Checking with Russian on CSL - wiki

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status, sharing link

Could it be, some cultivate misconceptions about our dear author, on purpose?

Check this:

New blog on the kid : How Russians Might be Seeing C. S. Lewis ...
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/02/how-russians-might-be-seeing-c-s-lewis.html

Aa Aa

I’m really sorry, but it’s fairly strange to draw conclusions from a poorly translated Wiki page. CS Lewis is very much admired among Russians, he’s one of the not so many non-Orthodox writers whose books you will always find in an Orthodox book shop.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl Fine, but it seems some of the wikipedians are trying to draw down on that admiration.

I used google translate phrase per phrase since I don't know Russian.

[II]

[Hans-Georg Lundahl]

[Also, are Orthodox all that much into intellectual defense of Christianity?]

[Answers below given in FB under I, not II, so II is put here, since written before these answers, but III and IV were added after the reply by Aa Aa, they go down as real new subthreads.]

Aa Aa

Hans-Georg Lundahl google translate can be very misleading. I’m not a theologian, so I don’t want to take part in a discussion on a subject that is not in my field of competence. If you are really interested in what the Orthodox think of CS Lewis I would advise to read Kallistos Ware’s “C.S. Lewis: an anonymous Orthodox?”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your answer is wrong on so many points.

Sorry, I overreacted, three is not "so many".

"google translate can be very misleading."

Much less so if you take it sentence by sentence and even smaller clause by smaller clause, as in phrase by phrase. If someone knows CSL's biography, one can see which bits are covered and which bits are not covered.

In paragraphs leading up to those translated, I found this, you are very free to correct the google translate if it is misleading:

В 1924 он начал преподавать философию в колледже университета.

In 1924 he began teaching philosophy at a university college.

В 1925 был избран членом научного сообщества и начал преподавать английскую литературу в колледже Магдалины, где оставался на протяжении 29 лет, вплоть до 1954 года.

In 1925 he was elected a member of the scientific community and began teaching English literature at Magdalen College, where he remained for 29 years, until 1954.

In other words, his being teacher of philosophy for one year is NOT brought in as anything other than a piece of biography. That is had enormous importance for his eventual (involuntary) conversion to Theism (one year before that to Christianity) is not covered.

"I’m not a theologian, so I don’t want to take part in a discussion on a subject that is not in my field of competence."

Where was theology as such even brought in?

C. S. Lewis, you might be interested to know, was also not a theologian, and he did not share your "competentialist" prejudice on the matter.

The fact is : C. S. Lewis was highly intellectual.

The other fact is : this is not shown at all for C. S. Lewis' Christianity in the article.

"If you are really interested in what the Orthodox think of CS Lewis I would advise to read Kallistos Ware’s “C.S. Lewis: an anonymous Orthodox?”"

How many Russians read Kallistos Ware?

He is episcopating in Great Britain, and he is also not in the Russian but in the Byzantine jurisdiction.

My post is concerned with what Russians, in a country that came out of Communism in 1990 (or one supposed so) are perceiving C. S. Lewis.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

William O'Flaherty, these tidbits from that Russian wiki are for you to analyse whether goof or bad in biography, supposing the translation is correct or tolerable, and Aa Aa, you are very welcome to comment on the quality of translation, just three phrases:

Именно в это время он утратил свою детскую веру и стал атеистом, начал интересоваться мифологией и оккультизмом[8].

It was at this time that he lost his childhood faith and became an atheist, became interested in mythology and the occult [8].

Пережитые ужасы войны утвердили его в атеизме.

Experienced horrors of war established him in atheism.

После обращения в христианство, он начал интересоваться христианской теологией и отошёл от языческого мистицизма кельтов[16].

After converting to Christianity, he became interested in Christian theology and withdrew from the Celtic pagan mysticism [16].

• 1) was mythology and the occult really contemporary?
• 2) was CSL really ditching Celtic mythology along with Yeats' interest in Magic?
• 3) Was C. S. Lewis genuinely horrified by war, and did it affect his atheism one way or the other?

It IS after all some time since I read Surprised by Joy.

Alexander J. Wei

Hans-Georg Lundahl I would say that he always LIKED mythology, but he didn't believe in it. He was bemused when he made the acquaintance of Yeats and realized that the great man actually believed in the existence of fairies, much as Arthur Conan Doyle did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl As for the War, there was no discernible influence on his atheism. He was to all appearances, a complete atheist before and the War neither increased or decreased that.

As for whether he might have subconsciously have remained a believer, so thought not, but interestingly, his brother believes that he never completely lost his faith. Warren Lewis was a good man, but I would tend to believe CS Lewis over his brother.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alexander J. Wei as to the first, I totally agree, but the question was more, was the interest in mythology contemporary with that in the occult?

The Ukrainean wiki lumps both together as "Pagan mysticism" and I have some difficulty in seeing C. S. Lewis renouncing the enjoyment of mythology as literature.

Wonder how bemused he would be by meeting me, I don't know whether fairies, as distinct from men (bewitched or not), angels and demons exist, but I am fairly (!) sure fairy appearances occur. So was Chesterton btw.

As to mythology, I think Theogony is a fairly worthless substitute for Genesis 1, but Iliad and Odyssey (sometimes also labelled mythology) are fairly accurate histories. Like, if we have some latitude with anachronism in arms and with omission (a very glaring one) of Hittites.

I exactly thought so, the war did not influence his atheism, and he pretty much enjoyed it (not barracks, but action in field, like a whistling bullet and thinking "This is war. This is what Homer wrote about").

I think some Russians were eager to shoehorn him into the mold of politically correct Erich Maria Remarque, when the war part of Surprised by Joy is even more "war is not the worst there is" than In Stahlgewittern by Jünger.

Alexander J. Wei "As for whether he might have subconsciously have remained a believer, so thought not, but interestingly, his brother believes that he never completely lost his faith."

So, there was at least a source for it, even if not the very best?

I agree on preferring CSL's own account.

Alexander J. Wei

Hans-Georg Lundahl There is a source, but I don't know where exactly I saw it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No problem.

