Update 4-I-2014:
IC has contacted his bishop and is awaiting his answer. He is thus not a rebel against Christian truth per se./HGL
- HGL
- For newcomers to this debate, I might mention I have been recording it on my blog. In order not to expose anyone as the person he is, all have had their names abbreviated, but anyone wishing so can get his name out in full.
Here is the blog:
HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com - STh
- Oh dear, I am originally from Finland, it is really far away from any types of lush paradises. Though some people, who go to visit Finland, say that it is like one. I hate religions, all of them. Gods, goddesses, spirits not, if someone can first give a factual prove of them. Old books and notes are not accepted. Neither uttered words around the matter. Believing belongs into persons' heads and never, ever uttered to other people. Any kind of believing into whatever is a silent personal matter. I have a good friend who give reiki to cats and gets paid for it. That is her choice to believe. She is never tried to convince me. Over which I utterly grateful. I hate it when people are trying to push on me their believes and do not respect my way of thinking.
- HGL
- I am from Sweden, that mentality is part of what I fled from to a Catholic country, like France.
- JC
- Parthian shot...
- IC
- [page that seems to be an English-Gothic lexicon]
http://www.oe.eclipse.co.uk/nom/letters.htm
In here Father=Atta, Fadar and Dad, Daddy= Attila.
Atta, once again, look closer to fadar than to otec,otats. I always since first time I saw it thought it was clear. Atya is of course very similar, but I think hungarians got it from gothian. What is "abba", never heard of it?
Like I before stated, the Indoeuropeans have some markers and of course some of our heritage, genetical and culture. So it is not just language. This elite might be a minimum of 2,5-3% but sure not less. Then they would not grab the power. Once again I have to defend the indoeuropean honour.
Nothing in Bible says that God not created other humans than Adam and Eve. Also nothing there says that Kain and Seth married their sisters. My only logical conclusion would be that God created more humans, to avoid incest and degeneration. - LAM
- Wow. Step out to the grocery store, and . . . Hans-Georg Lundahl, I'm not quite sure where to begin. This thread became amazingly tangled while I was out. Etymology is a nightmare. The best plan when you are trying to track the movement of people is simply to forget about it. If you have it, wonderful. Icing on the proverbial cake. If you don't, archaeology, history, culture and all that other stuff make a very strong case for who went where and when. Grabbing what we know from all of those other disciplines, Proto-Indo-Europeans probably developed in the steppes north of the Caucasus Mountains. They developed into the Indo-Europeans, and everyone spread out like a equally proverbial flood into a bunch of populations that were not IE and were already there. The IE populations tended to slot in at the level of the nobility, and that leaves an enormous number of non-IE peoples who wind up speaking IE languages, telling IE stories, living in IE cultures (that they tended to scramble with their own because they were already doing something quite fine before the IE guys came in), and so forth. Then the IE cultures start bouncing around the landscape like multiple balls released in a bonus round on a pinball machine. IE culture transmits to IE fairly easily, but it can also transmit to non-IE if the conditions are correct. All you need is a good storyteller and technology that someone else wants. The technology transmits and at least part of the time so do the stories about how it developed, what god created it, where the idea came from, where the materials came from, whatever. Same works for hygiene, etc. People repeat the stories to explain whatever needs explaining, and suddenly you have a God or an entire set of gods or something else where s/he/it/they doesn't/don't belong because someone did not realize that the technology/rules/whatever did not need the story in order to work. What worked for technology worked for people, too: "I get to rule over you because of thus and such tale." The transmission is not always IE to IE or IE-to non-IE. "The Kingship in Heaven" is a Hittite story that bounces around the Mediterranean with no regard to culture. A good number of the stories floating around the region are simply people trying to figure out which way is north. If one tale works better than another, great; let's use that one. Trying to remember that a mountain is a volcano? Tell another story--only make sure you have that good storyteller handy. (The Romans messed that one up with Vesuvius, and look what happened. Oh, and the super-volcano at Vesuvius has been advanced as the likely culprit for what made those pesky Neanderthals go away. The Bible? That's a whole different sort of headache that probably belongs on another list, but I'll give it a go if anyone really wants to hear it.
