Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I Failed J P Holding's Test - But Let's Look at his Criteria · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Notification to Mike Licona (not answered)

Me to Mike Licona
via contact form on his site
risenjesus.com
18:53 Paris time, St Matthias' Day
24.II.2017
I heard through the Geisler/Holding dispute of your dispute with Geisler.
I seriously think you are both wrong, he in his "text only" approach to meaning, and you in not taking literal inerrancy of a historical text, on pretence that author's intent were* sth other than a historical text.

Here are some links in literal inerrancy:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/quorans-on-conflict-between-pope-and.html


Creation vs. Evolution : Can a Medical Doctor or a Catholic Religious or Cleric Reconcile Creationism with "Science"?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/can-medical-doctor-or-catholic.html


AND my mirror of a debate on JPHoldings "secret" forum on theologyweb:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : With jpholding/tektontv on Inerrancy
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/02/with-jpholdingtektontv-on-inerrancy.html


This is where you get mentioned.

Seriously if you know Latin feel free to point out something I missed, but as I read the Church Fathers on the OT prophets and just rising on Good Friday, their concern was NOT "was it a historic or an apocalyptic text", it was "did they rise for good, as the rest of us will on Doomsday, or did they die again like Lazarus or the daughter of Jairus?" and arguing for the former "was it really on Good Friday they rose or was it actually on Easter Sunday?"

No single one of them, as far as my Latin could reach, argued for "Matthew did not intend this as history". Not a single one of them.

What got you to feel diffident about straight historical literally inerrant text in the first place?

Feel warned in advance : any answer to this mail will be published with perhaps ensuing correspondence on a blog of mine.

_____________________

* Grammarly - installed on computers of Nanterre University Library - underlined "were" in red, saying "incorrect verb form with singular subject". Seems difficult to make a machine understand the difference between a plural "were" and a subjunctive "were". Can it even get "as it were" correct? Yes, that phrase was presumably programmed as an exception.

Update
5.IV.2017
Answers?
So for there haven't been any. Perhaps Mike Licona is a bit afraid of having his answers on my blog - but I would not stop him of mirroring the debate of course!

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

With Alan Whistler / Alan the Atheist on AronRa's Video


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 1) On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson · Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) With Alan Whistler / Alan the Atheist on AronRa's Video

Thursday or earlier
Me to Alan Whistler
Good evening, Alan Whistler!

I was looking for a sponsor of a video by AronRa.

[Alan Whitsler was a name among several others, but that he knew.]

There are two other Alan Whistlers but I think you are the guy, right?

Here is my refutation of said video:

On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2017/01/on-flood-with-aronra-referring-to.html


FB announces
Alan Whistler a accepté votre demande.

Alan Whistler to me
What shows this to be true //Meaning, Oceans before the Flood were more shallow and mountains before the Flood were less high. // Why would we consider it?

Me to Alan Whistler
Because if so, one problem of water volume is solved.

Also, because AronRa's refutation by text of Genesis would only work against a claim the earth had been nearly totally smooth, but not against its having mountains that were high for back then but considerably lower than later ones.

Alan Whistler to me
How can it be tested or falsified? It is a baseless assertion.

Me to Alan Whistler
If it had been false, the Flood could not have happened. Since we have tradition (and not just the Hebrew one) in favour of Flood, and since he pointed out that with present heights (or even as high as present height of Mt Ararat, greater or lesser) the Flood wouldn't work, well, there you got it. Mountains need to have been lower back then and Oceans shallower.

Alan Whistler to me
A tradition does not mean it happened. In ancient times people.thought the world was their little part of land. A flood appeared to be global to them. They need to be for an apologist. But were they?

Me to Alan Whistler
"A tradition does not mean it happened."

Usually traditions mean that.

"In ancient times people.thought the world was their little part of land. A flood appeared to be global to them."

Would have worked if Flood hadn't covered highest mountains too.

"They need to be for an apologist. But were they?"

Traditions need to be exaggerated for atheists - but were they?

Alan Whistler to me
Usually doesn't cut it I am afraid. We can dismiss that. As there is no evidence for much lower mountains and shallow seas we can dismiss that too.

Are you quite new to delivering refutation?

Me to Alan Whistler
"Usually doesn't cut it I am afraid."

Tradition usually does.

"We can dismiss that."

Or not.

"As there is no evidence for much lower mountains and shallow seas we can dismiss that too."

No evidence is actually not equal to evidence for not so, and that is what AronRa's argument needs.

"Are you quite new to delivering refutation?"

To refuting, no. To delivering it to sponsors, yes, since it is the first time I saw sponsors for a work I refuted.

[To refuting no : on internet I have been doing this for 15, soon 16 years.]

Alan Whistler to me
Because tradition usually.does does not.mean it did that time. So.no, not a refutation

As for lakes and mountains. There is no evidence so it need not be considered. It is a baseless assertion. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens Razor.

I am.in the first section and you are not refuting anything by making baseless assertions and saying "usually".

[I later realised that "I am in the first section" referred to his reading of it, but you will see my misunderstanding him as if he had meant as someone uttering sth in it.

Seriously, he should have listened to AronRa's video once again, to know exactly what I was up to refuting, and then read all of my refutation before starting to argue about any point.]

Me to Alan Whistler
"Because tradition usually.does does not.mean it did that time. So.no, not a refutation"

I am afraid, you are not aware what is the basis of history. If you think it is archaeology, think again. Archaeology can't prove which side won at Waterloo.

If you think it is "primary sources", they are usually identified as such because of ... yes, you have got it : tradition.

"As for lakes and mountains. There is no evidence so it need not be considered."

The Flood being evidenced by tradition, as well as by palaeontology and a few other things, possibly, too, but tradition and palaeontology is what I master best, IS evidence for the conditions being such that the Flood could happen. And, if the Flood could NOT happen without lower mountains and shallower seas, well, lower mountains and shallower seas we have got. Even though the evidence be somewhat indirect.

"It is a baseless assertion."

With above no.

"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens Razor."

With above there is no baseless assertion, "Hitchens Razor" does not apply.

+ if Hitchens Razor was meant to apply to alternative explanations and auxiliary hypotheses, it can't be used to consider the latter as impossible or a refutation as water tight.

"I am.in the first section and you are not refuting anything by making baseless assertions and saying "usually"."

I am not sure what you mean by "first section" - do you mean of the video? I mostly saw AronRa talking all the way through.

[And in the first section AronRa was talking, Alan Whistler wasn't. See my misunderstanding above.]

I made no baseless assertions, and when I say usually, it usually means it usually is like what I say.

Friday

Alan Whistler to me
I never mentioned archeology, do not begin to assume please. No tradition is not evidence. Do you know what the historical.method of verification is? If not please Google it and apply it to traditions.

What is to say one culture had a flood and believed it to be global and this mistaken myth propagated and was in turn adopted by other cultures as their own. There is another means by which this tradition could be in other cultures.

You did make a baseless assertion, that mountains were much smaller and seas shallow. Unless you can present evidence to show this is the case then it need not be entertained. The lack of supporting evidence is what makes your assertion baseless. Are you sure you are not new to this?

By first section I meant the early part if your blog. A few lines in.

And a hypothesis must be testable. Explain how you will test your mountain/sea model. How would you show it to be true?

[I still misunderstood his being in first section as his being uttering sth in it, not as his reading it.]

Saturday

Me to Alan Whistler
"I never mentioned archeology, do not begin to assume please."

I made an enumeration of different possibilities.

"No tradition is not evidence."

Indeed it is.

"Do you know what the historical.method of verification is?"

Checking with contemporary documents - if available. Checking with primary sources. Checking with several independent sources.

If Genesis is what it purports to be, the chapters on the Flood are a primary source.

The several traditions are independent sources. I'll skip forward here a bit to where you say:

"What is to say one culture had a flood and believed it to be global and this mistaken myth propagated and was in turn adopted by other cultures as their own."

I defy you to make a realistic scenario for this.

For one thing, the Peruvian Flood legend (with Inca style siblings as Mr and Mrs Noah, with Andes for the Ark) would require some explanation on how this belief spread across the Atlantic or Pacific.

And the most obvious problems are these:

  • a) anyone mistaking a non-global flood for a global one, covering the highest mountains;
  • b) any culture surviving only in an Ark and considering itself as all survivors of mankind would be small in numbers - how did it persuade nearest neighbouring culture that they descended from the Ark when their own memories involved they didn't?
  • c) speaking of Ark, how about a non-miraculous account of why it was built to begin with?


"There is another means by which this tradition could be in other cultures."

Presumed, but not persuasively by you.

"You did make a baseless assertion, that mountains were much smaller and seas shallow. Unless you can present evidence to show this is the case then it need not be entertained."

You have two problems:

  • a) Reading comprehension : I mentioned that the evidence is the Flood having occurred. + Your own calculation it couldn't have if Mount Everst at present height were the highest mountain already and if Mariana Trench were already the deepest depth;
  • b) Logic : AronRa set out to proove the Flood COULD NOT have happened. For this to be a valid conclusion, flatter mountains and shallower seas need to be positively excluded, not just negatively dismissed as unsupported.


And this means YOUR side is in the situation of "positive claims require positive evidence" on this one.

To be fair to Aron, he tried to provide that, twice over:

  • 1) by saying it contradicts the Bible, which mentioned "the highest mountains";
  • 2) by saying it contradicts the existence of the Mountains of Ararat, also in the Bible.


In my comments and also blog post, I solved both, so it's your turn, but first a little repeat of my solutions;

  • 1) "the highest mountains" of the text were so by pre-Flood standards, not necessarily identic with post-Flood comparisons + they can't have been as pointed peaks as Mount Everest, in order for the measuring of 15 cubits above them to take place;
  • 2) Ararat (at least the relevant of the two peaks) rose twice over, first during Flood by eruption (after the measure of fifteen cubits above previously highest mountains), then after the Flood by tectonic movement.


To be fair to Aron, he tries to disprove this too. He is better on logic than you seem to be, unless it's simply you were slow after the pints or impatient to get to them yesterday when you wrote previous.