Alexander J. Wei

Hans-Georg Lundahl As to fairy appearances, I have never seen anything like them, and tend to discount them. That, of course, is only anecdotal, proves nothing, and only speaks of my mindset.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I haven't seen them either, nor miracles, nor wars breaking out.

Alexander J. Wei

Ah! Well there I have a distinction. I believe in miracles, or perhaps don't disbelieve in them, because they are attested in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about fairies. I don't believe in stories about fairies as I do about the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Before believing Holy Bible, I believe history. Not above, but before.

This means, I need to give some credit for reliability to those recording it, primary witnesses.

Some of these have sighted fairies.

Note, I said I believe fairy sightings occur, I did not say fairies were sth distinct from the beings we see in the Bible, angels, men, devils.

Also, there is a passage saying "the hairy ones shall dance" and it is disputed whether it means:

• satyrs / fauns shall dance
• anatomically normal, but hairy people shall dance
• devils disguised as satyrs / fauns shall dance
• pagan idols depicting satyrs / fauns shall "dance" as they are dashed to pieces.

Also, one saint saw a Centaur, and did not decide on whether it was a creature of God or a diabolic apparition.

"I did not say fairies were sth distinct from the beings we see in the Bible, angels, men, devils." - Note, I did also not say the reverse. As, they weren't.

Alexander J. Wei

Hans-Georg Lundahl I see. I do know that people have reported seeing fairies, but i dont count that as history, while i do believe that wars started. I could, of course, be very wrong about that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" I do know that people have reported seeing fairies, but i dont count that as history,"

History = what has been reported by men.

Note, history is not always truth. There is false history.

Alexander J. Wei

Hans-Georg Lundahl It is and it isn't. History does consist of reports, as mediated through historians. There are many reports, some of which are assigned very low credence. In addition to fairies, there are stories of aliens, dragons, various cryptozoia, etc.

Yes, just like science or theology, history is a human pursuit that is subject to human frailty.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"History does consist of reports, as mediated through historians."

No, historians are assessing history, not making it.

Sometimes our access to reports is mediated by historiographers, since original individual reports are lost, even so, the historiographers are not producing, just mediating, history. If there are reports they systematically leave out (like a 70's historiographer leaving out UFO sightings) they are suppressing history. Not making a purer one.

" there are stories of aliens,"

As credible as fairies, and both could in many cases (not saying all) be demonic.

CMI : Aliens in your bedroom?
by Mike Matthews | This article is from
Creation 27(2):36–41, March 2005
https://creation.com/aliens-in-your-bedroom

"dragons, various cryptozoia"

Cd in many cases be "surviving fossils".

Viking dragons probably Dimetrodon grandis, Amerindian thunderbirds probably pterosaurs, Nessie could be a plesiosaur, or a series of surviving such, and two African cryptozoa seem to be sauropods. Mokele mbembe and Jobar. The latter talked of in vicinity of a sauropod fossil classed as Jobaria.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Anyway, thank you for helping to show how Russian wikipedians have indeed given a false history of C S Lewis on more than one point!

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I checked Bielorussian and Ukrainean wikis.

Bielorussian one was clean but very jejune. Both avoided speculations about Jane Moore.

Here are some pearls from Ukrainean one:

1) Ukraine had a praiseworthy actual argument from Lewis:

In 1961, having heard the statement of Yuri Gagarin that "he had not seen God in the cosmos," Lewis replied briefly: "With the same success, Hamlet could search for Shakespeare in the attic of his own castle."

2) Translation issues for AI ...

"When Clive was 4 years old, his dog Jacksy shot down a car."

Journalistic principle, car runs over dog, no news, dog runs over car, news. As long as everyone in the car was safe, this would perhaps have been preferrable to what actually happened.

"Soon, the school was closed due to lack of students, and the director of the school Robert Kapron 'Oldies' was dropped into the madhouse."

Sounds like the madhouse is a kind of oubliette.

"After college, Lewis took private lessons from William Kirkpatrick, a former director of the college, Lurgan, who was still taught by his father."

Kirkpatrick still taught by Albert James, not the other way round ...? Translator seems to have some issues distinguishing subject from object.

"After graduating from school in 1917, she entered Oxford University College, but soon dropped out of studies and volunteered to the front."

I like the "dropped out of studies" part.

"In 1918, after the injury, he was demobilized and returned to the university where he graduated from the studio."

Where is the studio he graduated from? Decca? Hollywood?

"On November 22, the same year, the writer died without surviving a week before his anniversary."

Wonder how many survive dying ...

3) Real issues of content, perhaps:

"Батько, людина похмура і нелагідна, у 1908 році, відразу після смерті матері, віддав його у закриту школу Віньярд подалі від дому."

"Father, a man gloomy and weak, in 1908, immediately after the death of his mother, he gave him to the closed school of Vignard away from home."

Wait, obviously refers to his being heartbroken after death of wife.

"Його новими інтересами стали міфологія та містика."

"His new interests were mythology and mysticism."

Again, as on Russian, were his first interests in mythology contemporary to the desire to dabble in magic?

"У 1923 році отримав ступінь бакалавра, а згодом — магістра. Став викладачем філології."

"In 1923 received a bachelor's degree, and later - a master's degree. Became a teacher of philology."

I checked, Ukrainean says філології and not філоcофії!

"У 1931 році в житті Льюїса відбулася світоглядна зміна: він усвідомлено став християнином."

"In 1931, in the life of Lewis, a world-wide change took place: he consciously became a Christian."

As, he had been a Christian unconsciously before?

[See above, under III]

V

S LaV

I haven't had time to respond to this until today. I read the Wikipedia article in Russian and to me, the unbalanced or biased part, if you will, has more to do with them leaving out most of the information about how Lewis contributed and his influence, rather than what is said in these parts that are questionable, like the relationship with Mrs. Moore. However, it must be remembered about the Russian church: there was never really a reformation or counter-reformation there and the oppression of believers also had an effect on whether people think as intellectually-critically or value things like apologetics, the way we do, especially we who like Lewis. The basic religious worldview of the Orthodox church and the parts of the gospel that are more particularly valued there are not necessarily what is valued highly in the west, so these differences probably contribute to part of why Lewis is not thought of as more than just another Western Christian/religious writer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"has more to do with them leaving out most of the information about how Lewis contributed and his influence, rather than what is said in these parts that are questionable"

My impression too.