[A very well formulated résumé of the standard theory. I did not need it, I already knew it, but maybe some of my readers do. Besides it was even very pleasantly put.] - HGL (answering IC)
- No, IC, you never heard of abba, and then there are parts of the Bible you did not read. Abba is an Aramaic word which means "daddy". And if Atta always translates "father" and Fadar the one passage where abba is used, it is fadar which means daddy and the lexicon you linked to is erroneous. I am not saying they took no pains to try to get it right, but this they overlooked.
And how "atta" starting with a vowel can look closer to "fadar" starting with f than to otats also starting with a vowel (but adding -ts at the end)? Explain, please ...
"Like I before stated, the Indoeuropeans have some markers and of course some of our heritage, genetical and culture."
Reconstruction is not history. Genetical markers reveal ancestry, but not whether Kurgan people spoke Indo-European or some other language.
"Nothing in Bible says that God not created other humans than Adam and Eve."
If they were created at same time, why were they not in Eden with them? If they were created earlier, how was there time for it, since the world is six days older than Adam? If later, after the fall ...
a) were the new created men and women fallen though not descended from the fallen Adam?
or
b) were they unfallen, but we descending from them as well as from Adam are still fallen as if Adam was stronger in his fall than they in their uprightness?
You see how that rules out Seth and Cain marrying anything further away than a sister or a niece.
"My only logical conclusion would be that God created more humans, to avoid incest and degeneration."
Incest as in crime was not yet there, since marrying a sister was not yet forbidden. Between father and daughter or mother and son, it would even then have been incest and did not happen. But not yet so between siblings.
As for degeneration, it is not a natural result of marrying close relatives as such each time. It is bringing out recessive genes which is so. And these would not yet have been including sickly genes. So degeneration would not have happened back then. - HGL (answering LAM)
- "The best plan when you are trying to track the movement of people is simply to forget about it. If you have it, wonderful. Icing on the proverbial cake. If you don't, archaeology, history, culture and all that other stuff make a very strong case for who went where and when."
I totally agree that history, i e written or oral record about past events does so. That is why I do believe for instance that Cain went East of Eden or that Abraham went from Ur to the land of Canaan but made a stay in a certain city between the two (Haram?) Archaeology does show not so much where someone went to as where someone was when he died.
Linguistic and similar evidence points in different directions all at once. Common ancestors conquering most of Europe plus parts of Asia reaching to India by migration is just one of the possible explanations. As I have been pointing out.
"Then the IE cultures start bouncing around the landscape like multiple balls released in a bonus round on a pinball machine. IE culture transmits to IE fairly easily, but it can also transmit to non-IE if the conditions are correct. All you need is a good storyteller and technology that someone else wants."
My point is that in certain regions of the world, a lingua franca would be one of the things people want. Whether it starts out as a natural language or as a construction of Esperanto type. Cunliffe says the latter was the case over the Celtic area. I say it was at one time the case over the Celtic area, possibly, but certainly over the earliest Indo-European area.
"A good number of the stories floating around the region are simply people trying to figure out which way is north. If one tale works better than another, great; let's use that one."
There are of course stories which deal with persons after death or perhaps even before conception, and similarily creation stories and theogonies (appropriately enough to mention that the true gonia of the true theos in Bethlehem also included a shepherd or two, but angels were more courteous to them than muses to Hesiod).
There are also stories that involve humans involved in clear genealogies.
The latter ones are of course "mythoi" in the sense of "stories", but they are hardly mythical in the more pregnant sense. - IC
- No Hans-Georg Lundahl, you made the wrong conclusion again. I have read the whole Bible. However you might have heard of the english word "forget", the meaning in swedish is "glömma". I hope you recognise it.
Well for "Atta", it sounds much closer to Fadar than to otats. Fadar could after time change into atta. Of course a language can keep bouth forms. Otats sounds differently from them. The word "Atir" is clearly a konsonant drop of P or F, just like in old nors from wulf to ulf. I think my dictionary is just good enough, althoug it not agrees with you Hans-Georg Lundahl. Also incest really makes degeneration, no matter what. Other humans was created later than Adam and Eve, acording to this. That is uninteresting teological details you talk about. Of cours they were fallen, than humans are not perfect in a devine view, they are fallen. When and how is not relevant. The "Adamite" bloodline is the choosen one I presume, therefore in Eden and so. Yes of course Kain and Seth should married others than their sisters, it really should be the first choice. No matter what. Incest is always incest, it really does not matter teological and philosofical word-twisting.
