At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion], Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule:

"1) This group is for Creationism. If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members. This also applies to those who support Creationism."

I see no point in staying.

Before leaving, it is time for some honesty. I actually resumed and even copy pasted parts of our debates on my blogs.

New blog on the kid : Resumé de mes débats géocentriques sur le groupe "Creationism"
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/resume-de-mes-debats-geocentriques-sur.html

HGL's F.B. writings : Supernormal stimuli and behavioural addiction? Really now?
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/supernormal-stimuli-and-behavioural.html

[Ibidem] Some Answers on a Thread of Group Creationism
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/some-answers-on-thread-of-group.html

So long, farewell, auf Widersehn à Dieu ...

JL

When you say angels move stars what do you expect?

TW

Now go forth and slander the name of Christianity to all the world.

KP

What, going so soon? I've just found another paper for you, so you can contact the Royal Archaeological Institute!!

JMDN

Angels move the stars. I love that line

PM

"If you do not support Creationism, you are welcome to stay and debate on the discussion board and wall, but you must remain civil and RESPECT all members."

It is very unfortunate to see someone go and instead of people wishing them well, they take the last opportunity to kick him one more time.

SBA

But that's what atheists do

PM

"But that's what atheists do"

Making such generalizations doesn't help either I'm afraid.

CS

The Lord bless you Hans-Georg, for the believer all things work together for good, so I'm sure He will use you in another place He has lined up for you long before your decision - Shalom Brother

KP

Yes, hopefully Hans is now on his way to London, in order to rewrite the timeline of British history. We wait with anticipation...

JL

Well PM unlike you Hans would say outlandish things. And unlike you rather than stay and defend his reasoning he runs away crying.

PM

It is possible to point out the flaw in an argument without being what's called a "douchebag" in your culture, I believe.

Are you old enough to remember that people shook hands after a sports match?

Gestures like that make the difference between civilized people and a bunch of dogs fighting over food.

ADA

It's unfortunate you felt the need to leave. Be well.

KP

Nope. It's called "being faced with evidence and unable to handle it".

Hans wanted an archaelogical paper, I went one step further and offered evidence of an even older time than that requested.

Not only that but I provided TWO archaelogical papers.

It's a shame Hans didn't stop by to pick them up on his way to the City.

JL

I normally encourage people to stay. But then he not only said he was leaving he was a cry baby. In other words he was not being a good sport.

I still shake hands after winning or losing. and I never complain.

EG

KP - where was this discussion?

SO

Hans-Georg

The idea that angels were moving stars around was always a minority view, even when people held that view. The idea was that heavenly bodies were intelligent beings which were rational, and that's why they could follow courses in the sky which appeared to mimic 'perfection', i.e circles. Those who believed in such stuff believed the sun and moon were also intelligent entities, and the debate was whether they had souls. The idea that angels were pushing them around was always bizarre, and it was people like Cosmas and his Christian Topography, which no-one believed or understood which was purveying the diea.

Your 'explanation'of SN1987A is as ridiculous as claiming there is a man in the moon - in fact it's eactly the same thing, and equivalent to worshipping the sun as a god.

[HGL’s edit : Saying there is a man in the Moon does not amount to worshipping him !]

DL

Please don't go. We need a geocentric creationist here.

KP

Next thread down EG

DM

I'm sorry to see you leave, while I can be overly critical and sometimes harsh I did enjoy verbally sparing with you, perhaps our paths will cross once more, I will eternally have questions of a technical natural regarding geocentricism so I shall leave you with the thought, if not today, maybe tomorrow

EP

Follow your heart , Hans.

TW

How do the admins have time to keep up with this/other pages?

DLS

Bye Felicia.

BF

When was someone disrespectful to you??? I sure was never tagged.

And if you see no point in staying why do you see a point in announcing that you see no point?

KP

it's a good point...

DM

I can point out that as an admin of other pages it is very difficult to take action against rule breaking that you do not see

General remark from me :

My leaving the group does not amount to my hating each and every one of the guys I talked to. I have not blocked the guys who regretted my leaving or my leaving so soon.

