Opening a Debate with Helge Fauskanger on JW (Trying to, on quora)

Q

Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow for differences in opinion on spiritual matters related to the Bible or does everyone have to accept a common dogma?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Jehovahs-Witnesses-allow-for-differences-in-opinion-on-spiritual-matters-related-to-the-Bible-or-does-everyone-have-to-accept-a-common-dogma

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

studied at University of Bergen

Answered Sat

The viewpoints that appear in the literature are expected to be accepted with absolutely minimal debate or questioning. I guess a Witness may get away with saying he or she does not “understand” a specific doctrine, if that Witness does not make any further issue out of it, but rocking the boat by explicitly arguing against an official doctrine would be a monumental faux pas in this organization.

It is a central idea that this is “God’s organization” and that it provides timely “spiritual food” in the form of literature, the Watchtower leaders supposedly being appointed by Jesus as his “faithful and discrete slave.” Suggesting that there might be something wrong with said “spiritual food” calls into question this central concept of the unique status of this organization. Now Witnesses will have to agree that the doctrine has been tinkered with many times, but this is always presented as progress and refinement, God throwing ever more “light” on the Bible as time goes on (which however does not explain why some doctrinal changes have since been reversed: flip-flopping instead of a any tidy process of “progress”).

But as an individual rank-and-file Witness you must not argue for doctrinal refinements. That would just be “causing divisions” and is vehemently condemned. It is only the top echelon of the organization, ultimately 7–8 elderly gentlemen who claim to be the collective “discrete slave”, that has the right to revise the doctrine.

At all lower levels of the organization, anything that veers in the direction of critical discussion would be strongly frowned upon.

The only matters that are left to individual judgment are matters that have been explicitly defined as matters of “personal conscience” by the organization itself. For instance, while no Witness is allowed to have a blood transfusion, it is a “conscience matter” whether transfusions of certain blood components are allowed.

Comments

in four sections, I, II, III, IV. Each ends with a comment of mine, first version of this post, and on each of them Helge can, but so far has not, first version of this, answered. The first three of these also consist only of mine, still talking first version.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

3h ago

As far as I have seen in recent decades, Witnesses are Old Earth, specifically Day Age Creationists, they are also Heliocentric.

Do you think a Witness could even get away with being Young Earth Creationist these days?

Could he get away with being Geocentric, even if that is very certainly not the position of Charles Taze Russell even?

I ask, because some Catholics here in Paris are putting down my Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism to being too influenced by Witnesses.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

“It is a central idea that this is “God’s organization” and that it provides timely “spiritual food” in the form of literature, the Watchtower leaders supposedly being appointed by Jesus as his “faithful and discrete slave.” Suggesting that there might be something wrong with said “spiritual food” calls into question this central concept of the unique status of this organization.”

Sounds like the Catholic Church, except for one thing : we can account and they cannot account for where this organisation was in 5th or 8th C. AD.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

“But as an individual rank-and-file Witness you must not argue for doctrinal refinements. That would just be “causing divisions” and is vehemently condemned.”

That does not quite sound like Catholicism, any priest, I suppose by extension any theologian is allowed to posit dubia to the Pope or his dicasteria in Rome, like certain bishops did about Amoris Laetitia (to Pope Francis, as they call him) or like what I just did about the thesis of Jean Colson, which got an imprimatur in 1968, to Pope Michael (he would not consider the imprimatur per se valid, since under Antipope Montini).

If Pope Michael directly in due form answers my dubia, and “PF” doesn’t answer those on Amoris Laetitia, he will then have showed a more Witnesses like attitude than Pope Michael.

IV

Kelly Patrick Dugan

Sat · 1 upvote

Were you a JW? This is frighteningly accurate. I was born and raised and disfellowshipped twice for good measure, and my father was an elder. Contrarian views were considered some type of heresy. Well said.

