With Richard Carrier

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

I

Me to Carrier

05/07/2016 13:13

If you do not want to give your home adress, fine, in your situation it is understandable.

I'd like to get an adress to which I could snail-mail a copy of my self printed booklet "Can We Reasonably Trust the Gospels - YES!"

It includes refutations to points you have made over internet, e g I think a video I saw with you.

So you should be notified.

If you do not want the booklet, fine, I can send you links instead.

I like your "equal non-exclusive rights" clause.

When I write own essays, (even when quoting and refuting someone), my own coonditions for anyone wanting to reuse material (including commercially) is non-exclusive general licence.

When I debate, and mirror debate on my blogs, I obviously presuppose my opponent shall have exactly the same right as I to mirror debate on his blog.

I don't do "public" as in oral debates, so any debate over internet between us would fall outside the scope of your other conditions.

Carrier (to me)

05/07/2016 14:58

Richard Carrier a accepté votre demande.

II

Me to Carrier

20/09/2016 12:06

Notification of refutation:

Fact Check Alert, Mr Carrier! Fact Check Alert!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/fact-check-alert-mr-carrier-fact-check.html

III

Me to Carrier

jeu 15:36 *

Answering your curiosity from 15 hours ago:

Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God?
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/08/two-observations-carrier-what-if.html

Carrier to me

jeu 18:09

Is that just another ontological argument for an ultra complex disembodied super mind? Really? You didn’t read my article or any of its links on that, did you? You know those ontological arguments never work, right? They always commit the existential fallacy somewhere in their machinery. Everyone knows this.

Me to Carrier

ven 09:13

What is "ultra complex" about mind?

As for reading your article, I did not read all of it, but copied the 8 propositions.

You may be free to expose on what "'existential fallacy is".

As for "everyone knows this" - that is an appeal to snobbery, therefore in philosophy a fallacy.

Carrier to me

ven 17:52

No, "everyone knows this" is shown by every standard reference on the Ontological Argument: e.g. Stanford Encyclopedia: "Any reading of any ontological argument which has been produced so far which is sufficiently clearly stated to admit of evaluation yields a result which is invalid, or possesses a set of premises which it is clear in advance that no reasonable, reflective, well-informed, etc. non-theists will accept, or has a benign conclusion which has no religious significance, or else falls prey to more than one of the above failings."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Ontological Arguments
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

In fact I've filled out my response here:

Richard Carrier August 31, 2018, 12:01 pm
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486#comment-26558

[I missed this latter point]

Me to Carrier

sam 17:44

OK, you do philosophical arguments by Stanford?

Btw, "ontological" - isn't that Pascal and Descartes?

Carrier to me

I don't know what either of those questions mean.

Me to Carrier

dim 19:20

Question a means, do you let Stanford dictionary decide philosophical questions for you? That would be a bit like a Protestant using Strong to determine battologein means "say with repetitions" in Matthew 6:7.

Question b means, isn't ontological rather the argument that the most perfect thing would lack the perfection of being and therefore not be the most perfect thing if there was no most perfec thing? As Pascal and Descartes put it.

Bc this is not what I argued.

Carrier to me

You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure. I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for. I don’t have to rely on the source myself because I have already by myself checked and directly confirmed the fact that all onto args are fallacious. And if you would actually read the source i pointed you to it would answer your question b. Your question only exposes your ignorance in this matter. You clearly haven’t studied it.

Me to Carrier

lun 10:55

"You asked how I know philosophers others agree the ontological argument is a failure."

No, I asked how you could say such a thing as "everyone knows this".

"I quoted you a mainstream reference that established the fact because that’s what you asked for."

Not quite, no. I weigh my words on gold balances, feel free to do so too.

In fact, it seems you confirmed what I thought about question B.

You actually did reduce my argument to sth equivalent to: "God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists."

Now, the problem is, you did not read my actual argument, if you think the dismissal of ontological argument answers it.

I gave TWO observations, one for Pagans like you :

• 1) supposing nothing really had given rise to any number of universes - how can you exclude us living in a theistic or polytheistic one? One where the "big bang" moment was the emergence of a god from that nothing?
  
  
• 2) supposing "necessarily existing" involves God?

Now, I had not given any specific argument as to how I could argue that God = necessarily existing and necessarily existing = God. I had not specified an Anselmian argument as per your link as my reason for that.

In fact, I had as not giving any reason simply challenged you how you could exclude this from being true.

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is God. Therefore God necessarily exists"

It is at least as plausible as

"The necessary existence necessarily exists. The necessary existence is spacetime and particles. Therefore spacetime and particles necessarily exist."

"Fin de la discussion"

jeu - lun = Thursday to Monday, 30.VIII - 3.IX.2018

IV

Update(s)

Me to Carrier

15:33 (4.IX.2018)

Notification:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/09/with-richard-carrier.html

and

somewhere else : Various Responses to Carrier
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2018/09/various-responses-to-carrier.html

Carrier to me

Dude. Read the source I pointed you to. Not every ontological argument takes that form, nor comes from the people you name, and "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references in a field anyone who claims to know what they're talking about should be familiar with. And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), and don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. In short, you are wildly ignorant here, and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology.

Me to Carrier

// "everyone knows" is a fair description of what is reported in standard references //

Unless the standard references are in fact biassed due to a bias in today's culture.

To me, St Thomas Aquinas is a standard reference.

// And there is no such thing as "at least as plausible" being a logical demonstration that necessarily something is so. //

• 1) X is necessarily existent;
• 2) A is at least as plausible as B as identification of X.

I did not pretend to logically demonstrate A is necessarily existent, that is beyond the scope of my post.

I challenged you with a "what if".

// Hence you don't know how to logically demonstrate something. //

Dixit strawmannus maximus ...

// You can't even tell the difference between conditionals ("if we grant x, then y satisfies x") and direct statements of fact ("not possibly, but actually, x is a necessary being"), //

I most certainly can, except you seem to have a momentary difficulty in reading ... it is momentary, right?

// don't even know that a possibility is not a probability, or how to get a probability out of a possibility. //

A zero probability is an impossibility.

A possibility therefore involves a non-zero probability.

I suppose you follow some system by-passing this somehow ...

// In short, you are wildly ignorant here //

I'm more or less as ignorant about your atheistic system as you are about Thomism ... perhaps rather less.

// and you need to learn a lot of things before you can do anything useful in the domain of logic. Much less theology. //

I've seen this attitude before. I don't like it.

But I do like the occasion of showing you deal with me with attitude rather than good logic.

Carrier to me

OMG. 😅 You really do suck at philosophy if you think standard references in philosophy are biased and prefer obsolete Medieval superstitious nutcases whose nearly every declaration has been proved false since. That tells us all we need to know about you.

Me to Carrier

OK, you just branded yourself as a Barbarian.

Carrier to me

And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. Because my article is about probabilities and conditionals. That you don't know this, and still don't get it, testifies to how badly you suck at this.

Actually, you are closer to barbarians. You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy.

Which just confirms what I said: you don't know what you are talking about here. You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise.

Me to Carrier

// And my point is, a "what if" does not challenge the argument of my article. //

Was I challenging your argument?

No, I was challenging what you thought it implied.

// Actually, you are closer to barbarians. //

Not by ignorance of civilisation, at least.

// You trust Medieval claptrap over the entirety of modern science and philosophy. //

Misusing "entirety" as much as previously you were misusing "everyone", thank you.

// You are unfamiliar with the state of the field on all the questions you raise. //

A "state of the field" brought about by people unfamiliar with the state of the field as per after St Thomas Aquinas, and a few more ... partly.

But I am waiting for a reasoned response, not for more semi-abuse. Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath, though ...

In fact, after reading through Stanford article, which I did not do till now, it does not stamp either my article or Tertia Via as an ontological argument.

Carrier to me

That you don't know the difference between implied and demonstrated, and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration, is why you don't know what you are doing. Your challenge does not challenge the argument at all. And that you don't understand that, still now, just further demonstrates your incompetence.

And indeed that you didn't grasp the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument, and that if you can't demonstrate it, it has no weight against a conditional starting with Nothing, is more and more proof of your incompetence.

Me to Carrier

"and don't know how to actually correctly challenge a logical demonstration,"

Apart from your abusive tone, one challenge on your article is the oblique one : showing your forgot an angle.

Which is what I did.