Yes like the genetics shows, all of Europe and the Europid-Indians had a common heritage. Also there are the indoeuropean markers of R1a and R1b, I would not post that link again that I have posted in this thread before. So yes bouth overall Europeid heritage and indoeuropean heritage are a genetic facts. So the kurgan-theory and other similar/liknande theories , have support from genetics, archeology, myths and many lingvistic theories. So you Hans-Georg Lundahl unite with heritage-deniers, or are that yourself. And that I always will defend my heritage against.
If your idea of siblings-marriages really is or will be the common Biblical-Christian view. It would be a catastroph. The thing who will happend is Christianity to fall, or at least the Bible. So actualy it is me who defends Christianity and not you. - HGL
- "Well for 'Atta', it sounds much closer to Fadar than to otats"
No.
"Fadar could after time change into atta."
And Atya could change to Atta in one step.
Either form could change into one of the Slavic forms by the one step of darkening first vowel and the other step of adding -ts.
"Also incest really makes degeneration, no matter what."
You have no understanding of genetics if you think that.
"Other humans was created later than Adam and Eve, acording to this ..."
I am listening ...
"Of cours they were fallen, than humans are not perfect in a devine view, they are fallen."
Adam and Eve were not until they fell. That is the point. Nor were Jesus and Mary, ever.
"When and how is not relevant. The 'Adamite' bloodline is the choosen one I presume, therefore in Eden and so."
Are you saying other bloodlines were created fallen to match it?
"Yes of course Kain and Seth should married others than their sisters, it really should be the first choice."
Even if it was not there to choose?
"Incest is always incest, it really does not matter teological and philosofical word-twisting."
It is not wordtwisting to say that in that generation marrying a sibling was not incest. It is on the contrary a Theological necessity.
"So yes bouth overall Europeid heritage and indoeuropean heritage are a genetic facts."
Indoeuropean heritage is a cultural and linguistic fact. Not a genetic one. It can match or not match a particular bloodline for its origin.
And since blood samples were not made and if the earliest language was not written down of the IE ones, there is no way we could know whether they do or not.
"And that I always will defend my heritage against."
My heritage is Christianity. Yours is, while mine partly includes 19th C. academia.
"It would be a catastroph. The thing who will happend is Christianity to fall, or at least the Bible." Absolutely not. It is like a racist saying we must have developed from other humanoids than negroes did and anyone defending a common heritage for both from Adam through Noah is toppling the Bible over, it simply MUST mean something else. Just because he dare not defend that himself before his racist friends.
The Bible calls such a fear of what other men might think "human respect" and condemns it.
[In French the sin is called "respect humain" but in German "Menschenfurcht", in Swedish "menniskofruktan", perhaps the English is rather "fear of men".]
Oh, the English word for Swedish "katastrof" is not "catastroph" but "catastrophe" and you pronounce the final -e like ee.
By the way, you have still not shown me a Church Father saying God created other, fallen, humans, so Kain and Seth and their sisters and brothers could marry non-siblings. Does your bishop not know of any relevant quote (I posted links to Patristic resources above) or does he simply still not know about this discussion?
Oh, the usual English spelling for Abel's Big Brother is Cain, btw.
And "fornorska" is Old Norse, with an -e which is silent.