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

Sun · 2 upvotes

No, I have never been a Witness myself. In fact I am not even religious in general. But I happen to know more about the organization than most “outsiders” apparently do. Here is my grotesquely overlong account of my relationship with Jehovah’s Witnesses: Helge Kåre Fauskanger's answer to Will Helge Kåre Fauskanger ever become a Jehovah's Witness since he is so profoundly obsessed by this religion?

Chris Gigliotti

Sun · 2 upvotes

including Helge Kåre Fauskanger

You know more about the religion than most insiders, too. I can say with certainty you know about the minutia of the faith than I did, even when I was pioneering.

Eoin Peel

14h ago

It's just ashame with all your knowledge of Jehovah's witnesses you lack the key essential ingredient. Love, love for Jehovah as the only true God, love for his son and what he has done and love for the truth itself. Your situation reminds of the Apostle Paul words in 1st Corinthians 13 verses 1 to 3. All your knowledge of Jehovah's witnesses is absolutely useless without the love.

It's a shame really. Kind regards and best wishes.

Helge Kåre Fauskanger

3h ago

To me, this is a case of “love makes blind” — blind to the faults of this organization, to the harm it has caused many, even to the pretty unsavory nature of the Biblical deity. As described in the Bible, Yahweh/Jehovah is an irritable cosmic dictator whose chief concern is absolute, unquestioning obedience. He has little appeal to people who have internalized humanitarian ideals of tolerance and freedom.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

You would consider Babel an indication of this?

Because, I have another view of what happened …

Canon of the Bible, Councils, Freewill (quora)

Q

Do Christians believe that the councils that determined biblical canon were guided by God?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Christians-believe-that-the-councils-that-determined-biblical-canon-were-guided-by-God/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

The Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent largely determined what was to be considered "canon" when it came to the books of the New Testament and Jesus' relationship with God the Father.

Since many of these issues were resolved by debate and a voting process between fallible humans, it would seem that much of the most important elements of the religion were being determined by mere humans with free will, their own agendas, and susceptibility to errors.

If the Holy Bible is to hold merit as an infallible document, must we believe that God had a hand in the outcome of these councils, thus nullifying the free will of those involved in the process?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

Answered just now

"The Council of Nicea"

probably not, however Council of Carthage, of Rome and some other perhaps early local ones

"and the Council of Trent"

much later, yes, at least verbally going back to Councils of Rome and Carthage

"largely determined what was to be considered "canon" when it came to the books of the New Testament and Jesus' relationship with God the Father.

"Since many of these issues were resolved by debate and a voting process between fallible humans, it would seem that much of the most important elements of the religion were being determined by mere humans with free will, their own agendas, and susceptibility to errors.

"If the Holy Bible is to hold merit as an infallible document, must we believe that God had a hand in the outcome of these councils, thus nullifying the free will of those involved in the process?"

• 1) Neither being a hagiographer, nor being a Pope, nor being a Council Father of Trent or even of a local council needs your free will to be cancelled or nullified by God for God to direct the outcome.
  
  A hagiographer as well as a devout Pope or a devout bishop at a Council (whether local or universal, whether Carthage or Trent) certainly intended to bring forth the truth of God and intended to pary to God for guidance, and God providing this guidance is not a nullification of their free will.
  
  If a writer had wilfully wanted to impose his view over what God wanted a hagiographer to write, God would have let him, but would not have allowed his work to be part of canon.
  
  If a bishop or even Pope wilfully had preferred his personal opinion and this an erroneous one over the truth as God knew it, God would have allowed him, but made sure he was not the majority of a universal council, and if a local one (Laodicea has a divergent canon, only Protestant version of OT but also Apocalypse lacking from NT), if a local one failed, God would make sure another council was available (e g, Laodicea correctable by Rome and Carthage). Or God could give him reasons to reconsider in time.
  
  
• 2) For a Protestant it is problematic to say God guided these early councils, but on Bible canon questions only, but not the Church in other respects in 397 (date or relevant council of Carthage, there were other ones).
  
  It is also problematic for them to claim that the Church in general was guided in those days, but the Catholic Church apostasised later than 397.
  
