Just Sharing, by Catholic Truth, on Pius XII

Pope Pius XII SAVED the Jews! (Undoing the Myths of Pope Pius 12th)
12th May 2021 | Catholic Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlrt3mCeVrM

Alan Hopewell Misinformed on Medieval History

He answered the question "How common was knowledge of Latin in the Middle Ages?" on quora. I haven't gone over an attempt to answer it myself, yet, but a historical error in his answer prompted some debate by me.

Q

How common was knowledge of Latin in the Middle Ages?
https://www.quora.com/How-common-was-knowledge-of-Latin-in-the-Middle-Ages/answer/Alan-Hopewell

Alan Hopewell

knows Latin

Answered Sat 4.IX.2021

Latin was the lingua franca of the middle ages, but known only by the educated. In the early Middle Ages this would be restricted to monasteries and scribes at royal or administrative courts. In the later middle ages, universities began to be established, and anyone educated would be required to learn Latin. The sheeple would understand only small parts of the Latin liturgy. The advantage to the Church was that (1) people could not read the Bible and (2) they only understood what their local Priest told them, so they were easily “sheepled,” such as “pay us big $$$ for these indulgences and we will give you an unintelligible piece of paper saying your sins are forgiven.”

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun 5.IX.2021

“The sheeple would understand only small parts of the Latin liturgy.”

From 800 on. And from 813 on, a paraphrase of the Gospel would be provided. This refers to Tours, the transition to a learned pronunciation of Latin was made in diverse countries in diverse times.

In England, Bible translations to Anglo-Saxon were provided.

You are projecting the experience of Lollards who could only comprehend prayers in a vernacular not provided by the Church onto lots of centuries and places where they don’t apply.

Alan Hopewell

Sun 5.IX.2021

Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of that. As with anything, there were lots of variations in practice and understanding, especially across a continent as large as Europe. As most people were illiterate, even when provided with paraphrase or explanations, I am certain that the understanding of the people in general remained very basic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun 5.IX.2021

“As most people were illiterate, even when provided with paraphrase or explanations,”

By 813, most were in fact illiterate.

By 1200 or 1300, at least in cities, they weren’t.

Your certainty (unless you mean simply it excluded finer shades of heresy) is as bad as your guess on what indulgences were and who got rich on them.

Alan Hopewell

Sun 5.IX.2021

“Most” means exactly that: “most.” Even if every single person living in a city had a university degree, most people lived outside of cities in rural areas. So most - the vast majority of the population - was in fact illiterate, or at least functionally so. Also, there is no question as to what indulgences were. An indulgence is defined as a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints. They were therefore a remission from sin, and they were not issued by members of the Assembly of God, so there is no controversy about what they were or who issued them. There is also no controversy about their being sold, actions that prompted at least partly Martin Luther’s actions. No dispute there. And the people selling them were the ones who were enriched, not the tavern down the road. So my “certainty” is backed up by historical fact and definitions provided by the Church herself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue 7.IX.2021

“Even if every single person living in a city had a university degree,”

They didn’t. But they did typically go to the Cathedral school.

“most people lived outside of cities in rural areas.”

And were too poor to give loads of money to priests. What priests got from them was tithing - one tenth of harvest or milk or whatever, often the priest not keeping all of it. Sweden apart from Scania and the West Coast had this system : grain => 1/3 to the priest, 2/9 to the bishop personally, 2/9 to the Church, 2/9 to the poor. Non-grain => to the priest. Hence one of our cheese brands is called “prest-ost”, priests’ cheese, since the milk tithe was not paid in liquid fresh milk, but in solidified cheese (easier to transport and to keep). Tithing is directly in the Bible and the Biblical proportions were kept.

That said, they were usually literate enough to at least know the value of a written deed, when it came to free farmers.

“There is also no controversy about their being sold,”

1. 1. Yes there is, namely whether gaining an indulgence by monetary gift constitutes buying an indulgence;
2. 2. and whether the monetary gifts enriched priests.

First of all, the two or three monetary gifts through clergy that come to mind are:

1. 1. Paying for a Crusade (same indulgence as going on it).
2. 2. Paying for the rebuild of St. Peter’s Basilica (the one Luther protested against, same as for giving materials to the building or going on the building site and helping).
3. 3. Possibly also some gifts to the poor. Like getting an indulgence for giving to the poor through the Red Cross. I don’t know this, I have no clear reference.

None of these enriched clergy doing the indulgence “sales”. Tetzel was not getting personal riches, as a Dominican he was obliged to poverty, the scandalous part is, apart from paying for St. Peter’s Basilica, the one thing that the indulgence was for, the Dominicans in Germany were also using half of it to pay a debt to the Fuggers.

A typical indulgence would probably enrich the inn around the corner insofar as it involved pilgrims spending money there - since pilgrimages were a far more regular indulgenced act than monetary gifts. Getting an indulgence after a pilgrimage was not dependent on an extra monetary gift, whatever gifts pilgrims actually also bestowed on the pilgrimage Church. And another type of indulgenced act was praying certain set prayers. In the case of the Rosary, the persons primarily enriched would be the paternoster makers.

“So my “certainty” is backed up by historical fact and definitions provided by the Church herself.”

The definition does not include (and you did not misquote it as including) that the good deed in question was typically a monetary gift. Clinical psychology is not exactly the university field in which one gets the best information on Medieval History and the facts pertaining to it.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue 7.IX.2021

“In the early Middle Ages this would be restricted to monasteries and scribes at royal or administrative courts.”

You consider 800 AD as early Middle Ages?

First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible

First Half of a Video Pretending Micro-Evolution Prove Macro-Evolution Possible · Continuing with J7b Second · Fed Up with J7b Second's Harrassment

Creation Myth: No "Macroevolution"
July 11th 2020 | Creation Myths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6i5NimYsH8

I

1:20 A few things not found in microevolution:

• new cell types (you know like bone cell, liver cell, etc)
• new functional genes
• probably also new chromosome pairs in placental mammals, except possibly the red viscacha rat and one more.

II

4:55 How big changes were done to the genes? How many base pairs? How many mutations would it take for those base pairs to change from scale to feather in nature?

In a lab, you could change ten base pairs if you like ... in nature, one at a time is changed, and the change survives or doesn't to the next change. How do the intermediate expressions look in the lab, is there any one of them that would be dysfunctional in real life?

III

5:31 Both CMI and AiG avoid citing speciation in macroevolution because we (I agree with them) think the level "kind" corresponds to more usually "family" or "subfamily" (at least within mammals - hedgehogs are for instance a kind and they are also a subfamily, with the other subfamily gymnures being characterisable as "hedgehogs with soft spikes looking like thick hairs").

SIV > HIV - it's still a virus, it's still a retrovirus, it still attacks the immune system.

6:47 CMI and AiG would validate your example ... except as to considering this proves evolution.

7:59 There is a new hybrid species of finch?

Wait a second, shows that the previous speciation events between finches weren't completely isolating them, were they?

Btw, CMI and AiG do accept the Galapagos finches as resulting from descent from a common finch ancestral population.

IV

9:01 Mitochondriae and chloroplasts have not been observed in real time as evolving by originally just endosymbiosis.

9:37 Showing how a process is supposed to have worked in the far past is not like observing it in real time.

10:32 In 2010, Shaun Doyle on CMI made a paper on sea slugs and kleptoplasty.

He enumerated a few differences between kleptoplasty and supposed original endosymbiosis.

With these differences in mind, he entitled his paper Photosynthetic sea slugs: an evolutionary enigma.

It's in
Journal of Creation 24(3):10–12, December 2010 and also online on their site.

Overall on this one : you observe various intermediates between endosymbiosis and organelles. You then presume they reflect different stages in a process. But you haven't shown there is a process.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl do you believe in magic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I do not know exactly what sense of the phrase "believe in magic" you are asking about, and suppose you are not even quite aware of the differences yourself. Hence, I will give three answers.

• Yes, I believe magic occurs. Beside the point in the context, God condemning a wizard to Hell for witchcraft is eschatology, not origins;
• No, I don't follow any cult of magicians, I do not confide my life to magic;
• Yes, I believe in the kind of divine omnipotence that Atheists like to label "magic".

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl are you a deist or is your magical entity one of the bronze age tribal ones?
Does it have a name, can you communicate with it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I am a Catholic.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you do follow a cult of magicians.
Your tribe has crazy rituals, magic spells, believes in demons and witches too!!

And let's not forget the awesome hats!! If I was going to join a tribe then your hats are a major plus. Did jesus wear a big hat? Who decided they were important?

What evidence led you to believe your god isn't imaginary? Was it simply childhood indoctrination or perhaps the collection of myths and stories? Or - and I know its a long shot - did you find any actual evidence that places your god in reality?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second I'll actually go with the long shot.

Yes, history - like the OT books, the Gospels, Church history - show a vast array of miracles. You know, some things don't happen if there is no omnipotent God to work them, so if they still happened, He exists.

Plus, as mentioned above: Mitochondriae and chloroplasts have not been observed in real time as evolving by originally just endosymbiosis. Similar observations could be made on your pretentions for abiogenesis from non-living chemicals and emergence of mind from non-human beasts - with even stronger presumptions of dealing with the impossible, the self-contradictory.

Childhood indoctrination? Up to a little before 9 years, it was mainly secularist and evolutionist.

"Who decided [the hats] were important?"

Byzantines and Latin Medievals had a taste for showing rank or profession by diversified clothing. As they contributed to Catholic and Orthodox culture (even if the faith was already in place) the hats you find a plus came to add to the minor attractions of Catholicism.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so again, did you find any evidence for your god? Something in reality rather than imagination.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second Yes, mitochondriae and chloroplasts and how history is really done.

Stamping a document as "imagination" or "fiction" each time you find a miracle in it short circuits decent epistemology in a Humeish bad manner (and he wasn't by far a historian, it was easier for him).

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl that isn't evidence FOR your god, at best it's a lack of understanding.

So again, what evidence do you have that your god isn't imaginary?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second It so happens, you are not the judge of what is good evidence.

You believe mitochondriae and chloroplasts originated by endosymbiosis, and a few other impossibilities, meaning one should wonder whether YOU believe in magic - as long as it has no magician.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so do you have any positive evidence for your primitive tribal god?
Especially something which grounds it in reality.

God of the gaps isn't evidence sir

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second The non-explanation of abiogenesis, chloroplasts, mitochondriae and a few more are not just gaps in the present knowledge, they are problems and major ones for what you suppose to be knowledge.

So, what you call "God of the gaps" certainly is evidence, and so is history, which you seem even more weak on than cell biology.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you say history, can you present any historical evidence for your god, something non imaginary and preferably something other than the collection of myths and writings in your bible.

Yes it's god of the gaps, what else can explain lightning if not zues? What is thunder without thor? What on earth can explain a rainbow? You see throughout history magic has been proposed as the answer, but time and again when we learn, study and understand we never, not once, found magic WAS the answer. So I'd suggest to hang your hat or god on the peg of ignorance isn't going to bear fruit, rather you should find some positive evidence FOR your god.

If and when science answers those questions- what then? Accept there is no god or find another gap to keep the idea alive - be honest, are these questions really important to your belief, or just something that makes you feel less silly for believing in primitive superstition?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second "you say history, can you present any historical evidence for your god, something non imaginary and preferably something other than the collection of myths and writings in your bible."

The basic fact you miss is that many books of the Bible are ostensibly historiography and were accepted as such by earliest known public.