You have so far given no refutation of my points in the article, but a lot of abuse.

"the basic point that any argument claiming God is logically necessary IS an ontological argument,"

That is not what your own reference actually said.

You have just shown your incompetence in reading.

Or perhaps your competence in tactics : you prefer proving my incompetence over proving my argument wrong.

I think that classifies as an ad hominem.

Carrier to me

Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition) nor any step from one to the other. You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument. Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to. It's just embarrassing that you don't even understand this!

Me to Carrier

"Dude, you have not challenged the truth of any premise (any numbered proposition)"

I did not need to.

You forgot that each numbered proposition could have a Theistic interpretation, and I pointed that out.

Now YOU need to exclude this one.

"You have not therefore shown any flaw in my argument."

I don't think your argument is flawed. I think it is brilliant - it is just more Theistic than you thought (at least potentially at least until you have proven that "God is in fact the necessary existance" is a false proposition).

"Until you do, there is nothing in your article I ever need reply to."

Of course, you don't actually NEED to reply to the fact that your whole argument leaves a whole side open for Theism ... it is up to you.

Carrier to me

Um. Dude. That's not how logic works. 😅

The premises are either false or true. There is no "interpretation." That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next. So if you see an interpretation that makes a premise ambiguous, it identifies a fallacy in my argument. So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument.

Me to Carrier

"That entails a fallacy, if you interpret them differently from one step to the next."

No, it is not a Quaternio Terminorum to CONSISTENTLY interpret the term "what is impossible not to exist" as God.

"So tell me which numbered proposition is ambiguous enough to create a fallacy in my argument."

Except as an argument for atheism, there is no fallacy in your argument.

As to it being an argument for atheism, each of them, starting with the first one.

You have consistently considered as self-evident that "necessary existance" or "that which would be logically contradictory not to exist" is not just verbally, but realiter, in the things considered, distinct from God.

Carrier to me

Which numbered proposition. Call it. Pick one. Which one "allows" theism through some reinterpretation without creating a fallacy? Identify by number the proposition, and explain how it is ambiguous as you claim. Or GTFO.

Me to Carrier

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8.

As you told me to pick one, 1.

"That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen." = "Nevertheless, the very notion that logically necessary things necessarily exist, necessarily entails logically impossible things never exist."

You forgot the possibility that, realiter, independently of your status in investigation, God could be a logically necessary thing.

In other words, you dismissed the possibility as "a version of the ontological argument" which Stanford doesn't.

Carrier to me

The possibility is irrelevant. If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument. Because that's how logic works you dumbass. You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory. Even 1+1=2 "it's possible it's a contradiction, therefore we should conclude it's false" is simply NOT how logic works. For that or anything else. To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION. Until you do, we have a logical demonstration and you do not. That's how logic works.

Me to Carrier

"If you can't demonstrate God IS a necessary being, the possibility has no effect on the argument"

False.

I was NOT pretending to refuse any of your propositions. I was simply asking "what if God IS not a but THE necessary being" and concluding that given that all of your propositions are fully Orthodox.

Now it is up to you to show why this identification doesn't work.

If you challenge me to show the reverse, well, you were making a claim, so you have a "burden of proof" (on your rules). But also, St Thomas aquinas already did so. Third way in I, Q 2, A3 AND a lot of subsequent articles showing the five ways actually do point to a personal God.

As long as you have not "cleared this", the possibility has a huge effect on your argument.

"You can't refute all mathematics by claiming it's "possible" it's all contradictory."

I wasn't attempting to refute all mathematics, and I was not claiming it was possible mathematics were contradictory.

I was mentioning it is possible absence of God could be a contradiction - a possibility outlined as a necessity by others, in fact, not just a very wild what if.

So, your parallel is a non-parallel. You still merit the sobriquet Strawmannus Maximus.

"To refute a logical demonstration, you need to present A LOGICAL DEMONSTRATION."

Yes, but I was precisely not trying to refute the part which was a logical demonstration. I was just reminding of the thing you were NOT demonstrating, but taking for granted.

You have a logical demonstration, but you have so far not shown it is one of atheism.

Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do) (Update to XXXIX)

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

You know that law which says, as arguments go longer, the probability of a reductio ad Hitlerum approaches 1? Well, as my arguments with Mackey grow longer, the probability of a conflict over Trojan War approaches 1 ...

Back to

main line of exchange:

XXI

Damien Mackey to me

7/9/2018 at 5:56 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Then find me a proper archaeology for the Solonian era at Athens.

That is one thing German with which I agree, gruendlich, from the ground upwards.

At your rate you will never "get there", get there to a history that has a stratigraphical foundation to it.

I'd rather build upon solid foundations, gruendlich (rausch, achtung).

In the following

I give two exchanges in parallel, in order of sending of mails:

XXII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:13 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

There is proper archaeology for Troy.

I thought you did not believe the Trojan War.

My principle is, I believe archaeology (what actually is there to see), and I believe history even more.

Your principle seems to be, you believe history less than archaeology, and history only when supported by archaeology - and yet you don't believe all there is in archaeology either.

Sounds like sth very close to radical scepsis and absolutely incompatible with Christianity, if carried out.

Archaeology is not the foundation of history, they are two different disciplines.

History is on the one hand more easy to fake in a sense, but on the other hand clearer.

Also, the sense in which history is easier to fake is marginal, and does not totally concern narrative history as a whole, more like special pleading types of history.

If you are content with "there must have been Protestants in 597 AD, even if I can't find any" or with "there must have been a secret tradition before 1717, going all the way back to Nimrod and to Adam, since Adam was a Freemason" - well, then history is easy to fake TO YOU.

But the documentation I would like PM to give for Protestants in 597 AD is not an archaeological, but a narrative one. One is NOT the foundation of the other, they go hand in hand, and history being more complete is also less supported by the other, without therefore being historically illsupported.

Solon has left writings to Athenians, therefore he existed. Homer has left songs (later written down) to Ionians and later Athenians. Therefore, he too existed.

Your criterium is the equivalent of requiring Moses' autograph for each book of the Torah, duly carbon dated to whenever he would have existed before believing Mosaic authorship.

You may be fine with making dogma an exception to your general theory of knowledge, I am very much not.

I like to say to Atheists "Moses wrote the Pentateuch, since he is credited with so having written it" - and universally credited by Hebrews, like Solon was universally credited by Athenians. Perhaps your professor taught you another approach, but in Medieval Paris professors taught it was a fault to "iurare in verba magistri".

XXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/9/2018 at 2:28 PM

"What exactly is Creation Science?"

[Refers to a paper of Damien's]

Six km of sedimentary mud under Eden ...

Your problem with "local Flood" and a few more problems of Creation Science is twofold:

• you are prepared to take an opinion (even a popular one) among Creation Science adherents as if it were an absolute corrollary of Creation Science as such.
  
  Canopy theory is ... scientifically perhaps a bit shady.
  
  Four Rivers "generic names" ... is un-Biblical.
  
  But, neither is as such a consequence of Creation Science.
  
  
• while you exact a certain "gruendlichkeit" from narrative history, you do not exact it for your own archaeology - it is the groundwork by definition (ain't it in the ground after all?) and so anything stated by it is by definition gruendlich.
  
  Not.
  
  I have my gruendlichkeit in narrative history too - like wondering how many camp survivors of certain camps have seen a certain type of execution, which to doubt in France might put me in conflict with "loi Gayssot". I like my blogs to remain legal, and I intend to republish this on blogs, so ...
  
  In archaeology, the counterpart would be : would the six km of mud actually be under Eden, and not over it or over where it was?
  
  Are there problems in dating?
  
  Ah, yes, this is a topic where some Gruendlichkeit would do you good, but carbon dating bores you .... well, if relevant subjects bore you, why make a general pronouncement at all on the matter? Why not stick to topics where you are not too bored to take in the viewpoints of both sides?

XXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:46 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Moses is never credited with having written the Book of Genesis. Show me where.

Nor did he write the account of his own death in Deuteronomy 34 (from memory).

He was the primary, but not the only, EDITOR, of Genesis.

And some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses.

The Church says only that he was the "substantial", not sole, author.

You'll get there - I'll be long dead, though.

XXV

Damien Mackey to me

7/10/2018 at 1:55 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You can be like the pharaoh who wanted a wise sage to build him a castle in the air.