Comments were

posted after I copied this. Here comes a new batch and my final comment to it. Before I go there, SO lives in Mykonos in Greece, and to him the fact of "angels moving stars" being marginal in Byzantium may amount to same theory being marginal tout court. If Cosmas Indicopleustes was marginal in Byzantium mainly for being flat earther and that position was definitely as marginal in Sorbonne, it does not follow that he was also marginal in Byzantium for "angels moving stars", and if he was (there is some other evidence he might have been) it does not follow this was as marginal centuries later in Sorbonne or even that people in Sorbonne were aware he had said that. But here is the new batch of comments:

RT

"I have been confronted with REPEATED violations of the rule" - Hans

>> And yet you've never tagged an admin who can do something about it? But you expect that we read every comment on every thread for everything that could be taken as offensive?

I have creationism to explain to those who don't understand it. Sorry if I didn't show up to every thread. Good luck on other pages.

JF

We see no point in you staying either. Finally! Agreement!

R « Jesuslives »

You for real dawg?

JF

Basically Hans is a good argument for banning the internet.

And I just want to point out how awkward it is to have PM defending atheists! That is what Hans brought us to! But thanks PM, I try to point out the same thing when I hear folks generalize about Christians.

BW

Before I throw a tantrum and leave, here is several links to my blogs written in gibberish.

RT

I think PM would appreciate that, JF. (just tagging him so he knows)

JF

Thanks

After the animosity shown when I left

I think I can safely conclude I was not imagining being treated disrespectfully. A guy who considers me a good argument for banning the internet, and who is an atheist who feels hurt when a Christian defends atheists against hasty generalisations (which I would too), then there is not any kind of proof all atheists hate Christianity, but a definite proof he does and feels safe among the atheists he associates with in venting it.

He may very well be defending Christians against generalisations, but I feel the generalisation of relying on God and the supernatural as valid explanations (one thing every Christian should as per Catechism of St Pius X) may be one of the horrid things he feels one must not paint out all Christians as doing.

There was a time when C. S. Lewis was part of the debate, when a Christian stating definite belief in the miracles of Christ could, in some corners of the Western World, be accused of slandering Christianity.

A thing to the moderator : I was not complaining about them not doing their job. I find it the job of debators to be civilised rather than of moderators to force them to it.

More on SO:

a) His wall (or what he shares with people not his friends on FB) contains material of three types:

• i) A video about Near East history of claims to Holy Land.
• ij) A philosophical video about "just now - ism" (shared on Creationism group)
• iij) Three items about creationism "being in a crisis.

The things about creationism are from june 24, the other two an item each from June 23.

b) on about section I found one item except location:

I am interested in the prsychology of belief systems, especially those in which the believers have been sucked into an intellectual back hole, what John Cleese once called "closed systems of thought".

A Modern Thinker : Paradigm and Ideology
http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/1a%20-%20Paradigm.htm

It has not occurred to him that his own belief is a closed system of thought. That a scientist engaged in research has a psychologically different state of mind than a believer, but that the people who read him have the same state of mind as believers. In either case ranging from unnecessarily narrow minded supicion against people not substantially disagreeing to extreme broad mindedness verging on apostasy, and in between the simple state of believing a thing to be true to exclusion of its opposite.

Are we dealing with a psychologist based in Greece, surrounded by disciples of Romanides? I do not know, but it seems eerily like it.

We are probably dealing with a man who regards the Holy Land as a peaceful place as soon as there is no more anything holy about it, but if he wants persuasion only, he is not winning the fight for that peace with his anticreationism, and if he is prepared to war against creationists to get peace in the Holy Land, there is a name for such peace: desolation.

Ensuing Correspondence with KP

Took place at FB, posted as an appendix to above "farewells" from me.

26 août [2014] 16:40

Me to KP

Look at your farewells a bit. Since I left the group I cannot answer under your comments.

linking back here
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/at-leaving-group-creationism-discussion.html

Look especially carefully at my general comment.

If there was any paper you wanted to hand me I am still willing to take on the issue what I find right and what I find wrong about it..HGL's F.B. writings: At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr..

27 août [2014] 10:10

Me to KP again

I went to the thread and found a broken link.

You give me fresh links, I will stand by my promise in public on my blog. THEN you will be able to post my blog post and if you think you should, tear it to pieces in a group where your loudmouthedness is the rule.

But I have not broken my promise by leaving the group.

In order for you to know a little in advance of what you can expect, here is this item for you:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html

Dimanche [7 sept 2014] 22:05

KP to me

if you can't be civil, please don't leave unpleasant messages in my inbox. Thanks.

Lundi [8 sept 2014] 16:38

Uncivil to state I broke no promise? Serious?