His disproof is that if there had been an eruption during Flood (sth which has at least some supporting evidence in the fact that Ararat features evidence of under water eruptions!) it would have been too hot to land on. And he relies a bit on interrupting Eric Hovind before he can respond to that.

On 14 november 1963, Surtsey* broke surface. On 6 december 1963 French journalists for Paris Match stayed 15 minutes on the island. They didn't leave because it was too hot, but because another erupotion was starting and they were going out of the way. Lava cools fairly quickly if there is lots of seawater to cool it. During the Flood that would not have been a major issue. So, Ararat would have had time to erupt under water, cool down, get uncovered between when Noah or his boys measured fifteen cubits over the so far highest mountains and when they landed on an Ararat which was higher than any previous mountain.

Next part of my scnario is that Ararat rose in the time after that. I am here comparing to Anak Krakatau.** This is not quite comparable, insofar as Ararat was on land, while Anak Krakatau is in the sea. But there is a common causality, namely magma pressure from inside earth. Here is the effect: "Anak Krakatau has grown at an average rate of five inches (13 cm) per week since the 1950s. This equates to an average growth of 6.8 meters per year. The island is still active, with its most recent eruptive episode having begun in 1994. Quiet periods of a few days have alternated with almost continuous Strombolian eruptions since then."

I'll spare you the obvious and obviously reversible thing about how many meters 6.8 per year would make in 4974 years, you just reply that obviously Ararat hasn't been growing that fast the last 3000 years. Quite so, but it could have been growing very much faster in the first two thousand years after the Flood.

So, BOTH attempts by AronRa to disprove the possibility of radically lower mountains or radically shallower seas up to Flood fail. That would be one reason why you resort to calling them "baseless assertions", because he failed to call them "impossible" as he tried to.

"By first section I meant the early part if your blog. A few lines in."

You mean you were the one speaking at 3:03 of video? I missed that.

[This was a misunderstanding on my part, and he meant he was reading, not uttering.]

"And a hypothesis must be testable."

A historic hypothesis must be testable in principle, but not in identic fact. For your hypothesis of a local flood mistaken for global by one culture, then spreading to others you have some misunderstandings on part of men which you have not even provided a principled parallel for. I have provided parallels in principle for the Ararat part of my case.

"Explain how you will test your mountain/sea model."

I think creation SCIENTISTS (I am a creationist and a science critic, not per se a scientist) have already tested implications about wrinkling of the crust while mud was still malleable. I leave that part to ICR, CMI et al.

"How would you show it to be true?"

It fits the fact known from tradition, both sacred one and profane ones. + It has not been shown false or impossible.

Notes:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#Anak_Krakatau

Me to Alan Whistler (again)
"By first section I meant the early part if your blog. A few lines in."

[Here were the consequences of my misunderstanding just before I corrected it. I was here also hoping he used "blog" correctly as all of the posts, while he was using it as "blog post".]

Wait, you don't mean you are Tolland on the top post of the blog?

Here is the post I sent you:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/01/on-flood-with-aronra-referring-to.html


Here is the blog:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/


Here is the top post:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Where Tolland Proves Himself a Jerk
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2017/01/where-tolland-proves-himself-jerk.html


You aren't claiming to be Tolland, are you?

[No, he wasn't, it was my misunderstanding, where he was really claiming to be reading a few lines in.]

Alan Whistler to me
Paste a screen shot of where I claimed that.

What I meant was I am a few lines in and you are refuting nothing.

Apply the historical method of verification to your tradition and see how it fairs. You really are wasting my time.

[The words "and you are refuting nothing" indicated he meant in his reading, not in any utterance!]

Me to Alan Whistler
Ah, wait ... you are only a fews lines in on the reading?

I have applied the historical method of verification to my satisfaction, thank you.

Excluding of course all Humean bias.

[Not "human", but Humean - bias in the direction of a certain Hume]

AND excluding the idea that tradition by itself confirms nothing, since ALL historic confirmation, with very little exception for archaeology depends on tradition.

Monday

Alan Whistler to me
  • OK how did tradition fair on source criticism? What is the source and how was it verified?
  • When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
  • Where was it produced (localization)?
  • By whom was it produced (authorship)?
  • From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
  • In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
  • What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?


Core principles for determining reliability Edit

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[4]

Citation
Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

Alan Whistler to me (contd)
Why didn't aboriginal Australians notice a flood? Could it be explained that the floods were local and ancients believed their little area to be the entire world? Could civilisations have adopted the Flood maths of others?

Tradition does not prove a flood.

Should we accept the oral traditions of vikings as evidence for Thor and Odin?

Me to Alan Whistler
Thank you immensely for the feedback. I hope I will not have left out any point, when you are through:

"What is the source and how was it verified?"

Diverse for diverse traditions.

"When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?"

Genesis latest written by Moses around 1510 BC, 8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam.

To define : overlapping generations means I am counting Adam as overlapping generation to Methusalem, according to Haydock (who makes it 8 overlapping generations), while the spacing would be a little scarcer, perhaps 12 generations, with LXX chronology.

Its parts could have been transmitted in writing or not. With so few overlapping generations (plus all generations between them usually overlapping with both to some degree) the room for twisting is small.

"Where was it produced (localization)?"

The Genesis one-full-book written account as produced around 1510 BC, which is 1447 after the Flood.

"By whom was it produced (authorship)?"

By Moses.

"From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?"

From the Hebrew tradition available to Moses. Possibly, but not necessarily including pre-existing but not canonic books like Jasher (which I suppose was a work in progress now lost, or perhaps in final version identic to Chronicles, hardly to the non-canonic Jasher), Jubilees, Henoch.

"In what original form was it produced (integrity)?"

First Genesis chapters were written down or memorised (for chapters 1 - 7 each is as long as 2.5*Nicene Creed, which is a text even non-specialists know how to memorise if instructed), then they were collected by Moses into a single book.

"What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?"

Two items give it higher such than any rivals (most of which include Flood accounts too): a complete genealogy with very humdrum detail, and where long lives of men extend only to ten times normal, not to 100 times normal as among Sumerian and Egyptian kings. Of course, one could rationalise a "reign" of 40,000 years by saying after someone who did some ruling died, his laws and rulings were sufficient for 39,900 or so years till the next ruler was required, but that makes these accounts incomplete instead of unbelievable.

Greek and Norse versions instead tend to have too short a time between Flood and known history, Norse tacking Flood/Creation onto not too long before Odin came to Uppsala region, Greeks obviously blacking out the existence of Hittite Empire. Probably (I am biassed by Daqrk Lord's of Hattusha) because Greek nobility going back via Achaean, Ionic or Trojan to Hittite nobility (or Ionians might have been an enclave, like Phenicians in Thebes), had a gentleman's agreement not to speak about the world empire which failed due to civil war.

AND, item two, realistic detail about the Ark. Triply so:

  • 1) The Babylonian myth extra large coracle would not have been seaworthy.
  • 2) Noah's Ark would have been, as has been tested, and it would have had room for the diverse types of land animals (even if not each species according to modern terminology) and
  • 3) it mentions a detail which points to highest mountains having been flatter before, even if that detail was not so interpreted along the times until recently, after you Atheists had brought up the logistics of water volume. If Noah or his sons could measure that water was 15 cubits above highest (previous to Flood) mountain, that means Ark went to its peak - or was built on it, which would have been safer. And the highest mountain peaks today are too pointed and narrow to build an Ark that size on. Therefore, these didn't yet exist.


Source criticism:

"Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives."

Perhaps more credible, but also less informative. This means, either we leave out the story line of history, or we take narratives. And plenty of them.

"Any given source may be forged or corrupted."

Yes, but less likely that a corrupted detail is independently corrupted same way in several sources (the above mentions best one = Hebrew + above mentioned rivals, Greek and Babylonian which feature Flood clearly after creation of man, Norse and Egyptian which identify Flood and Creation events, Greek and Norse opting for shorter and Babylonian-Egyptian for longer story lines).

"Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability."

I suppose this is where some would add a few words about Hebrews plagiarising from Babylonians. If so, just why did Hebrews do some details better, rather than worse, than the Babylonians?

"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened."

Certainly. That is why a detailed pre-Flood scenario of humanly believable content as verification of Moses' Adamic and Noahic narratives make Hebrew tradition outstanding. Greeks just say men, Norse just say giants generally misbehaved after coming into existence provoking a destruction with in each case one survivor plus family.

"An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on."

Note here that ORGANISED tradition cannot be equated with hearsay. By hearsay I mean "I heard it from daddy, who had a phone call from the doctor, who had heard it from a worried neighbour, who had been watching the man". Phone calls are ideal ways to distort content, as the name "telephone game" should indicate. By organised tradition I mean things like formulating a standardised text which can be learned by heart - or copied in writing. Or, ideally, both. And like chosing who carries on tradition by who was an attentive hearer of it, and so on.

"If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased."

Hence the idea of confirming the Hebrew tradition by Babylonian and Greek traditions, some versions perhaps of Chinese, Hindoo and Egyptian ones. Since these polytheists often dissed the Hebrew monotheists, they are unlikely to have borrowed from Hebrews. While these provide too much original and meaningfully realistic detail (especially with modern checks) for the Hebrews just to have borrowed with some embroidery.

"The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations."

I disbelieve this part, but if you like an exercise in it, take the fact that Babylonian and Hebrew traditions have very much opposite tendencies. To Hebrew tradition, one and the same God is outraged with men for moral reasons, and makes an exception for one man for a moral reason. To the Babylonian, one god is outraged because he has a headache and another saves the first man he can save. In Greek tradition, Flood story per se follows the Hebrew pattern, but the Enlil vs Enki story is demoted to a Zeus vs Prometheus one in another part of proto-history according to Greek myth. Norse tradition, like Egyptian places creation of man after an event which either is (Norse) or looks like part of (Egyptian) Flood.

"If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased."

I think it could be demonstrated that the Hebrew tradition had LESS interest in creating bias than the other ones. I think this matter is such that finding unbiassed sources is setting an impossible task. Unless they are brought in for one or two details, like Tacitus or Josephus for Jesus existing. And Josephus might have been biassed as leaning to Christianity.