The word "myth" is obviously rather vague in meaning. If you mean things like the Theogony, not witnessed by human observers, the historical books of the Bible have verses 1 through 26 in chapter 1 and verses 3 to 6 in chapter 2 of Genesis, while the rest purportedly happens before human observers. Now, that is obviously also true of Homer's two epics (caution with what Ulysses tells Nausicaa, he was only surviving witness to events and he has been known to tell a lie on occasion), so if you meant this kind of thing, your argument becomes clearer. As for me, I'd call that legend with a strong presumption of legend preserving facts even in merely human legends, without divine inerancy attached in any way in a fairly accurate way.

"Yes it's god of the gaps, what else can explain lightning if not zues? What is thunder without thor? What on earth can explain a rainbow? You see throughout history magic has been proposed as the answer, but time and again when we learn, study and understand we never, not once, found magic WAS the answer."

Your history of ideas is as inaccurate as your general view of how history is done. Lightning with its thunder may have purely corporeal efficient causes as to why they occur, but they may even so have spiritual or as you could prefer "magical" causes as to exactly when and where they occur. Could this cloud have been discharged a bit earlier? A bit later? Perhaps. If so, spirits will explain why it was discharged exactly then and there. Both Zeus and Thor are by the way younger than Genesis - worshipping such spirits arguably came into fashion first millennium BC. After Moses. And by the way, while God is ultimately in control, it is not He who does such tasks.

"less silly for believing in primitive superstition?"

I'd prefer believing in primitive superstition over believing in a modern one!
And you did a fine show of avoiding the arguments given FOR God.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl still no positive evidence FOR god I notice.

So we have an explanation for the rainbow, we understand how the light retracts and reflects through the water droplet. Primitive minds attributed this unknown phenomenon to magical entities, are you saying that although we understand the process its still reasonable to add a layer of supernatural magic into the process?

That sounds desperate, almost as if you've given yourself an unfalsifiable position regardless of evidence - so the question is - why are you here and why do you ask questions? It is irrelevant to your position or belief system, so desperately in need of the comfort blanket you've surrounded yourself with.

Does it matter that genesis was written before the norse myths? You realise genesis isn't an original work, nor is it the earliest, you have a fairly confused position.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm still waiting for your positive evidence.
Can I take it you just don't have any?

Also you missed the 'why do you bother' question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second The second comment was just a reminder of previous one, so I'll take that one:

"still no positive evidence FOR god I notice."

Mitochondriae are not negative evidence but positive. In order to rule out your evolutionary scenario this negative evidence needs to be added to the positive one. Namely : no positive evidence for mitochondriae or chloroplasts starting with endosymbiosis, positive evidence against Miller Urey conditions leading anywhere near to a living cell.

"So we have an explanation for the rainbow, we understand how the light retracts and reflects through the water droplet. Primitive minds attributed this unknown phenomenon to magical entities, are you saying that although we understand the process its still reasonable to add a layer of supernatural magic into the process?"

There is no such thing as "primitive minds" that is a colonial and rather racist (the things need not go together) position to say there is.

Yes, it is reasonable, the process you describe cannot accurately predict who will see a rainbow from where and when this will happen.

"That sounds desperate, almost as if you've given yourself an unfalsifiable position regardless of evidence"

I am not trying to falsify supernatural entities with natural explanations, since these don't cover all.

"so the question is - why are you here and why do you ask questions? It is irrelevant to your position or belief system, so desperately in need of the comfort blanket you've surrounded yourself with."

I bother because I am an apologist.

"Does it matter that genesis was written before the norse myths?"

Not just before Norse Thor, not just before Greek Zeus, but even before Hittite Teshub and before Canaanean Baal-Hadad. In other words, Genesis ows nothing to any known cult adoring the lightning-thrower as supreme or clse to supreme god.

"You realise genesis isn't an original work, nor is it the earliest, you have a fairly confused position."

And in Sumerian polytheism, where you find things possibly written before Genesis, Ishkur was about as much as a side-kick as lightning-throwers are in scholasticism, that was my point.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so no positive evidence for your god, just a tired god of the gaps, but then you're not interested in the 'gap'- regardless of learning or progress you will add magic to any scientific explanation.

Genesis copied and/or was heavily influenced by the mesopotamian creation myths.
We have the originals, or rather we've always had the originals but we can read them now.

Do you think the global flood described in your version of the myth really happened?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eustace Clarence Scrubb, sorry, @J7b Second (the "mistake" refers to the tone you take)

"so no positive evidence for your god, just a tired god of the gaps,"

Pretending to be tired is a great way to deal with evidence that you have no answer to. Any thing appearing to exist, and biological life qualifies, can have only four explanations. We agree it is not illusory and we agree it is not eternal without ever having had to begin. This means, any evidence against it emerging from other states is evidence for it's being made.

"but then you're not interested in the 'gap'- regardless of learning or progress you will add magic to any scientific explanation."

The scientific explanation in fact doesn't explain exactly where it will happen or exactly when it will happen. The options are blind chance, necessities of the process, or some intentional guide. Nothing has disproven this.

"Genesis copied and/or was heavily influenced by the mesopotamian creation myths."

Not in Adam and Eve (couple, fall into sin, seeing two sons in a killing strife) and not in Babel getting languages confused. For Genesis 5, it would seem some Mesopotamian rounded patriarchs Seth to Lamech's lifetimes to nearest multiple of five and then multiplied it by 60, if you go to Sumerian Kinglist for Pre-Flood kings. And 8 kings would match Adam to the Cainite Lamech, in some kind of Nodian nostalgia.

"We have the originals, or rather we've always had the originals but we can read them now."

If it was buried in non-excavated sites, no, you didn't always have them.

If they are the originals, why does Genesis 1 to 11 give detail they leave out?

"Do you think the global flood described in your version of the myth really happened?"

It so happens, I do. It also so happens, the Mesopotamian version depends on a vessel that could not have floated under the conditions.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so still no positive evidence for your god?
I wonder if you'd been born a few hundred years ago you'd hide your god in lightning or gravity, where do you think you'll hide it as science progresses.
It's already an impossible concept, 'outside time and space = imaginary nonesense lol

So you think the global flood really happened, the cognitive dissonance is strong with you, that early indoctrination really ruined your critical thinking abilities huh.
Now is your chance to put forward some positive evidence and weigh it against the counter arguments.
What's the best evidence you have for your flood myth? Let's examine it together, perhaps I can help you.

And the creation narrative is mesopotamian, the differences in detail are just story evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second Still no grasp of logic?

4 thinkable alternatives, two rejected by both and evidence against one of the two remaining = evidence for the other of the two remaining.

No, the Mesopotamian version glosses over important parts, for reasons that they would be against Mesopotamian ideologies.

1) Mesopotamian ideology was deeply collectivist, therefore has mankind created in organised societies, not in a primeval couple;
2) Nimrod, involved in the Babel débacle, was under diverse names (arguably both Gilgamesh and Enmerker, possibly also Sargon of Akkad) a hero with the Mesopotamians.

Flood really happened, as recorded : 1) Bible, 2) Mesopotamian story, 3) Greek story, 4) Norse story (which places Flood before creation of earth and of man, and has a giant population targetted) ... 50) Altai version, ... 100) Peruvian version.

Flood really happened, as traced : 1) fossils all over earth, 2) démise of Neanderthals, démise of Denisovans, 3) possibility of modelling a carbon 14 rise since Flood level, 4) possibility of modelling rise of high mountains within the time available (5000 years, fastest part of softest sediment in earliest centuries), 5) possibility of explaining K-Ar dates exclusive of recent as lava solidifying during Flood, with many eruptions going on then.

J7b Second

@Hans-Georg Lundahl is one of your alternatives - "There is a perfectly sound natural explanation as yet undiscovered"?

Yes I have a grasp of logic, and can see fallacious reasoning - argument from ignorance/ argument from incredulity both sum up your position. But you could prove me wrong by setting out some positive evidence for your magical beliefs.

The differences between the original ANE creation myths and your far more recent genesis myth are not only small but easily explained with natural story evolution. I think Dr Josh had an interesting interview where he discussed this not so long ago, I could dig out a link if you're interested.

That's great if you have actual evidence for the global flood, what do you think is your strongest point? That list looks pretty weak to be honest, pick your best and let's see if we can help you understand the science a little better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J7b Second //is one of your alternatives - "There is a perfectly sound natural explanation as yet undiscovered"?//

That would be an argument against my dismissing the alternative "emerged". It's not a fifth alternative.

It would therefore be one of the four alternatives in its defense mode, and that defense you just made is "evolution of the gaps".

So, it is a refuted alternative because with all the research that has gone on to prove an alternative to God, the difficulties for a "natural" explanations are mounting by the day.

"But you could prove me wrong by setting out some positive evidence for your magical beliefs."

Challenge once again met, as per above.

"The differences between the original ANE creation myths and your far more recent genesis myth are not only small but easily explained with natural story evolution."

There is no such thing as a "natural story evolution" and the differences are not small.

As to "far more recent" the earliest carbon date associated with a tablet (you know, while the clay cannot be dated, it is or at least was often packed into a cover of wool, which can be so) is, as I recall, 1800's BC. As per my carbon buildup scenario, this would be a few decades before Moses wrote Genesis, as his birth period in 1590 BC, gets a carbon date for 1800's.

"I think Dr Josh had an interesting interview where he discussed this not so long ago, I could dig out a link if you're interested"

I'd love to refute it in more detail and with less of your superiority complex interfering.

"and let's see if we can help you understand the science a little better."

Who is "we"?

As you mentioned science, I'll not pick my best, I'll pick the one most concerned with it. AND concerned with relative dates of ANE tablets and Genesis. Namely : possibility of modelling a carbon 14 rise since Flood level.

On to: Continuing with J7b Second

Two Comments on an Excellent Catholic Apologetics Video

And the latter led to some debate.

Why the word "Catholic" IS NOT in the Bible!!! Does it prove Protestantism? 🤔
26th of August 2021 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgOvRg8Huc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:51 Have you also heard Protestants claiming Councils of Orange match "grace not works"?

It actually says, you cannot GET justified by doing certain things, but once grace justifies you, you start doing some of them (obviously not all do monastic vows, specifically mentioned in C of O, specifically impugned by Luther and Reformers).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:36 "heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God"

Are you sure you have the right Pope?

Bergoglio, whom you presumably call "Pope Francis" stated things in 2014 about "magic wand" that seem very close to denying the actual omnipotence of God and are somewhat pointless if that wasn't the case.

I have come across "Catholic priests" (well, one at least, "Assumptionist Father" Antoni) who denies Adam and Eve were literally individual people who lived like you and I do. Check Council of Trent, and I don't mean just session IV with Biblical inerrancy, I mean more specifically session V, decree on original sin, canons 1, 2 and 3.

Julie Elizabeth

Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is a change in doctrine, and certainly not from any priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julie Elizabeth What comes out of a pope's or a priest's mouth should NEVER be an actual CHANGE in doctrine.

Definitions that are infallible are not the only occasion that a Pope and a simple priest need to agree with already defined doctrine, need to be NOT heretical.

The "magic wand" quote is prima facie in contradiction with previously defined dogma about God's omnipotence. That these do not contain an actual "magic wand" doesn't mean his words cannot fall under their condemnation, as "magic wand" was obviously a rhetorical flourish on the theme of being able to do exactly ANYTHING He wanted to do and without having to wait.

Evolutionism is very widely accepted among Bergoglio's "Catholics" and the priest who contradicted session V of the Council of Trent was a shocker on what lengths this could go to.