  Because, for one thing, “after 397” would be a very arbitrary “year” (as well as an imprecise one) for the Church to lose a guidance, especially if it was promised to the end of time.
  
  Also, because some of the things Protestants reject, like Mass being a Sacrifice, like Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, like Seven sacraments, not just two, like several degrees of clergy (councils of Carthage!) can definitely be traced to before 397.
  
  
• 3) For a Catholic it is not the least problematic that God guided the Church in 397 as every other day from Ascension Day to present and past into the End or Consummation of all times. This general guiding of the Church during a council or any other occasion taking any kind of degree, from informal personal in a hierarch to definite solemn at Trent of including Gospel of St John, or of excluding explicitly (in a Church Father) “Gospel of Thomas” from the canon. If the Pope this very day or if all bishops this very day - within the boundaries already set by the Church - define a dogma, the Church is bound by it and God has guided the decision. This is within clearly pronounced NT promises by Christ to the disciples (twelve or eleven or 70 or St Peter singled out), for instance in Matthew 28.

Canon of the Bible, Council of Carthage (quora)

Q

What books were rejected by the councils of Hippo and Carthage for inclusion into the canon of scripture?
https://www.quora.com/What-books-were-rejected-by-the-councils-of-Hippo-and-Carthage-for-inclusion-into-the-canon-of-scripture

Giving

the best answers, including one unduly downvoted by Quora moderation, with my comments under that one.

A I

Matt Herman

Former Atheist, now a minister. (also owns Fitmart Health and Resource Center)

Answered Aug 17, 2016

There were dozens of books not included in the Bible.

A list of them can be found at the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. In addition, you can also read them at the same site.

Noncanonical Literature
http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/

Matt

A II

Stephen Frantz

Love to read books.

Answered Aug 6, 2015

The decision was effectively made by the consensus of the churches before the councils. The closest to be almost included were probably the Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache. They have some value and are worth reading.

A III

Answers collapsed by moderation

Answer is a joke answer [sic]

John Peyton

just a Christian

Answered Aug 4, 2015

Short answer: All the ones that weren’t accepted.

First of all, there is no record that the biblical canon was discussed at the Council of Nicaea. So they certainly did not take a list of books and decide to reject some of them and keep the rest.

Still, even if the biblical canon had been one of the topics under consideration, it still remains true that they’re deciding what books to include – not exclude. In effect, they excluded every single piece of writing that they didn’t decide to include. There probably wasn’t a list of books under consideration that they voted on and ended up choosing from.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7m ago

The answer is not at all a joke answer.

While “all the ones that weren’t accepted” could by itself be a joke, it is explicitated why this statement is factually correct:

“it still remains true that they’re deciding what books to include – not exclude.”

Note very well, the Council of Nicea, as probably original version of question, was not involved, though answer is here given on that one, now this remains equally applicable as to council of Carthage (one of the local ones after Nicea that were involved).

“There probably wasn’t a list of books under consideration that they voted on and ended up choosing from.”

Probably very correct. Canon was reaffirmed as full list, probably, against someone taking a lesser list. St Augustine who was at Carthage also gives - at another point - his reasons for not including Henoch.

However, we do not know if the case of Henoch was brought before Council of Carthage or if St Augustine heard of it only later in some other context. The fact is, it was a local tradition of Ethiopia and Ethiopian Copts to this day consider it as canonical, while the rest of the Church, including presumably Ethiopian Uniate Catholics, if any, but not sure has not received it as a tradition, more like heard of it, at times, as a rumour from Ethiopia.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“However, we do not know if the case of Henoch was brought before Council of Carthage” - or, at least I do not know myself.

It can be noted that while quora moderation was probably very fine with downvoting any answers expressing what is now usually listed as cpnspiracy theories, it was in 2015 very fine with collapsing an answer which very briefly refuted a conspiracy theory on how Christianity was founded, as we know it./HGL

Race of Adam and Eve (quora)

Q

What race/ethnicity were Adam and Eve? How do you explain all the black, white, Asian, and Indian babies?
https://www.quora.com/What-race-ethnicity-were-Adam-and-Eve-How-do-you-explain-all-the-black-white-Asian-and-Indian-babies/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Blog : "http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.