"Why didn't aboriginal Australians notice a flood?"

Didn't they? Or did they forget about it?

Or perhaps not even that? Creation Ministries International claim Australians have at least three versions of a flood story: Jimmy Bird's Bundaba version, Albert Barangga's version, W.H. Douglas' Western Desert tradition. Here is their page on that one:

CMI : Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories
Collection by Howard Coates and W.H. Douglas
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories


Unless you prefer to claim they got the general idea from Christian missionaries, but that cannot be checked. That would leave Aboriginess as a stalemate between us at least, and not as an argument for you.

"Could it be explained that the floods were local and ancients believed their little area to be the entire world?"

One problem here straight off, what about Peruvian version?

Now, I already did bring up a little problem or two with the scenario:

  • 1) If an area is flooded, surrounding mountains aren't. If you were in the middle of a local flood, how could you, if you survived, miss that mountains stayed out of water?
  • 2) If survivors survived on any kind of boat, how come an accidental survival didn't involve more boats and how would an accidental survivor or his descendants have come to figure the survival had been prepared by hearing voices? And, for good measure, here is a third one:
  • 3) Anyone not that survivor or a local flood or descended from him would normally know his own national or family tradition, and be able to figure out his ancestors or he had survived outside the Flooded area : how do you explain anyone in such a situation took over the story as a serious take on his own background? The reverse would tend to happen, the lone survivors on a ship would meet people who had survived outside the Flood and conclude it was local.


"Could civilisations have adopted the Flood maths of others?"

[I took it as misspelling for Flood myth, not Flood math. Other traditions are inadequate about the mathematical problems we are dealing with.]

A civilisation emerging from such a disaster would depend on others not having gone through it and therefore hardly be in a position to impose it.

An Apologist countered a claim of Jesus not having really died on the Cross with the observation, if he woke up in the tomb, it would have been a next to impossible task to get out, not to mention to look impressive enough for the Disciples to believe the resurrection. The hypothetic survivor of a local Flood is pretty much in the same position.

"Tradition does not prove a flood."

Yes, it very much does. For the reasons given above.

"Should we accept the oral traditions of vikings as evidence for Thor and Odin?"

For Odin, Njord, Frey, Fjolner (the last of these not considered a god, and there is a good reason for that) having ruled in Uppsala (founded by Frey, it seems, after Odin had ruled without haivng a city), I fully accept a versified and therefore organised tradition called Ynglinga tal. That is the start of a genealogy leading up to St Olaf of Norway.

If Odin ruled ruthlessly in Uppsala, like if some Marduk or Nimrod or Asshur ruled ruthlessly in some part of Mesopotamia, he could just come out and brag (on some apt occasion, Odin about his sagacity, Nimrod about his strength) saying "you should have seen me earlier, when I created the world after killing a monster" (Odin had the modesty, relatively speaking of sharing the credit with two brothers who seem only to have existed in his narrative, not in Uppsala, and to add sth about his having been younger and stronger back then ... I shouldn't wonder).

One little detail more. If you remember or refresh your memory of AronRa's video, he did not set out to attack sources for Flood as that misunderstanding in that one. He set out to prove that the Flood was impossible. For that to be countered, I only need to point out that flatter mountains and shallower seas are thinkable, it is his duty (so far failed) to provide reasons why they can't (failed if they should be cogent ones, that is). This means that my answers here to you have gone beyond what I set up to do in the response to his video.

And sorry for misunderstanding your "few lines in" as your being present in text as making an utterance, when you seem to have meant you were reading a few lines in. Hope you got further and have seen why shallower seas and flatter mountains were possible, textually speaking. I should perhaps have added generally too, as lifting of land and rising of mountains are observed tektonic movements, a creationist only needs to suppose they happened a little faster than now in the end part of Flood and after the Flood.

Alan Whistler to me
//Diverse for diverse traditions.// Ambiguous = fail

Me to Alan Whistler
Er, no.

Diverse sources do include diverse traditions. As there are for instance British and US traditions about George Washington's War of Independence. Both agreeing when it took place.

Alan Whistler to me
//Genesis latest written by Moses around 1510 BC, 8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam.// This is a claim - What supports it was written by Moses. The bible is not self acknowledging. What corroberates the claims made by moses from independent contemporary source?

Were there actual historians codexing the war of independence?

Citation (where I can't find attribution)
tradition
trəˈdɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1. the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
Noun 1. historical record - writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.)historical record - writing having historical value (as opposed to fiction or myth etc.)

[Probably eclectic attributions]

Alan Whistler to me
How do you determine the ancient tradition is not myth or fiction?

Me to Alan Whistler
"This is a claim - What supports it was written by Moses. The bible is not self acknowledging. What corroberates the claims made by moses from independent contemporary source?"

Moses in Genesis is NOT saying he wrote Genesis. He is also NOT directly and uncontrovertibly saying "here I take the part from Adam, here I take the part from Noah" and so on. So that this is how it happened is what we have from Hebrew tradition.

I hope you depend sufficiently on English tradition to agree Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings and that he wrote it as a fairy tale, not as a documentary, even if he tried to get aspects close to that ideal of his.

I hope you depend sufficiently on Roman tradition to agree Julius Caesar wrote seven of the eight books of Bellum Gallicum, leaving the eighth to his trusted continuator Aulus Hirtius.

"Were there actual historians codexing the war of independence?"

Not as you seem to understand the word, since historians as an academic specialty did not come into existence until during 19th Century. For War of Independence or for French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, we have tradition from biassed participants. And, as with Flood, more than one tradition.

"the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way."

Someone else gave a fuller and better description which involves also information being transmitted from generation to generation.

"How do you determine the ancient tradition is not myth or fiction?"

The word myth is meaningless. As to fiction, how do you explain a tradition which starts out as fiction becoming misunderstood as fact statement? By fiction, I am supposing you mean things like Lord of the Rings, not things like Book of Mormon, which is forgery, not fiction. Though produced same way as fiction - at least that is how many take what Joseph Smith actually did.

Why is "myth" meaningless? A book of Greek mythology will include:

  • Chaos giving rise to Gaia, Erebos, Nyx and Eros (and perhaps some parallel Orphic myth about a cosmic egg hatching);
  • The Flood of Deucalion and Pyrrha;
  • The history of Trojan War and of heroes in previous generation or in aftermath of Trojan War.


I believe that exactly the first point is in the full sense fiction, if only half humourously pretended to be believed, a bit like Father Christmas, the second point is a fairly distorted version of Flood story (I am judging after Hebrew standards, you know my bias), while the third is fairly straightforward history.

It is embellished with some untruths anyone except Homeric believers will take as such. Perseus and Andromeda becoming stars or Antaios being a son of Poseidon and Gaia and losing his strength when no longer standing on or otherwise touching "his mother" is obviously untrue. This leaves room open for speculation on how much of the story is correct. Could demons have been giving Antaeus more strength than he usually had as long as he stood on earth in a fight? That is perhaps equally incredible to an Atheist, but not to a Christian.

But even if one can be sure some of the events never happened as told, even if one can suspect some were later additions (like if you wrote some mostly documentary based epic on War of Independence but included Tomahawk in it for fun, or included Jonah Hex in some otherwise mostly documentary work on War of Secession, or even more like it, even more frequent, if you take the cherry tree story as given in that devout GW-biography and add another without admitting to inventing it), one cannot dismiss this part as non-historic, just because some very sceptic Romans divided it from history proper. Plutarch's parallel lives takes up one between Romulus and Theseus, with Theseus still representing "myth" and Romulus already representing "history", with the remark that Theseus is so late and well documented in myths as to be nearly history, Romulus is so early and dim in history as to be nearly myth, you see that the reason for including these in books starting with the content of Theogony is a very flimsy and arbitrary one, and one cannot say Hercules is as dim as Uranus and Gaea, at least.

That is why "myth" is a non-category. For "fiction" I have already answered.

Alan Whistler to me
In order:

Citing me:
Thank you immensely for the feedback. I hope I will not have left out any point, when you are through:

"What is the source and how was it verified?"

Diverse for diverse traditions. "When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?"

Genesis latest written by Moses around 1510 BC, 8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Show this to be true^^

Citing me:
To define : overlapping generations means I am counting Adam as overlapping generation to Methusalem, according to Haydock (who makes it 8 overlapping generations), while the spacing would be a little scarcer, perhaps 12 generations, with LXX chronology.

Its parts could have been transmitted in writing or not. With so few overlapping generations (plus all generations between them usually overlapping with both to some degree) the room for twisting is small.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Source criticism – How were they translated^^ exactly? Less of this COULD stuff if you wish to debunk anything

Citing me:
"Where was it produced (localization)?"

The Genesis one-full-book written account as produced around 1510 BC, which is 1447 after the Flood.

Alan Whistler to me
So not written by any contemporary, no witnesses

Citing me:
"By whom was it produced (authorship)?"

By Moses.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Show this to be true. This is a claim of the^^ bible. Bible is not verified by bible.

Circular reasoning - Dismissed

Citing me:
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?"

From the Hebrew tradition available to Moses. Possibly, but not necessarily including pre-existing but not canonic books like Jasher (which I suppose was a work in progress now lost, or perhaps in final version identic to Chronicles, hardly to the non-canonic Jasher), Jubilees, Henoch.

Alan Whistler to me
^^What corroborates the works available to moses^^ as the story goes

Citing me:
In what original form was it produced (integrity)?"

First Genesis chapters were written down or memorised (for chapters 1 - 7 each is as long as 2.5*Nicene Creed, which is a text even non-specialists know how to memorise if instructed), then they were collected by Moses into a single book.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Nicean creed is unbiased?^^

Citing me:
"What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?"

Two items give it higher such than any rivals (most of which include Flood accounts too): a complete genealogy with very humdrum detail, and where long lives of men extend only to ten times normal, not to 100 times normal as among Sumerian and Egyptian kings. Of course, one could rationalise a "reign" of 40,000 years by saying after someone who did some ruling died, his laws and rulings were sufficient for 39,900 or so years till the next ruler was required, but that makes these accounts incomplete instead of unbelievable.