AND when the king of Egypt had made sure that Haiqâr was slain, he arose straightway and wrote a letter to king Sennacherib, reminding him in it 'of the peace and the health and the might and the honour which we wish specially for thee, my beloved brother, king Sennacherib.

2 I have been desiring to build a castle between the heaven and the earth, and I want thee to send me a wise, clever man from thyself to build it for me, and to answer me all my questions, and that I may have the taxes and the custom duties of Assyria for three years.'

This "Haiqar" (Ahikar) is quite fictitious and not at all gruendlich.

But my Ahikar, biblical nephew of Tobit (and cousin of his son, Job), has a whole neo-Assyrian archaeology under his feet.

Any "castle" that he might have built would have been on solid historico-archaeological ground, and not, as in your system, suspended precariously between heaven and earth.

XXVI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:42 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

I am not saying he got the story of Adam's fall by a vision, he got it from Hebrew TRADITION.

Final chapter of Deuteronomy, on his order, was written by Joshua, like final chapter of Joshua, on his order, was written by someone else.

Moses was the FINAL editor of Genesis, and made it his own book by adding the chapter one account of the six days, which he had from God on Sinai.

Also, arguably, where Genesis has Adonai, it is possible that Moses replaced Elohim with Adonai in those places, also a work by a final editor making Genesis his own work. Why? From memory, in some places Genesis has Adonai, but Exodus says God had not revealed that name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Putting anything of the Pentateuch into the Temple era, as to first authorship, is simply heresy.

One can imagine updates in spelling and even onomastic updates were continuously being made. Obviously vocalisation started out as by memory and neither the dots nor the matres lectionis consonants were original parts of the text. One could extend this to names, to comments on Joshua's stones, to points of grammar.

In Sweden we do that quite a lot to our Classics (except the inserting comments or onomastic changes part, there we have footnotes).

Take a look at this stanza:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjelm sin rundel hvälfver.

You probably get zilch. But the point is, while "open E" sound as short tonic vowel could be ä if the word had a in other forms, it was normally e (especially after j).

Fast forward to 1870's (after it was written). Now you could get a reedition in which you instead had ä for nearly all "open E", the short as well as the long, it would if so have looked like this:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälfver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel hvälfver.

Comes the dire year of 1906. The Academy gives the Nobel Prize of Literature to Inno a Satana (it means what you think it means) by Carducci. More to the point (just giving the spiritual background to it), certain consonants which had alternative spellings now get only one (but sh/wh - it's a sound between the two, except in Finland where it is sh) and yod which had more spellings than any other retain them.

The result now looks like this, and this is how I read it in an abridged edition:

Den ena som en ek sköt fram,
och som en lans är hennes stam;
men kronan, som i vinden skälver,
liksom en hjälm sin rundel välver.

And if it had been prose, perhaps the archaic word "rundel" would have been replaced by some more easily comprehensible word, like "klot" or "cirkel" (globe or circle, I think "rundel" is a very exact rendering of khug in that famous Isaiah 40:22).

THIS is the limit of the reediting which can have happened during either first or second Temple.

If you argue "such and such a form in Pentateuch is younger than a form in the Psalms of David, therefore cannot be by Moses, and so the text is not" you are basically arguing that - had we only had the redacted copy with "välver" today - the text cannot be by Tegnér, because "välver" doesn't exist before 1906 (or only very sporadically, not sure which), and Tegnér died 1848 and is credited by tradition with having written the poem in 1825. By the way, my memory failed slightly, he died in 1846.

Other example of the poem, first original, then introducing changes which would have been there in a prose rendering:

Hur gladtigt sam han i sin slup
med henne öfver mörkblå djup!
Hur hjertligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små hvita händer!

Hur glatt simmade han i sin slup
med henne öfver* mörkblå djup!
Hur hjärtligt, när han seglen vänder,
hon klappar i små vita händer!

This too, changing the rhythm, but immaterial outside poetry is a kind of change which could easily have happened during the temple era.

In English, replacing "swam" with "swimmed" would be incorrect, but in Swedish, not replacing "sam" with "simmade" would be and was already in Tegnér"s time, archaic.

A comment about "Kiryat-Arba" as "Kiryat-Arba which is Hebron" is really the utmost limit of what the temple era could have changed.

The law was made for oral reading (to be read in public once every seven years) and a footnote in the margin of the text, not pronounced, would not have been any use to the audience.

You asked where I find this?

In Tradition. Church Fathers and Scholastics say nothing about this or that or sundry being added during the temple era. They credit Moses as virtually sole author.

I also credit him with having been the substantial author - since changing "swam" to "swimmed" (should that happen to English) or "Kiryat Arba" to "Kiryat Arba which is Hebron" (change probably under Joshua or at least before King David) is not a substantial change. Adding narrative which was not there is.

How about Moses having inherited most of Genesis from earlier? Since he a u t h o r i s e d the story, he is literally a u t h o r of it. If Pacelli penned and Pope Pius XI signed an encyclical, its author in the literal Latin sense of this term is Pius XI.

Is there ANY kind of argument for your little heresy about "some of the rest of the Pentateuch belongs to the Temple era, way later than Moses" which I have not dealt with in this response?

Oh, by the way, if you have it from your bishop, do feel free, even urged to pass on to him that I consider his position as very gravely heretical in a man of his position, since as a bishop he is required to know all of the faith and has no excuse for being a badly instructed Catholic, like you may have.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Note

*öfver - actually it should have been changed to över, 1906 again, but I missed this item from fatigue.

XXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/10/2018 at 9:50 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Taking narrative even without archaeology as a reliable source is not something suspended between heaven and earth, but - outside certain Academic and also heretical cliques - normal procedure.

Note, I said "a reliable" not an "always infallible or inerrant" source.

When Ulysses came back to Ithaca, it caused an upheaval on Ithaca. His archery may have been boosted by magic or may have been boosted by hidden archers who did not get the credit, but the suitors of his presumed widow did find the news of his démise highly exaggerated.

When Ulysses tells Nausicaa of how he dealt with Polypheme ... well, since Ulysses was alone, Nausicaa only had his word for it. Homer wisely left it inside Ulysses' narrative to Nausicaa - not in his own words.

So, I'll not be dogmatic on whether Polypheme existed or not, but I am about his return.

Troy being sacked by the Greeks was good enough for St. Augustine on the basis of the narrative of Virgil, based on earlier ones.

You might say we have imporved* methods now?

My point is, I don't think they are at all an improvement. They are a deterioration for reasons stated in the earlier mails./HGL

Note

* imporved should be improved, of course, fatigue.

From here

only the latter titale is continued:

XXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/11/2018 at 2:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You believe in Troy?

How come it has never been found? You have as much chance of finding a so-called Troy as finding a Cyclops.

XXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/11/2018 at 9:10 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Archaeological Site of Troy
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/849

XXX

Damien Mackey to me

7/12/2018 at 1:28 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh, Hissarlik. I've long heard of it.

And one day, perhaps long after I'm gone, they might even find an ancient stele there on the site of Hissarlik telling: "This is the site of Homer's Troy". "And here you can see a piece of Achilles' heel".

Keep living between earth and sky, H-G L.

XXXI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/12/2018 at 2:09 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann and the local priest put up a sign saying "this is where Christ appeared to King Priam".

Eagles tend to live between earth and sky, beasts from the earth tend not to ...

Seriously, if you have SO much trouble with trusting simple tradition on simple fact (here was a war, the people involved were named so and so ...) even when parts of it have been confirmed (Paris was also known as Alexander, and this name for Tarwusha / Wilusha region has been confirmed by ancient diplomacy, he could have been the diplomat of his father ... or to extreme sceptics, the real ruler of Troy, but that I won't buy ...). If you have SO much trouble with that, why do you trust archaeology on anything either?

After all, you were not there at most digs!

There is a dig outside ancient hills of Hissarlik, where archaeologists and military have found traces of a military encampment ... but since the tradition of this dig comes via youtube and me, trusting it would obviously be too much of a life of the eagles' young for your taste!

XXXII

Damien Mackey to me

7/13/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Schliemann was nuts as well.