My impression on Orthos is about the same, and my problem with this is : are they trying to force Westerners to ignore what they ignore. I am for one an Apologist (RC, traddy trad)

S LaV

I haven't time to look into what goes on in the RU Wikipedia, but since it is still Wikipedia, I would assume it functions in the same way as it does here.

Whoever registers and wishes to contribute to the group collaboration--the crowdsourcing-- known as a Wikipedia article will do so and sometimes the push and pushback on various views shown in articles edited and deleted will cause great changes in the text on any given Wikipedia article. Over time, groups of editors have come forth to serve as moderators for articles to bring balance to and to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and validity and especially this is true about those articles which get public attention, like those about major figures or controversy, great public interest, scandal, political or rhetorical impact, etc.

As you could see, some articles will not have as much interest as others. Those topics with multiple people writing articles will have more of the push back of edits and deletes, and those with less interest, much less or no push-pull to sort out the balance in the points of information. For example, if you want to write in English about an American politician, many people will want to write and take a position on Wikipedia, causing a great deal of back and forth to the point that the article will need upper-level editorial attention and even become locked for further public edits. However, you could see how an article with less interest (or about a topic less interesting to people in language-speaking areas outside of the original topic) might have only one author or very few edits. For the most part, attention to any one topic or individual will be most active within the articles for that person in the language of the country in which the topic or person is important.

Go to the section on editorial changes for any article on Wikipedia and see how many and which changes have taken place to it. This is how the English one works and I would presume it is how the articles work in other languages. The various articles are not computer generated translations of the English pages (Thank God!), although you sometimes can get an option to use translation software to read them (sort of), so as with anything on Wikipedia, you get what you got.

I don't have time to dig into the Russian editorial pages and changes, but that is very likely what is going on here and there could possibly have been a more balanced version in the article on Lewis in the past.

All of that leaves out the fact that in the case of the Russian Wikipedia, Mr Putin is in the long line of Russian leaders going back through the communists and the Czars, to want to control all information. He wants and works to reset Iron Curtain control of information, so he probably has set in motion a team of Wikipedia authors working away in their cubicles, "clerks in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth," (from the Wikipedia article, "Winston Smith") to rewrite everything according to his purposes. In that case, there are bigger worries than what does the Wikipedia article on CS Lewis say.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Whoever registers and wishes to contribute to the group collaboration--the crowdsourcing-- known as a Wikipedia article will do so and sometimes the push and pushback on various views shown in articles edited and deleted will cause great changes in the text on any given Wikipedia article."

Actually, if you do not register, your contribution will be credited as per your computer's id (whatever that is, forgot the term).

Would you, as speaking Russian, try to edit some sense into the article?

As I don't speak Russian, I can't!

"in the case of the Russian Wikipedia, Mr Putin is in the long line of Russian leaders going back through the communists and the Czars, to want to control all information."

Can a Russian wikipedia entry be edited internationally?

I think so.

S LaV

I should think so because Wikipedia is hosted online, not owned by particular countries. As far as if I wanted to write any edits to the entry. I would have to have the time to do it, which I do not have right now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ok, whenever you have time, or any other Russian speaker you can contact.

For me, what Russians and Ukraineans think of CSL is a problem:

• 1) I am known to be a CSL fan;
• 2) I have more than a quarter of my readers (all blogs together) in Russia and Ukraine.

Since all blogs together are less than 2 million, more than half a million is more than a quarter.

Russia 329226
682 + 27417 + 5616 + 1182 + 364 + 8929 + 28445 + 32276 + 2290 + 2902 + 10631 + 325 + 2674 + 7495 + 669 + 26439 + 146 + 144 + 1192 + 931 + 579 + 550 + 740 + 639 + 53 + 1988 + 3368 + 3372 + 10992 + 48858 + 9765 + 9928 + 7090 + 4544 + 10477 + 336 + 19731 + 765 + 23 + 1028 + 33651

Ukraine 185964
15962 + 672 + 12 + 697 + 9032 + 129 + 3480 + 2088 + 2252 + 5723 + 3606 + 43565 + 4041 + 1706 + 3222 + 645 + 11 + 182 + 294 + 315 + 348 + 385 + 1046 + 13 + 17882 + 270 + 3280 + 1254 + 100 + 5264 + 1570 + 24548 + 172 + 2433 + 325 + 3739 + 13313 + 10897 + 1491

185964 + 329226 = 515190 (more then half a million, more than a quarter)

Some funny things about arranging readerships:

France : 77763 for one blog. (777 with decimal multiples is 21*37 with decimal multiples, and 63 is 21*3, have seen a lot of multiples of 21).
France : 666 for another.

Speaking of "club 21" - this post had 42 readers prior to this last edit: [link here]

Some Men Who Saw or Committed Too Much Cruelty in Action Become Jaded

For instance, while Francisco Franco was arguably tons better than Azaña for Spain, he had some deficiencies in sensibilities about physical cruelty. Arguably, he had seen too much of it on the Rif (he may have seen things this guy has not seen), and he had maybe also done a few things too much under the orders of Gil Robles, while repressing the Red Terror in Asturias.

This does not mean we must change them, nor that we must punish them. But some things are good to take a distance from.



So, he claims, she deserves a lynching:

she should be taken around the back of whatever terminal this is, shot once, cleanly, in the back of the skull and her lifeless, wretched body dumped in the nearest industrial waste container to be disposed of the following more with the rest of the useless garbage.

Considering how damaging modern school systems are, I don't think a Muslim or Muslima caught in such should be that heavily judged simply for having joined ISIS.

One could argue, one would not want her back, that is another story. But she should not be murdered.