Greek and Norse versions instead tend to have too short a time between Flood and known history, Norse tacking Flood/Creation onto not too long before Odin came to Uppsala region, Greeks obviously blacking out the existence of Hittite Empire. Probably (I am biassed by Daqrk Lord's of Hattusha) because Greek nobility going back via Achaean, Ionic or Trojan to Hittite nobility (or Ionians might have been an enclave, like Phenicians in Thebes), had a gentleman's agreement not to speak about the world empire which failed due to civil war.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Could the gen genealogy be fabricated? Could it just be writers mentioning characters known to have existed? Could reported global flood timelines just be repeated times from one tradition and plagiarized?

Citing me:
AND, item two, realistic detail about the Ark. Triply so:

Alan Whistler to me
^^Are you familiar with the celestial boat of the Egyptian pharaoh called Nua Unkh??

Citing me:
  • 1) The Babylonian myth extra large coracle would not have been seaworthy.
  • 2) Noah's Ark would have been, as has been tested, and it would have had room for the diverse types of land animals (even if not each species according to modern terminology) and
  • 3) it mentions a detail which points to highest mountains having been flatter before, even if that detail was not so interpreted along the times until recently, after you Atheists had brought up the logistics of water volume. If Noah or his sons could measure that water was 15 cubits above highest (previous to Flood) mountain, that means Ark went to its peak - or was built on it, which would have been safer. And the highest mountain peaks today are too pointed and narrow to build an Ark that size on. Therefore, these didn't yet exist.


Alan Whistler to me
^^^^ Can you present whom said the biblical ark could float and hold every species?

^^ What supports the claim? // it mentions a detail which points to highest mountains having been flatter before//

Citing me:
Source criticism:

"Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives."

Perhaps more credible, but also less informative. This means, either we leave out the story line of history, or we take narratives. And plenty of them.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Or the people writing it had knowledge of geography and history of the region – Dismissed

Citing me:
"Any given source may be forged or corrupted."

Yes, but less likely that a corrupted detail is independently corrupted same way in several sources (the above mentions best one = Hebrew + above mentioned rivals, Greek and Babylonian which feature Flood clearly after creation of man, Norse and Egyptian which identify Flood and Creation events, Greek and Norse opting for shorter and Babylonian-Egyptian for longer story lines).

Alan Whistler to me
^^Still a chance – FAIL^^

Citing me:
"Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability."

I suppose this is where some would add a few words about Hebrews plagiarising from Babylonians. If so, just why did Hebrews do some details better, rather than worse, than the Babylonians?

Alan Whistler to me
^^Argument from ignorance, because you don’t know why doesn’t mean they didnt

Citing me:
"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened."

Certainly. That is why a detailed pre-Flood scenario of humanly believable content as verification of Moses' Adamic and Noahic narratives make Hebrew tradition outstanding. Greeks just say men, Norse just say giants generally misbehaved after coming into existence provoking a destruction with in each case one survivor plus family.

Alan Whistler to me
^^Shame some ancient civilisations missed the^^ GLOBAL FLOOD

Done. The rest is pointless.

Your sources attesting the sources are biased. Nicean's, really?

Your book makes claims so the claims can not be supported by more claims in the same book - Take a logic course - please.

Me to Alan Whistler
"Less of this COULD stuff if you wish to debunk anything"

Answering YOUR points and debunking Aron's are two very different things.

Logic. Why don't they teach logic in these schools. BBL / tomorrow perhaps.

Alan Whistler to me
But you are not. You are presenting assertions not supported in reality. That is not debunking.

Try top down logical presentation

P[remiss] 1
P2
P3
P4

C[onclusion] 1
Etc

Premises to logical conclusion. If your premises are strong and true no problem. If there can be any other explanations to.your premises then they can't be accepted.

To you.....

Rephrasing but not citing me:
Currently you say bible says mountains were lower

This fits with global flood

Therefore global flood happened.

Alan Whistler to me
These are not strong premises and don't. Lead logically to that conclusion.

First premise must be supported outside of the claim of the text asserting the situation. It is not self acknowledging.

Today
Tuesday, 17.I.2017

Me to Alan Whistler
You are not just sore in logic, you pretend to teach me logic too.

"But you are not. You are presenting assertions not supported in reality. That is not debunking."

There are TWO cases. NN asks for proof of my positions, I have to present proof. NN claims to disprove my position, what I have to do is not prove my position, but disprove his disproofs, and for that COULD is good enough.

Then, I am NOT presenting assertions not supported in reality. I am in part going by facts, and in parts by probabilities or possibilities which are coherent with the facts.

"Premises to logical conclusion."

I am very well capable of doing a syllogism without your aid, sir.

"If your premises are strong and true no problem."

Unless there is some problem with the form of the syllogism. It seems the one needing a lesson in logic was you.

"If there can be any other explanations to.your premises then they can't be accepted"

That is precisely AronRa's problem in the video. I have shown there can be other explanations to the reasons why he claims the mountains cannot have been lower and the seas cannot have been shallower.

"Currently you say bible says mountains were lower / This fits with global flood / Therefore global flood happened."

Eh, no. That is NOT my logic. You are drawing up a strawman. In this case it is rather two things:

  • 1) If you analyse a certain passage in the Bible, it really says mountains were lower. But AronRa said the Flood can't have happpened, because mountains can't have been low enough. His reason : "the Bible says so". My conclusion : he is sore at reading the Bible.

  • 2) If you analyse a certain passage in the Bible, it really says mountains were lower. This explains the Flood that lots of traditions independently attest. But the other traditions don't mention this detail, so on this account the Bible is superior to the other Flood traditions.


NEITHER of those two corresponds to your strawman.

"These are not strong premises and don't. Lead logically to that conclusion."

Totally agreeing about the syllogism you strawmanly presented as mine.

"First premise must be supported outside of the claim of the text asserting the situation. It is not self acknowledging."

Er, not quite right either. First premise IS about the text. It can ONLY be asserted according to the text.

So much for your pretense of teaching me logic.

Alan Whistler to me
No you assert the mountains were much lower. That is an assertion.

You say bible says so but this is then an assertion of the bible which must be supported to be considered. Are you not sure regarding the burden of proof? What tradition proves mountains were much lower.

We already established tradition could be borrowed from one civilisation by another. We established tradition can be myth. Therefore you must show the traditions to be facts. Not just say tradition must be true as sometimes tradition is true lol.

Me to Alan Whistler
Before answering your latest, here is my catching up since yesterday:

Me citing him
// Genesis latest written by Moses around 1510 BC, 8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam.

^^Show this to be true^^ //

Me to Alan Whistler
Which one of the claims?

  • "Genesis latest written by Moses" - Hebrew tradition for authorship.
  • "around 1510 BC" - Later Biblical books (thus independent of Genesis) adding up years between Exodus event and Birth of Christ.
  • "8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam." - Genealogies in Genesis.


Me citing him
// To define : overlapping generations means I am counting Adam as overlapping generation to Methusalem, according to Haydock (who makes it 8 overlapping generations), while the spacing would be a little scarcer, perhaps 12 generations, with LXX chronology.

Its parts could have been transmitted in writing or not. With so few overlapping generations (plus all generations between them usually overlapping with both to some degree) the room for twisting is small.

^^Source criticism – How were they translated^^ exactly? Less of this COULD stuff if you wish to debunk anything //

Me to Alan Whistler
In this conversation you are asking me not to debunk but to establish sth, namely two things, and here that Genesis is reliable (elsewhere that Flood happened).

Saying that you don't know if x before telling y of z also wrote down a note or not doesn't add up to a substantial doubt on whether x actually did tell y about z. It works out either way.

And I suppose your "translated" is a mistake for "transmitted"?

Since Hebrew was the language pre-Babel since Adam and continued to be so for Hebrews (hence the name) up to Moses, there was never ANY need of translation. At an utmost limit, the pre-Babel language could have been Aramaic, and if so the translating would have been like translating from Danish to Swedish or from Yola to Braid Scots. Or from Cockney to Irish Brogue.

Me citing him
// "Where was it produced (localization)?"

The Genesis one-full-book written account as produced around 1510 BC, which is 1447 after the Flood.
________________________
So not written by any contemporary, no witnesses //

Me to Alan Whistler
The Genesis includes narratives composed, either orally or as written parts of Genesis, by precisely witnesses. It is only as a full book that the final composition was 1447 years or so after the Flood. You see, the Flood (with Prequels and Sequels) is in chapters 6 to 9 of Genesis. But Genesis has 50 chapters. For the final book, you don't just need the eyewitness accounts for chapter 7, you also need the eyewitness accounts for chapters 12 to 50. Obviously you could not have those immediately after the composition (oral or written) of what is now chapters 6 to 9 of Genesis. Abraham was born 2015 BC, which is 942 years after the Flood, according to one LXX chronology.

The situation is parallel to Livy. He composed Ab Urbe Condita between 27 BC and 9 BC. But whatever witness accounts he had for First Book, on founding of Rome, his own text is not as his identic to the witness accounts, it is just based on them, at best in quotes (note that since Latin had changed fairly much between the time of Aeneas and Livy, this would involve at least some translation of the Danish to Swedish type, most probably along the way.

Me citing him
// By Moses.

^^Show this to be true. This is a claim of the^^ bible. Bible is not verified by bible. //

Me to Alan Whistler
You are here trying to treat "the Bible" as one witness. But one witness can be verified by another witness. So, if "the Bible" were one witness, it would need a verification outside the Bible.

For Moses being author of Genesis, I refer to Hebrew tradition, once again. For Hebrew tradition saying this soon after Moses and not just recently when challenged by Western atheism, it is a perfectly circle free verification to refer to later books = other witnesseS! = of the Bible.

"Circular reasoning - Dismissed"

Oh, come on, don't tell me you are so sore at logic as to confuse "vicious circle in proving", "vicious circle in explaining" and "one part of Bible confirming another part"?

Me citing him
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?"

// From the Hebrew tradition available to Moses. Possibly, but not necessarily including pre-existing but not canonic books like Jasher (which I suppose was a work in progress now lost, or perhaps in final version identic to Chronicles, hardly to the non-canonic Jasher), Jubilees, Henoch.