Archaeology : Behind the Mask of Agamemnon
Volume 52 Number 4, July/August 1999
https://archive.archaeology.org/9907/etc/calder.html

"For 25 years I have researched the life of Heinrich Schliemann. I have learned to be skeptical, particularly of the more dramatic events in Schliemann's life: a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California; his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist; the discovery of ancient Greek inscriptions in his backyard; the discovery of the bust of Cleopatra in a trench in Alexandria; his unearthing of an enormous cache of gold and silver objects at Troy, known as Priam's Treasure. Thanks to the research of archaeologist George Korres of the University of Athens, the German art historian Wolfgang Schindler, and historians of scholarship David A. Traill and myself, we know that Schliemann made up these stories, once universally accepted by uncritical biographers. These fictions cause me to wonder whether the Mask of Agamemnon might be a further hoax. Here are nine reasons to believe it may be ...".

"Paris" would have been another biblical appropriation, likely Perez (of Judah).

Unless you think that Paris is in France, and somewhere between earth and sky.

XXXIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/13/2018 at 10:30 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Let's distinguish "Paris" as in Paris, Paridos, Paridi, Parida, Paris (son of Priam) from Lutetia Parisiorum, also known as Parisius in scholastic Latin, shall we?

"a White House reception; his heroic acts during the burning of San Francisco; his gaining American citizenship on July 4, 1850, in California"

Never heard of those parts.

"his portrayal of his wife, Sophia, as an enthusiastic archaeologist"

Let's put it like this, he "married" her because she was Greek, because she knew Homer. She would have been somewhat ... incongenial in her role ... if she had not at least humoured her husband's main interest.

In her case especially as it was an adultery, Schliemann was a divorcee when marrying her.

As to Priam's treasure and death mask, it is now fairly agreed among archaeologists, they are the wrong level of Troy for being close to Trojan War. They are "Troy II" while Trojan War would be one of the levels like "Troy VI" or "Troy VII".

As to Schliemann being fraudulent on many items, that doesn't detract from his discovery.

Indeed, just as he agreed a fake with the local priest about "this is the place where Christ appeared to King Priam", exactly so, he may have made up lots of other stuff in order to have enough prestige in what was then (and still is) Turkey to be allowed to dig.

As I supposed, you were not enough involved in correct keeping of VIII commandment to believe tradition by me that later archaeologists have found a war camp outside the Hissarlik ancient city, confirming Trojan War, so, here is a BBC story:

The Truth of Troy - transcript
First broadcast: BBC Two, Thursday 25 March 2004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troytrans.shtml

Or do you think Eric Cline and Manfred Korfmann are dishonest people just because Schliemann more or less had to be, when doing things among Turks who see so much on personal prestige?

Update:

XXXIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/14/2018 at 2:02 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Yeah they're on the wrong level, on the wrong page, in the wrong place, probably on the wrong planet.

XXXV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/16/2018 at 9:49 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You want that as your final word on this series of posts?

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

XXXVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/17/2018 at 1:36 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

You have a nice rest, H-G.

XXXVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/17/2018 at 4:19 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

If you thought debating you was stressful, you are wrong.

XXXVIII

Damien Mackey to me

7/18/2018 at 2:09 AM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Like I said before, you have more points than a porcupine.

Arch. Fulton Sheen had the right idea, KISS - Keep It Short, Stoopid.
No offence intended.

XXXIX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/18/2018 at 2:08 PM

Re: "What exactly is Creation Science?"

Oh - you need a rest? Fine.

Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

XI

Damien Mackey to me

7/5/2018 at 1:30 AM

Re: Gehon

In Sirach 24, the Nile is mentioned separately from the four rivers of Genesis 2, those of Adam's and Noah's time.

So you can't identify them.

It overflows, like the Pishon, with wisdom,
and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.
26 It runs over, like the Euphrates, with understanding,
and like the Jordan at harvest time.
27 It pours forth instruction like the Nile,[a]
like the Gihon at the time of vintage.

XII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/5/2018 at 1:48 PM

Re: Gehon

Vintage?

That would perhaps indicate another river than the Nile ...

Well, this was one ex temporary model.

Thing is, Church Fathers have assigned diverse rivers, but are consistent on mentioning Euphrates as Frat and Tigris as Hiddekel.

Most I looked at also mentioned Nile as either Pishon or Gihon.

Ganges and Danube are mentioned as Pishon and Gihon - hence my earlier model taking that more literally.

The pure fact that Nile and Gihon are named in parallel is in itself not impossible to square with identity.

However, Gihon in time of vintage seems to go better with Blue Nile than with White Nile (supposing Ethiopians made wine before they went to farm coffee - Ethiopians in our sense, that is).

That would perhaps make some kind of hay out of my attempt to reassign Pishon and Gihon as both Niles and Danube and Ganges as prolongations of pre-Flood counterparts of Euphrates and Tigris.

If so, Gihon could instead actually be "Ister" i e Danube - at least they do have vintages there.

What Bible or article quoting Bible is the text from and what does footnote a say?

XIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/5/2018 at 2:30 PM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Ver. 35. Phison. Or Phase of Colchis, which rises in Armenia, like the Tigris and Euphrates, all which overflow their banks at the beginning of summer, on account of the snow melting.

(37...) Gehon. Or Araxes, which descends from Armenia into the Caspian sea, though some erroneously take it to be the Nile, (C.) which overflows at the same time as the Euphrates. Pliny xviii. 18. Solon xlvi.

XIV

Damien Mackey to me

7/6/2018 at 1:37 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Solon was not an historical character, but a Greek appropriation of Solomon.

See my "Solomon and Sheba" at Academia.

XV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/6/2018 at 7:08 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Ouch, since he is a writer your reconstruction supports ideas like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being real Gospellers.

Obviously, for 2000 years, the Church has not agreed with this idea - either of Gospels or even of Solon.

Also, I am not sure the politics of Solomon and Solon are identical, old Israel was less democratic and more age based aristocratic than Athens.

If you say some Athenian adapted sentiments of Solomon (or of any Egyptian for that matter), well, could his name possibly have been ... Solon?

If you deny one did, how do you explain books rewriting themselves in thin air?

XVI

Damien Mackey to me

7/7/2018 at 1:35 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

Good point about Solon.

Though he is substantially a Greek appropriation of Solon, he is - like all of his appropriated ilk - a composite character.

His laws are reminiscent of Nehemiah's, as scholars have shown, e.g.:

Yamauchi's “Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem” (Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980).

Don't worry, you'll get there.

XVII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/7/2018 at 11:15 AM

Re: Gehon - Haydock comment

My dear, the problem is not whether Solon reused Solomon or Nehemiah, that is entirely possible - though a priori a bit improbable, and due to the existence of natural law not necessary.

The problem is your insistence on making historical characters fictional. No, I'll not get there.

Going back

a bit for a parallel line of mails:

XVIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/6/2018 at 3:19 PM

saw two papers

I agree Teilhard was .... I think "silly" is too good a word for it.

C S Lewis once seems to have said on Teilhard's "before life, there was pre-life" that before you light a lamp there is of course "pre-light" but sensible people call that darkness.

Have you included that reference yet?

It seems one commentator you referenced considered Gihon as "Nubian Nile" - would that be Blue Nile?

XIX

Damien Mackey to me

7/7/2018 at 2:51 AM

Re: saw two papers

Yes, Blue Nile is the Ethiopian (Nubian) one.

Very good quote re 'Try hard' de Chardin - had not previously known of it.

Now included at: The Sheer Silliness of Teilhard de Chardin
Part Six (b): Reader’s comment on Teilhard’s ‘silliness’
Damien Mackey
https://www.academia.edu/36996226/The_Sheer_Silliness_of_Teilhard_de_Chardin._Part_Six_b_Reader_s_comment_on_Teilhard_s_silliness_

XX

Me to Damien Mackey

7/7/2018 at 11:21 AM

Re: saw two papers

Well, if so, the Sirach problem is solved.

Nile meaning Nile between (probably) Khartoum and Delta, Gihon meaning Blue Nile - that is entirely possible and accounts for a lot of Church Fathers counting Nile as either Gihon or Phison.

Perhaps most common set of "four rivers" being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Ganges, another one (seen in a sermon not held but approved by St John Chrysostom, if I recall correctly) being Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Danube.

I think this would also involve Nile switching roles between Gihon and Phison and if one of them is Blue and other White Nile, it comes clear.

In that case pre-Flood version of Blue Nile flowing South would have turned east and also flowed out by Ganges, pre-Flood version of White Nile West and flowed on by ... I'd take Niger Congo over Danube if so.

And Danube, Araxes and Phasis and the Daria rivers would be continuing either Euphrates or Tigris to North West or North East.