Answered 3m ago

Two things to note from start.

• White is not one “race”, but a group of “races” sharing the trait of low pigmentation in most members and involving most cases of blue eyes or blonde or even nutbrown or red hair.
• Pre-Flood races would involve Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergians, Antecessors. How many of these are normal human and how many if any is nephelim I am not sure. Obviously “Homo Sapiens” as we know us, after the Flood, was at the end of pre-Flood era one of the pre-Flood races. In Europe, Neanderthals have been replaced by Homo Sapiens.

Now to the question.

• Between Homo Sapiens and other pre-Flood races, probably very close to Homo Sapiens, since there were only ten generations and no nephelim taint from Adam to Noah. Whether Adam and Eve were pure Sapiens, or had some Heidelbergian or Antecessor traits, I do not know. I do not think they were pure Neanderthal, but I do think one daughter in law of Noah was half Neanderthal, which would explain the admixture of Neanderthal alleles in some post-Flood generations.
• Between diverse “Sapiens races”, “white” in most colour-un-related traits, like nose shape or lipp thickness (since here “black” or “yellow” are extremes), but not white in colour, since red hair with green eyes is a Neanderthal mutation, white skin also a mutation even post-Flood and so is blue eyes, blonde hair. Between the diverse white races, probably something like Middle East or Mediterranean or sth, unless “Nordic” has previously been more prevalent in Holy Land.

Obviously, this is a guess, but I think it is a fair one.*

Second part of question - I accept that mutations happen and that some become more prevalent than others in diverse populations through genetic drift.

Denying this makes no sense to a Christian Young Earth Creationist, it would make more sense to a Pagan Greek who believed in gods creating different men in different places with different original and totally preserved traits differing from those of other peoples. Believing in Adam and Eve, I also believe in mutations, selection, genetic drift. Not believing in autochthonoi, I do not believe in racial fixity.

* Pun noted.

Anthony Zarrella's Answer

I was challenged by Robson in a debate to ask him, so, here is the answer:

OK… well, I certainly lack sufficient time to try responding to the entire issue under debate. But with regards to the specific question you’re asking, you have the right of it. God made no statement which was materially false. Giving a command or instruction which one does not sincerely intend to be carried out cannot be a “materially false statement or representation” for the purposes of a fraud statute. Moreover, the portion of any valid fraud statute which your interlocutor did not faithfully quote (likely because he was simply pulling from a legal advice site, not from the statute itself) is that the false representation must be made with the intent to unlawfully deprive the other of “something of value”—in other words, God could only be held to have committed “fraud” against Abraham if His alleged “deception” caused Abraham to surrender something of value (or was intended to do so). In fact, the “thing of value” Abraham was being asked to surrender (Isaac’s life) was the very thing God never intended to take. Mere falsehood, without intent to profit, is not fraud.

More generally, materiality depends on context—a given fact or statement can be “material” to a particular matter while simultaneously being immaterial to a related matter (e.g., the matter of how many beers you’ve had is a material fact if you’re charged with drunk driving, but it’s immaterial if you’re charged with tax evasion). But that’s something I mention only for completeness—it’s not relevant here.

I’d also like to point out that Mr. Robson has very deftly led you down a chain of fallacious tangents.

• The original question was whether you could be guilty of inducing someone to do evil even if you never sincerely intended that they do so.
  
  
• As an initial example, Mr. Robson pointed out that, in my home State of Massachusetts, you can be convicted for selling fake drugs. This is true, but irrelevant for a key reason:
  
  
  • The statute which he cites is a separate statute—that is, you can’t be found guilty of drug trafficking for selling fake drugs, there merely happens to be a separate statute under which you can be found guilty (distributing a counterfeit substance). So, it is simply not an example of a case in which you can be guilty of inducing a crime even if you planned it such that the crime would never be committed.
  