^^What corroborates the works available to moses^^ as the story goes //

Me to Alan Whistler
His integrity. Plus his divine mission, as corroborated by his miracles in Exodus. This corroborates that the oral or written works available to him were enough.

Also, the integrity of tradition. It would be a funny people who had had no accounts of either Creation or Flood or Abraham and then their boss wrote a made up book, and they just accepted it, even without having had any previous accounts of any of these things.

Me citing him
// n what original form was it produced (integrity)?"

First Genesis chapters were written down or memorised (for chapters 1 - 7 each is as long as 2.5*Nicene Creed, which is a text even non-specialists know how to memorise if instructed), then they were collected by Moses into a single book.

^^Nicean creed is unbiased?^^ //

Me to Alan Whistler
Nicene Creed as example of sth which anyone can learn by heart is an unbiassed example. If you want an unbiassed verification that medium length of first seven chapters of Genesis is indeed 2.5 times the length of the Nicene Creed, you copy the chapters as continuous text onto a word document, and then copy the Nicene Creed sufficiently many times to get another word document the same length.

The point is, if ANYONE can learn the Nicene Creed by heart, then people who were good at learning by heart could very easily have learned chapter by chapter of early Genesis history by heart, and no need for a written account for the tradition to be solid.

"^^Could the gen genealogy be fabricated?"

Very unlikely. Pagans did NOT do so boring stuff.

"Could it just be writers mentioning characters known to have existed?"

Very unlikely, as we deal with writers dealing with an already existing tradition.

"Could reported global flood timelines just be repeated times from one tradition and plagiarized?"

Impossible, since it is precisely the timelines which are different between the traditions. This is where Hebrew tradition seems superior to the others that have different timelines.

It is in the "golden mean" between Egyptian / Babylonian timelines which are longer and Norse / Greek timelines which are radically shorter.

"^^Are you familiar with the celestial boat of the Egyptian pharaoh called Nua Unkh??"

No, I am not. Tell me what its qualities of not sinking would have been in a global flood? Are you invoking a space ship by Ancient Alien Astronauts to make it?

"^^^^ Can you present whom said the biblical ark could float and hold every species?"

Every kind, not every Linnean species.

For its holding every kind of land vertebrate (that, not every species of any non-aquatic including invertebrate, is the requirement), I refer to the calculation of John Woodmorappe, on Creation Ministries International.

For Ark floating, THEY refer to Japanese or South Korean navy doing scaled experiments. Independently of them.

Since right now they don't seem to be selling Woodmorappe's study, I link to Don Batten's fairly cheap resumé:

How did the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
£0.50
https://ukstore.creation.com/how-did-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark


As to the experiment, which they refer to, perhaps it is not navy, but "S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon."

CMI : Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway


Me citing him
// ^^ What supports the claim? // it mentions a detail which points to highest mountains having been flatter before// //

Me to Alan Whistler
Did you miss my reflection on the "fifteen cubits"?

If a witness says "waters were 15 cubits above the highest mountains", this implies 15 cubits were somehow measured. And since all the traditions are implicitly claiming to base their Flood accounts on witness (Norse tradition claiming it was divine or gigantic witness, since Flood was before creation of man) let's treat each account as a witness account and see how well it fares.

So, this possible witness account says sth which implies some measuring was done. 15 cubits means half the height of the Ark. "and the height of it thirty cubits." Noah could for instance very easily have known that ships normally have water lines at half their height and have painted a water line at 15 cubits. Since there was a window, he could have looked down on the painted line and see it disappear when Ark started to feel like no longer just standing firm on ... the top of Mount Everest? The present peak of Mount Ararat? No, those peaks are too narrow. Analyse that, along with the phrase that the waters rose 15 cubits above the highest mountain, what the text claims is that the Ark was built on the one or one of two or more mountains of same and known height, and that there were no higher mountains anywhere in the world.

If we take "And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered." as referring to Mount Everest the measuring doesn't make sense.

If we take it as referring to 15 cubits on a low hill, known to be lower than the highest mountains, the words "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered." don't make sense.

You cannot verify from water covering a low hill to 15 cubits above peak that Mount Everest also was covered to 15 cubits above peak, and no one can ever have been stupid enough to believe that.

You can, on your view, say that the Genesis account is fiction, misunderstanding, fraud and whatever else, but you cannot claim it was written by bunglers who couldn't think. IF we, for comparison with other Flood traditions, treat each as a possible witness account, lets give each of Deucalion, Noah, Atrahasis their best. Giving Noah his best is assuming if he or his sons wrote a line like that, they knew geography and they knew that what they called the very high mountains were things they could build a very long ark on. It was 300 cubits long, good luck doing carpentry that size on top of OUR very high mountains!

Me citing him
//Perhaps more credible, but also less informative. This means, either we leave out the story line of history, or we take narratives. And plenty of them. //

"^^Or the people writing it had knowledge of geography and history of the region – Dismissed"

Me to Alan Whistler
Your grasp of logic is somewhat flimsy. I am here getting to the point that relics are more credible than narrative, according to those historians, but answering that relics are less informative, and therefore in order to have narrative history at all, we need to take also narratives, and plenty of them, as sufficiently credible. YOUR rebuttal simply doesn't adress the point.

YOUR rebuttal makes a point about which narratives between several one should better trust, but has no bearing at all on whether one should trust relics only or narrative as well. A little hint : without narrative it is difficult to identify a relic even as a relic.

"^^Still a chance – FAIL^^"

Sorry, but you are not dealing with history any more. History has no water tight proof. It only has "beyond any reasonable doubt". And that I have given you.

Me citing him
// I suppose this is where some would add a few words about Hebrews plagiarising from Babylonians. If so, just why did Hebrews do some details better, rather than worse, than the Babylonians?

"^^Argument from ignorance, because you don’t know why doesn’t mean they didnt" //

Me to Alan Whistler
When dealing with speculation on what men can have done, we also deal with reasonable motivations and capacitations. What you are suggesting is the near miracle that a bungler copies the story of a bungler and makes it more plausible than it was in his source. For more plausible see the points already adressed.

"^^Shame some ancient civilisations missed the^^ GLOBAL FLOOD"

Name one you think did so, and I'll probably be able to refer you to its Flood legend. I am only dealing with named four, because those are the ones I know best.

Me citing him
// Done. The rest is pointless. Your sources attesting the sources are biased. Nicean's, really? //

Me to Alan Whistler
You are Alan the Atheist on Answers in Reason, right?

Rename it "answers in unreason", since it is unreasonable to consider your kind of debate as anything more than strawmen. I did not use Nicene Creed as a source, I did use it as a well known example of what a man can without much problem learn by heart if he is motivated. Any Muslim who denies the Nicene Creed and holds it in horror would have to admit it is, and any Atheist who thinks any Creeds are stupid and Nicene vs rival Homoiusian and Homoian creeds ultrastupid would have to admit that texts this length can be learned by heart by normal people. HENCE, any text the length of each of first seven chapters of Genesis could also have been learned by heart. And once a text is learned by heart, oral transmission is not hearsay, but organised tradition. You pick on the fact that I used an example with religious connotations to illustrate a point which should be uncontroversial, and construe this into my "relying on biassed sources", and on top of that imply that that is an error in history, where often enough all sources we do have are biassed, one way or the other!

Alan Whistler to me
Citing me
Before answering your latest, here is my catching up since yesterday:

// Genesis latest written by Moses around 1510 BC, 8 - 12 overlapping generations after Adam.

^^Show this to be true^^ //

Which one of the claims?

Alan Whistler to me
FFS dude, all of your claims and assertions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

Citing
Philosophical burden of proof - Wikipedia
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Alan Whistler to me
I have asked you over and over to aupport all assertions, you are wasting my time - if you dont know you have to then you have no business bothering me.

FB announces
Fin de la discussion

Me to Alan Whistler
Apparently you don't have patience enough to read two lines ahead before answering a rhetorical question which irritates you.

[could not send]

Me to Alan Whistler
What I was writing when receiving his rude note
"No you assert the mountains were much lower. That is an assertion."

In my reply to AronRa, it is at least a possibility and that is all I need. I am stating it as a fact, because I believe it is a fact.

"You say bible says so but this is then an assertion of the bible which must be supported to be considered."

Your comment is faulty in two ways:

  • 1) It is trying to treat the whole Bible as "one witness" which needs to be confirmed by "another witness" which would therefore need to be extr-Biblical.
  • 2) The Bible does not directly assert this. The Genesis witness makes an assertion which makes it a reasonable conclusion.


"Are you not sure regarding the burden of proof?"

We are not pleading before court. I am not pleading before a court that you are a heretic. But if you simply mean "positive claims require positive evidence, I heartily agree. But I do nnot agree I had missed on that one, and you have pretended I did so by strawmanning time after time.

"What tradition proves mountains were much lower."

I never said that that particular item or detail was proven by other traditions. The Flood is. This particular tradition is proving itself superior to the others by

"We already established tradition could be borrowed from one civilisation by another."

In general this is true, and in general this poses no problem for credibility of it either. We have a tradition about Confucius, which we have borrowed from the Chinese tradition about Confucius.

With regards to the Flood, where for once a borrowing would be problematic for veracity, I have also shown that a borrowing presumes a scenario you have been unwilling to explain.

"We established tradition can be myth."

You pretend to have established that as a fact. I pretend that the supposed fact is a meaningless jumble of words, because "myth" has no one meaning which can universally be seen as meaningful in dismissing veracity of fact.

"Therefore you must show the traditions to be facts."

Any historic narrative depends on tradition. When between two conflicting traditions I don't trust one, it is generally because I think the other is more credible, not because it is a tradition. If there is a tradition with claim of historic facthood, it is presumable evidence for that facthood, not just a dubious proposition which needs to be established on other grounds.

"Not just say tradition must be true as sometimes tradition is true lol."

That was not the point. The point is that ALL historic narrative is known as true only because tradition is presumed as true.

You seem to think "tradition" is generally unreliable, but some traditions can on other "historical" ground be shown as more reliable than others.