Accepting an evolutionary timeline for man contradicts one way or the other the doctrines about Adam.

1) You pose him 40 000 or 90 000 BP - no chance of Genesis 3 being accurately accepted history, not to mention Genesis 4 making him a farmer;
2) You pose him along Biblical timeline or not too far earlier back than that, you get a problem how he could be ancestral to Amerindian and Australian aborigine populations.

It is implied in dogma that Genesis 3 is correctly transmitted, both Session V of Trent and Marian dogma (1854, for instance), and the idea of men coming from non-Adamite ancestry (remotely possible exception - via Adam) is condemned both when Popes defined Amerindians are real men (somewhat hard to believe for some Conquistadors after watching Aztek human sacrifice) and when they condemned a book by Isaac de la Peyrère, whose idea on pre-Adamites is hailed as a precursor of Darwin. Therefore, whenever you pose Adam, you get a contradiction with Catholic dogma, unless you pose the beginning of the Universe and Earth at the same time, meaning you accept creation science.

When Pius XII said he did not want to condemn the idea of Adam having not quite human but anatomically close ancestors, he had no idea of carbon dating, which is involved in Cro-Magnon skeleta and Neanderthal skeleta from same Europe back in carbon dated 45 000 to 40 000 BP, living together for what carbon wise appears to be 5000 years. He could have imagined the modern "science" would be content to use geological datings and to prove Neanderthals way earlier, and then to accept a couple of non-human, purely animal Neanderthal or even Cro-Magnon progenitors (despite Cro-Magnon) giving rise to a child who by God's miracle was raised to become a man. And that this man lived c. 5000 or not much more than 10 000 BC and that he was ancestral to all populations.

It is bad enough that he envisaged Cro-Magnon and that he envisaged Neanderthals as non-human, but with carbon dates for advent of Cro-Magnon to different parts of the world, he would eventually (if he hadn't already been very old) have had to face the conundrum I outlined.

Note well, his words have been abused as being a definition that Evolution is acceptable theology, in fact it isn't. It includes a provision for a debate between Evolutionists and Creationists provided they are both versed in sciences and in theology. This debate was shortcut by the moral theologians concluding that if Pius XII didn't forbid Evolutionists to debate, he must have meant Evolutionism could not be condemned. On the contrary : since he mentions Biblical experts on both teams, one part of the debate would have had to be whether Evolutionism was theologically acceptable or whether there were sound Biblical arguments for condemning it which he had not foreseen.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Illogical argumentation. Will you reject Jesus because of Judas? You can win a sin argument only if you are sinless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink It's not a sin argument, it's a heresy argument.

And to win a heresy argument, I only need to be orthodox, not sinless.

Luther had a sin argument about Alexander VI, I suppose, but no heresy argument.

I have a heresy argument about Antipope Bergoglio, not a sin argument apart from that (for the moment, or as sufficient for my rejection).

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your arguments reflects mere lack of knowledge. Charism of Infallibility is applicable only when Pope teaches excathedra for the whole Church on faith and morals. It seems that you are a Sedevacantist. Sedevacantism is a heresy too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink 1) Sedevacantism has never been defined as a heresy;
2) it is under certain circumstances the position of St. Robert Belarmine;
3) both he and I hold, the circumstances in which a Pope is required to be orthodox, non-heretical, are not JUST infallible statements.

Sure, a pope could make a slip outside these, but in that case he would correct himself or accept fraternal correction from an inferior. If a "pope" on occasion after occasion promotes a heresy, whether "infallibly" or NOT infallibly, he cannot be reputed a Catholic and his "papacy" cannot be reputed as a papacy.

Bringing in "ex cathedra" into the mix is a red herring. Your doing so shows either dishonesty or the "mere lack of knowledge" being on your side.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant. You wrote “ Pope promotes heresy , infallibly or not infallibly”! Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?.How is it even possible? So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith. For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises. Lack of faith in Jesus’ promise is the root of all heresies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant."

It's not, unless you can pretend he's outside the Church.

"Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?"

Canonisation of JP-2 would figure, but not ex cathedra would definitely do as well, as per Bellarmine.

And if you excommunicate Bellarmine, you have suddenly made Pope Pius XI a non-Pope, since canonising St. Robert definitely was an ex cathedra statement by him you see.

"So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith."

Where so?

"For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises."

He has also promised that His Church have the sign of Orthodoxy (Matthew 28:16-20) through its pastors.

Something which excludes Bergoglio from being one, especially the highest one, and therefore the one whose heresy cannot be suspended as deposition or invalidation ground until judged by a superior.

I have neither said the Gates of Hell have prevailed, nor anything that implies it. 1400 and 2000 are years having in common that there were more than one man claiming to be Pope and having followers accepting his claim. The former occasion was resolved in 1429, the latter is not yet resolved.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply. But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast. Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply."

Nice try to obfuscate you don't have one!

"But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast."

But I am not a sedevacantist, I am a conclavist.

"Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism."

It's not lacking under Pope Michael. Btw, the other two versions of Conclavism have now disappeared, Linus II having stepped back and Pius XIII having died. Both of them were also later in the field.

Palmarians (of which once I was one) are mysticalists, to me the alleged revelation discredited itself by the words "the Antichrist views the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth" - not sharing basic Geocentric cosmology with the Bible. Or with Pope Michael. Or with me while accepting them and prior to accepting Pope Michael.

Proto-Germanic Origins

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Fairly good overview, but two remarks · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Proto-Germanic Origins

Q

How did Proto-Germanic language emerge? What Indo-European languages is it most closely related to?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Proto-Germanic-language-emerge-What-Indo-European-languages-is-it-most-closely-related-to/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

studied Latin at Lund University

Answered just now

"How did Proto-Germanic language emerge?"

We don't know, because we don't know whether it branched off from Proto-Indo-European or was a language of its own that became Indo-Europeanised. On this issue, we have Grimm against Trubetskoy.

"What Indo-European languages is it most closely related to?"

Let's see ... it is a Centum language and it is what I would consider as North Indo-European : bh, dh, g'h, gh become b, d, g, (g)w in Centum and b, d, j, g in Satem languages. Or, since I emitted doubts on PIE being the common ground, instead of "become" say "correspond to".

Now, it has Celtic as other Northern Indo-European to the West, Baltic as other to the East, precisely as Baltic is between Germanic and Slavic. Celtic and Germanic are Centum, Baltic and Slavic are Satem.

Related will hold whether we talk of common proto-language or mutual influence and borrowings.

It may be noted, it has one commonality with both Finnish and Hungarian, non-Indo-European languages of the Finno-Ugrian family (which is looser knit together than Germanic or Celtic, but closer than Indo-European with both and Greek and Sanskrit), namely verbs have one past (except English where past simple and past continuous contrast, but the continuous form is a novelty, from French or Welsh influence, as I presume, and mainly later than Shakespear). In Indo-European languages you more often find a contrast between preterite (simple past) and imperfect (continuous OR iterated OR habitual past) - Old Irish has an imperfect 3rd sg in -ed or -ad after present stem, and a preterite 3rd sg ending as the preterite stem does, Latin has an imperfect 3rd sg mostly in -bat, a "perfect" (double service as present perfect and as preterite) with -it after a perfect stem, Greek likewise, where both imperfect and aorist begin in e- and end in 3rd sg in -e, but with present stem and aorist stem, while Germanic actually is content with one past tense, like Finnish and Hungarian.

It has one commonality with Hungarian, but not with Finnish, namely part of Grimm's law. Precisely as C - really K - in C-entum corresponds to Germanic H in H-und(red), so also Finnish K in K-ala(staa) corresponds to Hungarian H in H-al.

It may be noted, my teacher in Old Greek told me, Germanic has only 20 % of its vocabulary from Indo-European by heritage. This has been contested by others.

OceanKeltoi on The Interpretation Argument ...

somewhere else: Do Different Interpretations of Christianity Make God a Liar if Existant? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: OceanKeltoi on The Interpretation Argument ...

The Interpretation Argument
23rd April 2021 | Ocean Keltoi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1PKTk-eNqQ

I

2:41 Congratulations to having changed the dynamic of the conversation with Mormons ... I as a Catholic obviously had different arguments, and am now dealing with the not at all Mormon but Ruckmanite version of them (obviously Ruckmanites are as much against Mormons as against Catholics).

I think you can guess which one ... and it is somewhat relevant, I think, for the argument I think you are going to present, which I have given a somewhat less cavalier response to than Lita Cosner did (I don't think it was you whom she answered, or was it? - As you posted the video on St. George's Day, it is chronologically possible, and CMI notoriously don't always link to what they are responding to).

II

3:46 Omniscient - knows everything that is OR could be and therefore all true propositions.
Omnipotent - is able to bring about everything not logically contradictory or nonsensical and not going counter to His own nature.

Those are the definitions I go by.

As per your comment somewhat later, I should be done for ...

III

4:44 Premise I: for any event God wants, He knows how to bring it about.
Agreed.

4:48 Premise II: for any event God wants, He is capable of bringing it about.
Agreed.

4:56 C. Conclusion : therefore, if God choses to bring about a particular event ... it must occur.

Agreed, but, there is a but here. God can chose to actually bring about an event or He can chose to allow people the possibility of preventing it, in respect of their freewill. There is such a thing as God's perfect will - like God definitely chose to bring about the Perfections of Mary, they were NOT deficient from His plan. There is also such a thing as God's permissive will - like God chose to allow Judas to betray and Peter to deny. Peter repenting effectively so as to gain reconciliation, we are back at the perfect will, but Judas going to his perdition, still in the realm of the permissive will.

IV

5:44 New syllogism, premiss I.

For any message God wants to communicate, He knows how to communicate it such that it will be interpreted correctly.

Here I sense a lack of clarity. Do we deal with "so that it will be interpreted correctly"? Or do we deal with "so that it won't be interpreted incorrectly"? If we were dealing with only one recipient, these would be synonymous, but if we deal with multiple recipients, they are not.

"So that one or several or any reasonable number will interpret it correctly" does not equate to "so that noone will interpret it incorrectly".

Premiss II - dito with capacity. Same distinction holds here.

Now, on this ground, a result aimed at like "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly" would be somewhat similar to aiming at "so that no one will get damned".

This is not God's actual aim from Christian theology.

One could say "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly without his own grave fault" (a Feeneyist position, stating that no one dying as a heretic had any real excuse of ignorance) and one does state "so that no one will be damned to the Hell of pains without his own grave fault" but these are not synonymous to "so that no one will interpret it incorrectly at all" or "so that no one will be damned to the Hell of pains at all" and C. S. Lewis has argued that a God aiming to make Himself the eternal bliss of the blessed would contradict Himself if allowing none to damn Himself by rejecting His will or truth. See The Problem of Pain.

C. If God choses to communicate a message, it must be interpreted correctly.

Correct, but only if you add "by those who are saved" or "by most who are saved" (depending whether you prefer Fr. Leonard Feeney or St. Thomas on the salvation of those who at the outset are in error by no previous fault of their own, the Feeneyist being, they always convert if they are saved).

V

6:14 The Bible is meant to be "communication from God".

Sure, but reading the Bible without the correct Catholic background isn't (automatically) supposed to be that.

Let's speak of utility of Scripture? II Timothy 3?

Protestants often cite verses 16 and 17, but let's start at 14 instead, shall we?

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

Note, we are not all in the rather specific position of St. Timothy.