But since you IC dare not confront this question with Church Fathers, I will:
"As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion. For it is very reasonable and just that men, among whom concord is honorable and useful, should be bound together by various relationships; and one man should not himself sustain many relationships, but that the various relationships should be distributed among several, and should thus serve to bind together the greatest number in the same social interests. "Father" and "father-in-law" are the names of two relationships. When, therefore, a man has one person for his father, another for his father-in-law, friendship extends itself to a larger number. But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes; while, had there been two women, one the mother, the other the mother-in-law, the family affection would have had a wider field. Then the sister herself by becoming a wife sustained in her single person two relationships, which, had they been distributed among individuals, one being sister, and another being wife, the family tie would have embraced a greater number of persons. But there was then no material for effecting this, since there were no human beings but the brothers and sisters born of those two first parents. Therefore, when an abundant population made it possible, men ought to choose for wives women who were not already their sisters; for not only would there then be no necessity for marrying sisters, but, were it done, it would be most abominable. For if the grandchildren of the first pair, being now able to choose their cousins for wives, married their sisters, then it would no longer be only two but three relationships that were held by one man, while each of these relationships ought to have been held by a separate individual, so as to bind together by family affection a larger number. For one man would in that case be both father, and father-in-law, and uncle to his own children (brother and sister now man and wife); and his wife would be mother, aunt, and mother-in-law to them; and they themselves would be not only brother and sister, and man and wife, but cousins also, being the children of brother and sister. Now, all these relationships, which combined three men into one, would have embraced nine persons had each relationship been held by one individual, so that a man had one person for his sister, another his wife, another his cousin, another his father, another his uncle, another his father-in-law, another his mother, another his aunt, another his mother-in-law; and thus the social bond would not have been tightened to bind a few, but loosened to embrace a larger number of relations."
City of God, St Augustine, Book XV, Chapter 16, I cited the first third of the chapter.
New Advent : Church Fathers : The City of God (Book XV)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm - LAM
- Whoa! Hans-Georg, calm down. I am an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church and a longtime biblical scholar. There are many things in the Bible that are quite true. Others have preserved true patterns even though the details may have become a bit messed up over time. Many of the texts were transmitted orally before they were written down. We are dealing with Hebrew, Greek, Latin . . . probably Aramaic and who knows what else. The Old Testament was edited at Alexandria, and changes were made so that the texts supported a monotheistic religion. The oldest part of the New Testament that we have are Paul's letters. There was no scribe (or tribe of scribes, given the geographic territory that had to be covered) following everyone around and writing things out longhand. I know the argument about God making sure everything was transmitted without error, but that does not explain why there are two creation stories in Genesis. It doesn't explain why there is a good, old-fashioned IE storm god scripting things in the Old Testament and a Triune God in the New Testament. It does not explain why we have variant texts floating around that do not agree with the "official" version, nor why there are disagreements within the "official" version, nor why archaeology and historical sources sometimes support the text and sometimes do not. All that stuff, though, seems to me as if it is a discussion for another list, since we are theoretically talking about IE cultures here. Or, if you prefer, I would be happy to discuss them with you off list through messages or at either shashtah@gmail.com or Legend@malcor.com.
[I ignored most of this since more interested in STh and a few more. See separate post.] - STh
- LAM, I really like your professional attitude and approach to the matter. Have a happy Christmas!
- DB
- [unfunctioning link?]
- HS
- so here is the image you linked to (since it doesn't come up) but it is from this page. And to the moderator--could you clean up this group? I didn't sign on here to spend my time reading extremely low level arguments from religious zealots.
HS’s photo. - HT
- I think you will notice that somebody has been arguing with himself for the best part of the last week. Just let it carry on. He'll pop a gasket soon.
[Does she take me and IC for the same person or does she think when I make first one comment, then another, then yet another that only the first was in answer to someone else ?] - IC
- I noticed already then I was 13 years old that Fadar and Atta, and other teuton-germanic words for father had the same melody. But that have not otatc and other slavic words. Yes of course Atya and Atta are similar. Hungarian got it from gothian.
It seems to me you not at all understands genetics Hans-Georg Lundahl, because even ordinary farmers know they have to exange the bull rather often to get healthy off-spring.
Other humans must have been created to avoid degeneration and deprevation. The Adamite bloodline must been chosen, because the Bible follow them. Yes Kain(like that spelling) and Seth should not married their sisters, and did not have to because of other ladies existed. And all humans are sinners, in the meaning we are not devine and therefore not perfect. Acording to Christianity Christ is all God and all human. About virgin Mary I do not know the teology about it, but accept she is "syndfri". [=Free from sin]
Aperently S:t Augustine was a pervert. The only thing you would win if you manage to convince me you are right in your view of the Bible is my rejektion of the Bible. Interesting you talk about racism. Do you know it is an invented word. Invented by marxists and bolsheviks. Very interesting indeed.