  
  
• The federal statute is similarly irrelevant and also not even applicable—it punishes the sale of “misbranded pharmaceuticals”, meaning selling aspirin as ecstasy would be illegal, but selling sugar (a non-pharmaceutical substance) as cocaine would not be.
  
  
• And then, he takes a further step away from the original point by bringing in fraud liability. Even if he could argue that God had committed fraud (obviously false, but arguendo…), it would not help his case about whether God is guilty of “tempting Abraham to sin” because that dispute hinged on the original question of whether a person can be held liable for inciting a crime without any intent that the crime be committed—the fact that such a scenario might lead to criminal liability for something other than incitement to the crime in question is… well, ironically, immaterial to the dispute.

Also, I do agree with your assessment that, as God is the Author and Sustainer of life, and as He is perfectly free to decree an end to any life He so chooses, it would not have been sin for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac at God’s express command, even if God hadn’t intervened at the last minute to stop him. Whatever the principal may lawfully do, He may lawfully instruct an agent to do, and that agent may lawfully obey.

Mr. Robson may call that “special pleading”, but I would argue that it follows naturally from any proper understanding of what it truly means for an entity to be God. Atheist arguments against God’s morality typically make the mistake of seeing “God” as merely a super-powered ruler, separate from and unconnected to His human subjects. But in fact, He is the Cause, Ground, and Guarantor of all existence, including each breath we take and each instant of life we are granted—and a humanist paradigm has literally no framework in which to account for such a scenario.

About Amtrak Accident

Here is William Tapley's video, in which I heard of it:

Train Crash NO Accident! God Warns Trump & GOP!
thirdeaglebooks | 1.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afv8BD5GxGU

Since some readers of this blog may be puzzled by the "video comment" format, I will spell it out for you. William Tapley says so and so, on the video, and then I add the actual comment. Obvioously, this format differs from the debate format, where I and other youtube user or I and other quoran actually exchange words.

First comment

where he - in 3:19 - takes the number of the amtrak train 145 as I45 = Isaiah 45.

I add

3:19 You can take 145 as 145 too. There is a book which has that kind of chapter: psalms.

Psalm 145
on Douay Rheims Bible Online
http://drbo.org/chapter/21145.htm

[2] Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: [3] In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. [4] His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.

A warning to GOP voters?

[9] The Lord keepeth the strangers, he will support the fatherless and the widow: and the ways of sinners he will destroy.

A railway is also a "way" - and the Latin has vias. The verb in Latin is even "disperdet" "will make lost asunder", and rails went asunder for that accident.

Second comment

5:42 I think you said all Protestant denominations support legalised abortion.

It seems a certain denomination or congregation of independent freewill etc etc chicken eating Baptists do not do so.

Kent Hovind has a good thing to say on the topic:

Abortion. Dr. Kent Hovind
killertrumpet | 20.VII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcwejdIan0

He compared at 7:04 the 3000 thousand Americans killed by terrorists on September 11th 2001 to the 4500 Americans killed by abortionists, same day. I think he was arguing for treating abortionists like ... terrorists?

I would agree. One more thing I contacted Trump about (did I or was I too stressed and forgot) was pardoning Bob Dear.

Obviously, next video on the automatic "continue", namely to his view on origins of Islam, is ... showing him a dupe of Alberto Rivera, who might have been a dupe by Cardinal Bea or might have been a fraud himself.

Third Comment

on next day, after recalling William Tapley's enumerating campaign promises ... and I will also add two comment from yesterday on same issue.

Here

A

1:56 That was one of the pillars of his campaign?

Sure it was his official campaign, his own words?

Could it have been some rumour spreading trying to attract Catholic votes to him?

I am sure Santorum would have defunded Planned Parenthood. I am sure Marco Rubio would at least have conditioned funding on not making more abortions - or at least not so many or for so flimsy reasons. They are Catholics.