I'll send this to the police, and hope they take contact with their British colleagues. Let's hope TL (I'm not exposing his full identity to the public) was just letting off steam. But I definitely do not share his sentiment. Little as I like ISIS./HGL

Did send to French police, and did unfriend him. Oh, the police got the full details of his profile too./HGL

Update, 17:25 same day (16.II.2019)

Is it just a coincidence there is some fan of TL who is showing a gif of Putin winking with the right eye? I don't think so:

Comparing Inaccuracies : A. N. Wilson on CSL / Shrinks on Patients

Brenton Dickieson

shared a link

Hi folks, this is an old book, but I read it because people out in the public keep referencing it and it haunts beneath Lewis studies. There are A LOT of poor facts in this book, and an example of why Lewis gets bent in public. But he also gives another reason why Lewis is being misquoted: Because he is a legend that we shape. Intriguing to think about more this facebook site and William's work. Here are my thoughts about the book as a whole, but I will follow up next week with some more thoughts about Wilson's Lewis journey.

A Pilgrim in Narnia : A.N. Wilson’s C.S. Lewis: A Mythology
https://apilgriminnarnia.com/2019/02/11/a-n-wilsons-c-s-lewis-a-mythology/

GD

Good job. It annoys me that this biography is taken seriously as biography by anyone, with all the errors and sloppiness in it. Biographies like that always annoy me. No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Biographies like that always annoy me."

You hate psychiatry too?

"No, we can't know everything about a person, but at least do your best to be honest!"

You really hate psychiatry, don't you?

GD

No, why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Bc their journals of a given patient are more often than not very fake biographies.

Like the level where A. N. Wilson will seem accurate about CSL by comparison, and that is how they earn lots of money (collectively) from tax payers on treating people often in no need of their services.

GD

I'm . . . not even gonna touch that one.

Brenton Dickieson

I have issues with the methods of some that do psychological shrinking of historical figures, but personally, I would love to have access to a psychiatrist or an informed spiritual director to help me order things. And as a pastor and teacher*, I cannot tell you how many times shrinks and psychologists have made critical interventions--some of them life-saving--in the lives of my parishioners and students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Due to your sending them there?

How do you know they were in fact lifesaving?

Brenton Dickieson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, they didn't die. I mean, literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide or die of anorexia or bulimia or addictions. Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems. But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well, they didn't die."

For an internvention to be lifesaving there are two criteria needed, that one, and "they would have died otherwise".

"literally dozens of people who didn't commit suicide"

How many had tried previous to shrink getting involved (btw, generally I think they are rather good with cases of depression, that's why depressed patients often become their poster children)?

"or die of anorexia"

How many were legitimately very starved?

"or bulimia"

How many were legitimately destroying their stomachs?

"or addictions"

How many of the addictions were lifethreatening? For instance, Amy Winehouse was arguably getting an earlier death, if she wasn't treated, but as it was, her treatment lowered her tolerance to alcohol and she died in ethylic coma when trying to drink as before, plus the treatment was imposed in such a manner that it arguably made her want to drink more.

"Anyone with any experience working with mental health professionals can see the limitations and problems."

Understatement of the year.

"But anyone who has tried to help people without the right tools can see what the help can do."

To or for some who chose that help.

For or to some who that "help" is imposed on.

How many would, for instance, have fared worse than dying at 65 from renal failure (sth CSL's lifestyle arguably had sth to do with and I don't mean he should be considered a suicide for that)?

With patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, these guys often make up biographies, as they don't see the patients' words as reliable, and one frequent thing is "observing" audible or other hallucinations simply from someone talking to non-present others.

Ben Gunn's syndrome, if you ask me.

That Long John Silver and a few others were not present while he dreamed of revenge doesn't mean they were not emotionally relevant to Ben Gunn (I trust anyone in our culture knows Treasure Island). So, that Ben Gunn spoke to them while absent (including threats) doesn't argue he hallucinated.

GD

All other considerations aside, this conversation is wildly off-topic.

Brenton Dickieson

GD I agree. I'll bow out.**

HGL (after adding link here)

False as hell biogaphy, item 1:

Therapeutic Superstition
by David Bentley Hart | November 2012
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/11/therapeutic-superstition

"There was a therapist at the funeral who had known Reuben for some time and who, in the course of lamenting Reuben’s death, remarked that he was at least glad that the psychiatrist in charge of the case had been able, in those last few years, to help Reuben get in touch with “reality.” There had been, he said, a marked improvement in Reuben’s state of mind under care, and there was some comfort to be taken from the knowledge that he had enjoyed a short period of stability and general sanity before the end."

False as hell biography, item 2:

Some guys think I am like Reuben, in the sense of living mainly in what is invisible to others.

When I talk to absent people, it's usually neither angels nor demons, nor fairies, it's people I engaged intellectually or morally with, and am shadow boxing, bc social defeats smart.

GD

Hans-Georg Lundahl Once again, this thread has gone OFF-TOPIC. This discussion is about Wilson and Lewis, not psychiatry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

he point was, Wilson was doing a very psychiatry like (in places) false biography.

Some of the errata Kathryn Lindskog noted are like the ones mental patients can note in their journals, if accessed, or in stray remarks : Freudian analyses of some known fact, contradicting facts known to person himself or to those knowing him.

// Unlike the irritatingly tolerant Protestants, Wilson takes smoking and drinking so seriously that he claims against all evidence that Lewis disliked nonsmokers: "Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers or teetotallers." (Lewis's good friends Roger Lancelyn Green and George Sayer were both nonsmokers, and Lewis tried hard to quit but couldn't.) //

Against all evidence?

Not as shrinks look at it. Eustace Clarence Scrubb's parents are non-smokers tee-totallers and wear special underwear (and obviously have more businessmanlike than chivalrous moral ideals, as reflected in their son's upbringing).

They were deluding ECS about life, so presumably Lewis didn't approve of them ... =========> Lewis was impatient with puritanism and disliked non-smokers and teetotallers.

More correctly, he didn't approve of puritanism as a cause or non-smoking and tee-totalling as causes. He would probably not have approved of signs saying "smoking forbidden" all over nearly every public place either, even if he didn't quite approve of his habit.