Yes there are an indoeuropean genetic heritage. The original IEs had dominating y-haplogroup R1. For Swedes, and that includes you, if you not have mix ethnos with some other norse-folks. But they have similar heritage. Swedes have 65-70% of their heritage from none-indoeuropean northeuropeans, also we have 25-30% heritage from indoeuropeans, the rest we have from other none-indoeuropeans and asians(0-1%). So you see there is really a indoeuropean genetic heritage. Than of course from the beginning it was much less, an elité, who made success for its off-spring. From beginning they were at least 2,5-3% of population, but probobly some more.
Yes of course I avoid to talk about the Church Fathers, because I have no knowledge about it. I do not talk about things I do not know. The issue about Christian Anthropology was not about other humans created by God. It was about blending with humanoids. No I have not contacted The Bishop who told me about Christian Anthropology. Like I said maybe I will disturb him about a simple facebook-discussion, and maybe not. Sure i first must find out a polite way to do it. I have no doubt that that version about Christian Anthropology is the right version for it. Than of course to believe Christian Anthropology, some of it or all, or not, is another thing. Like I first stated some of it makes other anthropology look like kindergarten. Myself was rather surprised than I first heard of it.
I see that I forgot the word probobly before marxists and bolsheviks. But the rest is true, it is an invented propaganda word. - HGL
- "even ordinary farmers know they have to exange the bull rather often to get healthy off-spring."
Yes, but that was not at all the first bull [or bulls] that God created in day six. We speak of bulls that have accumulated genetic misinformations by mutations for millennia. Remember that back then these had not yet arisen.
Once you have bad mutations, it is good to have them in only one of the chromosomes, so avoid mating between close relatives in order to avoid getting offspring which have same mutation in both chromosomes.
"Other humans must have been created to avoid degeneration and deprevation."
Degeneration in genetic sense was not yet a risk, as I explained. Depravation would, as St Augustine explained, have been if generations after that had continued to marry siblings while cousins were already available.
"The Adamite bloodline must been chosen, because the Bible follow them."
It was even so chosen that there were no others of human creatures.
"And all humans are sinners, in the meaning we are not devine and therefore not perfect."
That is not exactly what the Fall of Adam meant, no. He was unfallen when created and later fallen. But he was never God.
"Aperently S:t Augustine was a pervert."
That is not the language of a Christian. A Rightbelieving Christian must neither criticise the acts nor the words of either Our Lord or His friends who are all saints recognised by the Church.
"The only thing you would win if you manage to convince me you are right in your view of the Bible is my rejektion of the Bible."
That is not the language of a Christian either. We confess of the Holy Ghost "qui locutus est per prophetas" and if Moses was not original author of all Genesis, he was at least final redactor.
"Interesting you talk about racism. Do you know it is an invented word. Invented by marxists and bolsheviks. Very interesting indeed."
Not quite true. French monarchists used the word before that in the meaning "national romantic" ... i e conscious of one's race (old sense in French and English as when you can talk of "race of the Merovingians" or "race of the Ynglings" = Swedish "ätt"). And for what is now called racism another word was earlier used by non-Marxists. Chesterton called them "racialists".
It is as said a racialist error to deny that black and white both descend from Adam through Noah. And if someone were to tell me "you would only make me reject the Bible if you convinvced me it meant that", I would say he was racialist to an anti-Christian level.
But it is true that Marxists ignoring the word Chesterton used, namely racialism, and ignoring the sense Maurras gave racism (Swedish "nationalromantik" to "hembygdsromanik" to "familjemedvetande") used the word of the one for the sense of the other. And it stuck.
"Yes there are an indoeuropean genetic heritage. The original IEs had dominating y-haplogroup R1."
You can possibly prove the Kurgan population had that. And that most people speaking Indo-European languages in Europe, BUT ALSO HUNGARIANS, have that. You cannot prove this means the Kurgan population spoke an Indo-European language. As I have said over and over again.
"Yes of course I avoid to talk about the Church Fathers, because I have no knowledge about it. I do not talk about things I do not know."