With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X

Creation vs. Evolution : How Much was Shinar Devastated by the Flood? · You Find a Fossil Whale Here, a Fossil Pterosaur There ... · Answering Carter and Cosner on Eden · Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X · Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded? · Continuing Previous : XXI to XXXIII - getting to Troy (as we Tend to Do)

Four Rivers

Maps shown here, together, instead of lower, in each email.

Frat

Hiddekel

Phison

Gehon

Correspondence

starts here:

I

Me to Damien Mackey

7/1/2018 at 6:04 PM

remember "reverse Danube"?

Here is a comment:

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html

II

Damien Mackey to me

7/2/2018 at 1:31 AM

Re: remember "reverse Danube"?

H-GL
I'd love to see a simple map of your proposal. That would make it very easy for all of us to digest.

Best wishes,
Damien.

III

Me to Damien Mackey

7/2/2018 at 9:35 AM

Re: remember "reverse Danube"?

Hmmmm ... I'll see what I can do ...

Here is my proposal for Frat:

[Frat, see above]

IV

Me to Damien Mackey

7/2/2018 at 9:39 AM

Here is Hiddekel

[Hiddekel, see above]

V

Me to Damien Mackey

7/2/2018 at 9:45 AM

Phison

[Phison, see above]

VI

Me to Damien Mackey

7/2/2018 at 9:50 AM

Gehon

Note that I deleted part of Atlantic in Google map screen shot, to approach Amazonas river to Niger Congo and White Nile:

[Gehon, see above]

VII

Damien Mackey to me

7/3/2018 at 1:46 AM

Re: Gehon

You did a very good job. And so quickly.

Looks a bit too vast for the antediluvian world for my liking, but well done nonetheless.

VIII

Me to Damien Mackey

7/3/2018 at 11:15 AM

Re: Gehon

Why would the antediluvian world have been smaller?

There is nothing in either Bible or rational conclusions from it saying that the globe was extended during the Flood.

IX

Damien Mackey to me

7/4/2018 at 2:37 AM

Re: Gehon

You have only to read the size of the "world" (earth) when the people from all under heaven heard the Apostles.

Even that late in time, the world ranged from, say, Persia to Ethiopia only.

My Tasmania does not get a look in. And I am sure than Noah never went anywhere near Hobart.

The Queen of Sheba came from the ends of the world (earth), not from Tasmania, or South America, or New Zealand, but just down the road from Israel.

You do not need to impose modern concepts upon ancient texts. That's Fundamentalism - which ain't all that fundamental.

X

Me to Damien Mackey

7/4/2018 at 12:25 PM

Re: Gehon

The world was split up in the days of Peleg.

This "small world" you talk of is a result of this split. China, though heard of, is really an other world, India also.

This break up happened at carbon date 8600 BC and real date 2562 BC, six years before birth of Peleg in 2556 BC.

Also, when you say "Ethiopia" I suspect you mean the country of the Blue Nile, the country of Axoum, Addis Abbeba, something which is already ended where Somalia or Horn of African begins.

To a Greek or Roman "Ethiopia" means "aithi-op-eia" land of burnt faces, that is, all of Black Africa.

That is why Moses, who was inerrantly inspired, said that Gehon - not using the name Nile! - encompassed all of Kush (ancestor of men with black faces), which LXX translates as Aithiopeia.

Of the Nile only, it would have been inadequate, but Nile with Niger and Kongo rivers taken together, that is another matter.

So, my hypothesis is, the words of Moses about Gehon apply equally to the riverbeds of Nile, Niger and Kongo rivers taken together.

Even you must be aware American Clovis points show suspicious similarities to Solutrean points ... not explicable if there was no contact.

And yes, in my recalibration of carbon dates to Biblical chronology, Solutrean and Clovis styles are post-Flood but pre-Babel.

Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person

1 (FB blog) Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over? 4 (correspondence blog) Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person

FB informs

You and Melissa McIntosh aren't connected on Facebook
Website Manager at 21 Triangles
Lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

From HGL to MMcI

Tue 1:16pm

Full story:

Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/carbon-dated-egyptology-coffin-club.html

Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/coffin-club-as-mute-as-grave-on-my.html

Third time over?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2017/07/third-time-over.html

FB informs

3:34am

Melissa McIntosh accepted your request.

From MMcI to HGL

Mate, I'm honestly not trying to be rude but I'm really not all that interested. I have a degree in archaeology (which includes the evolution of early hominids and the eventual evolution of modern humans) and ancient history. You're really messaging the wrong person about creationism. If that's your belief, cool, I'm not one of those people whose going to throw a fit and try to convince you otherwise, people can believe what they want.

But yeah. Sorry man, I just really am not the slightest bit interested in creationism and it's deceitful to falsify data to support a hypothesis. Not having a dig at you, just the people you're citing.

For the future, this sort of thing is probably best left to creationist groups, otherwise all you're going to have is people saying you're wrong and it will just cause arguments. Again, you do you, more power to you, but it's better to avoid things that will only serve to upset you.

From HGL to MMcI

11:33am

The things that DO serve to upset me are people sabotaging debate or simply information seeking.

You did that on a thread.

Some admin here has made it impossible to blue and then copy paste the entirety of your comment in order for me to give a detailed response.

You have a degree in archaeology, and you are doing something else.

This means, what archaeology builds its data on is not in your fresh memory.

That something else that you are doing on 21 Circles is what bothers me, and what you are doing once again on the paragraph "for the future".

Hope to later here or elsewhere be able to blue and copypaste all of above and reblog this too.

While you are AT investigating my "getting upset" it is bad tactics of me to actually get upset.

But someone has here been making the bluing and therefore copy pasting impossible, and that kind of underhand tactics DOES upset me.

I was not the least upset by anyone saying I was wrong. I was not the least upset by anyone arguing I was wrong.

I was ONLY more and more upset by first Volokhine and then Luca and then an admin arguing that because I was wrong, I should not have a straight answer on a straight question.

if THIS story does not interest you sufficiently to look through and see this is what happened, well, you are being a cheat and a liar for people like Youri Volokhine and Luca Miatello, who, once again, did not upset me in the least by telling me I was wrong, but ONLY by interfering unduly with my interaction with others.

You have given a dishonest argument for Volokhine's initial dictum on July 1:st, and you are doing so due to registering me as "upset" (which I have been on occasion) supposedly for being contradicted. But my very first question has never been answered, it was already July 11 when you came in, and if you had been for every time you saw a group where you had posed a question seeing:

• 1) no answers to your question
• 2) rude answers to why you posed your questions
• 3) people saying you should stop arguing (when someone had a bit more politely argued about the why of my question and I had argued back)
• 4) people actively STOPPING anyone from answering initial question;

THEN I think you would have been somewhat upset too, whatever you pretend here to me!

Tried to blue again, and the blue disappears as soon as I lift finger from mouse. Not how bluing should function, and not what I need it to function like in order to give a phrase by phrase answer, as I intended.

As to your supposed practical suggestion, the specific information I wanted from Yvonne Buskens might not be available in a Creationist group. It was available in The Coffin Club, she withheld it (no doubt due to my being a creationist, and asking question for a creationist agenda, which was her right). BUT some people decided I should be out of the group before she or someone else with similar expertise would change their mind and start being on topic!

And, just in case you should feel like doubting that the bluing was deliberately made impossible for my by an admin, I did blue and copy past one phrase which I also answered, I only discovered the problem after next try:

"but I'm really not all that interested."

Sure, that is obviously why you came to the thread in the first place.

Valid both for thread and for this correspondence.

Ah, bluing refunctions!

From MMcI to HGL

It just showed up on my feed dude, I didn't go specifically looking for it. The random capitalised words got my attention and I wanted to see what the drama was about, I'd completely forgotten about it five minutes later. I really don't understand why you're messaging me 😂

It doesn't matter, my guy

From HGL to MMcI

"I have a degree in archaeology (which includes the evolution of early hominids and the eventual evolution of modern humans) and ancient history."

As a little side kick. I suppose you did take some course on how carbon 14 works, how the dating method

"You're really messaging the wrong person about creationism."

I wasn't messaging you about creationism. I was messaging you about the behaviour of the Coffin Club towards a creationist - a behaviour in which your participated just before I was thrown out.

"If that's your belief, cool, I'm not one of those people whose going to throw a fit and try to convince you otherwise, people can believe what they want."