But not approving of a cause and hating all espousing it is precisely the kind of thing a shrink WILL NOT distinguish, if triggered, and they are often that.

// Third, Wilson attacks C. S. Lewis's own portrayal of himself as a reasonably heathy-minded Christian. Wilson reduces Lewis's evangelizing Christianity to a crippled way of coping with life. He claims that Lewis's account of his boyhood frustration with prayer can't be true. Then in one of the most amazing passages in his book (on page 162), Wilson claims to have been considering for twenty years a June 1938 letter from Lewis to Owen Barfield that shows how warped Lewis's thinking was when he began defending Christianity. At that time, Wilson says, Lewis turned against innocent pleasures such as feeling the wind in your hair, walking with bare feet on the grass, and swimming in the rain: Lewis decided these activities were Nazi or would lead to homosexuality. Thus "one must also view with ambivalence his excursion into the realm of religious apologetics." Wilson slays his third strawman with a flourish, and makes C. S. Lewis look silly. //

// But as anyone can see by reading the passage in Letters, Lewis was reporting an idiocy that he overheard from two undergraduates, and he was horrified by it. //

Deciding what a patient thinks, and then presenting any evidence to the contrary as efforts to rationalise, overlooking text passages ... (or conversation snippets) ... they thrive off that business.

// A.N. Wilson substitutes his own ideological Freudian view of C. S. Lewis. Thus the real C. S. Lewis, he claims, was not a perpetual virgin, not a nonsmoker and nondrinker, and not the genuine Christian believer he wanted to be. He was instead a terrified Oedipal neurotic and a closet misanthrope. The Narnian wardrobe is a symbol of Flora Lewis's private parts. Surely it is disingenuous for a biographer to psychoanalyze an author this way without telling readers what that author wrote about such psychoanalyzing. //

I think the same about psychoanalyzing.

// The hero of this book is A.N Wilson, who quickly and easily sees through everything, and who winks at his readers because they are now in on the joke also. //

The hero of a shrink's journal is the shrink. If you have had to do with them, you can't miss the parallel.

// He even recounts what the obnoxiously drunk Lewis allegedly said to one of his drunken students at a urinal fifty years ago, without explaining how he could know such details it if it were true. //

Shrinks also are shady on theory of knowledge.

GD

You are slandering an entire group of people, some of whom may be in this group and watching you do it. If you don't stop, I'm getting the moderator involved. It's up to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fine, my point is they are excellent slanderers themselves, I am the first slander victim here.

I am living on the street bc slandered as an alcoholic, shrinks (or addictologists) and Muslims seem to be both involved.

I am presumed to be suicidal, bc I threatened suicide when I was half as old as I am now, in an attempt to commit emotional extortion against the gal I loved and had a rival about. Sure, I worked myself up as to be actually planning (hypothetically, should she refuse me) suicide, so as not to lie to her.

But I didn't do it, am not suicidal etc.

I defended myself against the slave hunt they commit by shooting at a policeman who was (against his better judgement, or what he had expressed as such) delivering me to them. This was 21 years ago. I already did time, for mistreatment alternatively attempt of unpremeditated manslaughter.

People are still poisoning my life about how I must have been unstable and they are waiting for me to become stable - with the criteria of shrinks.

I was yesterday given food I didn't need, while already enjoying a light supper, and the guy who gave it said "bon rétablissement", which I think is synonym for "bonne amélioration" or "get well soon" - supposing I had been ill.

As a consequence, when I was stopped from going back to sleep at before 2am, in the bank automat space, I stayed awake till past (I think) 4am.

My blogs are being read more in Ukraine (where men analysing CSL as Wilson did, or actually using Wilson, abound), than in Paris, where I am making publicity for my blogs as the busking.

And someone is telling people "ssshh" and "don't tell him, but don't read his blogs, you might get an unfavourable impression, he sometimes writes when he's in a bad mood" (a damned lie and complete literal truth at the same time, I am in a bad mood right now), or "we are studying his blogs as symptoms" or "in his own head he is a writer" (with 7000 articles on my blogs which are publilcly accessible, why shouldn't I be?)

So you tell ME that I am slandering MY SLANDERERS?

Just because the lines I just gave were realistic second guessing and not always overheard or directly told?

If I were for instance speaking on a FB back in the time of Wilberforce, would I be slandering slave traders?

* "And as a pastor and teacher, I cannot tell you how many times ..." => Brenton Dickieson is a pastor and teacher => not anonymised. ** This is where I made the post. The next comment of mine on that subthread (there are others) is the link to this post.

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes, par Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp

Cette amie sur FB, Carmélite séculière, m'a donné la permission de republier ici.

Les 18 Apparitions de Lourdes

- Jeudi 11 février 1858 : la première rencontre

Première apparition. Accompagnée de sa sœur et d’une amie, Bernadette se rend à Massabielle, le long du Gave, pour ramasser des os et du bois mort. Enlevant ses bas pour traverser le ruisseau et aller dans la Grotte, elle entend un bruit qui ressemblait à un coup de vent, elle lève la tête vers la Grotte : « J’aperçus une dame vêtue de blanc : elle portait une robe blanche, un voile blanc également, une ceinture bleue et une rose jaune sur chaque pied. » Bernadette fait le signe de la croix et récite le chapelet avec la Dame. La prière terminée, la Dame disparaît brusquement.

- Dimanche 14 février 1858 : l’eau bénite

Deuxième apparition. Bernadette ressent une force intérieure qui la pousse à retourner à la Grotte malgré l’interdiction de ses parents. Sur son insistance, sa mère l’y autorise ; après la première dizaine de chapelet, elle voit apparaître la même Dame. Elle lui jette de l’eau bénite. La Dame sourit et incline la tête. La prière du chapelet terminée, elle disparaît.