1) he had from childhood known the books of the Old Testament, in a tradition which had not yet been corrupted by rejecting the true Messiah
2) he is not told the OT Scriptures of themselves alone are sufficient, but he is told "which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus"
3) and he is told to recall he learned Catechism by St. Paul.

A man who instead of that switches from Catholic catechism to Bible reading with no previous experience of it in a correct tradition (pre-Christian Judaism, continued in Catholicism), imagines that the faith does not need to add any hermeneutics to the Bible reading (obviously wrong for an OT only reading in a Christian perspective) and who does not recall the catechism from the Catholic Church is in a very different position from St. Timothy.

I added "automatically" because sometimes the Bible reading without a correct Catholic background actually does lead back to the Catholic Church. Sometimes it doesn't - back at the difference between God's perfect and His permissive will.

6:23 God would know how to communicate His message to men, such that it would be recorded ... the problem is, the actual wording of the record doesn't immunise a record from all and any misinterpretations.

God has told in the Scriptures that they do get misinterpreted:

II Peter 3, verses 15 and 16:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Note, I was going to make an argument he was writing this to Romans and that this is a prophetic warning against the Lutheran and other "Romans road", but Luther started out with Galatians when he went wrong, and in the former epistle, he adressed himself to:

to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Yes, our first Pope speaking of Galatians will do as well ...

6:27 ... recorded accurately => isn't the point.

Even an accurate message may be misinterpreted.

Aristotle in Latin has "ars imitatur naturam" and it is totally misinterpreted if you imagine that it means paintings should be photographic and music depict existing passions and even events, or else be failed as art. But that's not because Latinists were inaccurate in their translation. It's because each of the words has taken on exactly the overtones that are prone to make for a misunderstanding.

You are basically asking God in your argument to make it impossible for men to evolve new word meanings.

Sithen hwenne moston word ne sciftan? (For other readers, I suppose you know Anglo-Saxon : since when must words not be changing?)

6:33 "so if God wants His message communicated through the Bible"

Nowhere says "through the Bible alone" in the Bible ....

6:47 "according to this argument, it is impossible to misinterpret the Bible"

Well, if you are an actually Catholic pope speaking ex cathedra, it is ...

Here we get to the lack of clarity I was detecting at 5:44 - you are confusing "so that one or several or any reasonable number will interpret it correctly" with "so that noone will interpret it incorrectly" - the reasonable number being of course the number God has chosen for receiving the message correctly.

Getting to heaven is only for the elect and before that, being a Catholic is only for those elect to this grace (wider than those elect to Heaven).

VI

8:24 Can we safely conclude that the two pastors are Protestants? Like outside the Catholic Church?

To Some, Fighting "Paedophilia" As Such Primes All Other Decencies

Let's hope the girl won't be stopped from heeding my advice because of this ... God help her!

Q

My uncle raped and molested me. I am pregnant. I'm also 14 years old. What should I do? Should I abort the baby?
https://www.quora.com/My-uncle-raped-and-molested-me-I-am-pregnant-Im-also-14-years-old-What-should-I-do-Should-I-abort-the-baby/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered August 5

• 1. No, you should not abort.
• 2. In a decent society, you would have the right to marry.
• 3. In this case, however, not the rapist, even if you forgive him. Since he is your uncle.
• 4. So, in a decent society, you should not just keep the baby but also try to get a husband. It seems, Bill Clinton made US less decent, so you might want to let that wait to sixteen, main question is, will your parents or anyone else help you keep the baby while waiting? If so, go for it!

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

This is a candidate for posting to the ‘Dumbest f**king answer on Quora’ space. I refrain as I don’t want to prey on your delusional derangements, I know you’re afflicted, but Jesus, this is low…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

You have shown yourself right here and now an evil person, and a believer in false values opposed to true ones.

Plus obviously a jerk about pseudo-diagnosing me.

Marc Robidoux

Thu, 19.VIII.2021

You have shown yourself to be a deluded theist, with a delusion of benevolence. To suggest a teenager aged 14 raped by her uncle should keep the baby, and seek to marry, is equivalent to what is touted by the Taliban. Nicely done. Glad you’re not in charge of anything, you are a theocrat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri, 20.VIII.2021

I am obviously a Theocrat, and you have made at least one argument for Talibans (not sure if you have made any against the moderate Muslims they are fighting, they might agree with me too).

You vastly overdo the field of “deluded” and you would be more polite to stuff your amateur shrink pretentions into a place one doesn’t mention.

Marc Robidoux

Fri, 20.VIII.2021

I explained the use of the term ‘deluded’ in another thread. As to being a theocrat, you don’t appear to be deluded about that, as you freely admit it. The Taliban, and ISIS and all those theocrats apply forced marriage of young teenagers, which is exactly what you propose as a solution to the problem of a young teenager raped by her uncle. That is theocracy, of the autocratic (dangerous) brand that the Taliban enforce. If you consider me stating facts such as this as an ad-hominem attack, I’m very sorry, but I can’t help you deal with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Islam allows forced marriage, Catholicism doesn’t.

Both allow arranged marriages, and both allow teens to marry.

So, forced marriage is NOT exactly what I propose, except in so far as the pregnancy as such would tend to put pressure.

As to the Catholic view of adolescents being matrimoniable, here is the theory:

The impediments of impotence, spell, frenzy or madness, incest and defective age (Supplementum, Q. 58) (article 5, about defective age, i e below 14 for men and 12 for women).

Here are examples of the practise:

Mariées (et mariés) à quel âge, premières noces? : Et encore, pour son mari?

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

These practices, in Islam, Catholicism, and within any religion, are archaic and steeped in backwards misogynist views (‘Talibanesque’) based on their superstitions and patriarchal BS. It is a well established fact that societies that allow female emancipation and freedom from such backward ignorance (coincidentally corresponds to societies that allow freedom of and from religions btw) thrive and progress, quality of life grows exponentially as evidenced by any number of indexes such as the Global Peace Index etc.

Suggesting a young teenager raped by her uncle (or by anyone for that matter) should seek a husband as a step to resolution of a rape situation is a total reversion to the darkest reaches of religious BS advice. What would patriarchal religious wingnuts, mostly bachelor males with 0 experience with females know of the best course of action for a young teenager assaulted by an older male?

I simply kept from posting your answer to ‘The dumbest f&*cking answer on QUora’ simply to save you from the scorn and derision of anyone with a conscience.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

“are archaic and steeped in backwards misogynist views”

Archaic, thanks again for the compliment, as well as backwards.

Misogynistic, beg to disagree as to Catholicism.

“What would patriarchal religious wingnuts, mostly bachelor males with 0 experience with females know of the best course of action for a young teenager assaulted by an older male?”

I would definitely say, no experience of women as experience, unless the women happened to be Marxist feminist on top of being women, would warrant a conclusion of abortion.

As to sueing or not sueing her uncle, I think that’s up to her.

“Suggesting a young teenager raped by her uncle (or by anyone for that matter) should seek a husband as a step to resolution of a rape situation”

Or by anyone? Including by a friend whom she might later have married and who already said “sorry” for the rape?

Rape situation? The rape is over. The pregnancy does not constitute a rape.

And you seem to think that “young teenager” is relevant, for some reason?

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Given this question relates to a 14year old, perhaps you also think paedophilia is a good idea. I would not be surprised if you did, especially given its prevalence within the misogynistic patriarchal Catholic hierarchy. Rape, excused or not, is rape and remains rape, sexual assault against one’s wishes is rape, and there is no excuse for it, despite what your (“no experience of women as experience” tells you). Rape, “ by a friend“ or not is still rape, and the poor victim should not have any patriarchal misogynistic (inevitably based in superstitious religion) requirements imposed on her, not marriage, and not delivery of the baby. The product of rape results from the rape, it doesn’t excuse the rape or expunge it in any way. Abortion in such a case is certainly a viable option to expunge the rapists seed. Thankfully, outside of Talibanesque control in the Middle East, the world has mostly moved on from such archaic mysoginistic anti-female religious BS, so it is unlikely that your views would hold sway over much of anyone anywhere in earshot of you.

Your comments here are also strong candidates for ‘The dumbest f*&$king thing on Quora’ by the way..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

I think it would be an excellent idea to limit the use of “paedophilia” to men (mostly) wanting sex with people not yet reached their puberty.

As the girl is pregnant, marrying her might be hebephilia, not paedophilia. In this improved usage.

A N D as long as this reform is not observed, I think it is an excellent idea to scrap the word altogether.

“The product of rape results from the rape, it doesn’t excuse the rape or expunge it in any way.”

Depends on the rest of their relation. Anyway, a marriage would get her away from the uncle in this case.

“Abortion in such a case is certainly a viable option to expunge the rapists seed.”

No, since his will, not his seed, is culpable. You argue NS eugenics here.

Marc Robidoux

Sun, 22.VIII.2021

Given your apparent lack of experience in all these matters, I am not surprised to see you thinking that rape of a 14yr old is ruled out as being paedophilia. Not only do you rule it out, but in your ivory tower you even seek to define the word paedophilia and limit it to pre-pubescent victims, that in itself is worrisome, I don’t think I need to detail why. In thinking of the RCC and the words of Foghorn Leghorn, ‘I wouldn’t let my kids near that!’.

Keep digging, you may well find the nugget of bullshit at the heart of the mound of Catholic/religious manure you operate in.

Meanwhile, outside of Talibanesque middle eastern Islam, the rest of us are moving onward and upward, happily released from the confines of religious misogynistic paedophilic patriarchal BS as espoused by you and other RCC apologists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

While you rile, your definition of paedophilia, apart from being insulting to marriages you descend from if you go back to mid 19, certainly to mid 18th C, is used to kill the unborn by declaring a certain portion of the pregnant unfit to be wives and mothers. Onward and upward is a quote from the pilgrimage of Santiago, and should not be abused to glorify building higher and higher piles of killed unborn.

If I liked your manners of innuendo, I might already have wondered whether your eagerness to get the child aborted comes from your being the uncle, not that that is extremely likely, but he certainly would have some motive for getting rid of actual evidence for what would count as statutory rape and incest. Let’s say, no, I don’t think so, but you are doing such guys a service.

Marc Robidoux

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

Your lack of experience with anything outside your little small minded religious wingnut box is evident by your utterings.

A 35 year old coveting a 14 year old is paedophilia, it was back in the 19th century and it is now. It is possible that there are pedophiles in my or your ancestry, of this stripe or worse, and its also possible if not probable that most marriages back then took place between similarly aged people, a 17 year old marrying a 18 year old for example is not paedophilia. Forced marriages are a repugnant side effect of religious BS and should be eradicated. Having been the norm in the past does not justify it today.

I’m not surprised to see you going on and on about defending the unborn, obviously you care much more for the hypothetical unborn than for the hypothetical 14 year old girl in this question, that is wholly consistent with your lack of experience and lack of first hand knowledge of actual female existence outside of what you can read about it in your holy book.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

“A 35 year old coveting a 14 year old is paedophilia, it was back in the 19th century and it is now.”

• 1. No, not if of opposite sex, and not if intending marriage. (Actually, even if otherwise, not paedophilia as much as culpable hebephilia - puberty being the natural limit).
• 2. The very word paedophilia doesn’t exist until it’s coined by Krafft-Ebing in the year 1886.

“The minimum age requirements of 12 and 14 were eventually written into English civil law. By default, these provisions became the minimum marriage ages in colonial America.”

Marriageable age - Wikipedia - a linea Modern history, and the ages coincide with the Catholic requirement.