Oh, how detached. But you are one of two people who were reading my third status on group and concluding - totally without reason - that I was trying to discuss creationism with you when I was simply telling the group why it was a bad idea to ask me to take my question to a Creationist group. The expertise I was looking for isn't there.

"But yeah. Sorry man, I just really am not the slightest bit interested in creationism"

Nice. Once again, if you have no issue with it, why were you interested in answering my status in the first place?

"and it's deceitful to falsify data to support a hypothesis."

Falsifying data is one thing. I wanted the data - the raw data (pmc level in sample) or their interpretation according to "original carbon 14 near 100pmc" (Libby date or Cambridge date), in order to calibrate my reinterpretation of raw data.

What is deceitful about that?

"Not having a dig at you, just the people you're citing."

What people I was citing? David Grohl and Daniel McKey? I was only mentioning they were in a different pursuit than I, they were not in the C-14 business!

And I suppose you are not considering Katherine Kenyon as dishonest, since her 1550 BC date for Garstang's City IV has by herself and others been used to debunk Garstang's support for the Bible account!

I am in the business of recalibrating C-14 - whenever I can find an archaeologically dated object with carbon date and with a fairly certain date or dating spectrum in Biblical chronology, I use that to reinterpret the C-14 level in the atmosphere back then.

Djoser gives c. 900 years older than Biblical dates for Joseph in Egypt (see Hunger stele for why I consider Joseph is recalled as Imhotep)? Fine, that means the C14 level then was as in the objects we now date to c. 900 years old.

Hence my intense interest in carbon dates related to ancient Egypt.

And, as mentioned on the status you commented with very little relevance, it is NOT "elsewhere" in a Creationist group I am likely to find those - so far, at least!

Matter or not, I bothered to answer, so I am posting it.

From MMcI to HGL

Why are you letting this bother you so much? (And you can't really say it's not with the multiple walls of text you've sent me)

I protested about a particularly graphic video of a mouse being bitten in half by a snapping turtle in a reptile group once (I own snakes) and I was removed, being kicked out of a Facebook group for little reason really doesn't matter, dude. You won't remember this in a month.

From HGL to MMcI

In that case, you have a much more submissive behaviour to group admins than I have.

I dislike getting my attention called to sth which interests me (like this) and to get a kind of lecture about psychology.

And in fact, walls of text are per se (without caps, and without my saying I am upset) no indication I am upset. I happen to like - in much better circumstances than these, so it's a habit - to copy paste the whole thing I get, divide it in portions and answer each one of them.

I am also irritated when this is denied me, as just now the bluing dysfunctioned again.

From MMcI to HGL

I don't argue because it doesn't matter, who cares if some stranger you'll never meet is rude to you over the net? Will it have any effect on your life? No, so why bother dwelling on it?

That's all, it's just healthier if you don't let yourself be bothered by things that ultimately don't matter.

From HGL to MMcI

"some stranger I'll never meet"

That is the majority of people I actually meet.

It does have an effect on my life, since that is both my work situation, as internet writer, and major social situation.

My other work, keeping me alive, is begging on the streets. I get enough rudeness doing that by people not appreciating writing is work, even if it's not yet printed, it's there on the web if they care, without having to get insulted over the web too.

Also, once again, what I am writing, and I am spending hours on doing it, is creationism, specifically recalibration of C14. If The Coffin Club had been kind of unique, that is one thing. But I have similar reactions from individual learned men I am contacting on other occasions, and its spreadking to a group is hampering my work as a creationist writer.

Let's take a part of it you did not study. Biostratigraphy of Cretaceous to Palaeocene is not your study. Most fossil finds of Cretaceous involve no Palaeocene, and vice versa. A very rare exception is Yacoriate in Argentina.

Now, in Yacoraite, you don't find a Ceratopsian in the Cretaceous and a Uintatherium in the Palaeocene (ok, perhaps Uintatheria are a bit more "recent" on that scale). You find Creataceous slugs and you find Palaeocene slugs that look pretty much the same. And you find the K-T boundary, that famous iridium later. So, I wanted to know, where the slugs divided into Cretaceous and Palaeocene ones just because they were under and over the iridium layer?

I wrote to the University which would apply there:

Yacoraite
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2013/11/yacoraite.html

Close to four years, still no answer.

You say it doesn't matter, but it is actually hampering a work I am trying to both do and get a living off.

It is really not healthy for me to on top of that be exposed to people trying to tell me what should matter in my life.

It is ALSO not healthy for me to be randomly exposed on where I access internet to disabled bluing of what I'd like to copy.

But with little or no money except what I get begging, a library card at Nanterre University Library is a real asset, even if my (evolutionist, communist, psychology and psychiatry minded) hosts sometimes abuse the sitation over the top - right in the right moment for you to be involved.

From MMcI to HGL

Mate, this really isn't good for you. I'm not going to argue with you. All I'm saying is being removed from a Facebook group doesn't matter at all, you have more important things to worry about. That's all. I'm just trying to help, man. I'm clearly not so I'll show myself out.

From HGL to MMcI

You know what is really not good for me : people telling me what is good for me.

And telling me what matters to me.

And telling me what I have to worry about.

And you know what would really be helpful?

Your getting in touch with the admin so I could get some carbon data from Egypt which would be very useful in my work.

But THERE of course, you have your conscience of this work being tantamount to fixing data in a dishonest way ... well, if that is the best you can do? OK.

David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: David Wolcott on "Gossip" as a Species of Sin · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Since I have been accused by some of "gossip"

First version of the post had three consecutive sixes in post number. Since I changed post, I have also added some material.

David Wolcott to me

Tuesday 19:33

Hans, please remove my name and comments from your blog. If others gave you permission to share their names and comments, so be it, but you never talked to me first. Please don't do it again in the future, either.

Me to David Wolcott

Sorry, but as you are a moderator, I won't.

David Wolcott to me

So, you do not respect personal privacy?

Me to David Wolcott

The group is closed, but not secret or private.

I am also not sharing with another specific group on FB, but with the readers over the web.

That was my rationale when Matthew Hunt made a similar request some weeks ago, it's my rationale with you as well.

However, if any of the others like to have names abbreviated, that is another matter.

Do check how your colleague Daniel Quinones felt about Matthew's complaint a few weeks ago.

I do not think anything except the names are private, and yours as a moderator's isn't to me.

Precisely as Matthew Hunt's as a PhD's.

Those who would have some legitimate interest might get their names abbreviated so the initial distinguish otherwise anonymous people - but I have no request from them so far.

Ask [I asked them anyway, outside this correspondence], if he/they blocked me, they might not know of my offer.

David Wolcott to me

Why do you not know that a closed group means only members can read comments, Hans? Why do you want to put people at risk through gross social media security violations?

Me to David Wolcott

Now, if risk we talk, I am perhaps one running more.

If others are possibly at risk, I will abbreviate names on request.

David Wolcott to me

To be an honest and mature adult, you WILL ask permission before sharing other people's information first. Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators. And if you don't understand how to be respectful and protective of other people's information, then you need to remove yourself from Facebook entirely until you have educated yourself on privacy.

Hans, I have talked with Daniel. Until you remove information from those requesting you to, you have been removed from the group. As of now, Hunt is the only exception being a public profile anyway. You are free to message Daniel if you want, but I am working under him on actions taken here.

Me to David Wolcott

Wednesday 10:13

Look here.

I looked up the group.

It has 2.4 K members.

2444 to be precise.

Pretending sth posted in it is posted "in private" is ludicrous.

Pretending that YOU as one of the moderators of so many are a private person is also ludicrous.

What is not ludicrous is someone saying sth without being otherwise notable, then me abbreviating the names.

I might have done so anyway, but was just a bit stressed.

However, you have so far been the only one to request removal, after Matthew Hunt.

If others want that chance, now that you have removed me from group (just in time for when Hunt makes his OP about Heliocentrism), you take my profile and post it to each who might be concerned in a PM or under the OP where I gave opportunities to react, with greetings from me.

But those who I think are entitled to privacy as to name, well, it seems they are not so eager to request it.

"Doing otherwise is just feeding the predators."

What exact predators are you talking about?

Unlike Bill Ludlow taking sth out of context and letting a group laugh at a lady, behind her back, my "taking out" is definitely into public as public, as far as I am concerned.