- Jeudi 18 février 1858 : la Dame parle

Troisième apparition. Pour la première fois, la Dame parle. Bernadette lui présente une écritoire et lui demande d’écrire son nom. Elle lui dit : « Ce n’est pas nécessaire. » Elle ajoute : « Je ne vous promets pas de vous rendre heureuse en ce monde mais dans l’autre. Voulez-vous me faire la grâce de venir ici pendant quinze jours ? »

- Vendredi 19 février 1858 : le premier cierge

Quatrième apparition. Bernadette vient à la Grotte avec un cierge bénit et allumé. C’est de ce geste qu’est née la coutume de porter des cierges et de les allumer devant la Grotte.

- Samedi 20 février 1858 : la grande tristesse

Cinquième apparition. La Dame a appris une prière personnelle à Bernadette. A la fin de la vision, une grande tristesse envahit Bernadette.

- Dimanche 21 février 1858 : « Aquero »

Sixième apparition. La Dame se présente à Bernadette le matin de bonne heure. Une centaine de personnes l’accompagnent. Elle est ensuite interrogée par le commissaire de police Jacomet. Il veut lui faire dire ce qu’elle a vu. Bernadette ne lui parle que d’ « Aquero » (cela).

- Mardi 23 février 1858 : le secret

Septième apparition. Entourée de cent cinquante personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte. L’Apparition lui révèle un secret « rien que pour elle. »

- Mercredi 24 février 1858 : «Pénitence !»

Huitième apparition. Message de la Dame : « Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Pénitence ! Priez Dieu pour les pécheurs ! Allez baiser la terre en pénitence pour les pécheurs ! »

- Jeudi 25 février 1858 : la source

Neuvième apparition. Trois cents personnes sont présentes. Bernadette raconte : « Elle me dit d’aller boire à la source (…). Je ne trouvai qu’un peu d’eau vaseuse. Au quatrième essai je pus boire. Elle me fit également manger une herbe qui se trouvait près de la fontaine puis la vision disparut et je m’en allai. » Devant la foule qui lui demande: « Sais-tu qu’on te croit folle de faire des choses pareilles ? » Elle répond : « C’est pour les pécheurs. »

- Samedi 27 février 1858 : silence

Dixième apparition. Huit cents personnes sont présentes. L’Apparition est silencieuse. Bernadette boit l’eau de la source et accomplit les gestes habituels de pénitence.

- Dimanche 28 février 1858 : l’extase

Onzième apparition. Plus de mille personnes assistent à l’extase. Bernadette prie, baise la terre et rampe sur les genoux en signe de pénitence. Elle est ensuite emmenée chez le juge Ribes qui la menace de prison.

- Lundi 1er mars 1858 : la première guérison miraculeuse

Douzième apparition. Plus de mille cinq cents personnes sont rassemblées et parmi elles, pour la première fois, un prêtre. Dans la nuit, Catherine Latapie, une amie lourdaise, se rend à la Grotte, elle trempe son bras déboîté dans l’eau de la source : son bras et sa main retrouvent leur souplesse.

- Mardi 2 mars 1858 : le message aux prêtres

Treizième apparition. La foule grossit de plus en plus. La Dame lui demande : « Allez dire aux prêtres qu’on vienne ici en procession et qu’on y bâtisse une chapelle ». Bernadette en parle à l’abbé Peyramale, curé de Lourdes. Celui-ci ne veut savoir qu’une chose : le nom de la Dame. Il exige en plus une preuve : voir fleurir en plein hiver le rosier (l’églantier) de la Grotte.

- Mercredi 3 mars 1858 : le sourire de la Dame

Quatorzième apparition. Dès 7 h le matin, en présence de trois mille personnes, Bernadette se rend à la Grotte, mais la vision n’apparaît pas ! Après l’école, elle entend l’invitation intérieure de la Dame. Elle se rend à la Grotte et lui redemande son nom. La réponse est un sourire. Le curé Peyramale lui redit : « Si la Dame désire vraiment une chapelle, qu’elle dise son nom et qu’elle fasse fleurir le rosier de la Grotte ».

- Jeudi 4 mars 1858 : 8 000 personnes à la Grotte

Quinzième apparition. La foule toujours plus nombreuse (environ huit mille personnes) attend un miracle à la fin de cette quinzaine. La vision est silencieuse. Le curé Peyramale campe sur sa position. Pendant vingt jours, Bernadette ne va plus se rendre à la Grotte : elle n’en ressent plus l’irrésistible attrait.

- Jeudi 25 mars 1858 : la Dame révèle son nom

Seizième apparition. La vision révèle enfin son nom, mais le rosier (ou églantier) sur lequel elle pose les pieds au cours de ses Apparitions ne fleurit pas. Bernadette raconte : « Elle leva les yeux au ciel, joignant en signe de prière ses mains qui étaient tendues et ouvertes vers la terre, et me dit: Que soy era immaculada councepciou ». Bernadette part en courant et répète sans cesse, sur le chemin, des mots qu’elle ne comprend pas. Ces mots troublent le brave curé. Bernadette ignorait cette expression théologique qui désigne la Sainte Vierge. Quatre ans plus tôt, en 1854, le pape Pie IX en avait fait une vérité de la foi catholique (dogme de l’Immaculée Conception).

- Mercredi 7 avril 1858 : le miracle du cierge

Dix-septième apparition. Pendant cette apparition, Bernadette tient son cierge allumé. La flamme entoure longuement sa main sans la brûler. Ce fait est immédiatement constaté par le médecin, le docteur Douzous..

- Vendredi 16 juillet 1858 : la dernière apparition

Dix-huitième apparition. Bernadette ressent le mystérieux appel de la Grotte, mais l’accès à Massabielle est interdit et fermé par une palissade. Elle se rend donc en face, de l’autre côté du Gave… et voit la Vierge Marie, une ultime fois : « Il me semblait que j’étais devant la grotte, à la même distance que les autres fois, je voyais seulement la Vierge, jamais je ne l’ai vue aussi belle ! ».

On Soul and Spirit (and some more)

JDR

Have You ever ask this questions to yourself? 🤔

➡️ 1. Who am I, and what am I worth? am I really love?

➡️ 2. Where did I come from? How did I exist?

➡️ 3. Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?

➡️ 4. Where am I going when I die? Is death really the end of my life?