The reverse is true. In "history" all narrative depends on tradition, tradition is generally seen as basically reliable, but some traditions are shown less reliable than others. Often enough by other, more reliable ones.

Sunday, 30 October 2016

Topic, Geocentrism and Giants : me and tektontv


Update
Title has been added in appropriate space after the post was originally published. 31.I.2017, HGL.

Topic, Geocentrism and Giants
Date Sts Simon and Jude, Eve for first six, Day for seventh.
On occasion of his three videos


I
Does it say the earth stood still, part 1 1:52 - were you referring to me?

Why noy say so?

Btw, I'll go back and enjoy the Entertainment ...
II
Same video: 4:24

  • 1) Was Adam instructed by God?
  • 2) Was Adam's word for Sunset and Sunrise semantically correct in all assumptions?
  • 3) Was Adam's term lost, or was there a people retaining Adam's language by not participating in Nimrod's probable Cape Canaveral type project?
  • 4) If Biblical Hebrew is identic to Adam's language, why would it use semantically wrong assumptions in describing the event?
  • 5) Or are you saying EVERYONE without exception disobeyed God in trying to build a "tower the top of which reaches into heaven"? That is not how the Church reads that text.


III
Video 2, 2:42, no, 2:48 looks like the list was finished.

Joshua X:12 & 13. Note, not just Joshua X:13, which could theoretically, since in narrative, be phenomenal language.

Joshua [X] 12 is the key point, since including verbatim the words of the miracle worker. Joshua [X] 13 then confirms that the miracle happened as requested by Joshua of God, as commanded by Joshua on heavenly powers.

Otherwise, you could argue that Christ telling demons to go out of possessed is "culturally phenomenal language" (it is at least not visibly phenoman language, since demons were presumably never seen). And that overturns quite a lot of Christian assumptions about veracity of God.

IV
No part three? Then here goes for part two.

If Earth stands still, parallax is not automatically a distance measure.

If Earth stands still and no proof has come up how parallax even so would be a distance measure (and Sungenis has not so proven), then there is no reason to believe the Universe includes such distances as light years (all "further rungs" on so called cosmic distance ladder build in some way on parallax).

Then there is also no reason to believe the stars are large enough to have planets large enough to allow development of life.

In other words, no reason to believe "aliens" to be anything other than Earth based either demons or at best elves or pixies, or leprechauns, on some fancy masquerade.

If a geocentric had been allowed on the one or other video, he would have said "where are you coming from!?" to that alien.

V
Fee fo fum video ... sorry, but your polemics against LXX will just don't wash with a Catholic.

  • 1) If 70 or 72 Hebrews (six Levites representing each other tribe) independently were translating nephelim as gigantes, it is God's own translation to Greek.
  • 2) What they were "probably influenced by" is irrelevant.
  • 3) Who says Greek stories about Titans or Giants (two different types of giant, btw) do not reflect Biblical truth, if in a roundabout way?

    The story of Deucalion and Pyrrha reflects truth about Noah and Abraham and Lot's daughters and even Adam. If in a roundabout way and perhaps confusing with a later flood in Thessaly where protagnists were really called so.

    We cannot dismiss a concept just because it coincides with Greek mythology. That is NOT what "all their gods are demons" means.

    Example in point, however demon possessed Augustus and Tiberius and Alexander the Great may have been, the Bible treats them as men, despite them being Pagan idols. As with Nabucco.


VI
Sarcophagus argument about Og of Bashan will not do. Two reasons. Apart of dubious interpretation of word.

  • 1) a sarcophagus was not typically twice as big as the body. Add half a foot to a foot of padding in every direction, but that would make a six foot tall man having a sarcophagus 8 feet long (at most) and leave at least 11 feet six inches on 13 ft 6 in.
  • 2) Who says Og ever got a sarcophagus! Hebrews were hardly offering him one and his own people were beaten to smithereens, leaving the territory of Bashan to Samaria or rather its predecessor Ephraim.


And even the reading ... well, I thought there was a part of a pillow piece too, but seem to have misrecalled. But it is far more likelier that he had a bed before dying than a sarcophagus after dying.

VII
Afterthought on eretz and "shall not be moved". I am no Hebraist, but I think Eretz corresponds to Latin "terra" rather exactly :

  • 1) the whole globe, what was created just after Heaven in Genesis 1:1,
  • 2) dry land as created on day 2 or 3 (think it was 3),
  • 3) a specific country.


English would have Earth, Land, Land, French Terre, Terre, Pays.

Now, there is a reason to take this as referring precisly to the first sense, Earth as opposed to Heaven : if referring to sense two, dry land or continents, the earthquakes and by now also known or rather well guessed continental drifts would have refuted "it shall not be moved".

Thursday, 4 August 2016

Asking about Doctors in Lourdes

I
Hans Georg Lundahl to Miracle Hunter
7/29/16 at 2:01 PM
do medical doctors at Lourdes lose either job there or medical licence in France when approving a miracle
or did they earlier on?

I have heard at least one of these and therefore I'd like to hear about it from someone who does investigate.

II
Miracle Hunter to Hans Georg Lundahl
8/1/16 at 5:43 AM
Re: do medical doctors at Lourdes lose either job there or medical licence in France when approving a miracle
Dear Hans,

I cannot verify this but I will be interviewing a former Lourdes Medical Commission member in a few weeks and will ask that question and letyou know.

God bless,

Michael O'Neill
MiracleHunter.com

Read Exploring the Miraculous from Our Sunday Visitor

Like The Miracle Hunter on Facebook

Follow The Miracle Hunter on Twitter @miraclehunter

Listen to The Miracle Hunter on Relevant Radio 12 noon eastern

Join the Miracle Hunter Newsletter


III
Hans Georg Lundahl to Miracle Hunter
8/1/16 at 6:48 PM
Re: do medical doctors at Lourdes lose either job there or medical licence in France when approving a miracle
Wonderful!

Thank you very much, awaiting your answer eagerly!

IV
Miracle Hunter to Hans Georg Lundahl
8/3/16 at 6:36 AM
Re: do medical doctors at Lourdes lose either job there or medical licence in France when approving a miracle
Dear Hans,

I spoke to the Lourdes Commission member from the United States and he said that he was unaware of any such restriction on French doctors.

I will be speaking to him again in a few weeks, so please let me know if you have another question.

God bless,

Michael

V
Hans Georg Lundahl to Miracle Hunter
8/3/16 at 3:09 PM
Re: do medical doctors at Lourdes lose either job there or medical licence in France when approving a miracle
Oh, sorry, I seem to have either heard old news no longer in place, or to have heard one of the versions wrong.

Thank you.

Saturday, 18 June 2016

Correspondence avec une traductrice bénévole, Élisabeth Schillaci

I
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/15/16 at 10:30 AM
le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Conditions:

hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/


Valable pour ce blog là (qui est déconnecté) mais aussi pour mes autres blogs:

New blog on the kid : Alii bloggi, other blogs, autres blogs
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/alii-bloggi-other-blogs-autres-blogs.html


New blog on the kid : Index Indicum
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/index-indicum.html


Les traductions ne sont pas encore abordés.

Par contre vous faites envers moi comme si vous aviez utilisé les conditions pour réproduction.*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Si vous faites un blog gratuit en russe (ce qui n'exclut pas des livres achetables de manière commerciale, biensûr), j'aimerais que vous me donniez le lien et que, pour chaque message en traduction vous donnez un lien vers le message en original.

II
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/15/16 at 10:47 AM
RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Rebonjour!
Je lirai tout cela ce soir! Belle journée à vous et merci de partager votre richesse!
Élisabeth

III
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/15/16 at 2:42 PM
Re: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Merci bcp!

IV
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/15/16 at 10:14 PM
RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)


Envoyé à partir d’Outlook


V
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/16/16 at 9:46 AM
Re: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Merci!

Je peux le partager?

VI
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/16/16 at 9:59 AM
RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Évidemment ! C est vous! Je vous ai mis sur ma page Facebook et envoyer à mes amis! Belle journée Hans dans votre petit monde!

VII
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/16/16 at 2:29 PM
Re: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Pas si petit que ça!

HGL's F.B. writings : My readers are very predominantly Russia and Ukraine.
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/05/my-readers-are-very-predominantly.html


Par contre, pas mal de mes lecteurs ne savent pas combien je fais des sacrifices pour écrire, ni ce qu'ils pourraient faire pour m'aider.

Quant à "partager", c'est une nécessité pour profiter.

Un boulanger garde tous les pains pour soi, il gagne rien.

Un musicien joue juste en solitude, sans enregistrer non plus, il gagne rien.

Mon mode de partage est dans la première approximation plus proche de celui des musiciens de rue que des boulangers.

Pourtant, j'aimerais que d'autres fassent autrement pour que ça leur et me rapporte un peu./HGL

VIII
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/16/16 at 3:12 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
En effet pas si petit!

Petit dans ce cas précis est avec une connotation émotionnelle.. En outre, ce n est pas une critique mais plutôt une manière de mettre en relief le fait que vous soyez dans le partage de vos écrits avec moi. Ce qui est humain et touchant.

IX
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/17/16 at 10:12 AM
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Et commercial.

Je partage mes écrits, dans la forme gratuite, avec tout le monde.

Si vous faites imprimer et vendre une traduction russe (vous pouvez biensûr choisir lesquels de mes essais), vous aurez un revenu supplémentaire, et moi, vu que vous avez déjà un travail, j'aurais un espoir de toucher des "droits d'auteur volontaires" car je vous considère honnête. À vous de décider le pourcentage, biensûr. Autrement ça ne serait pas volontaire. Vous avez encore le lien vers mes conditions?

Juste en cas que vous auriez un doute sur comment je fais mes statistiques, voici ma méthode, les derniers trois blogs mis à jour étant les plus accessibles, je les prends comme exemple.