Anyone had access to it and access to context, since I did NOT cherrypick tidbits which I could twist behind peoples's backs.

David Wolcott to me

12:02

What kind of arrogance let's you think you are the authority over other's information? I would expect such foolishness from Hunt.

Me to David Wolcott

14:46

Nice, but I don't think information which has already been shared in public is anyone's private such.

And 2444 persons is the equivalent of a village.

Here is my answer to someone else who thought me arrogant:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : I was Given Advice …
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2015/04/i-was-given-advice.html

David Wolcott to me

Tell me how many posts you can see in the group now before calling it public again.

And if you really are too arrogant to ignore advice from someone who actually does understand privacy and your sin of gossip, that's your folly.

Me to David Wolcott

15:53

"sin of gossip"

You might like to define exactly whether it was calumny or detraction.

In the case of detraction, whether I was revealing Hunt's foibles without good reason (=sin of detraction) or WITH good reason (=no sin of detraction).

As to "sin of gossip" I don't find that in a Catholic Catechism on the VIII commandment.

You have calumny, detraction, lying, false witness in court of course.

So, what exactly do you mean by "sin of gossip" here?

Hunt is doing no harm OR the harm he is doing cannot in any way shape or form be combatted by my act?

David Wolcott to me

• 1) I'm not Catholic.
  
  
• 2) one form of gossip is spreading information you have no right or permission to spread. You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public.
  
  
• 3) after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused.
  
  
• 4) what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others, otherwise you are worse than him.

Me to David Wolcott

It seems you Bible has the word "gossip" in Proverbs 18:8.

Here is mine:

[8] The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels. Fear casteth down the slothful: and the souls of the effeminate shall be hungry.
[8] Verba bilinguis quasi simplicia, et ipsa perveniunt usque ad interiora ventris. Pigrum dejicit timor; animae autem effeminatorum esurient.

And the article "gossip" mentioned "lashon hara" whereof the definition is basically the same as for "detraction" : NEEDLESSLY exposing the sins of others.

That article mentions Leviticus 19:16, which in my Bible has this text:

[16] Thou shalt not be a detractor nor a whisperer among the people. Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbour. I am the Lord.
[16] Non eris criminator, nec susurro in populo. Non stabis contra sanguinem proximi tui. Ego Dominus.

As to "criminator", I think this is meant by "detraction".

As to "susurro" or "whisperer" a blog can hardly be considered that discreet.

It is more like a "closed group" where someone says about someone "I have mentioned this so often to him, until he blocked me" and then you consider this information cannot be used in a public action about Hunt's ways as an Academic, it was just for the entertainment of others in the group ... like when Ludlow posted someone's "crazy thing" or "batshit" in a group dedicated to laughing at what creationists say.

David Wolcott to me

You are like Ludlow, yes: spreading comments you have no business spreading, with complete disregard to who you hurt.

"You know you don't have access to the threads now, which tells you that they are NOT, contrary to your mythology, public."

They are public to the present 2444 members of the group, if that is still the number.

"after being told by different people to remove various names, you have refused."

I have refused YOUR and HUNT'S request.

If I have had other requests where I published, you are the one who blocked me from them.

"what Hunt does gives you no excuse to hurt others"

I intend to hurt none except him by what has so far been published. And not for no purpose at all, but to show what modern Academia is in Europe. If you think YOU are hurt by your words being there, you might want to reconsider your own role.

And I might want to consider I need to publish this conversation, as a defense against calumniators who hold me culpable of detraction or lashon hara. Ludlow spread them where the person who originated the words could not comment on context.

I am spreading them in public, and that means the person can complain if I quoted anything out of context and can argue back.

David Wolcott to me

They are not public to you anymore, nor were they public to those who have access to your blog but are not in the group.

And your argument about the posts being public will be violated if you spread this private messaging, which will only be you posting yourself lying and breaking your own argument.

And I understand that you intend to hurt no one.

You don't care what your actions do, and what the consequences of your actions are. That's the problem.

You hold double standards, period. And you don't care.

Furthermore, Hans, your every spreading of these comments is helping Hunt, not hurting him. You are playing yourself into his hand, exactly what he wants.

Does that make you happy, to know you are encouraging him, feeding him? To know you are threatening others by association just because you don't care about the consequences?

Me to David Wolcott

How you spread a newspaper article affects how public it is?

No, I don't think Hunt is really happy, he plays happy in order to impress.

David Wolcott to me

You don't think, in general, otherwise you'd wonder why NO ONE HAS GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO PUBLISH THEIR INFORMATION.

But no, you are just like Hunt and Ludlow: you will hurt everyone you can to satisfy your pride. You don't care about them. You don't care about truth.

You don't even care about your own arguments. "it's not private because there are two thousand members; but I'm okay to spread this explicitly private thread with only two members because I need to protect my reputation".

It's hypocrisy.

And in all of this you have tried bragging about you being willing to listen to others.

That's a joke.

Me to David Wolcott

As said, if someone except you (moderator), Quinones (obvious as moderator like you) and Hunt (as PhD) or his associates, one of them friend of Ludlow and other would seem to be a public person wants the name abbreviated to initials, they should be able to mail me, so you should post my profile in the group, under the OP about my publishing.

If you don't do that, you can pretend I am joking, when I am not.

Thanks for warning me at least.

David Wolcott to me

It's no warning. It's you directly threatening me because you have no decency, no character.

I get that you don't understand what you did, that you don't care.

I understand that you threatened to publish your own refutation to your lame excuse.

You are a threat to the public with your hatred of people by spreading what you don't have permission to spread. That's gossip. Go tell your priest, if you aren't too hateful to tell him the truth.

Me to David Wolcott

"It's you directly threatening me"

It's no threat.

I am waiting for exactly one response from people I consider more balanced than you but who are also more entitled to privacy - since I mentioned them here. [Or no longer, since I decided to settle the publication context through brackets instead.]

I don't see how this can hurt you, unless you think you argued badly.

No, I don't think I am a threat to the public, I think you are threatening freedoms which should be cherished.

And before you stamp anyone as a "threat to the public", read Manalive, by Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

As to hate, well, I do hate what Hunt stands for, I do not think this will hurt him in ways no one better than he will gain from.

I also think ... well, I'll tell you what I do hate. I do hate people calling a debate private if it is on matters of public interest, and I do also hate when someone says "you have a fixation on me".

And I think I have a right to hate both actions, even if not those making them, after what I have been through due to Protestant moralities on these matters. Pro-discretion to extremes and pro-psychiatry.

David Wolcott to me

You don't think, that's the problem. You may not care about publicizing everything in your life. That's doesn't mean you get the abuse to decide for others what you will publish from them.

You can't even have honesty in your own position, at one moment making excuses because you think a restricted group is public, and then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication.

Me to David Wolcott

"You may not care about publicizing everything in your life."

It is not everything in my life.

"then next threatening to publish explicitly private communication."

You have tried to make it "extremely private" that is one more thing I hate about Protestants.

Nope. If I think I don't deserve a certain sauce, and think it is nevertheless typical of a certain network, I think that needs adressing in public.

And I am not saying a restricted group is a public group. I am saying things were said in public within that group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me

Yes, the distinction is that they were within that group.

You took them outside of the group.

Me to David Wolcott

But not out of reach of those in it, each can still read them where I put them.

David Wolcott to me

You put it in reach of everyone not in the group.

Why is that distinction too difficult for you to grasp?

And you can quit with the "I hate Protestants" garbage. If you can't deal with my arguments, then be better than Hunt and admit it. But quit with the "they're different from me therefore they are wrong" bias.

Me to David Wolcott

Well, why should something which was public before 2444 eyes be treated as a private matter no outsider can see.

I also did not say "I hate Protestants" and then period, I said I hate them doing a specific thing.

David Wolcott to me

That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public.

Have you figured out yet that it's not public?

More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information? No? Still having problems with that?

And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you. You are worse than Hunt and Ludlow: pretending to be wise, you give them everything they want.

Me to David Wolcott

Two things are great for bullies:

• 1) treating sth said within a group larger than a few friends or family as a private matter;
• 2) chosing private communication and feeling ill handled if the one you try to badger into some kind of submission goes public with your words along with refutations.

So, I think a certain type of Protestant morality is wrong, because it is great for bullies.

"That's the whole point, Hans: if we wanted the group to publish we could make the group public."

Most of us didn't chose the "public" or "closed" or whatever.