Kindly comment your answers to this 4 questions below 👇

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1. "Who am I,"

in most general terms, a man created in God's image, sinner by my acts, Catholic by grace

"and what am I worth? am I really [worth] love?"

No one knows if he's worth love or hate.

2. "Where did I come from? How did I exist?"

Most general terms : God created all, less general and more specific, my parents did sth, and God gave it success and created a soul for my body.

3. "Why am I here? What's the purpose of my life?"

God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him.

4. "Where am I going when I die?"

Three places immediately and two ultimately possible, except, judgement is even more immediate.

"Is death really the end of my life?"

Of the life in which one prepares for judgement, yes, of the life after judgement, no.

Michel Snoeck

1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong.

2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it.

3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?

4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are. 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1. Question is what "God's image" really implies. I think we usually get it all wrong."

Man is an animal insofar as having a body animated by a soul, he is also a spirit, which is either God (which I am not) or God's image.

The soul of man is a spirit, unlike the soul of a tulip or a dog. The spirit of man is a soul, animates a body, unlike the spirit called angel.

Both angels and men are the image of God.

"2. I think "soul" is just the integration of body and spirit. This according to Genesis, or my take of it."

See above.

"3. If that is so, then... is God an egotist?"

For two reasons, no.

a) God is three persons, each loving the other.
b) this way God is offering us the one happiness there is, not keeping any surplus happiness for himself.

"4. I think it is pending your deeds and your conscience that is creating a pitfall for man. The end of life is a result of how much responsibility you did or did not take. The more responsibility, in that degree, the more life you have or are."

Not the more, but the better responsibility.

A shrink would perhaps say "more" responsibility whatever direction is automatically better, like planning to wank on a toilet is better than deciding to in the last minute with your trousers on. BUT the latter may be sufficiently involuntary not to be a mortal sin in the concrete case, the former is a mortal sin.

Hence, not more responsibility, but better use of the responsibility one has.

Michel Snoeck

1-2. No. Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I take this literally, it says what it says. Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not.

3. No. If you say: "God has created man so as to enable him to get to know, love and serve Him and eternally enjoy Him." then it seems to be ALL for HIM. It reminds of the Ori (as in the series Stargate). Of course, I interpreted the purpose of life very differently.

4. The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be. I fear that this is how the mechanism works. A person who denies or will not see his own responsibility in matters will make him himself go to sleep/becoming less aware.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Through history I think man has misinterpreted this and persist with that the soul is something apart from a body. Scripture says it is not."

Catholicism says it is not too.

Soul = form of the body.

"then it seems to be ALL for HIM"

It is.

Michel Snoeck

Thus an egotist... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The degree of responsibility taken will tell how aware and awake you are and can be."

Exactly, that is the reason why planning to wank is mortally sinful.

"Thus an egotist... "

God has three egos, they are all for each other, not each for itself.

Michel Snoeck

You have to regard exactly what Genesis 2:7 says! Soul is not what man has thought it to be. We got the word from Scripture, we therefore have to define it according what Scripture says it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Soul is not what man has thought it to be."

What do you mean by "man"?

"We got the word from Scripture,"

Even for nephesh, we have it from tradition before there was Scripture.

For psyche and anima we definitely have it before Christianity, likewise probably with Germanic sawol.

Michel Snoeck

I don't care about what you refer to as 'tradition'. I regard how Scripture defines it at Genesis 2:7.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you don't care about tradition, your concern for Scripture is spurious.

Michel Snoeck

Well, I think your concern is spurious. Scripture defined 'soul', that should be enough for anyone... You counter with referring to some, I would say, anonymous 'tradition'. That simply will not do... 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How come you even consider St Thomas Aquinas contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture? I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something... 🤔

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" Why do you consider Thomas Aquinas being senior to Scripture?"

Why do you put words in my mouth I did not say.

I do consider he goes into more detail of explanation than this one passage in Scripture, so, all I need is his not contradicting it.

"I take it directly from the source, you take it through an interpreter that decides for you how to take something..."

Following your recommendation, I'll take my reading of Scripture, which agrees with that of St Thomas, over yours.

And you have still not answered the question I considered relevant, namely, why do you believe he contradicted Scripture?

Michel Snoeck

Sorry, I find he does contradict it. I do not have to explain why or how some person contradicts Scripture or not, I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters. Might I say you have only countered me with an opinion while forwarding your authority carrying the name Thomas Aquinas. You failed to address and factually query my take of Genesis 2:7. 🤨

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I gave you St Thomas'.

You have failed to adress how you "find" he contradicts it.

He built his anthropology much on a very close reading of that.

Closer than yours, if you dare pretend to expose his supposed contradiction in detail.

Also, a sentence like this one is simply fraudulent: "I simply go directly to the source. You go to interpreters."

You want me to change interpreter from Aquinas to you.

Michel Snoeck

Your whole defence mechanism miserably falls because... till date you have not addressed nor properly analyzed Genesis 2:7. You fail to deal with source of Scripture! Instead you try to derail with stating as if I am the interpreter to be followed. That is outright false, I néver stated any such thing! 🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but if you want me to conduct a "proper" analysis of Genesis 2:7 under YOUR supervision, it is obvious you ARE making yourself the interpreter for me, which I refuse.

Again, where did St Thomas contradict the verse?

Oh, by the way, by now you CAN note my analysis of Genesis 2:7 as being = that of St Thomas.

In other words, it is given, if you look it up.

S. Th. I
Question 75. Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul
Article 6. Whether the human soul is incorruptible?
http://newadvent.com/summa/1075.htm#article6

Reply to Objection 1.

Michel Snoeck

You are twisting... all I said was that one has to regard SOURCE, but you REFUSE, you instead want to deal with people (St. Thomas; turned into Saint by 'man' nót God!)

I said it before, I care very little about your authorities and interpreters, I regard SOURCE... 🧐

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You think it is OK to use Strong's lexica for Bible Hebrew or Bible Greek, I think it is OK to use Catholic commentary.

Where is the difference, except that you refuse to deal with what I already said and refuse to respect my methodology?