You did just now by rejecting the words of the Church Father St Augustine.
"The issue about Christian Anthropology ... was about blending with humanoids."
How would this not be a case of God creating other humans? Unless you mean the Nephelim, engendered according to some in defiance of God by angels taking a humanoid appearance to impregnate daughters of men, in which case we talk of the origin of monsters, not of the origin of large human post-Flood populations. And in that case it was not to avoid sibling marriage, it was something far worse, since it was angelic beings raping minds before bodies of human women.
If that is the true sense of Genesis 6 - Book of Henoch says it is, St Augustine thought it might have been tampered with, but Ethiopian Christians accept it even as canonic - the punishment was those angels falling for human feminine beauty were very severly punished, in the abyss, and not just any place in Hell.
But if you do not mean that, you have indeed no basis in Christian Anthropology for saying humans mated with other humanoids.
As said, when I believed it myself was when I had to defend Genesis on my own after being a fan of Tolkien and CSL, and without yet having read St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine.
The polite way to approach your bishop might be to tell him a Catholic told you you had suffered or were close to suffering shipwreck in the faith and what does he think of it. Do not forget to hand him the link with my transcript in detail of the discussion, please! - LAM
- Pace! It really is possible to hold beliefs based on faith and carry on a civil discussion based on scientific evidence at the same time. Many of the learned Ancients (Church Fathers and otherwise) proved that. People don't sit still; they move. There are homelands, grazing lands, trade routes, military movements, and all sorts of other things. Who, where, what, when, how . . . those are the basic questions. No one is going to change anyone's deeply-held, personal religious beliefs one way or the other on a discussion list.
- JC
- Go eat a cookie!
[JC links to shrinks]
VULTURE
[I am here omitting low life vulgarities against St Thomas Aquinas and his credibility]
Kenneth Rexroth - LAM
- St. Augustine also wrote that the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally. Please. I am more than happy to discuss all of this offlist at shashtah@gmail.com or Legend@malcor.com or on a Biblical list of your choosing. But this list is supposed to be about Ancient IE cultures.
- JC
- The new found celtic kingdom...
[Links to a picture of the Vatican, which is not Celtic.] - IC
- Well Hans-Georg Lundahl, I will not discuss this more. We have discussed all aspects of it several times. I will let you know the answer from the Bishop, if I will get any. To be honest, I do not care at all if i get it or no. It really does not matter for me. I just now remember that acording to the apostolic succesion, none-priests are not allowd to discuss teological questions. I think it would have been much better if we did not.
- After which I answer all three in turn:
- HGL
- LAM, "No one is going to change anyone's deeply-held, personal religious beliefs one way or the other on a discussion list."
I have changed convictions (about Vatican II and about Novus Ordo) in a very brief discussion.
"St. Augustine also wrote that the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically, not literally."
I gave my reference to an online source, you give yours.
This is very opposed to what I know about his view of the Bible. It goes rather "Origen interpret after allegory but rejected the letter, saying Noah's Ark means the Church outside which there is no salvation without stating he believed the actual flood. Such and such other ones [I have forgotten which, but it was Syrian school] reject the letter but hold fast that the Flood occurred. A Catholic should hold fast both the literal and the allegorical meaning."
If you want I can search that reference for you. What you stated about him is to my best knowledge a factoid. - HGL
- IC, I would like a reference to this statement of yours:
"I just now remember that acording to the apostolic succesion, none-priests are not allowd to discuss teological questions."
As far as I know that is not true. There are things only priests can do and laymen cannot, such as read gospel in Holy Mass (which also deacons can) or absolve or consecrate (which deacons cannot) and above that bishops can ordain priests, who cannot ordain each other.
But as to theology, laymen are certainly not judges, the bishops are their judges, but that has to my best knowledge (at least in most Christian countries) not implied any total forbidding of theology among non-priests. I was precisely therefore eager you should submit your part of the discussion to your bishop.
Moreover, these things are to me not theological QUESTIONS, but a defense of very basic ORTHODOXY. - HGL
- JC, concluding from your poem on St Thomas Aquinas I resist the temptation to say you should see a shrink, noone should basically, but rather say you get your info from Masonic Lodges. In other words, when it is about Catholicism it is disinformation.