Trump is not a Roman Catholic. There was a rumour on his converting, I think the details specified to SSPX, and it seems the source was The Onion, this very excellent news source.

I mean, if a rumour like that was getting him votes, do you think he would have made a great point of denying it, either of the two - or if first was really part of his campaign, the second one?

B

2:40 Wait ... did I get this right?

GOP-pers are:

• A) Under Obama several times over voting to defund PP, knowing he will veto the bill;
• B) and same GOP-pers are NOT not so voting?

Oh, dear God, have mercy on the United States!

C

Is Trump's border policy even Christian?

Border Patrol Thinks Dead Mexicans Are Hilarious
The Young Turks | 24.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGrfC5wjh1o

thirdeaglebooks

The very first task of the Israelites when they entered the land of Canaan was to mark off their borders. A nation without borders is no nation at all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Having a border and killing people (even indirectly, by automatic death traps) just for trying to cross it are two different things.

A border guarded by automatic death traps is a thing a certain Honegger - a Commie you may have heard of - has been accused of and cursed for.

thirdeaglebooks

Don't be naive; we need to keep out drugs, weapons, gangs even sleeper cells. There are legal ways to become an American citizen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drugs? Fine.

Weapons? Like making Sonora desert a death trap?

"There are legal ways to become an American Citizen."

Not available to everyone, not even to everyone lawabiding - in other respects than that of illegally crossing the border.

ALSO they are not available to those who die in the Sonora desert when that sheriff - you saw the video? - has emptied water bottles put out by No More Deaths.

Guess why the advocacy group is called so?

I would guess, there have been deaths.

They are not trying to help illegal immigrants to stay, they are helping them to survive. That is too much for certain Trump fans, not sure how Trump himself stands on that one. But I am sure, that sheriff from Arizona voted Trump, nearly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

added next day

"The very first task of the Israelites when they entered the land of Canaan was to mark off their borders."

I actually went to book of Joshua and it seems more like, what they did was mark off internal divisions between the tribes.

Actually, while borders against other peoples were marked off, for instance in Joshua 15 the tribe of Judah is not able to drive away the Jebusites. The main thing is each getting his portion, and the reason why other peoples are driven away in the first place is not "that is how a nation works" it is that the Canaaneans were religious criminals who had it coming.

Jebusites were perhaps less bad then, certainly less bad later on, when King David took the city. But their presence as an enclave proves, a nation can work with non-citizen residents.

The very first comment

even if I post it as fourth. I reacted to when the train crash was, according to video.

Here:

0:39 I checked the date of the train crash.

The New York Times : Train Carrying Republican Lawmakers to Retreat Crashes Into Truck
By NICHOLAS FANDOS, EMILY COCHRANE and JONAH ENGEL BROMWICH | JAN. 31, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/us/gop-retreat-train-crash.html

Jan 31.

Then I check the date of my blogpost:

New blog on the kid : Eric Trump to me
[HGL, obviously on this blog] Wednesday, 31 January 2018
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/01/eric-trump-to-me.html

Jan 31.

Hmmmm ... I did send Trump a congratulations note (not a very warm one, but saying, even if I'd have preferred Santorum, better he than Clinton) (Or Marco Rubio, not bad either), I sent a request to look into whether John Todd is still alive (despite official reports) and abducted to mental hospitals, and perhaps some more.

I get automatically registered and emails with my name start coming to me requesting me to donate at least 1 US dollar.

But I have no answer on the request.

New Video

Prophetic Meaning of GOP Train/Truck Crash pt 2
thirdeaglebooks | 9.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_8cTFSsErk

Sidetrack

Comment by me

4:04 Would Isaiah 45:10 indicate "woman" could be an adress to one's mother?

I just had John 2:4 brought up in debate with Protestants?

Why I Do Go "Seems Fiction" on Overpopulation Dystopias

Overpopulation facts - the problem no one will discuss: Alexandra Paul at TEDxTopanga
TEDx Talks | Ajoutée le 3 janv. 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNxctzyNxC0

I

1:33 "200,000 years ago?"