You are not in fact asking me to VERBALLY call you "father" or master, but you ARE asking me to do so in the very sense that is relevant to what Christ said, namely you are proposing yourself as a mentor for me.

The one twisting things is you;

A man who can be provoking someone about "your defense mechanism" deserved to be blocked and Michel Snoeck is blocked now.

I left Helgon.net to avoid the hex of one masonic sympathising and discordian member, and it will probably mean leaving this group, I prefer avoiding the analyses of Snoeck, whether of me or of Bible.

He babbled about "throughout history" without checking what St Thomas said and what Catholic scholasticism says.

Carter's Notification on His Post

Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons · Carter's Notification on His Post

Myself, Robert Carter, and David Palm are known writers (including bloggers). The other two, MC and DC have been left with initials' wise anonymity.

Robert Carter

3.II.2019, 15:57 ·

An excellent question. Have you ever wondered where Neanderthals fit into biblical history? Were they pre-Flood?

Are Neandertals pre-Flood people?
Published: 2 February 2019 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/neanderthals-pre-flood

I

MC

Very interesting. Could they have had burials before the flood that the flood didn’t destroy. Not sure how that would work but it’s the first question I thought of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Depends on how deep they were buried and how much the Flood destroyed right there.

Robert Carter

Your Flood model is wanting. The fossil record was produced by the Flood, thus it matters not 'how deep they were buried'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The fossil record was produced by the Flood"

And why would the dino fossils have to be older than the Neanderthals?

"Depends on how deep they were buried"

Refers to if they were buried deep enough, and the Flood destroyed little enough right there, that means they would remain where they were buried.

If they were buried shallowly on a place where the Flood destroyed much, obviously they would probably not remain.

Update(s)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am inclined to take the following video, strategically published days after our debate, as subreptitiously answering me without actually mentioning me, so as not to "give me a platform" according to some para-Jewish gatekeeping morality.

Here is the video I talk about:

Boulders moved over 500km!
CMIcreationstation | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUjL5KodAl0

Comprehensible implication for this exchange, if Neanderthals had also been transported 500 km away, why is there anything left of them at all? The boulders are probably just half the diameter they started out as.

Well, if the whales at Linz and Vienna had been transported 500 km they would not have arrived where they were as recognisable whale skeleta. Nothing to do with spurious whale evolution, pretty clearly whale creatures, hardly differing from many modern species.

And you can hardly have a geological event after Flood in which whales get trapped there.

So, they are from Flood.

Ergo, some things were less transported and less destroyed than others, why not the Neanderthals?

II

DC

What do you make of Fuz's claims they weren't human? Have you ever addressed his claims elsewhere?

Robert Carter

His claims fly in the face of all the genetic data. If you search creation.com you will see enough articles (several written by me) to see where we stand.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd simply agree on that one.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm begging to differ, and I am putting your genetic argument first of what I answer:

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Robert Carter's Four Reasons
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-robert-carters-four-reasons.html

If I'd admit arguing weakly on one point, it would be why there were pre-Flood caves.

I might perhaps venture to add - between us non-geologists - that smaller caves could have become very much deeper during Flood and still have kept some nook with a Neanderthal burial.

Also I wonder if the 12 in El Sidrón weren't trying to huddle from the Flood in the cave and then drown in it.

Btw, if you get sn asking hard questions on baraminology called David Palm, I directed him to you.

IV

David Palm

The questioner in the article mentioned "Homo erectus", "Homo heidelbergensis" and "Homo denisova". I've been reading also recently on Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot". Like the questioner in the article, I'm struggling to see how these could all be post-Flood. Would you assign those finds to the post-Flood time frame as well?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For my part, I would consider "erectus" dubious in the Classic form of Java and Peking man, while Heidelbergian and Antecessors share morphology, basically and Antecessors and Denisovans share pretty much of the genome. Ergo, I would take Heidelbergians, Denisovans and Antecessors as one race of pre-Flood mankind. And one where mixed heritage, as for Neanderthal, was on the Ark.

Now, awaiting Carter ....

Robert Carter

You might have to wait a long time. This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well. Why would I respond?

David Palm

Alas, mine was a serious question.

Robert Carter

David, yes these all have to be post-Flood as well. We can debate the species names and argue about whether or not they they are human, but they must be post-Flood. This is especially true of the Denisovans, since some people can have up to 5% Denisovan DNA (and 3% Neanderthal at the same time).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Accounted for if the Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA came via Noah's daughters in law.

And not all of them.

"This is not our first interaction and none of the others have gone well."

I agree you have been somewhat churlish at times.

Robert Carter

Uh huh.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, I have dealt with people calling me creatard ... I'm fairly jaded about your degree of churlishness and was making a polite if facetious verbal agreement ....

On the other subthread, I noted you did not appeal best to genetics, since you knew I had answered that part, but to geology, btw ... which is not churlish, just devious.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

David Palm "Dr. Todd Wood's blog about "Homo naledi" and "Little Foot"."

Wd you mind to link?

I'd say, without extracted DNA we cannot absolutely definitely settle human or non-human, and without carbon dates, I am for my part not willing to settle on pre- or post- ... Robert Carter, while I await David Palm's link, your turn ...

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

By the way, David Palm, as Carter is a geneticist, wasn't there something you wanted elucidation from one about?

The subjects on which we, Robert Carter and me, did clash previously were:

• Robert Carter thinks mutations are rapidly dooming mankind;
• Robert Carter thinks it was bad enough to "give a platform" to Sungenis
• Robert Carter thinks the blockade agains linking to blogs must stand.

David Palm had a question about a geneticist (which Robert Carter is) saying his say about the theory that the kinds correspond to mainly families, and that he thought rapid speciation after Flood needed very great genetic diversity at Flood.

Either he did not care to ask the question to a Young Earth Creationist geneticist, or he did not care to risk me documenting the interchange by reblogging. Which presupposes two things. There is a high risk or chance of my doing that (touché), and that is bad, so more of a risk than a chance (I'm more or less nonplussed about that attitude, as we are Christian writers on a subject, not bankers discussing business options for the next week's stock market).