, is like saying St. Irenaeus believed in ASCII code for Apoc. 13.

I think St. John had seen computers and ASCII, but I do not believe all that's to be finally revealed only when prophecy is fulfilled was culturally present to the early Church. Greek gematria was a standin, they could express the code needed to have numeric values for all letters, not just some of them (exeunt Roman Numerals), and to have a known spelling (exit Hebrew gematria).

But while ASCII is a 20th C. invention, which is useful, I'm using it right now, "Genesis 1 to 11 is mythology and therefore not history" is a 20th C. (19th to 21st C.) ideology, and useless. It was not only not present to 1st C. audiences, it should not be there in us either.

Spank Duncan 111
Wow Hans, I'm impressed with how many words you can type.
Not sure what your point is though.
Are you a Hamm Fan?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Spank Duncan 111 If you didn't arrive to a point, maybe I'm less impressed with how many words you can read.

Or you didn't like the way the point was looking?

I'm discussing what kind of modern discoveries or inventions one can read into God's and the hagiographer's intention, even if it would have been over the head of the original audience. An invention that may be to the point, yes. A discovery that is not a legitimate discovery, no.

Spank Duncan 111
@Hans-Georg Lundahl I was referring to the plethora of posts you submitted to the thread. And no, I did not read every word of every post. Your knowledge and opinions of the subject might better be represented in book form.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Spank Duncan 111 I am very much not against a republication in book form.

One involving this dialogue between us would arguably need your permission as well as mine ...

I also write essays that can stand alone without reference to a video, those are, probably, still most of my blog posts.

Spank Duncan 111
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
There's nothing I've shared I would deem worthy of publication except as a YouTube post. Feel free to use it however you like.
Have you already expressed these comments in book form?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Spank Duncan 111 I have made home made booklets, printed on xerox, but mainly essay format. Essay collection.

Spank Duncan 111
Two questions Hans. Do you believe the bible is the word of God and do you believe Ken Hamm is on the right track with his interpretation of the bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Spank Duncan 111 I believe all of the 73 books are the word of God.

I believe when it comes to justification, Ken Ham is less objectionable than some Calvinists, and when it comes to Genesis 1 to 11, he's wrong in minor detail, but correct in the main lines.

Spank Duncan 111
@Hans-Georg Lundahl thank you Hans for your succinct prompt reply.
What makes you think God exists?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Spank Duncan 111 1) Only God could turn the Universe around us each day.
2) God could have united mind and body in the way we see ourselves, and Materialism being true definitely couldn't have produced mind.
3) God did miracles throughout history, and some of them take, not just superhuman power, but literally omnipotence, like raising of dead.


Please note:
I am NOT against a republication in book form. I can, for now be contacted at hgl@dr.com.