Adam was created 7000 + some centuries ago.

While Neanderthals and Sethites / "Modern Humans" / Sapiens both descend from him, and so do Antecessor, Heidelbergensis and a few more, "Modern Humans" are only ten generations from Adam, if you read Genesis 5.

Modern humans as in populating Earth after the Flood, have, as such, been around since the Flood, c. 5000 years ago (plus or minus some).

1:40 "By 1850, there were one billion people."

Not contesting that. I am however contesting the idea population "curves" were for very long just "crawling along the bottom of the graph" and then exploding 1800-1850.

What exploded was the number of non-European countries we could get somewhat reliable facts and stats from.

1:46 "it took 200,000 years to put the first billion on Earth"

No. Did not. We do not even legitimately know that the one billion by 1850 was an unprecedented peak. Not to mention that Christ born Anno Mundi (4004 or) 5199 or 5500 and add AD 1850 to that, is very far from 200,000 years.

II

220,000 new births per day, may be unsustainable in a very long run, and without interruptions or setbacks.

220,000 new births per day today is very far from unsustainable, one reason being, in many countries they tend to die quicker than in others.

Another one is, if a population gets crowded, it starts doing things - even without wanting to - which make marriage and childbirth rather less easy to come by.

Adding deliberate measures to keep birth rates down or reduce them is very far from necessary, it is indeed a burden and one way in which to get more space for people is to get rid of those who make the burdens unnecessarily high for poorer people.

In 1945 and following years, there were a few trials in Nuremberg. One of the accusation counts was for preventing Jewish and "pure German" couples to marry and reproduce. Hanging some, putting some in prison (where crowding is seen as part of the punishment) is one way to get rid of "superfluous people." Meaning, we identify as "superfluous" those who tend to call others so.

III

3:34 There is another possibility too, for stopping growth.

Because people have VERY large families and then VERY many of the children become monks, nuns or priests.

That is why Ireland and Italy did not become "overpopulated".

Oh, in 1846 Ireland became undernourished for its population. It is called the "potato famine". It had nothing to do with Irish people being too many. It had something to do with monoculture in terms of potato strands. Some Peruvian potato types would have been immune to the disaster. It had even more to do with landlords who went:

- "You have no potatoes? Too bad. I still want the wheat you contracted to grow for me, all of it, and if you die in the process, I have some nice Protestants who can take your place."

Anti-Communists rightly decry the Holodomor, the genocide by famine, in Ukraine and neighbouring areas, under Stalin. But before one goes "woohoo" about Capitalism, there was a Holodomor on Ireland too, in 1846, and it was a Capitalist one.

So, no, starvation disasters have historically not been triggered by overpopulation as such.

Disasters in general leave dead behind. Making many children usually implies there are more chances of someone surviving them and burying them.

I am reminded of the fact Noah got his three sons (a ridiculously small number for a patriarch) at the very ripe age of 500 (a ridiculously late age for a pre-Flood patriarch). I think he may have been victims of antinatalist pressures in the pre-Flood world (that is at least one option of explaining his family situation) and I think one reason God sent the Flood was antinatalism (including encouraging sodomy, one Jewish tradition has it the Flood came with pre-Flood gay marriage).

Next time, it is not waters.

IV

3:57 "Forcing people not to have children* does not work"

Hear, hear.

So, you would like two people to have one child each. By choice. That is as if twenty people have ten childs together.

That is a plan which has sometimes been tried.

Family A has twelve children, family B has 8, these are together 20. Young Mr A and young Miss B marry and have ten children.

The eleven siblings of Mr. A and the seven of Miss B become nuns and monks and clergy. AND when Mr A and Miss B/MrsA want a babysitter, they have many tto choose from.

A very great idea, as long as entering religion and renouncing marriage is and remains a personal choice.

* Actual words : "to have fewer children"

V

4:12 An education on birth control, you said?