Citation 32 is:
Early teen marriage and future poverty - PubMed

“Marriages occurred several years earlier, on average, in colonial America than in Europe, and much higher proportions of the population eventually married. Community-based studies suggest an average age at marriage of about 20 years old for women in the early colonial period and about 26 years old for men.”

Note, “average” - doesn’t specify how much younger or older commonly occurred.

Citation 33 is:
The Effect of the Civil War on Southern Marriage Patterns

And:
“In the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century, U.S. states began to slowly raise the minimum legal age at which individuals were allowed to marry. Age restrictions, as in most developed countries, have been revised upward so that they are now between 15 and 21 years of age.”

Back to citation 32, already given.

“Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. However, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown.”

Citation 34:
What Was and Is The Minimum Age For Marriage in Scotland?

It includes this wording:

“However, according to one early 20th-century source*, marriage in Scotland at such young ages was in practice almost unknown.”

That is, in early 20th C. Not necessarily in previous ones.

“Forced marriages are a repugnant side effect of religious BS and should be eradicated. Having been the norm in the past does not justify it today.”

Why do you go on about forced marriages? As said, Catholicism forbids and forbade them.

If you go back St Thomas, Q 47, article 3:
Compulsory and conditional consent (Supplementum, Q. 47)

On the contrary, A Decretal says (cap. Cum locum, De sponsal. et matrim.): "Since there is no room for consent where fear or compulsion enters in, it follows that where a person's consent is required, every pretext for compulsion must be set aside." Now mutual contract is necessary in marriage. Therefore, etc.

Further, Matrimony signifies the union of Christ with the Church, which union is according to the liberty of love. Therefore it cannot be the result of compulsory consent.

So, no forced marriages in Catholicism. If force can be proven, the marriage can be annulled. And this was the norm in the 13th C. as well as earlier.

Marc Robidoux

Mon, 23.VIII.2021

Of course, given your world is only 6000 years old, it makes sense that all that was done in the past centuries was the pinnacle of enlightenment.

It will undoubtedly come as a shock to you to learn that actually whatever was encoded in law in the past, and whatever was known to the point of being defined, does not make that whatever existing only after being defined.

If you actually discussed any of this with an actual human female, you may learn that marriage is not the solution to any problem.

A 35 year old with an eye for a 14 year old is a sick aberration, is paedophilia and was way back in time as well.

The Catholic church is in no position to lecture anyone on consent or paedophilia, or marriage or who should or shouldn’t marry, especially given their track record of child abuse and specifically covering up child abuse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

“A 35 year old with an eye for a 14 year old is a sick aberration, is paedophilia and was way back in time as well.”

I think you are basically quoting Clinton. Bill.

While his explanation “that is not sex” clears him of per-jury, it doesn’t clear him of per-version.

1994 or 95 a 12 year old girl had quit school legally while marrying an old man.

A per-vert in oval office decided that was too perverted …

“it makes sense that all that was done in the past centuries was the pinnacle of enlightenment.”

Given that morals make a claim of universal and eternal validity, it makes sense that moral questions aren’t decided by the “pinnacle of enlightenment” in the first place.

“The Catholic church is in no position to lecture anyone on consent or paedophilia, or marriage or who should or shouldn’t marry, especially given their track record of child abuse and specifically covering up child abuse.”

Not a big one, compared to that of enlightenment representatives … like teachers and sport instructors.

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread. I don’t know what the hell you’re on about suggesting Bill Clinton and teachers are somehow relevant to this discussion.

I ‘m suspecting that this question may have been posted as a troll to elicit stupid answers, yours is a great candidate for the stupidest one.

Older men coveting younger teenagers is paedophelia, this was true back when Shem, Ham and Jepheth were eying their young daughters and nieces, in addition to be toying with incest, as it is true today. I understand your dilemma, it’s hard to defend old men coveting young girls without seeming like a bit of a diddler.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

Day of St. Bartholomew

"I don’t know what the hell you’re on about suggesting Bill Clinton and teachers are somehow relevant to this discussion."

I am speaking of a certain guy who made certain teen marriages illegal. Correcting your impression about "older men and teen girls" always having been wrong.

I am also bringing up who has a far greater track record than Catholic clergy, which you attacked, when it comes to predatory behaviour (which is not the same thing as the age difference).

"this was true back when Shem, Ham and Jepheth were eying their young daughters and nieces,"

They weren't, they were married. OK, I can't say for absolute certain with Ham ...

AND, it wasn't true.

Besides:
"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

Pedophilia - Wikipedia

This is not what we are talking about. Girls age fourteen are not typically prepubescent, therefore not children.

"in addition to be toying with incest,"

They weren't that either.

"a bit of a diddler."

Or someone who wants to get married and his marriage to be fertile. An age peer would be in the climacterium.

"I ‘m suspecting that this question may have been posted as a troll to elicit stupid answers, yours is a great candidate for the stupidest one."

Someone baiting me would also be an alternative. I am not on record as defending the recent 18-18 limit, either in Italy of Cavour or in Soviet Russia of Lenin. Or in Prussia, for that matter, if it came earlier there.

I am on record as defending that girls normally old enough to get pregnant, physically, are also old enough to get married, morally. And that therefore "they are just children, too young to be mothers" is no valid excuse for abortion. The person questioning, as per terms stated (baiting or not) is not exactly "a young thing and cannot leave her mother" in the terms of Billy Boy.

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

Puberty does not a mother qualify or make.

Marriage is not a solution to a problem, any problem.

The track record of the Catholic Church, and specifically the Catholic clergy, with respect to predatory actions, anti-consent, paedophilic, and other vile actions as well as cover-up of such actions is, as is well recorded in historical and jurisprudence records, horrific. More revelations of this nature are coming forth constantly. Actually, it is so prevalent that it is even foreseeable that the Church may become bankrupt from paying out the lawsuits associated with these cover ups and horrific actions, within my own lifetime.

Notwithstanding that Shem, Ham and Jepteth were quite likely fictional characters, within the narrative you espouse, where they repopulate the earth from scratch, they would likely have needed to commit paedophilic acts of incest.

Answered twice

α and β

α

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

Puberty does a mother qualify, as a father, unless it comes unusually early.

Marriage is a solution to more problems than one, and that includes being with child with no husband at home with parents not willing to raise a grand-child.

// The track record of the Catholic Church, and specifically the Catholic clergy, with respect to predatory actions, anti-consent, paedophilic, and other vile actions as well as cover-up of such actions is // fairly restricted to US and France, Netherlands and Germany and to modern times. Thank you.

“as is well recorded in historical and jurisprudence records, horrific.”

What historic records do you refer to? Luthers account of Rome a few decades before Pope St. Pius V made a reform sharpening penalties?

Jurisprudence records of Poland say there is a c. 1000 paedophile offenders’ presence in prisons, and one of them is a priest. One. Not ten, not hundred, not a majority. O N E.

Jurisprudence records for US a few decades make modernity representatives you have no beef with - like sports instructors - a far weightier contribution to the LEGITIMATE worries of Foghorn Leghorn.

“More revelations of this nature are coming forth constantly.”

The actual abuses usually some decade back in time, if I recall correctly.

“Actually, it is so prevalent that it is even foreseeable that the Church may become bankrupt from paying out the lawsuits associated with these cover ups and horrific actions, within my own lifetime.”

As far as I am concerned US Conference of Bishops is not the Catholic Church.

If similar liability criteria were retained, US schools and sports clubs would be out of business already (as said, more actual offenders), but US culture being Protestant tends to be more lenient on those.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

In addition to denying the fact of Catholic atrocities committed and hidden from scrutiny by high ranking individuals throughout the Church, you continue to put out your Talibanesque positions as if it was normal and sane to do so. Very bizarre.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2021

Throughout the Church is false and even more so throughout history.

The positions you call Talibanesque were considered perfectly normal by the 16, 8, 4 and 2 ancestors each of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Nothing bizarre in agreeing with tradition!

Marc Robidoux

26.VIII.2021

Yes, exactly, “ the Church is false“ and the Taliban are enforcing 7th century “traditions” which you call “perfectly normal”. It may be “tradition” to you, but it is Talibanesque to the rest of us civilized folk. I take it you don’t deal with a lot of human females eh? That’s a good thing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

No. The statement “throughout the Church” rather than “throughout US clergy” is false.

I see that it’s not really not seeing comments in context, you are capable of not seeing certain words in the context of their actual sentence.

“the Taliban are enforcing 7th century “traditions” which you call “perfectly normal”.”

The Taliban are enforcing some traditions that I don’t call normal, like pushing marital age down to 8 or at least 9, but some that I do call normal, like allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry.

That did not start in 7th C. Arabian peninsula, it is your 18–18 (or perhaps 16–16) rule that is a recent and limited rather than a universal tradition - as recent or more and as limited as pushing marital age down to 9.

“it is Talibanesque to the rest of us civilized folk.”

It is modernity against the rest of us civilised folks throughout history.

“I take it you don’t deal with a lot of human females eh?”

I take it, you don’t deal a lot with history? That’s a bad thing.

“That’s a good thing.”

You know, there are certain ideologies which deny people, on selective basis, the right to marry … National Socialism was one of them. Did your grandpa come to US after fleeing France in 1944 as a collabo, or sth? Or are they people from South Carolina and Alabama w[h]ere Black Gentlemen were sterilised as late as 70’s (and it began before Hitler)?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

The concept that the problems of the Catholic Church diddling and abusing people (often children) is exclusive to the US - Delusion.

The concept that allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry is ‘normal’ - Delusion , and Talibanesque.

“Did your grandpa come to US after fleeing France in 1944 as a collabo, or sth? Or are they people from South Carolina and Alabama were Black Gentlemen were sterilised as late as 70’s (and it began before Hitler)? “ - The one answer to this entire word salad of questions is: no.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

“exclusive to the US”

I did not say that, but adding France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium won’t make it “throughout the Church”.

“The concept that allowing 12 or 14 year old girls to marry is ‘normal’ - Delusion , and Talibanesque.”

It is a given over the ages. Agreeing with centuries of human experience, though not your own, is not delusion.

“The one answer to this entire word salad of questions is: no.”

Then, why do you make suggestions reminiscent of National Socialist or other Eugenics?

Apart from your being too upset to follow syntax that’s correct apart from misspelling “where” as “were” …

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Given the atrocities perpetuated by the RCC occurred and occur across most of the western world, and in Africa, India, and pretty much everywhere the church has ever been, I think you are seriously under-estimating by limiting it to US, and now adding just France, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium.

So yet more gibberish : “ you make suggestions reminiscent of National Socialist or other Eugenics “, WTF? could you please quote me on those suggestions I make please LOL.

I’m so upset…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

“Given the atrocities perpetuated by the RCC occurred and occur across most of the western world, and in Africa, India, and pretty much everywhere the church has ever been,”

Would you mind telling me how many Catholic priests are in prison in India or in Nigeria over child or adolescent predating crimes?

Or are you pretending that atrocities, real or supposed, justified or not justified, of the Spanish Inquisition reasonably argue Catholic priests were buggering small boys there? They simply weren’t. The problem is modern and restricted to some modern countries, and calling this “delusional” does not absolve you from providing evidence for opposite claims.

Re meme : Biblical literalism does not imply a flat earth and that cosmology is not even the question here.