Most of us were put before a fait accompli by the choice of moderators. OK, we would also have been free not to join the group. BUT most of us joining the group did not do so BECAUSE the group was closed.

Most, not all.

"More importantly, have you figured out yet that you never had the authority to spread their information?"

Once it had been said in public in ANY context, it was not THEIR private property or confidential information any more. I'll except names, but I'll not except words.

"And yes, you hate people that are different than you, that aren't as disrespectful as you."

If by "respectful" you refer to a certain Jewish or Muslim or Protestant or Masonic version of respect, I do feel superior to those who are different that way.

No, I don't think I was giving Hunt what he wanted, and I think Ludlow pretended to do the same thing (but did not since sharing in another, precisely closed, group) in order to revenge himself for arguing better than he on carbon dating, and showing it outside the group.

David Wolcott to me

Publishing information you never had permission to publish: bullying and gossip.

And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group.

By violating that, you only gave Hunt more material to work with.

Me to David Wolcott

"And yes, by the way, you did accept it: by choosing to join and stay in the group, you accepted the CLOSED nature of the group."

Accepting is sth other than cherishing.

I did not pretend I did not accept it.

David Wolcott to me

You just whined about not having the choice in the group type.

Me to David Wolcott

Whined? No. I explained the group type was not WHY I joined the group.

Distinction.

David Wolcott to me

You explained that you don't like it and therefore chose to ignore it and do your own thing anyway.

Protesting much there, giving your theses nailed to the door?

Me to David Wolcott

Well, my theses are at least not the 41 theses condemned here:

EXSURGE DOMINE
Condemning The Errors Of Martin Luther
Pope Leo X
https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/l10exdom.htm

David Wolcott to me

Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?

So yes, you joined a closed, not public, group.

You then decided, completely on your own (you know, the thing you hate about Protestants), that the rules didn't apply to you, and you could do anything you want.

Period.

Me to David Wolcott

"Isn't your pope granting saint status to Luther, anyway?"

I don't think so, but feel free to ask him. No, not antipope Bergoglio, but him here:

David Bawden (Pope Michael)
https://www.facebook.com/PopeMichael1

Also, "the rules" are not the ten commandments. You tried to make it a matter of detraction, or sth like it, against commandment VIII (though you might feel it is IX). Now you are on the level of rules of a group.

David Wolcott to me

The Pope Commemorates The Reformation That Split Western Christianity
October 28, 20164:29 AM ET - Sylvia Poggioli
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/10/28/499587801/pope-francis-reaches-out-to-honor-the-man-who-splintered-christianity

You are really good at getting things wrong, Hans.

And no, I'm not saying that the group rules are the ten commandments, but thanks for getting that wrong as well.

But what does Paul say about gossips?

Me to David Wolcott

That article is wrong in classifying Jorge Mario Bergoglio as "Pope"

[link here]

"But what does Paul say about gossips?"

Name locus

Could not find 'gossip' in any verses.
[http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossip&b=drb]

David Wolcott to me

You just violated your own argument, Hans. You just publicly announced yourself a hypocrite.

Me to David Wolcott

Could not find 'gossips' in any verses.
Name locus. Book, chapter, verse.
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=gossips&b=drb&t=0

David Wolcott to me

Try Romans 1, though given your legalism I'm not surprised you have problems understanding the text, but instead have to limit yourself to spellcasting, expecting specific verbal formulae

Me to David Wolcott

"[8] First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

I think that is a good case for liking the publishing.

Other verse?

David Wolcott to me

Yes, you like hurting others, and finding ways to not live in peace with others. What's your point? You don't understand Scripture, plain and simple.

Me to David Wolcott

But perhaps you thought of 29 to end?

[29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention,

I don't think argument is contention in this sense, or I have been more exposed to it.

deceit,

I don't think I was deceitful, though you may argue otherwise by legalistic interpretation of what I did when joining.

malignity, whisperers,

As said, publishing before the whole world is not whispering.

[30] Detractors,

As said, speaking of someone's fault or exposing it, with intent of acheiving correction, is not detraction.

hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty,

You might think I am these, I don't.

inventors of evil things,

You might stamp some up to 1500 posts among the 6000 + as evil, because exposing those arguing badly, I don't

disobedient to parents,

You are not my parent.

[31] Foolish,

You may think I was, I hope not.

dissolute,

without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

You might consider my behaviour such, I hope there is still some excuse.

[32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death;

In that case, I don't really think I was "without affection, without fidelity, without mercy"

and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Well, I do not consent to a culture of secrecy amounting to a kind of omertà and paranoia about exposure ...

And me liking to hurt others, sometimes when I'm hurt myself, yes, but normally no.

David Wolcott to me

Oh, you really think Paul was only talking about people who go and talk quietly one on one? You are really that legalistic to think he wasn't talking about those who reveal secrets, who say what's not in their purview to say?

And yes, by sharing this private thread you are hurting me, even if you hate me too much to care.

I get that you have no respect for others.

I get that you fight to create a world of no trust.

I get that you have no clue how to love others.

And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would.

Me to David Wolcott

Whisperer certainly means exposing others in quite without exposing yourself as the one doing so.

Detractor may involve published media - but not if there is some hope of correcting either culprit or adequately warning others. I have a REASON to expose Marxist bias in Academia.

I live in EUROPE.

And no, I don't hate you, but I do hate what you are doing on a day in Easter week.

"I get that you have no respect for others."

One part of your hysterics.

"I get that you fight to create a world of no trust."

Not really. What you say to someone in front of 2444 other people should not be a matter of trust. And when you go out of your way to badger someone in a private way, you don't deserve trusting the hour he feels too exhausted to put up with it in private.

"I get that you have no clue how to love others."

I don't pretend to love you, I am not homosexual.

"And what did it do you? It makes you look bad, by sharing things no one else would."

Perhaps to your culture.

In the Gospels, authors did share Pharisees arguing badly.

OK, ultimate author is God, but the human authors were not above commandments.

If it had been their duty to get permission from everyone who had called Our Lord bad things before republishing (under anonymity, which is why I also offer anonymity for people of little concern, or naming important people like Hannas, Kaiaphas and Herod and Pilate, or naming people who had given consent, like Nicodemus, who was giving consent before John was published).

But if it had been their duty, well, then they failed it. On your view perhaps on God's orders.

I don't think American / English Protestant inspired business culture is all that highest standard there is.

Or, are you sure Gorgias gave his permission before the publication of Socratic dialogues?

You are appealing to a culture, not to a commandment.

David Wolcott to me

What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust, but I see such concept is not in your hear the anyway.

And you really think Jesus was talking sexually when He said to love your neighbor? Wow.

That explains why you can't figure this out.

Me to David Wolcott

"What I said to you in this PRIVATE MESSAGING should have been a matter of trust,"

You seem willing to pester me in private, but want to make it a matter of trust?

Oh, you mean the part about "love thy neighbour as THYSELF"

Well, I don't love myself in a way involving to pester people hoping no exposure if they get fed up.

David Wolcott to me

You don't love people at all given how you accused me of sexual context on something that clearly had no sexual context.

And, by the way, posting my comments and messages publicly is pestering me. I get you don't want to accept that, but it doesn't change that you have a problem.

Especially when you do so not only without my permission but refuse to take it down after I asked you to.

Me to David Wolcott

"given ... on something that clearly had no sexual context."

Words like someone not knowing how to love people do sometimes get sexual connotations.

And words with such intent about me in that context has kept me single far longer than I like.

Take it as an aside to those people. OK?

I do have a problem with people like you, yes. People who do WHISPER among themselves that I "have a problem", yes, I have one with such people.

David Wolcott to me

Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't.

And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me.

Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him.

Me to David Wolcott

"Notice how your problem with me started after you created offense? No, of course you didn't."

Notice how YOU used words that are sometimes a euphemism for diagnoses. Matthew 5:22

"And if you think about sex with men so much that your first thought when a man talks about love is to presume sex.... Well, that's your life, please keep it away from me."

How about learning to read before you bluster out baseless accusations against me?

"Your priest wants to hear all about it, though, if you can ever find the courage to tell him."

Look here, I did have to confess all mortal sins, as it is up to the one Christ gave the power to forgive sins.

But me having to confess mortal sins does not equal you having to invent them for me.

Whereon

I blocked him. And as I blocked a moderator, I don't expect to be let back into that group.