You know, with the idea "I am entitled to have sex but not children from it" comes the idea, if one gets pregnant anyway "oh, this was an accident, how do I get out of this?"

That means abortion, in other words, murder.

4:21 "the benefits of a one-child family"

My mother was the only child. This has hampered her while grandmother was alive, and while both grandparents were alive perhaps too, but especially since grandmother became a widow, since she was so overprotected and overdemanded, she was unable to live her life.

As a result, she had fewer children, and the one remaining "available" when grandmother was very old was me. I felt overdemanded by granny too. And I obviously resented her choice to delay childbirth so long, she only had mother at 36. This made me in turn overprotected and in the end overdemanded too. I was 25 when she died, I was unmarried and childless, and she had become a nightmare to me. As to her daughter.

No, "benefits of a one child family", if you want to sell that snake oil, not here please!

VI

4:56 It is still vital to procreate for survival.

I mean for survival as a civilisation. I do not mean one could not choose monastery or so. I very much do mean, if you are in a couple (and I don't mean a gay or a lesbian couple, those should not be options even to homosexuals) you have no good excuse usually to be "child free" as you put it.

The relations between the generations are degrading. Where they are getting better, it is often because some ethnic conflict solidarises youth on both sides with parental and grandparental generations.

Why? Because youth are getting fewer in proportion (at least with indigenous Westerners), and as a consequence overprotected and overdemanded by older people.

When hippies took some distance from their parents and when then punks took some from theirs, don't you think the manner degraded some between 1968 and 1980?

Part of what monasticism has been criticised for is rewiring the biology to recognise the benefits of not procreating.

Part of the reason monasticism was popular in the Middle Ages is, marriage meant pregnancy, pregnancy meant one particular risk of a painful death.

But being a monastic takes some rewiring.

VII

5:37 "it will suffer less than if there is no more oil or food or water"

You know, petrol doesn't produce food. It transports it and is one way of cooking it, but doesn't produce it.

As to food or water, not one single even local population we know of has ever died because they became too many for the resources. Some have had deaths on such occasions, but we have deaths all of the time.

I don't know any, including 19th C. Sweden or Ireland, community where people first became too many and then starved to death.

This vision is a very mythical dystopia.

Let's say an island can sustain 10,000 people easily and 20,000 people not at all. A population does not rise abruptly from 10 to 20,000 (except at mass migrations), and therefore, while they were growing in numbers, they would feel the strain and some would abstain.

When I say "mythological dystopia", I do not mean mythological as Hercules is "mythological" because part of his existence is interpreted by those giving us his story in mythological terms. I mean, it is as mythological as Gaia and Uranus. In other words, moonshine.

VIII

5:47 "ten billion people in 40 years, which is what the UN is projecting"

Very conditionally, I hope?

Say, if anticlericalism continues to throw out the monastic option from the equation, being one condition, or if dechristianisation means monasticism makes no sense as to its spiritual, non-material content, and one doesn't become a monk just to relieve population strain on resources ...

Next question, could 10 000 000 000 be provided with food?

Let's say "3 acres and a cow" per person.

Does the land available provide room for 30 000 000 000 acres?

It is 46 875 000 square miles, unless the converter was wrong. Land is 57 500 000 square miles. Desertified areas can be cultivated. Irrigation can come through - for instance - introducing Mediterranean sea water into Sahara (proposed by Ghadaffi and Lyndon LaRouche, proposed by myself in a somewhat different fashion, with windmills to transport the water up land into Sahara).

IX

6:59 How about you starting to use a little fewer resources per person in US instead?

How much of the water used for making paper can be recycled after that? I mean, it hardly remains all in the paper, obviously?

7:41 You know, "quality of life" does not absolutely depend on how many resources you use.

Monks and nuns can be considered as living the best lives (not perhaps in the "quality of life statistics" perspective), while they are also using fewer resources per person.

They also increase quality of life for the rest, by being there, by doing good things and a few more.