TOP TEN sur chaqu'un de ces blogs:
 
Germany 36  United States 32  United States 10
France 9  Ukraine 8  France 6
Ukraine 6  Australia 3  Ukraine 4
United States 6  France 3  Russia 3
Canada 2  Japan 3  United Kingdom 2
Japan 2  Latvia 1  India 2
China 1  Poland 1  Japan 1
Portugal 1  Portugal 1  Poland 1
Romania 1  Singapore 1
 
L'ensemble:
 
United States  France  Russia  01 2  Singapore
10  06  03    01
32  09    India  
06 48  03 18  Poland  02  China
    01    01
Germany  Japan  01 2  Canada
36  01    02
  03  United Kingdom 
Ukraine  02 6  02  Romania
04      01 
08  Australia  Portugal  Latvia
06 20  03  01  01


Et, encore une fois, mes blogs sont des publications, pas un genre de journal privé, et les partager c'est mon métier, pas un signe d'intimité (par contre, si avec quelqu'un je chercherait de l'intimité, je serais fou de ne pas partager les blogs, comme étant mon métier, dans un cas comme ça: d'un côté une femme devrait savoir ce que son futur mari fait, d'un autre si je ne les partage pas, elle se ferait des imaginations idiots sur le pourquoi je suis resté dans la rue).

Si quelqu'un vous dit que c'est un signe d'intimité d'avoir montré mes blogs, le mec ou la meuf en question mérite un grand gifle de ta part!

Hans Georg Lundahl

X
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/17/16 at 11:28 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Bonjour,

Je n ai pas compris le sens de votre mail.

Le passage sur l intimité !)

Je ne cherche pas à gagner de l argent, mais je serais ravie de faire quelques traductions que que cela me sera possible. Les journées et les semaines passent extrêmement vite... Si vous pensez que je cherche comprendre votre situation où vous juger et bien vous vous trompez. Je pense vraiment que vous avez un potentiel intellectuel fabuleux et qu' il serait vraiment dommage de passer cela dans l ombre. Si mes traductions peuvent vous aider et que je peux le faire alors je le ferai nous sommes tous sur cette terre pour nous soutenir les uns les autres c est aussi simple que cela.Si On a peut et bien on doit le faire.

XI
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/17/16 at 7:07 PM
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Ben, le passage veut simplement dire, mes publications ne sont pas quoi que ce soit intimes, normalement.

Ce que vous proposez, c'est en soi bien.

Par contre, si vous voulez me traduire, vaudra mieux que vous gagniez directement vous-même d'abord et me versiez ensuite ce que vous considérez comme juste.

À moins de faire un blog en russe, avec les articles que vous voulez traduire, mais aussi avec mes conditions traduites en russe de manière que les éventuels éditeurs-sur-papier que j'aurai en Russie ou Ukraine comprennent finalement le sens de ma démarche.

Ou les deux, l'un n'excluant pas l'autre.

Dans le cas du blog en russe, n'oubliez pas d'expliquer que je ne parle pas russe et que s'ils veulent me contacter, ils doivent m'écrire en autre langue (anglais, français etc) OU passer par vos services de traduction.

Mes excuses si j'avais fais le remarque de manière maladroite.

XII
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/17/16 at 7:29 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Je n ai pas besoin d argent.

Je traduis, vous les mettez en ligne. Traduire pour moi est un plaisir pas une necessite. Si je peux faire ca pour vous aider c est assez pour moi.

XIII
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/18/16 at 11:21 AM
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Dans ce cas, j'aimerais d'abord mettre cette correspondence en ligne en français, ensuite vous le traduisez en russe et m'evoyez le résultat que je mets également en ligne.

Je le ferais sur un blog, dont le titre serait "Hans Georg Lundahl en russe" (mais en russe!) et dont la description est "Hans Georg Lundahl, traduit du français, de l'anglais et de l'italien par Élisabeth Schillaci Schillaci en russe".

On y va?

Hans Georg Lundahl

XIV
Élisabeth Schillaci à moi
6/18/16 at 12:43 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Oui oui si ca vous rassure! N ayez crainte je ne cherche pas a vous arnaquer ou vous creer ees soucis. !)) Gardez toutes les preuves que vous voulez je ne vous veux aucun mal.. belle journee Hans!

XV
Moi à Élisabeth Schillaci
6/18/16 at 1:26 PM
Re: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: le s d f écrivain de ce matin (Hans)
Ce n'est pas une question de ME prendre des assurances, mais de LEUR en donner, les Russes étant ces jours ci assez ... parfois un peu "parano".

Donc, pour leur rassurer./HGL

Deux remarques en plus:

A
Si je dois gagner d'argent, j'ai besoin de partenaires qui veulent gagner argent aussi.

Élisabeth Schillaci aura fait une préparation, mais selon ce qu'on est maintenant en train de faire, ça reste une préparation.

Je n'ai pas peur d'être harnaqué. J'ai peur d'être figé en des préparation après préparations après préparations par des gens qui n'ont pas besoin d'argent, en même temps que ce qui en ont besoin, les jeunes, soient isolés de mes projets, donc incapables de leur gagner d'argent pour eux-mêmes, donc pas en train d'en gagner pour moi non plus. Même si ça leur rapporterait.

B
Les zones horaires annoncées sont à partir de mon service de courriel qui est américain. Il se peut que les heures annoncés soient celles de quelque part aux États-Unis, tandis que nous nous trouvons à Paris/Nanterre.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues.


HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Marital Age and Teen Abortions ; 2) Previous Continued ; Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 3) Continuing with BG, trying to bring in history, getting a few dialogues on moral issues. ; New blog on the kid : Are Satanists Very Moral?

Date and time:
Ember Sabbath of Pentecost Octave, 21.V.2016. Between 14:16 and 16:41 Paris time.

Participants:
Myself, shortened to HGL for a show of equality, because BG is shortened to BG for protection of his anonymity. He's a British Social Worker, a Catholic (if you call Novus Ordos so) and an older acquaintance of mine. In contexts other than this question, he might seem pro-life.

HGL
I think a thread where we were debating some stats was taken down from a wall, where we were doing so.

You studied, as far as I can see, censuses and after the Industrial revolution (earliest 1856? or was that the second?).

You also stated that earlier 30 was a normal age at death.

Well, it is still a normal or even high age of death for someone having diabetes type I [type 1] and no treatment.

So, let's consider examples further back, shall we, both age at death and, for girls, age at marriage.

Is that OK?

BG
ITs a no-go zone for me Hans
the age of consent, i strongly support this
i'm a socail worker
i have dealt with HUGE numbers of sex offenders who have developed arguments in favour of lowering the age of consent

HGL
OK.

You are a social worker?

How many children AND TEENS have you separated from their parents "for their own good"?

And what are social workers doing with sex offenders?

I thought that was for policemen and for judges, for prisons and so on.

Even if you happen to be against discussing main theme, what about supporting your little tidbits of very selective facts? Like going outside your little charmed circle?

One more thing, if you get one thing from your experience as a social worker and another from St Thomas Aquinas (will link below) which do you go by?

I thought you were Catholic, but to some nowadays, that's words wigthout content.

Article 5. Whether defective age is an impediment to marriage? - SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The...
[Is impotence an impediment to marriage? Is a spell? Is frenzy or madness? Is incest?] Is defective age?
http://newadvent.org/summa/5058.htm#article5


BG
several
I facilitate transition from home to independent living

[If it was in answer to "separated from parents" I meant from home to foster home or "homes" in the collective sense. Not to independent living.]

HGL
A little quote first:

"Article 5. Whether defective age is an impediment to marriage?"
Objection 1. It would seem that deficient age is not an impediment to marriage. For according to the laws children are under the care of a guardian until their twenty-fifth year. Therefore it would seem that before that age their reason is not sufficiently mature to give consent, and consequently that ought seemingly to be the age fixed for marrying. Yet marriage can be contracted before that age. Therefore lack of the appointed age is not an impediment to marriage.
Reply to Objection 1. In matters to which nature inclines there is not required such a development of reason in order to deliberate, as in other matters: and therefore it is possible after deliberation to consent to marriage before one is able to manage one's own affairs in other matters without a guardian.

BG
disabled and severely handicapped.
Home is the best place

HGL
"I facilitate transition from home to independent living" - oh, sex offenders in homes, why not prison?

[I still thought he meant homes in collective sense. Like where five to ten or fifteen teens live supervised by someone not their parent and not having full approval of parents either. Those are the kind of social workers I find most offensive.]

BG
but if they are to go independent its great that the family keep control over their needs and support
and also close by, to ensure they remain an integral part of family
no, i worked with parole service

HGL
ah

sex offenders on parole, ok

BG
they are individually able to give sufficient consent in degree
but i support the protection of children ie. under 18 given ...some protection
still i have never met a guy under 25 in prison for having ...sex with a girl between 13-18

HGL
St Thomas Aquinas thought a person should have some kind of parental protection up to 25.

However, not barring marriage at puberty.

BG
Hans- i suspect you've made up your mind on this through lots of wrestling in the mind
BUT take it from me mate
leave it alone
its not worth it
get on with living
and forget the case
sure, you have a point probably
and i think the consent age is fluid
with age and circumstances, education
but its not a good look to encourage the removal of consent age
a better cause might be to support greater safeguards for minors
so they can be children
this includes prosecuting parents who allow their children to use internet without supervision and safeguards

HGL
"consent age is fluid with age" - a great one.

Other point, I am NOT asking for consent age to be removed, but to be lowered back to where it was before it was heightened.

"minors, so they can be children"?

C'mon!

Teen depression cause one is treating physical adults as mental children.

[20] Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. [21] Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged.
From Colossians ch. 3.

"prosecuting parents who allow their children to use internet without supervision and safeguards"

Even when nothing bad happens? Just because some social worker or teacher knows a child or even a "child" as in a teen has gone to a site he doesn't like?

What would happen if my blog (link below) were on your black list of paedo blogs, which it does not deserve, and a parent had allowed his teen girl to read it?

Would the parent be prosecuted for that?

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com


BG
its not a good look Hans--- this MUST be left to women
let them make the case, NOT you
I'm just protecting your reputation

HGL
"its not a good look Hans--- this MUST be left to women"

Some say that of abortion decision too, you know?

"let them make the case, NOT you"

I have let Amanda Lewin do her case with her name and LAG - you know who - anonymised under initials.

"I'm just protecting your reputation"

That is for me to do or not. You are not and hope will never be my legal guardian, as far as I know I am not under such a one.

I am 47.

People treating me as if I needed a guardian are precisely the kind of evil men who have stopped me from getting a wife.

Usually of age above 18. That's where I have usually looked, because under that age stopping it is so much easier. However, usually not above 30.

Now, that cleared up, or perhaps not, what about your stats

"I've checked many census in my studies and overall there is little variation. eg : 1863, Women: 21.0; Men 25.8, 1900 Women: 21.9; Men: 25.9, 1950 Women: 20.3; Men: 22.8; 1975 Women: 21.1; Men: 23.5"

What about checking Medieval examples?

"Of course in some places because of factors like land availability, disease- and mortality rate (30 was fairly normal age of death before 19th century)"

What proof have you of that?

Your own studies go back to after middle of that 19th C..

HGL (added later, after silence)
C'mon, you were arguing from history, is that less welcome when you have to do with a person having some knowledge of it?

BG
c'mon Hans- My wife is REALLY young asian chic-- and I can tell you its not fun married to a girl look elsewhere, find a mother!!!!

[laughing dog emoticon]

HGL
That was not what I was discussing.

I am trying to find a mother FOR MY CHILDREN to be.

Not for myself.

And a thousand men or women trying to act as if they could mother me, well that smothers me in the search.

If I married an age peer, I probably would get one who by lack of children of her own would start mothering me, and though I dearly love my mother, her mothering was enough, more of it by others starts getting smothering.

And you have still preferred talking TO me about ME, to talking WITH me about a historical SUBJECT.

Perhaps because you don't master it?

Hope your Asian chic reads this and gets a good laugh at her hubby!

BG
i love her, but i do not recommend any man to find a woman half his age. Nothing beats equal experience!!!

HGL
There are exsperiences superior to mine, among them marrying young, which I was denied.

I don't think there is any experience exactly equal to mine.

Chesterton said sth about marriage being a seesaw.

That does not come off as a bench where both are equal all the time.

So, how about quitting the preaching and letting me present some historic research I did?

BG
none of these people Chesterton, Aquinas.... etc would support of lowering the consent age today... none.
no, i'm not interested
the age of consent was ncessary
as the nation state arose
because legal framework replaced customs/ taboos
its still socially acceptable in parts of indonesia and even catholic philippines to a kind of marriage at 15
i would like to see even provincial girls educated
before committing
I don't think they should be subserient to a land owning gentry
I want them to be equal
and free to serve
the family
I totally 100% in favour of 18 for now
however if we have a huge plague
and a third of our population is wiped off
and most women do not even reach age 35
then I think it prudent to quicken their education
and empower teenagers to marry as young as 15
[thumbs up]
just like in the gospel as man spread --- he also multiplied upon many, taking many wives
each age must dictate what it necessary to be safe
and protect young immature girls from the prying and powerful

HGL
"none of these people Chesterton, Aquinas.... etc would support of lowering the consent age today... none."

That's your guess. As a "theologian" (i e believer dealing with clergy) I have dealt with people guessing if Jesus had lived today, He'd have supported female ordination, legal sodomy, heliocentrism and evolution (He was a child of his times, you know) ....

That is NOT how I do historic figures, I read what they wrote or said to those who wrote it down.

"no, i'm not interested"

Ah, a clear case of social-worker-itis!

[Note for others : the clinical tone is irony. Heresy and stubborn pride is not disease either of them in any clinical sense.]

Interested in presenting HIS facts, whether facts or not, but NOT interested in any facts which could disturb them.

"the age of consent was ncessary
as the nation state arose
because legal framework replaced customs/ taboo"


In St Thomas Aquinas' time the legal framwork had been in place since pre-Christian times.

Roman Empire introduced matrimonial consent limit at 14/12, accoridng to philophers, but while Pagan often flouted it. Church saw to it to start respecting it.

So if you imagine the 14/12 limit is tribal taboo, you are simply wrong.

And this was before some of the parts of Europe were as yet nation states.

"its still socially acceptable in parts of indonesia and even catholic philippines to a kind of marriage at 15"

In South Carolina, in 1995, it was acceptable for a 12 year old girl to marry an old man (I think she was n ot looking forward to too intensive sex) in order to get out of school, which otherwise would have kept her till 16.

Bill Clinton ended that liberty. So, you are taking Bill Clinton's side.

In Italy, it was in fact the "nation state" which introduced an 18/18 limit. Under Papal State legislation, as in Spain at least a few decades after fall of Papal States, the limit was .... you guessed it, I suppose : 14/12.

"i would like to see even provincial girls educated"

One priority one can share.

[Verbally, at least. He seems to consider school attendance as education.]

"before committing"

I suppose their parents did some educating before 12 or 15? Right?

You know, Chesterton fairly well DID say educating was mainly the parents' business, while school was more like there to give instruction on specific subjects.

"I don't think they should be subserient to a land owning gentry"

But, while not wanting village girls to be subservient to land owning gentry, you don't mind town or city girls closer home being subservient to teachers and to people like you?

"I want them to be equal
and free to serve
the family"


Parents, but not husband?

What if making grandchildren were a great favour to bestow on your parents?

"I totally 100% in favour of 18 for now"

In that case you are as extreme as Muslims. Know why?

Extreme ages for complete but still normal puberty are 9 and 18.

NORMAL range is between 11:th and 14:th birthday for 90% of girls, between 13:th and 16:th for 90% of boys.

"however if we have a huge plague
and a third of our population is wiped off
and most women do not even reach age 35
then I think it prudent to quicken their education
and empower teenagers to marry as young as 15"


May I remind you that St Thomas Aquinas lived a calendar century earlier than the plague?

The Black Death was ONE year of the middle ages, perhaps two, in most places.

[Earliest places it came : 1347, latest places taking a sigh of relief : 1349. St Thomas had died before 1277.]

It's like saying "as in the times of Noah" must mean very rainy weather, because the Deluge was surrounding his 600:dth birthday or came just after!

"just like in the gospel as man spread --- he also multiplied upon many, taking many wives
each age must dictate what it necessary to be safe
and protect young immature girls from the prying and powerful"


In my book, it's people like you who are prying and powerful.

As for "each age", that is the baloney of developing morals.

Chesterton once mentioned, if a chessboard has no fixed colours of the squares, it's not just that black squares can be painted white, it's also that white squares can be painted black.

Marriage at puberty used to be a white square (unless the puberty was precocious like at 9). You are a perfect example of what Chesterton warned against, and the fact is, you are helping to paint a square that used to be black, namely murder of the unborn, at least a few shades lighter grey than before.

Oh, nearly missed this one:

"and protect young immature girls from the prying and powerful"

YOU say they are immature. Are they always agreeing? If so, how many of them are doing so to escape your extortion like powers as social worker? If not, how do you relate to a thirteen year old girl, pregnant, who, very properly, thinks she should raise her child with its father?

Do you tell her "she's not mature"?

HGL (adding after silence)
Telling her that is not very helpful either to her or to her child, you know.

[Next I notified him, and time limit is valid for dialogue up to here.]

BG
you lost me, when comparing support for abortion with lowering the consent age. again i am not interested in your personal project of lowering the consent age. Good bye

HGL
Feel free to leave debate, and to leave me with these final words:

a woman who is pregnant naturally wants to keep and raise her child, abortion is only chosen due to trauma (especially in young and so far healthy girls) and one kind of trauma is precisely that of being told one is too young to keep and raise the child.

HENCE, whether you want it to or not, whether you are even aware of it or not, you are indirectly supporting the abortion.

[written, but when trying to send:]

FB mail
Cette personne ne reçoit actuellement pas de messages de votre part.

Update on facts:
Russia went bad before Revolution.

Imperial laws were very particular with the age in which serfs could marry. The minimum age to marry was 13 years old for females, and 15 for males. After 1830 the female and male ages were raised to 16 and 18 respectively. To marry over the age of 60, the serf had to receive permission, but marriage over the age of 80 was forbidden. The Church also did not approve marriages with large age differences.


Avdeev, Blum, Troitskaia, Juby, "Peasant Marriage", 731–33.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia

The modern craze about stigmatising as "pedophilia" anything below 18 is clearly an example of Russia spreading its errors through the world.

What did "Father" Rosica say?
// That means that Catholic media should “listen,” rather than merely “hear,” as it engages in dialogue.

It also means that church media should communicate with everyone, without exception.

It further means that “Christians ought to be a constant encouragement to communion and, even in those cases where they must firmly condemn evil, they should never try to rupture relationships and communication.” //

Not quite the behaviour of BG. Not that I blame him totally, as he lacks arguments.

Father Zuhlsdorf could also be heard.
He quotes a certain Richard Cohen of Washington Post.

Fr. Z's Blog : WaPo bigot attacks Rick Santorum’s Catholicism
Posted on 28 February 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/wapo-bigot-attacks-rick-santorums-catholicism/


The citation is interspersed with Father Z’s comments :

Richard Cohen on WaPo
Mullah Rick has spoken.

He wants religion returned to “the public square,” is opposed to contraception, premarital sex and abortion under any circumstances, wants children educated in what amounts to little red schoolhouses and called President Obama a “snob” for extolling college or some other kind of post-high school education. This is not a political platform. It’s a fatwa.

Father Z interspersing in square brackets and red :
[Liberals control the education system, of course.  It is a chief method of indoctrination.  Liberals want to make sure that all kids are under their aegis for as long as possible.  That way they can suck kid’s brains out and pump their skulls full their lefty … detritus.]

My comment :
BG seems closer to Richard Cohen than to Father Zuhlsdorf.

H/T to Dymphna
For sending me off to read Father Z.

Dymphna's Road : Looks like the Main Stream Media is having a little anti Catholic moment
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 : Posted by Dymphna at 8:12 PM
http://dymphnaroad.blogspot.fr/2012/02/looks-like-main-stream-media-is-having.html


Sorry for
Links temporarily not working, if that be the case. A library in Paris has arranged for its computers to show a hyphen instead of equals sign. Will try to fix as soon as getting to an internet café, meanwhile, copy paste links and put in adress bars.