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Instead of spending your time pursuing maths trying to prove to yourself that it is feasible that the world was repopulated from the few fictional people on an impossible ark after a nonexistent flood, why don’t you do a little research on atrocities committed by the Catholic Church. This is not the exclusive purview of priests buggering little boys. Nuns, and non coms have been involved, from Residential Schools in Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia etc to Mother Teresa house of horror in India

Penn And Teller BS Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa
21st Nov. 2011 | ChristopherHitchslap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCaxHN-cY

and a lot of it covered up by folks like Ratzinger before he became pope, honestly, do your research before suggesting it is a limited problem to long past tense Inquisitions. Victims are living with the fallout of this to this day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

“Nuns, and non coms have been involved, from Residential Schools in Ireland, Canada, USA, Australia”

Takeover from English or US culture of such things.

While it was hideous to agree to run schools where the pupils’ parents had no choice, the idea did not come from Catholic hierarchs, but from Protestants doing policy about Indians.

One can argue, this contributed to the apostasy in and after Vatican II.

“to Mother Teresa house of horror in India”

As I believe Wojtyla was an antipope, I do not believe she was validly canonised.

Again, “part of Vatican II” before it started. It was bad, since a psychiatric ward, arguably no worse than others in India, but inacceptable for a saint to run.

“folks like Ratzinger before he became pope,”

You mean before he didn’t become Pope, since he was already an apostate with antipope Wojtyla since early nineties at the latest. Which is when he and his “Pope” decided to ditch - Fundie Bible exegesis.

“pursuing maths trying to prove to yourself that it is feasible that the world was repopulated from the few fictional people”

The math certainly proves that the fewness was no obstacle as far as present population descending from them is concerned with demographic statistics.

It seems from wiki that you misunderstood how Minimum viable population applies:

Minimum viable population - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population

Your closest to a hit is here:

“Small populations are vulnerable to genetic stochasticity, the random change in allele frequencies over time, also known as genetic drift. Genetic drift can cause alleles to disappear from a population, and this lowers genetic diversity. In small populations, low genetic diversity can increase rates of inbreeding, which can result in inbreeding depression, in which a population made up of genetically similar individuals loses fitness. Inbreeding in a population reduces fitness by causing deleterious recessive alleles to become more common in the population, and also by reducing adaptive potential. The so-called "50/500 rule", where a population needs 50 individuals to prevent inbreeding depression, and 500 individuals to guard against genetic drift at-large, is an oft-used benchmark for an MVP, but recent study suggests that this guideline is not applicable across a wide diversity of taxa.”

Including Pitcairn Islanders:

“In 1790, nine of the mutineers from the Bounty, along with the native Tahitian men and women who were with them (six men, eleven women and a baby girl), settled on Pitcairn Islands and set fire to the Bounty.”

Pitcairn Islanders - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islanders

They are not extinct from bad genetics.

PS, I missed one part:

“do your research before suggesting it is a limited problem to long past tense Inquisitions.”

• 1. I am not saying that present atrocities overall are a less problem than Inquisitions;
• 2. I AM saying even present atrocities are only in some areas concerned with “paedophilia” (indeed some running residential schools may have imagined protecting poor benighted Indians from teen marriages, bc they shared your views)
• 3. and that Inquisitors were NOT paedophiles. Or for that matter involved in atrocities I would qualify as such.

The only of these I have some solidarity with are the Inquisitors. These have a coresponsibility with Bishops and Popes for - agreeing the Bible is true and … - agreeing teen marriages are allowed.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

Oh here I was thinking your were a Roman Catholic, but you’re actually a Talibanesque Traditionalist of some Catholic stripe. My bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

I’ll take that as a compliment … for one thing, the cover ups were done by Canon law decree (which wasn’t one) Crimen sollicitationis by Pope (who wasn’t one) John XXIII:

Crimen sollicitationis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Heh, well, I’ll give you credit for having what seems to be a modicum of a sense of humour, which is quite a higher order thing to have and a strong leg up on your brothers at the Taliban or over at ‘Catholic Apologetics’, the Quora space that fun forgot…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

I have a problem with some of them - they aren’t “Taliban” but Modernist.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

I have a problem with most of them (possibly including you), as they are Talibanesque, and critically, lack any sense of humour. ‘Apologists’ are basically in the business of making excuses for claims they have no evidence for, and the particular bunch here on Quora, led by Pismenny, are a particularly coarse bunch of entrenched right wing fanatics, very much aligned with the Taliban, the main difference being that they worship a different version of imaginary friend. Pismenny shares your specific opinion as expressed in this answer that a young teenager made pregnant by rape should avoid abortion at all costs, seek marriage as a solution to her problem, very much aligned with the Taliban view of women as property to be dealt with as the males see fit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

One little objection here : since the teenager in Catholicism herself is supposed to chose her husband (with approval, but not dictation from parents, usually), there is no claim of the teen age pregnant woman being just property.

I have more in common with Pismenny than with Hough, more with Hough perhaps than with Marsden, even if Marsden is more polite to me.

Hough and Marsden both hold that for instance Young Earth Crationism cannot be part of Catholic dogma.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

One little objection here myself: that Catholicism thinks that a woman, raped, is “supposed to chose her husband “, is totally insensitive to the needs of that woman. If that woman is a young teenager, that expectation is doubly insensitive and also extremely offensive, as young teenagers, male or female, should not be seeking to marry anyone, and shouldn’t be sought out by anyone for marriage. The only place in the western world where this might be considered an acceptable practice is in backwoods of inbred US states, where they claim to follow Ten Commandment type laws (aka Talibanesque) and teach their kids “Intelligent Design” instead of actual Science. Incidentally, these same states are where COVID is re surging because there is a high prevalence of vaccine skepticism there. Coincidence?

Pismenny is a shill who knows a lot about Soviet Russia, but his religious and political leanings are off the chart loopy right wing. Hough is a reasonable interface, knows his religion inside out, and holds pretty close to what I know of the Catholic position, no issue with him. I’ve tangled a bit with Marsden but this may have been because of misunderstanding of intentions, he made some very dubious claims which he later claimed he was only making in jest, so I give him the benefit of the doubt and generally leave him alone. David McCormick is another shill, who pretends to be exploring the edges of theism and taking a ‘scientific’ approach to it all, but he shills for creationist wingnuts and runs a space supposedly geared to theism-atheism contention where he rejects any anti-theistic content, and is very sensitive to criticism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5.IX.2021

"One little objection here myself: that Catholicism thinks that a woman, raped, is “supposed to chose her husband “, is totally insensitive to the needs of that woman."

Any thought someone is supposed to do sth is totally insensitive.

I gave the girl advice, not any threat of despising her should she chose otherwise (within the pro-life options).

I think this is the third occasion on which you more or less deliberately twist what I am saying to sth you can argue easier against.

However, Catholicism thinks that raped women can marry, as did OT Judaism, and also thinks that forgiving the rapist and marrying him (though not if too close a relative) is an option. In this case it is not optional for the rapist or seducer - El Alcalde de Zalamea is a play by Calderón where a seduced girl offers to marry the seducer, and the seducer being a noble declines to marry a non-noble, and the girl's father being mayor and in Spain that also means judge executes his daughter's seducer for refusing the reparation.

The two things girls are supposed to chose between now, as per modern society, namely aborting or offering up for adoption are definitely insensitive, apart from one of them being murder and the other kind of an admission of slavery.

"If that woman is a young teenager, that expectation is doubly insensitive and also extremely offensive, as young teenagers, male or female, should not be seeking to marry anyone"

Simply false.

"and shouldn’t be sought out by anyone for marriage."

Equally simply false.

"The only place in the western world where this might be considered an acceptable practice is in backwoods of inbred US states,"

So much the worse for the Western world, then.

Long live the old days, the Old West, which survives in backwoods ...

"Pismenny is a shill"

I don't think so.

"who knows a lot about Soviet Russia, but his religious and political leanings are off the chart loopy right wing."

In other words, as per his leanings, a sane guy.

"Hough is a reasonable interface, knows his religion inside out, and holds pretty close to what I know of the Catholic position, no issue with him."

Except he thinks it was OK to give Galileo house arrest for life for attitude problems about the private person of the Pope. Marsden thinks it's OK to accept the view that Adam is a metaphor it seems, and certainly that the first real men lived 40 or 90 000 years ago.

"David McCormick is another shill, who pretends to be exploring the edges of theism and taking a ‘scientific’ approach to it all, but he shills for creationist wingnuts and runs a space supposedly geared to theism-atheism contention where he rejects any anti-theistic content, and is very sensitive to criticism."

Shill sounds like you are somewhat - I will not use pseudo-diagnosis paranoid, but over-suspicious.

I ran an MSN site called Antimodernism, and no Atheist had his material rejected, one, a fellow Swede, was actually invited to provide such. I could obviously have commented under it, and would.

I don't know McCormick that much.

Marc Robidoux

5.IX.2021

TL DR, but in a nutshell, you are a right wingnut cut from the same cloth as Pismenny, with the addition of openly pining for the ‘good old days’ when the women were shacked up at home, barefoot, pregnant, and married to the first suitor/rapist to come along. The only daylight they were allowed to see was on their way to church, oh man, how lovely it was back in those days. Thankfully, the rest of the world (except for Taliban, Islamist, and rightwing led ‘Christian’ states like Texas) has moved on. You spew Bullshit at an alarming rate, but of course, you exist in your own little world of delusion, carry on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6.IX.2021

I think the royalties enumerated in one of the posts I linked to would beg to differ from your way of descring their days.

Marc Robidoux

6.IX.2021

Royalties? I think you should be paying me royalties for wasting my time with your silly ideas that anything was better back in those days. The fact of the matter is that the answer you posted to this question is one of the dumbest f*&ing things I read on Quora , and ironically, I read much the same answer to a similar question, from Pismenny sometime earlier, and went ahead and linked that in to the ‘Dumbest F*u*king thing on Quora’ space where it garnered a lot of sensible ‘advice’ for Pismenny. I chose to spare you all that with this particular piece of stupidity, as I think you are beyond any sensible ‘advice’.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

If you authorised the printing and selling of our dialogues, for instance this one, as per your part of the copyright, you could actually get an editor to pay you part of the royalties and me part of it.

The point is, there were royal maidens married as early as 12 in one case and 3 to 5 of them out of 38 in the ancestry (and nearly ancestry, except for widowerhoods)* of Marie Antoinette and of Louis XVI were married at 14. (The two dubious ones would otherwise have been married at 15 - in some cases the mere years say 15, but it’s still 14 if she’s born later in the year than when she married).

It’s not as if they had no choice, in a Catholic society, a girl only had to say (honestly or not) she preferred the monastery to avoid getting married to someone she didn’t like - or if she was honest, even to someone she did like, but less so than loving Christ. One who was both house of Garsenda and ancestral to Bonnie Prince Charlie was married at 26, a Habsburg princess who was finally talked out of her monastic plans for her parents’ dynastic ones.

And getting away from an abusive husband was far from impossible. The wife of Charles Edward was very dissatisfied with him, ultimately (I suppose the jarring contrast between near Messianic hopes up to 1745 and very low expectations after Culloden would have done something to make his character less loveable to a wife).

“Meanwhile, Louise's husband Charles had become a drunkard again, as he had been a number of years before. In December 1780, Louise left Charles and took refuge in a convent. She claimed, and it is widely believed to be true, that Charles had become physically abusive to her. Louise received the support of the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, the pope, and her brother-in-law the Cardinal Duke of York, all of whom were unaware of Louise's ongoing adulterous relationship with Alfieri.”

Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern - Wikipedia

In other words, passing from parents’ property to husband’s property is not a thing in Catholic society, including historically.

*I did ancestry like 2, 4, 8 and 16 ancestors, with earlier wives and husbands to get for each person the age at first marriage.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

I don’t doubt your sincerity of belief, but the fact of the matter remains that the answer you posted to this question is one of the dumbest f*&ing things I read on Quora. Puts you in the same category as Pismenny, that should give you reason to pause…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

Would you like royalties for your contributions?

This is the condition attached to (nearly, except stated exceptions) all of my blogs:

A little note on further use conditions:*

And this is about posts where someone else has a claim on copyright too:

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

I’m not contributing to your blog, you are copying my Quora entries over to your blog. This contributes to highlighting the fact that you have way too much time on your hands. I’ll take that knowledge as satisfaction enough, no need for further compensation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Thank you, but I have too little time on the web, as writing my blogs, with hope of book publication (some of my blogs have only own texts, actually most of them), is my work.

I think people telling other people “you have way too much time on your hands” are jerks.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Heh, well if you have time to write stupidity like this answer, not to mention all the other answers you write for in multiple languages on Quora, and then respond and copy comments and dialogue over to some nebulous blog, you sure seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Call me a “jerk”, I don’t care, I just observe…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

OK … points for self irony granted.

There is however a difference between “a lot” and “too much”. Thanks for changing the vocabulary.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Is it any wonder that you’re sane at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcKBmdfpWs

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

I’m sorry, but if they call themselves Styx, they may be fake prophets. Believe doctrines of demons and such …

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

“within the narrative you espouse, where they repopulate the earth from scratch, they would likely have needed to commit paedophilic acts of incest.”

• they and their wives.
• no paedophilic acts are fertile.
• their wives were not sisters or daughters but married to them before the Flood.
• counting marriages with nieces and with first cousins as incestuous and invalid is an innovation by the Church during the New Testament - I would count that, by now, as “statutory” incest, if you see the reference.
• If you are really, really, really interested in how it would have worked here are some mathematics:
  
  Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People

On a wider scope, it is somewhat mysterious how you, by definition a believer in morality coming to mankind by an evolution, can nevertheless pretend that your criteria on paedophilia and incest are eternal truths.

Or perhaps you actually just imagined that they were in the position Lot’s daughters thought they were in?

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Or perhaps the whole thing with Noah and the ark is totally fictional, and your wild imagination shoehorns your detailed beliefs into the vague fictional narrative. Nice of you to quote yourself again, as you’re clearly. the defined authority for all this fictional bullshit you spray far and wide.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2021

You didn’t bother to check the maths on my in this case actual self reference?

You see, I had done a calculation about what 3 percent annual population growth means, if protracted 1000 years … and we know this population growth does exist locally today ….

It’s not about me being an authority, it’s about math being sth that works - and if I cite a previous calculation instead of making a new one, I like to take credit for my previous work …

Marc Robidoux

26.VIII.2021

Quoting yourself is:

a. bad form

b. quoting your own maths proving something that defies biological requirements and denies geological and biological evidence widely published and peer reviewed is totally pure delusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

I have no patience to wait till someone else does the research I need, so I do it, when no one else does and quote it when needed - bad form or not.

No mathematical requirement flouted, and you haven’t been precise about “biological requirements” (except that mythical beast minimal sustainable population) other than speed of reproduction to answer.

As to “geological and biological evidence” I am not denying any piece of evidence.

“widely published and peer reviewed”

I’m sorry, you seem to be bad at logica as well as history, what’s published and peer reviewed is not pure evidence, it’s conclusions from evidence as well, and those conclusions drawn within a school of thought with a strong collective delusion.

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

I may be bad at “logica” but at least I don’t suffer from the delusion that all that is true comes from the Bible. Not only do you exist in a delusion of biblical literalism, but you also suffer from a delusion of grandeur in thinking you alone can perform the calculations to ‘prove’ it. It is to laugh, but it’s not kind to laugh at the deluded, so I refrain.

In some cases, a picture is worth more than words, this is such an occasion:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

"I don’t suffer from the delusion that all that is true comes from the Bible."

Neither do I. If you were a bit better at logic, you would know that "everything that comes from the Bible is true" (which I believe) does not convert to that.

"Not only do you exist in a delusion of biblical literalism,"

Tradition of millennia, hardly something you can put down as a delusion.

"but you also suffer from a delusion of grandeur in thinking you alone can perform the calculations to ‘prove’ it."

I never said I alone can, I said, I happened to do that on this occasion. Do you see even some fine shade of nuance between the two positions ...?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

The Bible is a collection of (often badly written) fictions interspersed with some historical facts sprinkled in, written by mostly anonymous writers over thousands of years and cobbled together by other individuals centuries later. To consider any of it as factual evidence of anything at all is pure delusion, and the fact that people considered it to be factual over millennia does not make it any more factual, and doesn’t diminish the delusion in the slightest. Carry on in your delusion though.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

“The Bible is a collection of (often badly written) fictions”

Your Atheistic and Materialistic and therefore Antimiraculous Bias forces you to this conclusion.

Should I call it your delusion for that?

No, just a bad conclusion. There are two possible good ones :

• it is accurate history
• it is inaccurate history

“To consider any of it as factual evidence of anything at all”

is what you do with even inaccurate history. But with more caution.

“the fact that people considered it to be factual over millennia does not make it any more factual,”

It often happens that books previously considered as factual come to be regarded as either inaccurate or as fictional. B U T where do you observe the reverse process? Who is taking Superman or Spiderman, Pevensies or Bagginses, as real people? Note, making a fan fic about Susan Pevensie doesn’t mean I take her as a real person.

In other words, yes, the fact that people over millennia took it as factual argues it is non-fiction. As to accuracy, that’s another question, but non-fictionality is argued from having been from start or earliest observed readership or hearers taken to be such. And yes, I consider the Iliad and the Odyssey as non-fiction too, though the parts assigned to gods are more or less erroneous (best rendering - Apollon, a real demon from Hell and Homer is close to realising it).

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

Popularity of an idea says nothing of it’s factual veracity. Whatever all that other stuff you spout says, this is simply the issue with the Bible. That people do or have believed it to be factual does nothing to make it factual.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

My argument was not from popularity, but from perceived impossibility that a knowledge of x being fiction shifts to a perception of x as true or false account of factual history.

You do agree that there is a difference between factually false and fiction?

On Katyn, there is the account that Germans did it and the account that Russians did it. Both can’t be true, but the one that is false is a lie, not a fiction. It’s not on the level of Indiana Jones fighting Nazis about the Lost Ark, OK …

We are not dealing with the probability of some having the wrong view of Katyn, we are dealing with the much wilder one of some taking Indiana Jones as a historical figure.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

The facts of the Katyn incident are much narrower in scope than so-called Biblical history, surely you agree to that? The simple fact that the Bible was written over many centuries, and by many different largely anonymous authors (by definition, not knowing who = anonymous, and means we don’t know why they wrote what they did nor what their biases were), makes all of it questionable. Given there is contrary evidence to many of the claims in the Bible and many contradictions contained within its covers, brings the entire thing into question. Given the Bible as it currently exists includes texts that were selected by (possibly deluded, possibly malicious, possibly uninformed, definitely fallible and biased humans) over other similar texts they rejected from inclusion, and many of it’s claims have been shown to be false, you simply can not rule out that the whole thing is a lie, and it is most certainly not literally true in any shape or form. Just because many people have studied it and come to their own conclusions about it does not make it any more literally true. It certainly could be a collection of lies, or a collection of lies, fictional accounts and interspersed historical facts cobbled together by ancient people seeking answers to questions they could not resolve by other means, but that doesn’t make it historically accurate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

I was not here and now arguing historical accuracy. Katyn was given as an example that a historical account doesn’t become fictional because it is inaccurate.

You have argued several different possibilities of error or deliberate lies, and I’d prefer to take that about narrower scopes.

You have not argued that any part started out as fiction (like no one is taking Indiana Jones films as historical accounts, even wrong ones).

Once we get rid of a generalised red herring “fiction!!!” one can more fruitfully discuss over each issue whether the history is accurate or inaccurate.

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Oh well, that was an inadvertent omission on my part, of course many parts of the Bible may well have been written as pure fiction I should have explicitly stated that, sorry. So basically the Bible is a collection of possible lies, possible fictional writings, interspersed with some historical facts and a lot of speculation, written over centuries by innumerable anonymous authors, and because of all this, none of it can be taken on face value as historical fact.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

Look here, any historical document in very pure theory could have been written as pure fiction, but there is a difficulty in transition from acceptance of a work as fiction and late acceptance of same work as history.

Also, any historical document in very pure theory could be a pure lie, but that is a thing that should be argued case by case - who had an opportunity and a motive, who was not likely to get contradicted and so on.

On the face of it, it is a historical document. Arguing any of it other should be done case by case with arguments specific to the case, not as an allegation with prior high probabilities. I go beyond that and think it is free from inadvertent errors and from lies too, but presenting it as mainly lies or fictions with a few historic facts interspersed and arguing no specific point is just slander.

The books are not innumerable, neither are the often unitary authors. The works that have multiple authors but also a final author are such that cumulate events over centuries - Genesis, Judges, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomena or Chronicles.

A pseudographic book is not the same as an anonymous book, and arguing traditionally attributed authors (including for cumulative works, Moses as final one for Genesis, Samuel and Nathan for first two books of Kings, probably Ezra for Chronicles, I don’t know who for third and fourth kings) are not the real ones is a thing to be proven, not assumed, as is also original fictionality for a work traditionally taken as historic.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

Well, look here now: The Bible contains several cases of “case by case” incongruity with history. Attribution of texts to characters in a story does not identify the author, much less when these characters can not be confirmed to have even existed. Authorship by the Prophets or the Evangelists is therefore anonymous, as we can not positively identify the authors as historical figures. The Exodus, the Biblical Flood, the Resurrection, etc etc., there are tons of “case by case” things in the Bible that are demonstrably false. By this measure, the entire thing can be dismissed as containing very little by way of any facts if any at all. Why these incongruities exist in the Bible, whether they came there by prose, fictional accounts written with an agenda, plagiarism from other sources, outright lies, or whatever, the fact remains that it does not contain sufficient factual content to warrant placing on a pedestal with other historical material and primary sources such as those from ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. Whatever your beliefs are about the Bible and ‘Divine inspiration’ for it is totally irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

"The Bible contains several cases of “case by case” incongruity with history."

Several is not one specific such.

"Attribution of texts to characters in a story does not identify the author, much less when these characters can not be confirmed to have even existed."

There are several characters of secular history for which only known act is writing a text.

"Authorship by the Prophets or the Evangelists is therefore anonymous, as we can not positively identify the authors as historical figures."

The tradition from when texts were written identifies them, and tradition IS the standard identifier of an author, and also obviously as said of fictional vs historiographic intent.

"The Exodus, the Biblical Flood, the Resurrection, etc etc., there are tons of “case by case” things in the Bible that are demonstrably false."

Tons of isn't one of them and the examples given show more of an antimiraculous bias than an actual argument.

"By this measure, the entire thing can be dismissed as containing very little by way of any facts if any at all."

Problem is, this measure is a very poor one when dealing with any historical documents from that long time ago.

"Why these incongruities exist in the Bible,"

You haven't shown even one incongruity to actually exist, so far. Plus, historiography without divine inspiration usually contains incongruities, therefore this would only be an argument against divine inspiration which I was here not arguing, not against historiography rather than fiction as genre assignment.

"fictional accounts written with an agenda," / "outright lies,"

That would not be "fiction" but "fake history" as one of the two accounts of Katyn is.

"plagiarism from other sources,"

Any historiographer would be a plagiarist, if judged by standards of literary property. There is no point in the charge.

"it does not contain sufficient factual content to warrant placing on a pedestal with other historical material and primary sources such as those from ancient Egypt and ancient Greece."

It is way richer in factual content than primary sources from Ancient Egypt, at least before New Kingdom.

As to Greece, the books closer to contact with Greeks tend to have a Greek ambition about biographical or other historiographical matters.

"on a pedestal with" is not a question of "history vs fiction" but of "how good history".

“Whatever your beliefs are about the Bible and ‘Divine inspiration’ for it is totally irrelevant.”

I actually agree. Completely. Even without divine inspiration, it would still be the genre of historiography.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

You call it “histioriography”, I call it non-history, whatever…

If you bothered to point to a single fact revealed in the Bible instead of asking me to explicitly point to all the flat out bullshit contained in the Bible, maybe I’d give more credibility to your long winded arguments.

You’re damn right, I have a “antimiraculous bias“, I also have a ‘delusion’ of realism, and this is simply because miracles are a total figment of your imagination, there is no evidence for any miracle or any supernatural event occurring at any time, past or present.

There may well be several characters of secular history for which only known act is writing a text, but we don’t take any of those writings as evidence of supernatural events.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

"If you bothered to point to a single fact revealed in the Bible instead of asking me to explicitly point to all the flat out bullshit contained in the Bible"

If you want to argue the Bible is BS, you show one point where you think it is BS.

I don't need to have a point that's true for it to be historiography. It's just that historiography is at first face value evidence for the historic facts in it. Each historic fact needs to be disputed or the source needs to be shown unreliable. Very unlike fiction, where no amount of realism and coherence will be even prima facie evidence that Peter Parker is The Spiderman and works on Daily Bugle.

And BS does still not mean fiction.

But if you truly want me to pick a point, well, Genesis 6 to 9 tells us what happened to Neanderthals and Denisovans for one. And Genesis 11 why just c. 1000 years after the Flood, Abraham could be confroted with languages as radically different as, not Danish from Icelandic (a realistic example of 1000 years' language divergence), but Old Egyptian from Sumerian.

"You’re damn right, I have a “antimiraculous bias“, I also have a ‘delusion’ of realism, and this is simply because miracles are a total figment of your imagination, there is no evidence for any miracle or any supernatural event occurring at any time, past or present."

There is plenty of evidence for miracles and omens in pre-modern historiography. ALL religions. Tacitus' overview of omens in the time of Nero comes after Cicero's atheism. Pretending "there is no evidence" is simply a bias shutting you off from actually checking the evidence.

Pretending miracle > BS > fiction > no source for any historic claims is a circular argument for pretending miracle > BS.

"but we don’t take any of those writings as evidence of supernatural events."

You don't, I very well may. I do take the writing of Sophocles as evidence that Laios, Iocaste and their son Oedipus were trapped into abhominable evils by the demon Apollo issuing a self fulfilling prophecy. And if you think Greek tragedy was meant to be fiction, think again. It was meant to involve fictional scenes and fictional dialogues, but to enhance the historic realities. Cf Persae. It was Greek comedy that was by genre limited to fiction.

I suppose you would count the demonic as supernatural, right?

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Very long string of ‘stuff’ supporting your “kook”dom here, but on your single point: “There is plenty of evidence for miracles and omens in pre-modern historiography. “ - This is categorically false. There is speculation, postulation, theorizing, obfuscation, extrapolation, expectoration, surmising, etc for miracles and omens in pre/current/post modern historiography recounted in all sorts of religious books and documents and in the minds of apologists all over the place, but there is 0 EVIDENCE of any miracle anywhere. EVIDENCE is the data and or facts that support a claim. If you claim there is a miracle, EVIDENCE would be data or facts supporting that claim, and would offer a repeatable methodology to obtain similar data given sufficient expertise and or expense, and these facts and data supporting your claim would be acceptable evidence to those who may not share your opinions or beliefs (Beliefs are things you hold without evidence). The claim that there was a miracle at Fatima for example, is not supported by any evidence. The claims of apologists around this “miracle”, is something like that thousands of people experienced a shared observation of a “dancing sun”, but there is no corroborating evidence of this anywhere. And in any case, even if those thousands of people experienced a concurrent vision of a dancing sun, that in no way provides any evidence for a god or that this god somehow made the Sun appear to be dancing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Evidence of historic facts are historiography as close to facts as possible.

In pre-modern historiography miracles and omens are often presented as precisely facts, with no more or no less doubts about factuality then other events.

Read Tacitus’ Annals, book VI, for death of Agrippina accompanied by omens. Speculation? That’s not how he tells it.

The actual historiography that does speculate is the modern one, where a historian will take facts from one pre-modern historian time after time, and then for exactly one category of facts, namely miracles and omens, will speculate with reservations like “is supposed to”.

But your comment is one I’d expect from someone whose reading of history, including Medieval and Ancient, is limited to MODERN historiography.

EDIT : I read on and found this:

“and would offer a repeatable methodology to obtain similar data given sufficient expertise and or expense”

I am sorry, you arguably don’t read history at all, since you have no idea even that historic facts are not repeatable and therefore cannot be tested in labs.

However, what is very repeatable is, if you pass from a modern historiographer to the sources he gives (most of them) they will be earlier historiographers that do give miracles and omens.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

So sorry I don’t live up to your learned status. It remains that there is NO evidence of any miracles, not contained in any historical (verifiable and non-verifiable) facts, at all. Sorry to break it to your learned self…

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

I’m not self learned here, it was at university I read Tacitus and Greek tragedy, as well as Virgil … it was at university I read about biographical details on St. Bridget and it was an atheist professor (of Latin) who claimed that while she was (on his view) schizophrenic, it was eery how her prophecies always came true.

You are half learned, and your half of learning in history remains within the part where modern historiography is, after Hume, self learned.

Marc Robidoux

9.IX.2021

I may be half learned, but the half I learned taught me what evidence is. The “historiography “ half I apparently didn’t learn is not evidence. Attack away ad hominem, you simply have no evidence and you gish gallop bullshit, all well to continue doing a fine job of getting yourself “stamped as a kook” all by yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

You did not learn where historic evidence is got from.

And since you are unfamiliar with the word “historiography” you seem to don’t know the difference between “the actual history” (the facts, independent of whether reports reached us) and “historiography” (the way in which someone decides in his writing what reports shall reach us).

Even more, your criteria for how to determine whether a miracle is a historic fact have nothing to do with historic methodology.

It’s a perfect method for determining what no one has suggested, namely whether miracles should be accepted as another therapy or drug authorised by the national drug authority, it’s a medical procedure of criteria, but it is highly inadequate and even ludicrous if the question is about determining historic fact.

Marc Robidoux

9.IX.2021

LOL, this is very funny, I love how you persist in claiming miracles are a real thing, and how historical facts somehow support your view. THis is all part of your persistence in demonstrating your own “kook”dom I guess, but carry on, I’m entertained.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.IX.2021

In other words, you prefer ridicule over actually entering on the arguments …

Yes he knows

that I am mirroring the debate on the blog, see this exchange, starting with a link to here:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

“You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread.”

Want to revise?

To Some, Fighting "Paedophilia" As Such Primes All Other Decencies
[link to this post]

Marc Robidoux

24.VIII.2021

St. Bartholomew's Day

No revision necessary, here you go quoting yourself, that says all there is to say on this matter.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

I am actually quoting us, and the post format is more overseeable than the visible parts of the quora comments.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Quoting yourself from another platform doesn’t make your arguments any clearer or easier to understand. It’s all Talibanesque bullshit, here and there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25.VIII.2021

No, I am mirroring THIS debate between US TWO on a platform where you don’t see just two comments above and below the one you clicked for.

Marc Robidoux

25.VIII.2021

Whether you post it here, or mirror it there and quote it back here, it’s still unbridled Talibanesque nonsensical bullshit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

Ah, you understand that much, in other words, you only pretended not to understand …

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Nope, I never pretended not to understand, I thought I made that clear by saying ‘ You make less and less sense as we go deeper into this thread ‘ . Your gibberish makes no sense, and it gets worse as we go along.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27.VIII.2021

Your temper tempts you to items like pretending I believe “everything true comes from the Bible” or “I alone can prove it” - neither of which are positions I have. Perhaps calming down a bit might be an idea?

Marc Robidoux

27.VIII.2021

Your idea that I am at all agitated is another of your delusions. Your gibberish makes no sense, and it gets worse (now you accuse me of being agitated? WTF?) as we go along.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

30.VIII.2021

It may be a wrong conclusion, a better one might be you are trying to get me stamped as a kook. Or simply that you are not used to certain arguments and bewildered.

Actually, not really, you were attributing megalomania to me in a very dishonest (if calm) manner.

Marc Robidoux

30.VIII.2021

LOL, I think you’re doing a fine job of getting yourself “stamped as a kook” all by yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

31.VIII.2021

Ha ha, but I was not the one who claimed I was uniquely or believed myself to be uniquely gifted for calculating the real possibilities of population increase since the Flood - CMI actually also has a model, but I disagree with their version of Biblical chronology (Babel 101 years after Flood or soon after, very late limit 340 after Flood) and therefore didn’t find their calculation so useful - even if it was made with more skills put into it.

Marc Robidoux

31.VIII.2021

Heh, well, you are inadvertently touching on what it is that helps you stamp yourself “as a kook” here again. Let’s just say, me suggesting you think of yourself as the only one capable of these calculations is pretty far down the list of the corroborating elements to your “kook”dom, LOL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1.IX.2021

Well, I very clearly DON’T think of myself as the only one, I just this morning vindicated CMI* who would with 6 % annual population increase get over 2000 by the birth of Peleg (in their chronology) and 800 000 plus when he was a mere 100 years old.

No, if that’s what you were hinting at, believing this story certainly doesn’t a kook qualify either!

* Vindicated them on that point. Not all others. But actually, when there are few actors in a certain market, which there is in creation science publications, being best at some point is not all that extraordinary.

Marc Robidoux

1.IX.2021

OK, you’ve convinced me, you’re not stamping yourself “as a kook” at all, I was just missing the piece about “ vindicated CMI* who would with 6 % annual population increase get over 2000 by the birth of Peleg “ that was missing from my previous understanding… Your calculations are clearly 100% correct, so it must be all 100% true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2.IX.2021

I wasn’t arguing truth, I was arguing possibility or feasibility which you had denied.

Marc Robidoux

2.IX.2021

Oh let me correct: Your calculations are clearly 100% FEASIBLE, so it must be all 100% true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

A g a i n - no.

My calculations are C O R R E C T, so the story is F E A S I B L E.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Even if your calculations are uber-correct, this in no way affects the paradigm of garbage in = garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7.IX.2021

You did not content yourself with “garbage” you pretended “unfeasible” => argument about calculable feasibility. An argument which I met.

Marc Robidoux

7.IX.2021

Pedantic garbage in = garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

It’s still pedantic.

Marc Robidoux

8.IX.2021

Nativity of Our Lady

Yes, you are still being pedantic, with your garbage in, which you process through your 100% feasible maths, and it still results in garbage out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

9.IX.2021

The maths is not 100 % feasible, it is very close to that percentage correct. It means the story is on one item you attacked feasible.