- JC
- Caro Hans, nenhum dos Britânicos fez qualquer reparo à minha correção gramática quando escrevo em Inglês, mas você, que nem é Britânico, é Sueco, fê-lo. Como tal, se quer debater comigo vai ter que aprender Língua Portuguesa, mas desde já o advirto que não perco tempo com bufões e a sua teologia Reader's Digest dá-me sono. Não por acaso, a minha formação universitária é em filosofia e teologia e posso garantir-lhe que conheço alunos teologica e filosoficamente mais informados, mais razoáveis e imensamente mais saudáveis, na sua fé ou na ausência dela. E peço desculpa de o ter confundido por tolo, o seu caso é mais severo...
Kenneth Rexroth's Life
by Caren Irr
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rexroth/rexroth_life.htm - HGL
- I have complained of the orthography of Ingmar Castell, and about the INFORMATION by Jesus Carlos, but if anyone can tell me where I complained about Jesus Carlos' Orthography, I would be moito obrigado. Disculpa-me, o minho portugués nao es ao niveu do minho Castelhano, tampouco os dos nao sao ao niveu do minho Francés.
And giving the life of Rexroth does not make him a very good source about St Thomas Aquinas.
If you meant I had missed the fact that the poem was by Rexroth rather than you, I did not mean "your poem" as "your poem", I meant "your poem" as "the poem you gave as an answer".
"After his expulsion from high school, he educated himself in literary salons, nightclubs, lecture halls, and hobo camps while working as a wrestler, soda jerk, clerk, and reporter. In 1923-1924 he served a prison term for partial ownership of a brothel."
Seems he had occasion enough to get misinformed about certain things. - JC
- quotes two debates :
- Quote 1 :
- HGL
- Sure it was DHL? Chesterton said something similar, however he was antiimperialist enough to think about England (willing to defend even Offa's dyke against the Welsh).
- JC
- I'm sure.
- HGL
- If the word was British, I am sure you are right on that one.
- JC
- I must be...
- Quote 2 :
- JC
- Tell me then what in christmas is part of the judeo-christian theology, if you please...
- HGL
- Birth of Our Saviour, of God made Man. I do however distinguish "Judeo-Protestant" from Catholic. This is only shared by the more conservative Protestant parts of the Judeo-Protestant culture. Liberal Protestants sow doubts, Jews reject.
- JC
- I've ask You reason and science, not praying... Again: Tell me what in christmas is part of the judeo-christian theology.
- HGL
- Sorry, your comment is not even grammatically reasonable ... and I have already answered what you ask me "again".
- JC (resuming after the quotes)
- Você não passa de um palerma.
- LAM
- Hans-Georg, please. Stop bouncing up and down. I'm happy to hold a private discussion with you if you wish, since this is off topic for this list. Or invite me to another list where this discussion is on topic, and I will be happy to discuss such things with you there. The references to St. Augustine that you requested are Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408] and 2:9.
[Neither of the passages states that Bible must be read all metaphorically and not literally, first passage indeed states explicitly that sacred authors can have had several senses in mind, as long as none of the proposed ones is against any certain knowledge of science. It also warns against false science.
Second passage insists that if the Bible once compares the Heaven to a vault and once to a skin spread out, first there is an allegorical sense in which there is very obviously no contradiction at all, but second there is no contradiction even in literal sense, since a vault can well be the side of Heaven above anyone's view, without denying a continued curve below, while a skin can be spread out not just flat but also in curved fashion - like a skin bottle.] - IC
- Mr Hans-Georg Lundahl has left. Enough is enough.
- WPF
- I like lots of activity but I am getting tired of seeing this Blamire fellow's photo. 405 comments on one post must be a FB world record.
- IC
- Yes it probobly is.
- JC
- Madhouse: The End.
- SCW
- To those that think science has all the answers and that everything in the Bible is bullshit. Let's have a look at what science has been debunked. The Out of Africa theory is touted by most scientists. That's just a start. I could write a novel about the "bullshit" of science!!
It looks like this is becoming an atheist/pagan group and Christians will be burned..HA
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire