What Were the Options in 1950 ?

What Were the Options in 1950 ?
https://www.facebook.com/hansgeorglundahl/posts/pfbid02S2Lpf9hoUW2VedmY5QLuJhYP5geEPzMqSoT2cDRFXxs5hmiZQnPNmH3Jq7TCT1VLl

I don’t mean about the Blessed Virgin. The Assumption is not optional, neither is the Immaculate Conception (both feast days before being pronounced as Papal dogma).

I mean about Humani Generis. One option was obviously to cling on to the traditional pov, that God had created Adam without any kind of biological ancestry. This is mentioned as sth that can be defended, and it was already held widely.

What was the other thing one could defend ?

It was not Sébastien Antoni, Assumptionist in conflict with Trent Session V, agreeing with the worst chapter (or one actually bad chapter) of The Problem of Pain. Adam definitely still was an individual man, and he definitely still was responsible, next to Satan’s temptation and more intimately than that one, for Original Sin.

It was also not the idea that Jimmy Akin has proposed. You know, Adam was not actually the ancestor of all men alive at the same time as he, except Eve for whom he was also an origin, but Adam and Eve for some other reason became representatives of an already extant mankind, and people not born of them, even alive before they were created, fell into original sin when Adam sinned, because he was for some reason their representative. That was also not an option.

The non-Creationist option was, and it was not one Pius XII explicitly said one could hold, it was one he explicitly said that learned men could defend, as much as the older idea, if they were « perit[i] in utroque campo » which according to the actual Latin doesn’t mean « experts in both fields » (or « on both sides » perhaps?) but « experienced men in both fields » (or « on both sides »), and whatever the canonists say, it’s grammatically unclear if it’s sufficient to be experienced in either Bible exegesis or natural sciences, or if you are required to be experienced in both. But, again, what was this alternative ?

« de humani corporis origine inquirit ex iam exsistente ac vivente materia oriundi »

So, what kind of living matter could that be ? I will kindly assume that Pius XII was not doing ecumenism with Odinists by portraying as licit the idea that Ask and Embla were created from two tree logs. But it is also not a very human language taken here. Indeed, in 1941 it seems he had told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that if Adam had progenitors, as they were not created in the image of God, as they were not human, they were not actually his parents in the full human sense.

I would actually congratulate both Jimmy Akin and Sébastien Antoni to not be holding that position, even if I deplore they are not taking « one of the two positions licit back then » (i e the other one). Think about it. Howevermuch someone has both a human body and a human soul, he’ll not be able to learn language if he’s not exposed to language when he’s a certain number of months old. But on the other hand, human language reflects facts about the human soul created in God’s image. This means the hypothetical progenitors of Adam could not have had any human langage on this view. Hence, this view means, quite brutally, God was making Adam get born as a human among beasts, or get born as a beast to be only transsubstantiated into a human being later, as he was adult. The former of these options obviously involves Adam not learning language from those surrounding him, including the hypothetical progenitors. So does the latter, but according to the former view, this was an abnormal situation for the nature he was already having.

God would have committed child abuse against Adam even before he had committed the first sin.

I am happy to have not been among the comparatively few victims of a certain type of priests. But I am not happy about a theology which I suspect can have misled them. I don’t think any of the first child abusers (within the modern trend) was a strict creationist about Adam’s immediate origin.

Concept of FB Abused as Contact Inhibition

I found someone was reacting with hearts to the links I shared about the Catholic Faith, and with tears to the links about abortion and the martyrdom of Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette, so, I found it was arguably a kindred soul.

Here is what happened:

Can't Send Request
It looks like you may not know this person. Send requests to people you know personally to see their updates on Facebook.

This is highly abusive, since it stops FB from serving as a platform to gain contacts for those having none or highly inadequate ones around them./HGL

Found on a Conlang Group on FB

Does Orkish Sound Evil? Perception of Fantasy Languages and Their Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics Christine Mooshammer, Dominique Bobeck, […], and Qiang Xia +4
First published online November 29, 2023
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00238309231202944

There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.

There is a Protestant habit, which makes me physically sick.
https://www.facebook.com/hglundahl/posts/pfbid032HXejfDpFR7cE9yTmpGPbPBMWSDBUE4V3TeW2x5JHHTmY3x51JSLNgTrWibsbV17l

Let’s say a Catholic and a Protestant are for some reasons friends or business associates and from time to time speak of religion.

• A. Protestant or Catholic brings up a topic dividing the two confessions (the Protestant one not usually being European Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but more in the range of what Europeans would term « freikirchlich » in German, « frikyrklig » in Swedish and roughly speaking « Evangelical » in US American and Canadian English, probably used the same way in England too, but on Ireland, Calvinists would do this more often then Pentecostals, I think, and you also have Calvinists who are into this). The Protestant brings up a few objections. So far, hunky dory.
• B. The Catholic then does a fine job getting into all the intricacies of interpretation and exegesis and Church history to defend the Catholic doctrine. The Protestant listens patiently and nods.
• C. When the Catholic is done, the Protestant is then replying, « but why does it have to be so complicated ? Do you really have to know Greek and Latin Church Fathers to come to Christ ? How can you have your sins forgiven if, God forbid, you should miss a little detail in Church history ? We have a far simpler way of turning to God, you see, we are done with all these extra mediators ... »

Why does this Protestant tactic make me sick ?

On their view, probably because I have an issue with coming to Christ. They are witnessing of Christ you see, so if their tactic makes me sick, I must be under some kind of demonic influence, and therefore disgusted at Christ Himself, that being obviously ALL of their religion, and so on.

There are other reasons, if you want my opinion.

• 1) It’s dishonest. You pretend to be interested in the intellectual side so as to bait a Catholic to waste his time as an intellectual, so you can end it all of by pretending he’s an intellectual instead of being a Christian. Part of the reason that particular Catholic has a well educated and to your view even complex intellect, is, he actually grew up close enough to Protestants to need to be able to give an answer well before you asked one of him. There are Protestants who are actually interested in the answers, as I while a Protestant was in the Catholic answer to my two main objections, that being Indulgences (not too interested actually, except it kind of made the Church I was attracted to look a bit bad) and Inquisition (far more interested). Picking up habits of intellectualism when growing up as a Catholic or a near Catholic semi-Protestant interested in converting, the latter my case, but growing up near people like you (I had met your kind in Austria) or near Commie like Atheists, an act of self defense, but also of outreach. You pretend this is how WE do « how do I get saved by the Cross » which is simply not the case. Confession may be irksome, but it’s not complicated. Fasting on a vigil day or the early hours of a day you intend to receive Communion may send you to a caloric breakfast when the fast is over, but that is also not complicated. Praying the rosary is pleasant, unless you have a problem with one of the prayers, as I currently have with the Our Father, which says « as we forgive those who trespass against us » this being my main problem for these last up to ten years I have not been praying the rosary.
• 2) It’s by that dishonesty underscoring your Protestant superiority complex in a way which doesn’t cost you any intellectual effort. It allows you to feel totally smug about not being Catholic and basically pitying Catholics, without your having any need to look for any answers.
• 3) It fools yourself and any Protestant listeners (of your type), but worse, it’s intended to fool me. I’d be ashamed of such dishonesty, so I don’t intend to get fooled. But some Protestants who are around are not ashamed of such dishonesty and do intend to keep trying.

The Concept of Spam is Abused as Reason for Arbitrary Censorship

On June 18th, back in 2019, I wrote this article, and then shared it on FB, probably giving the link as a birthday present, same or one of the following days:

Creation vs. Evolution : "Edessa in Mesopotamia"
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/06/edessa-in-mesopotamia.html

On December 1st, 2023, more than four full years later, some person on FB does this:

The allegation is, I tried to gain likes or video views or followers in a misleading way.

If literally the only thing I posted was the link itself, or perhaps before that the words "some reading? here:" — how can that be misleading ? I have stated nothing about the text except where it is to be found, leaving the reader entirely free to like or dislike it as he prefers, to share or not share it.

Obviously, someone, more properly someoneS, have found even that misleading. Their version of a truthful and honest Hans Georg Lundahl is a Hans Georg Lundahl who doesn't try to share what they don't want him to share. Or simply shares nothing at all, because they don't want me to be a writer.

Please note, the criminal offense against freedom of speech has been ongoing manually.

The links I posted are being eliminated one by one, therefore manually. And no, it's not the one having the wall eliminating my comment, FB itself is claiming "WE removed your comment."

A few months ago, I heard of FB France having a security team who were diehard Muslims (was it of the Qatari extraction, which has some influence in France? I don't recall).

Muslims have tried to put me into weakened positions or to admit not feeling very well or so, so they could eliminate freedoms for me in the guise of "helping" me, helping "poor" me ... meanwhile I am poor in another sense, namely if not directly broke at least deprived from income by their crimes.

But also by the treason of Christians who accuse me of being a Muslim or an agent provocateur or whatever.

Their main evidence for me being a pawn of possibly perverted élites is, I am getting help, juridically against direct captivity into psychiatry, policing against vandalism of my property, while I'm away, materially as to food and clothing items, pretty much from people close to the enforcers of law and order and therefore government and socio-economic élites. The reason I need this help in the first place is that such Christians, the most likely people to re-publish my blogs on paper, have drawn conclusions from a de facto protégé situation I did not chose. And therefore they have sided with the Muslim censors of FB against me.

I think some of the Muslims on FB, certainly some elsewhere, started months ago, soon a year. What happened? Muslims have lost children in Eastern Turkey, near Edessa in Mesopotamia here mentioned. Muslims have lost children in Morocco. Muslims have recently been losing children, are perhaps still losing children, through the inhuman agression on Gaza prior to the ceasefire.

For whereas they would not believe any thing before by reason of the enchantments, then first upon the destruction of the firstborn, they acknowledged the people to be of God.
Wisdom 18:13

But even in France, a very anticlerical country, Christians, specifically Catholic Christians, could have helped me. I could have been enjoying well deserved incomes from my writing, but the ones addicted to recent changes in discipline specifically on Biblical exegesis, among the Catholic population (not saying "in the Catholic Church"), have preferred to side with those Muslims, or even to egg them on to their ill deeds./HGL

PS, 10.XII.2023 (and I tried to appeal)

10 déc. 2023
Nous avons supprimé votre commentaire
Hans-Georg Lundahl
16 oct. 2018

Sth to read?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/10/neanderthal-probably-innocent-of.html

Vous avez partagé ce contenu sur votre profil

Votre commentaire va à l’encontre de nos Standards de la communauté sur le spam.

Discussing Carbon 14

David K. Muncie

Admin, Principal contributor

27.XI.2023

Half rates, Does this make any sense?

Let us use C-14 because it’s the fastest used in dating.

C-14 in a weed is at atmospheric equilibrium in the say 4 months of its life. Then it dies and no new C-14 can enter it, by any means, not by water or air or any means, so the time clock starts ticking in 5730 half the c-14 has decayed and by 11460 years another 50% has decayed, by 100,000 years the last c-14 element decays, why did some c-14 decay by say 100 years and other last 100,000 years they are the same, they were taken in at the same time, and why is 5730 the magic number where exactly 50% of the remainder vanishes? This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that."

5730 years can be deduced from observing the halflife in shorter periods.

5730 years is down to 50 % of original content.

So, 2865 years would be down to ... if you know the A4 related formats and can use them on a xerox machine, you have already seen it : 71 % or 70.7 % ...

1432 or 1433 years would leave what of the orignal? Sqrt of 0.707 etc is 84.09 %.

Are there objects known to be from 590 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

716 years leaves what? 91.7 %

Are there objects from 1307 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

Instead of a half life of 5730 years and a stable c. 100 percent modern carbon, one could theorise the possibility of for instance 11460 years and the carbon level still rising.

I think that can be excluded, as I think there are objects from 50 years ago or so, which we know the carbon 14 content in back then, and can check the carbon 14 content now. BUT ... let's suppose it couldn't. It would not do much of a difference.

I suppose, as a Young Earth Creationist, that the carbon 14 level has been roughly stable since the time when Troy fell, 1179 BC.

If the halflife were twice what it is, that would mean the level when Troy fell was 4/5 of 100 percent modern carbon instead.

We would still need a carbon 14 rise after the Flood. And not just the rate at which on that view carbon 14 had risen since the time when Troy fell. But a higher rate.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl, How long has carbon 14 decay been under observation in a single sample?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked up, and the answer seems to be:

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.

I e, the oldest sample possible (not sure if actually extant) answering to the criteria of tested then and tested now would be 78 years old between the tests. It should have 99.061 % of what it had back then. If the half life were twice as long, it should instead have the percentage for 39 years, as now counted. That's 99.529 %.

If samples from 1307 and around then, reasonably presumed to have been effectively sealed off since then, have 91.7 pmC (percent modern carbon, corrected for pre-industrial values) or around that, either it had 100 pmC or around that and a halflife of 5730 years, or if it has a significantly longer halflife, the carbon 14 content in 1307 was significantly lower than now.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is no one is interested in running another test to verify the decay rate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apart from measuring the decay in samples already tested, I don't think there is need of any.

THAT is a much surer test than testing the rate in one year in a lab.

My reason AGAINST decay rates of Uranium or Potassium 40 is, you cannot do this kind of over centuries test for either of them.

Btw, the difference between straight 100 pmC X half life 5730 years and carbon level rising from 80 to 100 pmC in 3000 years X half life 11460 years, for the amount of time we can have sure historic samples from is actually LESS than the deviations we actually have in calibrations, like the Hallstatt plateau, if you've heard of it.

I've done the math and I've compared to the calibrations.

So, in practise this doesn't matter.

This is in no way, shape or form an endorsement for taking carbon dates like 39 000 BP at face value. From the Flood to the Fall of Troy, carbon 14 rose very rapidly, was produced up to 10 times or a little more as fast as now, and 39 000 BP in a real Biblical calibration translates as 2957 BC, because the supervolcano explosions, including the so dated Campi Flegrei, are from the Flood, and it happened in 2957 BC. It's just that while decay happened since then at half life 5730, back then the atmospheric content was 1.625 pmC - around 1/61 or 1/62 of what it is now.

Which Argument Should One Use?

Alex Coleman

7.XI.2023

[shared]

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
https://www.facebook.com/stnicholasil

7.XI.2015

Trust The Scriptures. Look how often they are proven right.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the part of the meme that says "science then" is very imprecise. As to time.

If the time when St. Paul wrote Corinthians is included, it is wrong to include "the earth is a disc" in "science back then" ...

For Isaiah 40:22 it could be argued that the wording is compatible with both flat and spherical earth.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. How much authority did Eratosthenes actually have among the learned pagans? Perhaps the anti-Christian Enlightenment thinkers have overemphasized his authority and influence among the educated heathens of Antiquity?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No.

As a historian of scholasticism, I am pretty sure.

Details, but they detract from the whole of the meme.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The whole of the meme is wrong in demonstrating the divine wisdom contained within the Holy Scriptures?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The whole meme would be better without the erroneous details.

"Sick people must bleed" actually is a medical trend from late Middle Ages to when George Washington was bled too much.

There is some truth to it when it comes to high blood pressure -- if it's done correctly with leeches. When it's done with knives as in late 18th C, the dosage can be overdone.

In this context, it looks like if the medical trend was raging in the time of the Bible writers. Not the case.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The Bible contains knowledge otherwise unknown to the ancients. This a strong piece of evidence for it being a divinely inspired document.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Possibly, but it is one which gets bogged down by fake examples.

In fact, anyone who can only do "science back then" instead of looking up what non-Jewish and non-Christian sources from the precise time of a certain Bible book give you, is not doing the best for the meme.

I would state, while modern geographical knowledge confirms 4 corners on a globe, and they would not be 4 outer corners on certain flat earth maps with the N pole in the middle, as far as the audience back then could make out, the hagiographers were not taking sides.

I'd give you a real example if you like. The Bible hints at a) a hunter gatherer society that was generalised and b) spoke one language c) just after the Flood.

How so?

1) Name of Noah involves a prophecy of him giving "rest" from agricultural sweating
2) Genesis 9:2 states sth about intensified hunting
3) Obviously, the time from Flood to Peleg is the time from Flood to Babel, and before Babel all had one tongue.

This is in fact confirmed.
a) From the Upper Palaeolithic after last Neanderthals and Denisovans, we have found some, but exceedingly few traces of any kind of agriculture, but lots of traces of hunting and fishing.
b) Genevieve von Petzinger has found 32 symbols (that's like an alphabet) in cave art all over the world, mostly from this period (the hashtag is one of them and was found from a Neanderthal inhabited cave, presumably carved into the wall before the Flood (note: the cave walls of that one had no paint, which might obviously have been damaged in the Flood, if the Neanderthals thought of doing it). Same script suggests either same language, or at least same culture.
c) Unrealistically, for those taking uniformitarian dates at face value, that script, those 32 symbols, and the art style and roughly speaking the motifs, lasted 10 000 ~ 20 000 years. But those dates are mostly carbon dates. If you presume the Flood is what wiped Neanderthals out, and the Denisovans too, you get a carbon date of 40 000 BP or (Campi Flegrei) 39 000 BP for a real year 2958 BC (you would presumably say for 3267 or 3367 BC), this gives a carbon 14 level back then of 1/61 to 1/62 of the present one. The ensuing rise explains why just a few centuries of real time (a more realistic perspective for Upper Palaeolithic) is in carbon dates drawn out to several myriads of years.

The Bible very clearly directly says, after Babel, you had different languages, and you also began to get kingdoms.

This is confirmed by the fact that the 32 symbols cease before Göbekli Tepe (1000 years between 9600 BC and 8600 BC meaning real time 2607 to 2556 BC), and after Göbekli Tepe you find DIVERSE scripts, including the undeciphered proto-writings.

As to kingdoms, you find settlements with longer habitation, and the ones surrounding Göbekli Tepe seem to have five major cities lining up with the list in Genesis 10 (Niniveh wasn't great in Nimrod's time, but Qermez Dere later became the greay Niniveh). You find traces of what seems to be either ritual murder or capital punishment from Göbekli Tepe (severed skulls stringed onto a rope through holes in the skull roofs) or Çatal Höyük (pottery depicting men lying down without heads and vultures going for them).

Vulture like birds have been associated with power in lots of cultures since then. Condors in South America, American Eagle in Aztek Mexico, Eagles of Rome ...

To me, it looks like Apocalypse 19 is going to involve Christ's payback against Nimrod in the use of vultures / eagles.

By contrast, the example on Eccl. 1:6 seems to be another error, not just because it is pure guess work to say "winds blow straight" according to "science back then" but also because it's not even sure the verse mentions winds at all.

Ver. 6. Spirit. The sun, (St. Jerome) which is like the soul of the world, and which some have falsely asserted to be animated; or rather (Calmet) the wind is meant, as one rises in different parts of the world when another falls. (Pliny, [Natural History?] ii. 27.) (Menochius)

1) St. Jerome takes it as the sun. Note, attributing an angel to the sun would literally fulfil it, even without the Sun itself being animated.
2) While Calmet takes it of winds, he clearly takes an authority, not in modern science, which perhaps he didn't much read, but precisely in "science back then" (though Pliny admittedly is 1000 years after King Solomon).

Debatte über Israel-Palästina und andere Debatten mit einem deutschen Freund

I

Harold Godwinson

6.XI.2023

Für gefährlicher für den Weltfrieden als den Klimawandel halte ich:
- Islam
- Überbevölkerung und Überschuss an jungen Männern in unterentwickelten Ländern
- Rückgang des IQ, auch im Westen
- Putin und die ganze eurasische Ideologie
- Den universalistischen Anspruch der USA
- Erst dann kommt bei mir China
Dann folgt tatsächlich der Klimawandel, der aber nur ein Problem ist, weil die Menschheit von oben genannten Ideologien und Problemen blockiert wird.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Überbevölkerung und Überschuss an jungen Männern in unterentwickelten Ländern"

Diese Einstellung halte ich für schlimmer als Islam.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Was ist daran schlimm? Es gibt nun mal sehr viele junge Männer gerade in jenen Ländern, die diesen Männern nichts zu bieten haben. Nun drängen sie nach Europa, was das Problem nur verlagert. Außerdem sind Gesellschaften mit einem hohen Anteil unbeschäftigter junger Männer gefährlicher. Sie haben einen höheren Kriegsindex. Die Europäer sind nicht nur deswegen kriegsmüde, weil sie wohlstandsverwahrlost, überfüttert, Fernsehen-verblödet und durch Feminismus übergezähmt sind, sie haben auch gar nicht die Massen an jungen Männern für Kriege. Wer will schon den einzigen Sohn für's Vaterland in den Krieg schicken? Andere Gesellschaften mit einer anderen Alterspyramide haben da zum Teil eine andere Einstellung. Es ist auch keine Wertung, sondern eine Einschätzung meinerseits. Dem Weltfrieden ist es nicht dienlich.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"mit einem hohen Anteil *unbeschäftigter* junger Männer gefährlicher"

Das Problem ist Industrialismus, nicht Überbevölkerung.

1792 hatte Paris -- nicht Frankreich, sondern nur Paris, u zw nicht einmal alle heutige Bezirke nach Haussmann -- hunderte Unternehmen für Production der Kleidung und etwa 90 ~ 100 für Production der Unterwäsche. Production, nicht bloß Distribution. Industrialismus heißt Unbeschäftigte vermehren.

"Die Europäer sind nicht nur deswegen kriegsmüde, weil sie wohlstandsverwahrlost, überfüttert, Fernsehen-verblödet und durch Feminismus übergezähmt sind, sie haben auch gar nicht die Massen an jungen Männern für Kriege."

Sie haben AUCH nicht die Massen an jungen Männern um ihre Renten zu zahlen.

II

Harold Godwinson

4 Nov 2023, 01:50

So sieht also der Apartheidsstaat Israel aus, dass er die Töchter und Schwestern seiner selbsternannten Feinde Informatik studieren lässt.

[Sharing a meme from Israel my love about Mira Shalah]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tschuldigung ... lebte sie in Gaza oder auf dem Westbank?

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sie lebte oder lebt natürlich in Israel. Aber eben die Unterstellung, Israel sei ein Apartheidsstaat greift ja den Staat Israel an und vergleicht ihn mit Südafrika und das ist nicht zutreffend. Für die Ausbildung junger Frauen in Gaza ist auch nicht Israel zuständig. Die Palästinenser bekommen aus dem Westen unglaubliche finanzielle Mittel. Ganz dumm sind die Leute ja auch nicht. Statt des Tunnelsystems für die Hamas hätten sie auch locker eine tolle Untergrundbahn bauen können. Nenne doch mal ein islamisches Land, das technisch und kulturell heute Spitzenleistungen bietet? Nenne ein muslimisches Land, in welchem heute Juden oder auch nur Christen im bürgerlichen Sinne so gleichberechtigt leben können wie die muslimischen Araber in Israel! Viele Länder werden es nicht sein. Selbst die Vertreibung der Araber aus Israel geht einher mit der Vertreibung der Juden aus den arabischen Nachbarländern, was auch gerne unterschlagen wird. Wer Israel einen Apartheidsstaat nennt, weil es sich aus Sicherheitsgründen zu Gaza abgrenzt, bestreitet übrigens die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung, denn er denkt die Provinz Palästina ohne Jordanien als ein Staatsgebiet. Gaza war nicht von Israel besetzt. Die Hamas hätte längst dort eine blühende Zivilgesellschaft aufbauen können.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"ein islamisches Land"

Wieso "islamisch"?

الفلسطينييون المسيحييون † Palestinian Christians - ist dir das bekannt?

Sogar in Gaza gibt's welche, ein 16-jähriger Bursche wurde durch Bomben auf einer Kirche getötet.

Palestinier sind nicht collectiv für alle Araber, für alle Muslims zuständig, und auch nicht für nur Muslims oder nur Hamasniks ...

Noam Chomsky hat gerade dir widersprochen über das "nicht-Sein" des Apartheidsystems.

Noam Chomsky : Israel sacrifices security for expansion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUY1gB_QSbM

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl "Nach der Wahlen zur 20. Knesset (israelisches Parlament) im Jahre 2015 waren 13 der 120 Abgeordneten arabische Israelis. Sie sind Mitglieder der anlässlich der Wahl als Vereinte Liste auftretenden Parteien Vereinigte Arabische Liste, Chadasch und Balad und sehen sich als Vertreter der Interessen der israelischen Araber.[19] 2007 wurde mit Raleb Madschadele erstmals ein Araber in ein Ministeramt berufen.[20]" Zitiert nach der deutschen, eher links bis linksfaschistischen Wikipedia. Dass ein katholischer Anti-Modernist den Neo-Marxisten und im übrigen auch im wissenschaftlichen Bereich (Linguistik) unglaublich arroganten Chomsky zitiert, finde ich beunruhigend. Was du da betreibst, mit Christen in Gaza, ist Cherrypicking. Deine Liebe zu den Mohammedanern, die ich für eine gefährliche Ketzer-Sekte halte, irritiert mich schon länger. Die Vernichtungsphantasien der Hamas sind eindeutig islamisch motiviert. Lies deren Charta. Dort geht es nicht nur um die Vernichtung Israels, es geht letztlich um die Vernichtung aller Juden. Es gibt auch kein muslimisch geprägtes nicht politisch islamisches Land, weil Muslime nun mal keine säkulare Politik akzeptieren. Länder wie die Türkei und Magreb-Staaten sind europäisch beeinflusst und die Ausnahme von der Regel, weil sie von Frankreich beeinflusst wurden oder das Schweizer Gesetzbuch adaptiert haben (Türkei). In all diesen Ländern ist der reaktionäre Islam wieder auf dem Vormarsch. Der Islam hat in einem europäischen Sinne gar keine Staaten hervorgebracht, sondern das Kalifat. Dort herrscht dann echte Apartheid, bei der sich Juden und auch katholische Christen zu unterwerfen haben. Viel Spaß! Es kann ja auch sein, dass du in Frankreich gute Erfahrungen mit Muslimen gemacht, ich würde hingegen darauf hinweisen, dass eine Spur von Bataclan zur Hamas führt. Hier ging es aber um den Vorwurf der Apartheid und Apartheid trifft als System auf Israel nicht zu, wenn auch Israel völlig zu Recht bei der Umzingelung durch muslimische Staaten darauf besteht, seine jüdische Identität zu bewahren. In islamisch geprägten Ländern haben Juden in der Regel nicht die gleichen Rechte wie israelische Muslime in Israel. Leg hier bitte an deine muslimischen Freunde die gleichen Maßstäbe an! Danke! Und natürlich sind die Palästinenser nicht für alle Araber zuständig! Viele der Araber halten die Palästinenser für so schwierig, dass sie diese Leute ja nicht in ihren Ländern haben wollen.

Harold Godwinson

Ein paar kluge Worte auch zum Islam vom letzten, halbwegs vernünftigem Papst:

Die Regensburger Ansprache
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLFH8w43dFM

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Du meinst vermutlich diesen Vorfall:

Kirche in Gaza schwer beschädigt
https://www.domradio.de/artikel/kirche-gaza-schwer-beschaedigt

Harold Godwinson

Das ist natürlich schwer zu entschuldigen. Die israelische Armee hat dies als Versehen auch eingestanden. Das ändert aber doch nichts an der grundsätzlichen Problematik, dass sich Muslime, da wo sie politisch Macht haben, Juden gegenüber rassistischer verhalten als umgekehrt.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "Dass ein katholischer Anti-Modernist den Neo-Marxisten und im übrigen auch im wissenschaftlichen Bereich (Linguistik) unglaublich arroganten Chomsky zitiert, finde ich beunruhigend."

Danke für "Neo" bei ihm. Die Neo-Marxisten haben manchmal sehr unrecht auf der ebene des sollens, aber sind oft besser unterrichtet als classische Marxisten UND AUCH conservative Protestanten über daß was einfach ist.

Er wurde übrigens von den Seinen angeprangert weil seine Einstellung zum Allein-Sein der menschlichen Sprache den Creationismus bevördert, und war auch ein Befürworter der Redefreiheit als Bischoff Bishop R. Williamson in der Klemme war.

In der Linguistik wurde Chomsky auf einen Punct im Irrtum erwiesen, u zw auf die Idee die atlantischen Kreolsprachen hätten ihre Gemeinsamkeiten (außer was europäischen Sprachen gemeinsam ist) aus dem Bauplan des menschlichen Gehirns. Wer ihn widerlegte war und ist warscheinlich auch Neo-Marxist, u zw John McWhorter, ein US-Amerikaner aus schottisch-ghanaischem Ursprung.

Ein Catholik der conservativ oder sogar Anti-Modernist ist, ist nicht einfach ein conservativer Protestant aber mit austausch des rein geistlichen Dogmas. Wenn Du das dachtes, na dann willkommen in die Wirklichkeit!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "Was du da betreibst, mit Christen in Gaza, ist Cherrypicking. Deine Liebe zu den Mohammedanern, die ich für eine gefährliche Ketzer-Sekte halte, irritiert mich schon länger."

Meine was?

"Liebe zu den Mohammedanern" -- wie bitte?

Nein, ich habe eine Fürliebe für muslimische Palestinenser weil sie Palestinenser sind, nicht weil sie Moslems sind. Übrigens halte ich sie auch für eine gefärliche Ketzer-Sekte, u zw für eins der vier Leoparden-Häupter in Daniel. Die anderen drei sind Rabbinisches Judentum, puritanischer Protestantismus, theistische Freimaurerei. Lutherthum und Anglicanismus halte ich eher für Aspecte des babylonischen Löwen (mit Hindus, Buddhisten, Sikhs zusammen).

Was du bei mir für "Liebe zu den Mohammedanern" hältst spiegelt eher deine eigene Unliebe zu manchem was Catholiken und Mohammedaner gemein haben.

Meine Priorität in der gegend sind die Christen, und ich habe auch vorhin Mohammedaner in Gaza angeprangert weil sie denen gegenüber Tyrrannei begangen haben. Zur Zeit ist ihre größte Sorge vielleicht NICHT diese Tyrranei, sondern ...

New blog on the kid : Dernière nouvelles
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/10/derniere-nouvelles.html

Ja, ich meinte gerade diesen Vorfall.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Meine Bemerkung gegenüber Chomsky bezog sich auf seine Universalgrammatik, die aus evolutionärer Sicht eine Urgrammatik ist, die eigentlich seine einzige wirklich interessante, ruhmreiche Tat war. Seitdem quatscht er genau das dumme Zeug, das linke Intellektuelle gerne hören, ist auch Unterstützter der links-radikalen B.L.M. und so weiter. Sein Anti-Zionismus ist nicht menschenrechtlich, sondern rein marxistisch motiviert. Und genau das ist auch das Problem mit seiner Universalgrammatik: Da stand nicht die genaue Analyse am Anfang, sondern der Wunsch die Menschheit einheitlich zusammen zu fassen. Dies ist übrigens Teil der Linken, die sie vom Christentum geerbt haben, wie überhaupt Marxisten Protestanten ohne Gott sind, weswegen ich sie zutiefst verachte. Sie haben auch in der Vergangenheit mehrfach bewiesen, dass ihnen Menschenleben völlig egal sind, sind sie erstmal an die Macht gelangt. Bei dem Juden Chomsky zeigt sich die protestantische Überheblichkeit im Umgang mit Kritikern seiner Theorien. Von der Universalgrammatik, die er ständig revidieren musste, ist nur die Idee der Rekursion geblieben. Diese wird durch die Feldforschungen von Everett in Frage gestellt. Ich kann unmöglich beurteilen, ob Everett Recht hat und du auch nicht und Chomsky kann es auch nicht. Es ist aber bezeichnend, wie Chomsky darauf reagiert: Wie ein gekränkter Guru, und nicht wie ein Wissenschaftler. Chomsky wird einfach überschätzt. Ich kann den eitlen Zausel nicht ertragen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "Es kann ja auch sein, dass du in Frankreich gute Erfahrungen mit Muslimen gemacht, ich würde hingegen darauf hinweisen, dass eine Spur von Bataclan zur Hamas führt."

Ich habe in Frankreich oft genug schlechte Erfahrungen sowohl mit Juden als mit Mohammedanern gemacht.

Ich habe auch nicht Hamas verteidigt. DIE PALESTINENSER SCHON.

Wie ich in 1945 nicht Hitlertum verteidigen würde, die Deutschen aber schon.

Und in beiden Fällen zunächst die catholischen des jeweiligen Volks.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Es bestehen große Unterschiede zwischen Katholiken und Moslems. Die Katholiken sind mir im übrigen auch viel sympathischer, was du wissen solltest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "Leg hier bitte an deine muslimischen Freunde die gleichen Maßstäbe an!"

Welche "muslimische Freunde"?

Ich habe ab und zu muslimische Wohltäter, wie ab und zu jüdische ... aber eigentliche Freunde bei beiden Gruppen eher nicht.

Du redest irre so als wäre jede Verteidigung der Palestinenser (die Muslims mit einbegriffen) eine Verteidigung Islams. Ich tu solche tarnreden nicht.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson Dankeschön.

Aber manchmal denke ich Protestanten die uns den Moslems vorziehen haben eine Tendenz die Unterschiede zu übertreiben, und mich dann als eine Moslem einzuschätzen weil es bei mir weniger functioniert.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Das verstehe ich nicht ganz! So wie ich dich kenne, denke ich mir, dass dir vielleicht der Anti-Modernismus der Muslime sympathisch ist. Er ist aber doch ganz anderer Art als der der Katholiken. Und natürlich gibt es nicht nur kluge, gebildete, milde Juden, es gibt bestimmt auch schwierige, überhebliche, anstrengende Juden, so wie es auch arme Juden gibt und nicht nur reiche Juden. Allerdings haben nun mal alle Christen die Aufgabe, sich der Frage zu stellen, was es heißt, dass sie mit den Juden die gleichen Bücher teilen. Die Mohammedaner tun das aber nicht. Sie, die andere "Schriftfälscher" nennen, sind die größten Schriftfälscher. Für mich stehen sie außerhalb. Aus christlicher Sicht: Sie erkennen nicht in Jesus den Messias und sie glauben nicht an den dreieinigen Gott. Sie teilen auch nicht die Evangelien, sondern nur einzelne Geschichten daraus, die sie dann verdreht wieder geben, wie sie die ganze Bibel zu ihren Gunsten verdreht haben. Ihre Anmaßung unterstreichen sie durch die größte Gewalttätigkeit, die je eine Religion innehatte. In dem Sinne halte ich auch die katastrophalen Kreuzzüge eher für einen europäischen Abwehrkampf. Letztlich gilt doch das Wort: "An den Früchten werdet ihr sie erkennen!" und die Früchte der Mohammedaner sind nun mal seit Jahrhunderten bescheiden und beruhten in der Vergangenheit auf Ausbeutung der Christen und Juden und auf Sklaverei, gerade diese Dinge, die sich der Westen gerne selbst vorwirft. Und ich sehe beim jetzigen politischen Islam keine Besserung.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "So wie ich dich kenne, denke ich mir, dass dir vielleicht der Anti-Modernismus der Muslime sympathisch ist."

Mancher Muslime, bitte.

"Er ist aber doch ganz anderer Art als der der Katholiken."

Ist auch der Fall mit dem Anti-Modernismus mancher Lutheraner, wie ich einer war, mancher Freikirchlichen, mancher Juden auch ...

"Allerdings haben nun mal alle Christen die Aufgabe, sich der Frage zu stellen, was es heißt, dass sie mit den Juden die gleichen Bücher teilen."

Ja, es heißt das wir diese Bücher verstehen, und die Juden sie Mißverstehen. Stimmt auch zu weiteren 27 Büchern zwischen uns und Protestanten.

Übrigens gibt es noch sieben Bücher welche Juden halt nicht mit uns teilen, Protestanten auch nicht, obwohl sie zum Alten Testament gehören.

"Die Mohammedaner tun das aber nicht. Sie, die andere "Schriftfälscher" nennen, sind die größten Schriftfälscher. Für mich stehen sie außerhalb."

Es ist nun eine Frage ob sie

• Heiden sind, weil sie mit uns keine Bücher teilen;
• Ketzer sind, weil sie (sehr nominell) sich zum Gott Abrahams bekennen.

St. Thomas sagt Heiden, St. Johan Damaszen sagt Ketzer.

"Aus christlicher Sicht: Sie erkennen nicht in Jesus den Messias und sie glauben nicht an den dreieinigen Gott."

Sie erkennen *schon* Jesus als Messias, u zw als den kommenden triumfierenden Messias, ungefähr so wie Juden auf *jemand anders* als den kommenden triumfierenden Messias warten. Du meinst wohl, sie erkennen nicht Jesus als Erlöser von der Sünde.

"Ihre Anmaßung unterstreichen sie durch die größte Gewalttätigkeit, die je eine Religion innehatte."

Und eins der ersten Opfer waren Mitzrahi-Juden und Christ-Palestinenser, von denen sich Teile schon unter Omar unter Zwang dieser Religion zuwandten. Das Ergäbnis eher als die Täter sind die Muslim-Palestinenser.

Verstehst du jetzt ENDLICH mal was ich FÜR Muslim-Palestinenser habe? Sie sind Söhne Abrahams, Isaks, Jakobs, Nachkommen der Juden, Samarier und Galiläer zur Zeit Jesu. Gilt auch für die Christ-Palestinenser.

Für mich ist in den Conflicten zwischen Israelis und Muslim-Palestinenser ausschlag-gebend wie Christ-Palestinenser, und zwar Catholiken vor Orthodoxe, darüber denken.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Jesus der Messias - Jesus war der Messias, das ist jedenfalls doch wohl der christliche Glaube? Er war nicht irgendein Prophet. Als ich das erste Mal, noch fast ein Bube, den Koran gelesen habe, war ich entsetzt, wie dort geschrieben wurde, Jesus würde wieder kommen und mit den Muslimen in den Krieg gegen die Christen reiten. Die Mohammedaner sind meiner Meinung nach beides: Heiden und Ketzer! Ketzer sind sie wohl vom Ursprung her, denn ich denke, dass es zunächst eine syrische Sekte war, die die Trinität abgelehnt und sich vom Christentum abgespalten hat. Diese hat sich aber ganz mit dem heidnischen Ararbertum vermischt. Ich kann jedenfalls im Koran beim besten Willen nichts erkennen, was darauf hindeutet, dass der Gott da der gleiche Gott des Volkes Israels ist. Das ist für mich so, als würde jemand behaupten auch Allvater Wodan wäre eigentlich JHWE oder meinetwegen Zeus (der ja eher Tyr entspricht).

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ich kann dir nur sagen, dass für mich persönlich Jesus der Messias ist und zwar der jüdische Messias, auch wenn Juden das natürlich ablehnen und sie aus der Geschichte, die das Christentum mit dem starken Antijudaismus nun mal hat, auch wenig Veranlassung haben, sich Jesus zuzuwenden. Das erwarte ich auch gar nicht. Meine Liebe zum Judentum ist da durchaus uneigennützig. Ich denke, dass Jesus tatsächlich den neuen Tempel errichtet hat, nämlich den Tempel des heiligen Geistes. Es ist meiner Meinung nach auch kein Zufall, dass letztlich christliche Länder den Juden Israel zurückgegeben haben. Ich halte das für die Bestimmung der Christen. Christen und Juden sollten sich endlich versöhnen. Sie werden, wenn auch anders interpretiert, von dem gleichen Geist geleitet. Sehr orthodoxe Juden lehnen Israel ab und denken, da käme nach einem Erdbeben der Messias und würde den Tempel neu bauen. Ein Erdbeben wäre auch nötig, denn da stehen ja muslimische Bauten im Weg. Ob der echte Tempel jemals wieder errichtet wird, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Aber der Tempel des Geistes kann errichtet werden von Juden und Christen gemeinsam. Wollen Moslems daran teilhaben, müssen sie der Gewalt gegen Christen und Juden abschwören und anerkennen, dass nun mal die Juden das ältere Buch haben. Es glaubt sowieso jeder Mensch etwas anderes. Ich habe jedenfalls noch nie zwei Menschen getroffen, die das gleiche meinen, wenn sie "Gott" sagen. Jeder Mensch macht seine eigenen Erfahrungen mit Gott. Ich bin übrigens, wie du weißt, obwohl sehr konservativ, kein Anti-Modernist. Ich finde die naturwissenschaftliche Perspektive sehr spannend. Meine Glaubenskrise war auch nicht durch die Evolutionstheorie bewirkt, sondern durch protestantische Pfaffen, weswegen ich auch die Lutheraner verlassen und eine Zeit lang nur katholische Messen zu Weihnachten besucht habe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Harold Godwinson "für mich persönlich Jesus der Messias ist und zwar der jüdische Messias"

Ich halte mit. Laut dem ist er auch der Erfüller von Jesaias 11.

Und dieses irdische Gebiet ist die nah-ostliche Christenheit. Wovon auch die nah-ostliche Ummah abstammt.

"aus der Geschichte, die das Christentum mit dem starken Antijudaismus nun mal hat"

Das Judentum des Alten Testaments hatte auch einen starken Antisamaritismus. Samarier haben sich trotzdem dem Juden Jesus zugewandt.

"Es ist meiner Meinung nach auch kein Zufall, dass letztlich christliche Länder den Juden Israel zurückgegeben haben. Ich halte das für die Bestimmung der Christen."

Ich denke die Catholiken Palestinas und Roms sind bessere Christen als die Modernist-Protestanten Englands zur Zeit der Balfour-Declaration.

Dies zu billigen weil *die* Länder (England, Siegermächte) in dem Sinne mehr oder weniger christlich sind ist, aus der Christenheit quasi ein Kalifat machen.

"Ob der echte Tempel jemals wieder errichtet wird, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Aber der Tempel des Geistes kann errichtet werden von Juden und Christen gemeinsam."

Weder noch. Jesus hat ihn am Dritten Tag wieder errichtet.

"Es glaubt sowieso jeder Mensch etwas anderes."

Ich denke, h¨ttest du mehr Erfahrung von Catholiken würdest du es so nicht sagen. Jeder Catholik glaubt nicht etwas anderes.

"Ich finde die naturwissenschaftliche Perspektive sehr spannend."

Ich nähre meinen Anti-Modernismus gerade auch aus naturwissenschaftlicher Perspective. Wenn La Ferrassie 1 wirklich vor 40.000 Jahren lebte, ist das Christentum logisch (nicht unbedingt sozial) pfutsch. Wenn Genesis 3 wirklich so passiert ist und geschichtlich weitererzählt wurde, zwischen Adam and Abraham, dann lebte sie vor viel weniger als 40.000 Jahren, z. B. unweit vor der Sintflut in 2958 v. Chr. Die Tabelle die ich da herausbekomme ist bis jetzt nicht naturwissenschaftlich oder archäologisch mehr als nur sehr marginal widerlegt worden.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl "Dies zu billigen weil *die* Länder (England, Siegermächte) in dem Sinne mehr oder weniger christlich sind ist, aus der Christenheit quasi ein Kalifat machen." Nein, da muss ich dir ganz deutlich widersprechen. Säkulare Länder können dennoch vom christlichen Geist erfüllt sein. Europa gründet nicht nur auf den Hügeln Roms, zum Glück, das wäre auch ein abscheulicher Kontinent. Europa gründet auch auf Athen und Golgatha. Aber nicht in einem theokratischen Sinn. Das Kalifat gründet aber nur auf den Hadtihen und dem Koran. Es kennt nichts anderes. Es gibt kein Wechselspiel der Kräfte. Und letztlich ist es nur meine Interpretation als Christ. Wirkt Gott in der Geschichte oder ist die Geschichte gottesleer? Die Shoah muss uns glauben machen, dass Gott nicht mehr wirkt. Dennoch denke ich, dass der heilige Geist die christlichen Nationen durchdringen kann auf eine leise Art und es eine Art Bestimmung gibt. Das ist aber meine Privatmeinung. Ich bin auch staatstheoretisch für eine Trennung von Kirche und Staat. Ich bin als Konservativer aber der Meinung, dass wir als Gesellschaft die Verankerung im Christentum brauchen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Säkulare Länder können dennoch vom christlichen Geist erfüllt sein"

Das Kalifat war manchmal ganz schön säcular ... ich meine du gibst der protestantischen Christenheit so was wie die Loyalität die ein Muslim dem Kalifat gegenüber hat.

"Die Shoah muss uns glauben machen, dass Gott nicht mehr wirkt."

Wenn es die gab.

"Dennoch denke ich, dass der heilige Geist die christlichen Nationen durchdringen kann ..."

Spanien und Österreich, ja, Irland und Malta auch.

England, nicht so sehr ... die USA, jedenfalls weniger damals als jetzt (Progressive Era war schlimmer als die Jahre der Abschaffung von Roe durch Dobbs).

"Ich bin auch staatstheoretisch für eine Trennung von Kirche und Staat."

Das ist aber ein Catholik nun nicht. Tactisch manchmal acceptabel, aber ideal nie.

"Lehret die Völker" sagte Jesus den ersten catholischen Bischöfen, und das dann mitsammt dem Staatswesen dieser Völker.

Auch ein Grund wieso manchmal Protestanten meine catholische Auffassung für muslimisch oder muslimisch beinflußt hält.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Es spielt für den Glauben an den lebendigen Gott meiner Meinung nach keine Rolle, ob es vor 40.000 Jahren Neandertaler gegeben hat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Doch.

Wenn La Ferrassie 1 vor 40 000 Jahren lebte, dann:

• entweder war's nicht ein Mensch (unmöglich nach dem wir über Neanderthaler wissen, sowohl ihr Benehmen wie auch die Einmischung des Neanderthaler-Genoms ins heutige "Homo sapiens")
• oder ein Mensch vor Adam (dann war er nicht der erste Mensch, und seine Sünde hat der Menschheit nicht den Tod gebracht)
• oder Adam selbst lebte vor 40 000 Jahren oder noch mehr, und dann ist Genesis 3 nicht Geschichte, denn nicht geschichtlich überliefert.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ich bin weder Geologe, noch bin ich Evolutionsbiologe, also was ich darüber weiß, habe ich aus indirekten Quellen. Ich habe aber gerade über Evolutionsbiologie sehr, sehr viel gelesen. Der Neandertaler war ein Mensch. Sicher nicht so wie du und ich, aber auch heute noch sind die Unterschiede zwischen Menschen sehr groß, wir leugnen das nur aus politischen Gründen, weil wir das für Rassismus halten. Sicherlich war der Abstand des Neandertalers zum heutigen Menschen größer als der Abstand der Menschen heutiger Ethnien, Rassen untereinander, aber ich würde ihn dennoch für einen Menschen halten. Darauf deuten auch die Einkreuzungen nicht nur in unser Genom, sondern auch in das Genom des europäischen Neandertalers. Ich denke, dass bereits der Homo erectus in einem gewissen Sinne ein Mensch war und der Neandertaler und der moderne Mensch eben wie zwei stark getrennte Rassen, die sich in ähnliche Richtungen, aber dennoch unterschiedlich entwickelt haben. Die Bibel ist nicht Gottes wortwörtliche Wort für mich, sondern durch Gottes Geist inspiriertes Wort. Deswegen ist sie trotzdem wahr, aber es ist auch wahr, dass Menschen sie nur aus dem Verständnis ihrer Zeit schreiben konnten. Die Sintflut hat ganz sicher stattgefunden und einen historischen Kern. Deswegen muss sie aber nicht mit der Arche genauso stattgefunden haben, wie es dort steht. Für mich enthalten die Bibel und besonders auch die Evangelien so tiefe Wahrheiten, diese liegen weit unter und auch über dem Textwort. Siehst du, es hat meinen Glauben nie berührt. Als Kind war ich davon überzeugt, dass es einst Drachen gab. Mein Vater hatte das verneint. Dann sah ich in einer Art Kindergarten ein Buch mit Dinosauriern. Also hatte es doch Drachen gegeben, nur eben vor langer, langer Zeit. Es steht mir auch nicht zu, zu beurteilen, was es für Gott bedeutet, dass es lange vor dem jüdischen Volk schon Menschen gab. Auch wenn es irgendwo weit weg auf fernen Planeten Leben gibt, steht dieses Leben unter Gottes Gewalt und Schirm. Trotzdem kann ich glauben, dass die Geschichte der Menschheit auf der Erde auf Jesus Christus zugelaufen ist und seitdem einen anderen Sinn hat.

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Und: Ich will dir natürlich nicht in deinen Glauben reinreden. Für mich funktioniert es zusammen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Es geht nicht darum in den Glauben reinzureden, ich habe schon ein festes Intellect dazu ...

Homo erectus war ein Mensch, aber entweder Nephelim oder von den Nephelim genetisch modifiziert zur Dummheit. Ob auch Neanderthaler oder Denisover zu den Nephelim irgendwie gehören weiß ich nicht. Jedenfalls zur Menschheit.

U. zw. zu einer Menschheit die auf Adam zurückgeht, und zwar auf einen Adam der nicht allzu lange vor Abraham und Moses lebte.

Der catholische Priester Haydock commentiert zu Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Mit anderen Worten, wenn die Neanderthaler und Denisover die wir haben WIRKLICH (und nicht nur laut verschrägten Datierungen) vor 40 000 Jahren starben oder noch früher, dann fällt diese geschichtliche Verlässlichkeit von Genesis 3 aus.

Ohne diese Verlässlichkeit von Genesis 3, auch die Lehre von der Erbsünde und von der Sündfreiheit der hl. Jungfrau.

Mit anderen Worten, acceptieren dieser Daten ("40 000 vor der Gegenwart") zerstört das catholische Dogma.

Und sind auch wissenschaftlich unnötig. Liest du Spanisch?

Ich machte gestern und heute ein Paar Posten auf dem (u. a.) spanischen Blog hierzu:

La datación carbónica—¿en conflito con la cronología bíblica?

Denisova en Atapuerca y otras cosas

Das meiste was die Rassisten über Rassenunterschiede faseln sind Volgen der Erbsünde, die für allen Menschen etwa gleich ist, aber ungleich ist das culturelle, punctuelle und ungenügende Unterdrücken der Ausdrucke der Erbsünde.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

übrigens ... sie selbst ist auf FB nicht da, und auch auf Stanford nicht ...

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Nun, es kann natürlich sein, dass ich einer Fälschung auf den Leim gegangen bin. Das werde ich jetzt so schnell nicht herausfinden. Worauf möchtest du, Freund, aber hinaus? Das ist mir etwas unklar!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Ist der Westen noch ihr Freund?
2) Was würde sie selbst dazu gesagt haben daß es in Israel keine einmal "Halb-Apartheid" gibt?

Harold Godwinson

Hans-Georg Lundahl Gute Frage!

Dishonesty of Abortionists feat. Dr. Randall

A Situation Mistreated for Very Long

Hans-Georg Lundahl

24 October 2010

At LAST out of hookup hotel!

Last redaction of what I wanted: a wife, but not from "here" - meaning that site.

When I started studying again in 2003, I should have gotten out, but did not think about it. From 2004 to now, restrictions on many computers I have used have stopped me from getting out, till today.

6 commentaires

of which only my three reply comments remain, the other person deleted the comments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

site for flirts for casual sex

was in it a year or two while desperate about getting a wife and not having one yet

most places where internet is for free, the site is blocked, so I could not get my account finished until today

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thank you, but do not bring that up please.

Stop.

People who pray about that staying an option pray about me staying celibate. I sometimes want to kill such people.

I do not want to stay celibate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Some people were spying about the emails I got, I presume. Including the ones from that site.

Which presumably brought me bad reputation behind my back - who would care to admit they listened to that kind of spies? - and therefore bad luck, if not with girls themselves, at least with their brothers, parents, uncles, aunts, sisters ... or even grandparents.

Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

New blog on the kid: Not So Far Away, Not So Big · "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." · How do we know stellar distances? · But Angels Don't Move Planets, They Are Guardian Angels! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

While the title is a clickbaiting reference to Ray Comfort and Singing Banana (the former discussed in a video I was hearing while making the html), whatever view you take of the heavenly bodies, even a Heliocentric one, it is kind of a cosmic version of Ray Comfort's well designed banana which fits the human hand. Here are CMI doing a Heliocentric version:

Remarkable evidence of a designed, young, and stable solar system
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Creation 45(4):55, October 2023
https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system

But the problem is, it doesn't take care of the Distant Starlight Problem, Geocentrism does.

Gary Robokoff

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

17.X.2023

The age of the universe is all over the place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Geocentrism.

Recall how the shortest distance measures are done that involve light years, e g 4 light years to alpha of the Centaur? Trigonometry. If earth is what is moving, sun and star both are relatively still (though moving on a very much more long term basis), then we have one distance and two angles and can do trigonometry. If the Sun and the star is what is moving and if we can't guarantee the stars moves in stride with the Sun, even if we see it is in pace with the Sun, then we have simply one angle and no distance. Not enough to do trigonometry.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY and needs revision once more data available, even under 1k LY.

Any claim of accurate parallax or any light departure point of light visible here and now over 5,784 (minimum value SPIRAL LY radius i the nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed) is disputed science.

SPIRAL shows why basic physics and math explanation of the vast body of empirical cosmological observations, attest the vastly higher probability science is the year age of the universe is capped by the LY distance SPIRAL radius i. So the mantle of science is firmly within the universe being 'thousands, not billions' of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY"

The problem is, above that, there are other methods taking over.

Parallax X optic size of star is supposed to break down to certain star types with certain typical sizes, like main series has a size 1 ~ 2 times the sun. By this method, astronomers think they have gone far beyond 1k LY.

And from there, Cepheids take over until you have the 13.8 billion LY away.

I do not have the book you have written on spiral cosmology, but Geocentrism actually takes away the need, since it involves no reliable reason to take even alpha Centauri as even 4 LY away.

And how does Geocentrism work?

Two options.

Riccioli: angels move individual heavenly bodies through a void from East to West, but are not keeping the same speed.
Thomas Aquinas: God moves the upper heaven, which moves spheres below it, from East to West, and in each sphere angels move the celestial bodies the other way round.

In the mechanics of St. Thomas, I analyse the miracle of Joshua's long day as follows:

a) God obeyed Joshua, by ceasing to move the heavens westward
b) the angels of sun and moon also stood still in their habitations (which is why they did not move slightly eastward either).

This way, Joshua 10:14 is true:
There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
and Habacuc 3:11 is true:
The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

And the thing which God moves directly and in which angels move their orbits can be considered as the firmament, which also reaches down in this circular motion to the surface of the earth, which is why we have Coriolis effect and winds of passage and oceanic currents. The matter of which this is made is presumably aether, i e the actual non-void in so called vacuum. Not only celestial bodies, but also atoms, are suspended in aether. However, the aether between the atoms in our bodies does not belong to the firmament, as it is not firmly tied to similar positions in relation to other parts of it.

Note, when an object starts to fall, the reason it does not fall westward with the aether is, while it was suspended before the fall, it acquired an eastward momentum through the aether of the firmament, this being also why geostationary satellites work.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we illustrate how/why even if parallax was accurate up to 30k LY (somehow able to account for all gravitational lensing...) based on the highest probability science it would still align best with the most distant stellar objects light departure point of 5,784 (6k rounded) light years to date maximum. As one needs to take into account the change in density of the universe at light departure. All over SPIRAL Radius i departed on day 4. The more distant the stellar object, the earlier on day 4 in passed that distance from us. We conclude a Earth-sun elliptic centric universe.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

(PDF) SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the universe exhibit A
www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261

MVP hypothesis, i will see if i have an excerpt on the cosmic distance ladder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unlike a blog, your link to researchgate won't open on this computer.

It may be interesting, but I think it is also superfluous.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl see if this link works on SPIRAL Blitz PDF on the comic distance ladder. if not i will see if i have the link to it on academia.

(PDF) Parallax, Gravity and The Cosmic Distance Ladder.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder

Hans-Georg Lundahl there can be more than one viable hypothesis on reconciling the cosmic distance ladder, a light speed limit of standard light speed, and the universe being 6k rounded years. It is good to have more than one in case one is falsified.Either way, time (and or our One common father) will tell which one best describes the one actuality.

SPIRAL 'Blitz' cosmic distance ladder hypothesis.
https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks for sharing.

// Don't assume uniformitarian assumptions. Do you assume a stellar object 15k LY, 1.5M LY, 1.5B LY.. has always been at that approximate distance?

Obviously if it was subjected to a material amount of cosmic expansion it was not. So the light we see here now from all objects at and over 5778 LY, could have departed when 5778 LY distance. //

The problem is, on your view, the views we have of the stars OUGHT to reflect, not the actual distance now (if anything like known), but the distance within 5778 LY.

Because you see, when a modern cosmologist says "those far off stars are 13.8 billion LY away" he means they were so 13.8 billion Y ago, and that they could now be very much further off.

The REAL logical result of your theory being true is, no star should even by uniformitarians be measured further away than 5778 LY, since the "distance measured" reflects very strictly the conditions of the light we receive, filtered through certain assumptions.

The positions given by astronomers are definitely NOT meant as "what the distance is now, long after the starlight was emitted" bt ONLY "distance when the starlight was emitted" ..

So, your solution seems to be a non-solution.

Än mer Censur

På Stephan Borgehammars mur.

Innehåller en reference till hans verk. Är på tyska:

Antworten nach Sorte : Reliquien, echt!
https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2019/11/reliquien-echt.html

Defending and Explaining St. Thomas to some Orthodox

Or at least one or two of them are, Alex Coleman and probably Brandon Igler.

Alex Coleman

25.IX.2023

Tertullian held that the heart is the location of the human soul. Thus, he was a follower of Aristotle. The sage of Carthage was wrong to charge Plato with being the father of all heresies. That title rightly belongs to the tutor of Alexander.

Tertullian held that Christ is not eternally begotten from the Father. Whereas the Platonist, St. Justin Martyr, held to the eternal generation of the Son.

I

Brandon Igler

Alex Coleman I have known if several Baptist who deny the eternal generation of the Son, as well. Ironically the guy was a scripture scholar. I guess Sola Scriptura can’t answer the most basic principles of Trinitarian and Christological wonder.

John-Paul Beaumont

Alex Coleman where does he say that may I ask?

Alex Coleman

John-Paul Beaumont. In his Dialogue with Trypho, I think. I cannot recall with certitude. As regards Tertullian, I believe he states his view in Against Praxeas.

Alex Coleman

Brandon Igler. The 18th century English Protestant scholar, John Gill, wrote a work defending the Holy Trinity. I would like to see how the Trinity can be adequately defended without reference to the Holy Fathers. I would like to read that work at some point. Gill frequently quotes rabbinic sources in his biblical commentaries but rarely cites the Church Fathers.

Brandon Igler

Alex Coleman this is a mistake that most evangelical make today, they would rather quote rabbis than Christians. Catholics do this as well. I think I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism. I may be wrong on the topic but I chuckled because that is so wild to denounce one of the most brilliant minds within the Church and really on earth, and side with Maimonides. I remember when I was taking my Judaic studies more serious, I was recommended to read the guide for the perplexed and it’s basically just Aristotle, I didn’t read much of it. Long story short, This fact just piggybacks your theory that you see Platonist and Aristotelian thought running parallel throughout history.

Alex Coleman

Brandon Igler. Thank you for that insight. We are picking up bread crumbs on a trail. On the trail of the assassins, eh Timothy Kevin Ready? More will be revealed........

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Brandon Igler "I heard Jay Dyer do a breakdown where he said that Thomas Aquinas even denounced St John of Damask and sighted Moses Maimonides in his place in defense of strict monotheism"

I'd very much like to know where Jay Dyer got that from.

Brandon Igler

Hans-Georg Lundahl it would have to be on one of Thomas’s apologetics for divine simplicity. I haven’t read the summa but I’m sure it’s in that. Possibly. Hope that helps

Alex Coleman

In Orthodoxy, St. Justin Martyr is referred to as St. Justin the Philosopher.

Brandon Igler

Alex Coleman for good reason

Alex Coleman when I first came across the idea of Logos Spermatikos and went back and read the Torah and the Gospels, from the I AM to the Incarnation of our Lord, I was in pieces. Everything made sense and now when I read anything it either lines up with Christ or it is indeed Foolishness. All of the Wisdom literature came alive again and especially his dialog with Pilate “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Alex Coleman think of Israel, the wrestling with God, Wisdom, and the gentile tradition of Philosophy, the Brotherly love of wisdom. It’s beautiful

John-Paul Beaumont

Alex Coleman thanks I’ll have a look!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Brandon Igler "Question 3. The simplicity of God" in the Summa - I did an F search for "Dam" and found nothing. Damascene or of Damascus is not in that question.

Brandon Igler

Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah, I haven’t read the summa. Wouldn’t mind reading it some day just to understand their position or reasoning better. This quote may not even be in the summa, I’m just assuming it would be.

Peter Gilbert

Hans-Georg Lundahl Thomas Aquinas cites Maimonides especially in his tractate on Creation; he agrees with Maimonides (following Aristotle) that reason does not rule out an eternal creation, but at the same time (not following Aristotle) reason does not necessitate an eternal creation; if we hold that there is a temporal beginning to creation, it is because that is something revealed to us.

As for disagreeing with St. John of Damascus, this probably refers to the Damascene's statement that "We do not say that the Spirit is 'from' the Son." On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong.

Brandon Igler

Peter Gilbert thank you. I wasn’t familiar with all the citations, I just heard it discussed on one of Jay Dyers talks about Latin Theology.

Alex Coleman

Peter Gilbert. What exactly is meant by, eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peter Gilbert "On that point, Aquinas says, the Damascene was simply wrong."

On that point.

And on that point he follows Western Patristics, which reaches back well before St. John of Damascus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman If you'll excuse me bumping in:

"eternal creation, such that Aristotle believed that reason requires it"

Eternal creation means that the universe has always existed, and that God has always provided its existence, ab aeterno, with no beginning.

Aristotle did not figure out why God would chose to create or chose anything, God being totally blissful, he considered God would be incapable (from that simple fact) of any kind of initiative. So, he considered the universe eternally comes into being by its matter adapting to God by a kind of love or longing for His inattainable perfection.

On this point, St. Thomas considered that we know from Revelation that Aristotle was wrong, while St. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus considered we can know even from reason that the universe had a beginning, when God made an actual initiative to create it or some other more putting it from non-being into being.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. If the universe is eternal, how then is God the Prime Mover? St. Bonaventure and Scotus were Platonists. Note that St. Gregory Palamas had the same essential system as Duns Scotus.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman God is prime mover, because He is the principal mover of the daily motion of the universe around Earth.

This is how Riccioli interpreted prima via.

To Aristotle this means, the beauty of God, without any decision on His part, makes the universe dance around Earth, and first of all the sphere of the fix stars.

To St. Thomas this means, God is consciously and by divine fiat moving the sphere of the fix stars around earth each day, which then drags the sphere of Saturn with it, which then drags Jupiter along, and then Mars, and then Sun, Mercury, Venus, Moon, and finally aptmospheres and seas.

St. Thomas could have explained the Foucault pendulum as some kind of participation in this daily motion. I do so. Not believing spheres are solid bodies, I still believe the heavenly bodies are within an aether, which is the kind of substance that space consists of, as well as being the kind of substance of which electromagnetic rays are ripples and so on. As opposite parts of this aether space remain opposite, and as parts of this aether space at a given height above earth remain that height (though the heavenly bodies may vary in height, apogee and perigee), this means the aether forming this space has a kind of solidity corresponding to the concept of stereoma.

Prime mover and creator in time are two different concepts.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yet if the universe is eternal, so must be it's motion. If the universe has always existed, then the motion within it must be perpetual. Where is there, thus, any place for a first cause?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The question is not about earlier cause vs later effect, but about contemporary cause and contemporary effect.

Like when you hold a hammer and bang with it, your hand is cause of the hammer moving, and the hammer moving is cause of some metal being hammered, even if they happen at the same time.

First cause does not equal kalam.

II

Ernesto Raimondi

Beyond the objections to philosophizing Christianity that Mr. Ostrowski and Mr. Leonardi gave above, which I largely agree with, the very consideration of the soul being located in a particular organ, rather understanding the soul as the spiritual dimension of the body which animates it, and thus in/with the whole body, strikes me as quite bizarre. It doesn't seem to be compatible with anything I've learned from Christians about the relationship of the body and soul. Always the Christians I've known (aside from the neo-Gnostic types who see the eschaton as strictly spiritual) have indicated to me that they understood the soul to be in a natural union with the body, and the soul is localized because of this union, so that its location is the body, not one particular part of the body.

In addition to it seeming to be an aberrant belief, I think this notion of the "location of the soul" is in danger of running into the sorts of conceptual problems that Descartes ran into with his mind-body dualism, and the pineal gland theory of the communication of the two. If the soul is not embodied, is not what gives the body form by being its animative principle, then how do we explain the communication between the body and the soul? Descartes had to come up with very odd ideas about animal spirits in order to give an explanation, and generally it's understood to not even have been a good one.

Alex Coleman

Ernesto Raimondi. I believe that Tertullian is not speaking of a physical location but rather as to what constitutes the essence of the human being. Given that he is arguing in the treatise for the corporeality of the soul as a general principle and that he states elsewhere in the treatise that the soul fills the whole body, this stands as evidence for my assertion.

Ernesto Raimondi

Alex Coleman The idea of a part being the essence of a composite doesn't sound right to me. Essence is supposed to give the "what-it-is", so to speak. If we say "central muscular organ that pumps blood throughout a fleshy body", then we have one account of what a heart is. One conventional account of the essence of human being is "rational animal". How a heart or a head could give us this for the human being, I can't begin to imagine.

The only way I could see this approach making sense would be if Tertullian were speaking of the heart and the head in a symbolic/spiritual sense. If that's the case, then of course the critique I gave above is not relevant. On the other hand, if we're talking about the heart and the head in figurative senses, I also don't see why either one could not be plausible candidates for giving the essence of human being. Is this what you were objecting to in the first place, the figurative heart being the essence of the human being? If so, what is your problem with this view?

Alex Coleman

Ernesto Raimondi. Yes, I believe he was speaking in a symbolic fashion. My objection is that by affirming that the essence of man is heart, Tertullian is implicitly denying that man is made in the image of God. The problem is that Tertullian was a materialist and argued elsewhere in the treatise that being made in the image of God means nothing more than that we are representative of His physical shape. Being a rational animal is not to be in the image of God. It is merely to be a beast with the added attribute of instrumental reason. Aristotle sees no qualitative distinction between man and animal only a quantitative one.

Ernesto Raimondi

Alex Coleman I know that Tertullian was a heretic, but the issue isn't just with his views. What you've effectively said is that Aristotelianism is the font of all heresies. In this particular matter (the essence of human being), you seem to be setting up a dichotomy of Platonist and Aristotelian views of the human essence, the former being linked to head symbology, and the latter to heart symbology. Further, you've now elaborated that the latter view implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God. Can you explain how the heart account implicitly denies Man being made in the image of God, while the head account does not?

Alex Coleman

Ernesto Raimondi. For Plato, man is defined by his capacity to grasp the Forms. In Christian Platonism, the Forms are ideas in the mind of God. Thus, man is uniquely connected to the mind of God, in Platonism. "Man is the creature who desires to know. Thus, the delight that he takes in the senses." Thus Aristotle locates the capacity of man to obtain knowledge within the confines of sense-perception. We share sensation with the beasts. Thus, God commands that we care for them and protect them. For Plato, the Forms are the ultimate reality and form is always separate from matter but linked through participation. For Aristotle, form is always united to matter. His idea of concept formation is identical to that of Hume.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For Christian Aristotelics, forms have three realities.

Before the thing, in God's mind, in the thing, and after the thing in man's mind.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yes, but Aristotle himself did not hold to such a view. Aquinas's attempt to baptize Aristotle, was ultimately, an exercise in futility.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, because he made a valid philosophy better than Aristotle's.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps, in his zeal to baptize Aristotle, Aquinas misunderstood him........

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, Aquinas certainly did understand Aristotle.

When he credits Aristotle with an error, he is usually showing how Aristotle could have avoided it by applying his own principles more consistently.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Perhaps Aquinas interpreted Aristotle in a manner such the Stagyrite would be rendered acceptable to Christians, despite the essential heresy of his teachings.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

There is no "essential heresy of his teachings"

There are his teachings, and there are heresies that are in them and which St. Thomas upfront called out as lapses on the part of Aristotle ...

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Are the fundamental principles of Aristotle congruent with the teaching of the Church? Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? Is Materialism, it's ontology? Is empiricism, it's epistemology? If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? St. Thomas was a genius but the principle of contradiction is a necessary truth. True in all possible worlds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let's break this down.

// Tatian, for example, clearly stated that Aristotle is a hedonist in his ethics. //

Two remarks.
a) Tatian is an expert on the Bible, not necessarily on Aristotle.
b) St. Thomas on occasion observed that Aristotle's view was only rational from an innerworldly perspective, which is not concerned with holiness.

// Is hedonism, the ethic of Christianity? //

Some degree, yes.
Charge the rich of this world not to be highminded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, (who giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy,)
[1 Timothy 6:17]

// Is Materialism, it's ontology? //

Materialism:

Democritus
Epicure
Lucrece

NOT Aristotle who was hylomorphist (i e held that the most usual substances are those composed by matter and form).

Aristotle was far closer to Plato than the real materialists were.

// Is empiricism, it's epistemology? //

Yes:
And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth: and no man receiveth his testimony.
[John 3:32]
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
[Acts of Apostles 4:20]
For thou shalt be his witness to all men, of those things which thou hast seen and heard.
[Acts of Apostles 22:15]
That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[1 John 1:3]

// If Aristotle is a Materialist thinker with a hedonistic ethos, how can he possibly be baptized? //

First, he's not a materialist.

Second, the hedonistic ethos is not always contrary to the Christian ethos.

III

Craig Ostrowski

This penchant to quasi-dogmatize philosophical systems is itself alien to the gospel and the fathers. Philosophical systems are man made tools which are indeed useful but being man made they will always remain faulty to one degree or another. Take whatever is good and useful in each system, modify that which needs modification, but forget about this nonsense of constantly narrowing of the gates for the sake of advancing a silly Eastern Napoleonic complex.

John Nikolov

Craig Ostrowski
I agree with you about philosophy. It can be useful, but that’s about it.

Craig Ostrowski

John Nikolov
Yes. It's very valuable, but the problem arises when people begin to confuse philosophy with divine revelation. Alex Coleman is pretty much doing that here, but not explicitly.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. In Antiquity, Christianity was called, "The Divine Philosophy." Christian teaching is the revelation of the mind of God. Of all earthly philosophies, which most closely resembles Christianity? The answer is Platonism. Thus, St. Clement of Alexandria taught that Plato was to the Greeks what Moses was to the Jews. Namely, a Schoolmaster who leads to Christ. Thus, St. Athanasius called Plato, "that giant among the Greeks." Thus, Neitszche said that, "Christianity is Platonism for the masses." Thus and so........

Craig Ostrowski

Alex Coleman
Read up about Clement of Alexandria. He had his problems. I'd I remember correctly, Photios even denounced him. Nevertheless, in no way am I condemning the use of philosophy. In fact, I've noted here how useful it is. If you read Pope Benedict XVI's famous Regensburg address you'll find that he nailed it about the use of philosophy. As the saying goes, it's the hand maiden of theology. It's not theology itself. When you lose sight of that fact, as you have, you've gone too far because you've confused human wisdom with all of its limitations with divine revelation. Then you end up making the further mistake of condemning those who don't make your mistake.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. St. Photios reduced the veneration of St. Clement by abolishing his feast day. Although Clement is still referred to as a saint in Orthodoxy and there are icons of him. The Catholic Church also abolished his feast in the 16th century. What is the essential distinction between philosophy and theology in your view? Through God's revelation, which is a theology, we are given an accurate metaphysical picture of reality which is a philosophy. Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous.

Craig Ostrowski

Alex Coleman
Divine revelation is divinely revealed information about God and His relationship to man. Theology, properly speaking, is the study of God. Philosophy is comprised of various man made metaphysical systems, none of which were divinely revealed. Thus, again, your conflating divinely revealed truths with man made metaphysical systems utilized to systematize those truths. The two are not synonymous by any means. Again, this is one of the underlying reasons why and how EO's end up rejecting their own fathers.

There's a reason why Photios did with he did concerning Clement of Alexandria. As I previously said, he said some troubling things.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. Thus, in your definition, theology is that which is revealed by God, whereas, philosophy comes from the mind of man. That is the essential distinction?

Craig Ostrowski

Alex Coleman
Yes.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. Platonism is almost Christianity. Platonism is THE philosophy of man that comes closest to the revelation of God through Jesus Christ. Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index.

Craig Ostrowski

Alex Coleman
Satan almost conveyed the word of God. Philosophical systems are not divine revelation, so don't treat them as such.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? Did they not call him, The Philosopher?

Craig Ostrowski

Alex Coleman
That's mostly a misconception. The Dominicans favored Aristotle but they were the minority. The Franciscans, i.e. Ss. Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, far outnumbered the Dominicans. While those two schools had their share of battles, Rome wisely never dogmatized any philosophical system.

Alex Coleman

Craig Ostrowski. I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. Scotus accepted the ontological argument whereas St. Thomas rejected it. St. Thomas's argument against the ontological argument is one of brilliance. He is rightly called, "The Angelic Doctor." It was Descartes who revived the ontological argument, in the West.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// Thus, it would appear that philosophy and theology ought to be viewed as being synonymous. //

Rather, natural theology is synonymous with philosophy, a friendliness towards wisdom, revealed theology is sophia, wisdom herself.

// Prior to St. Thomas, the Latins had placed the works of Aristotle on The Index. //

There was no Index.

// Why did the Latins adopt Aristotle as their chief philosopher? The Scholastics were followers of Aristotle, were they not? //

In calling Aristotle "the philosopher" they arguably followed Averroist usage. Please note, they equally referred to Averroes as "the commentator" - which makes sense in this perspective.

Averroism provided cultural imports, but Averroism as a whole was consistently rejected.

// I would like to study the works of St. Bonaventure. //

If you'd like to story non-Thomistic, Orthodox, Scholasticism, take a view on the condemnations of Stephen II Tempier, bishop of Paris.

Link:
EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Mehr Censur

Schlechte Nachricht:

Nach dem was am Wand fehlte:

Antworten nach Sorte : Stefan Speck machte einen Bock in der Nordischen Sprachwissenschaft
https://antw-n-sorte.blogspot.com/2023/09/stefan-speck-machte-einen-bock-in-der.html

How Long is the Longest YOM Outside Genesis 1?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

status

Six Days related only.

I was just reviewing a video with a reading from Rev. Bandas, a Catholic priest who was an old earth compromiser.

He used the argument that yom could mean any period irrespective of length. I would say that precisely as in modern languages, it could mean "kairos" but never "aion" - at the longest perhaps an individual lifespan or carreere.

My example from history is, you can say "in the day of John Lackland" referring to his reign, but you would never say that or any other "in the day of" phrase for the whole of the Middle Ages.

To those better read in the Bible than I : can you think of clear counterexamples in the Bible, obviously outside this particular controversy?

I

Katrina Cook

Meilleur contributeur

The morning and the evening were the first day, ... the second day...etc., not the morning and the evening was the first thousands of years. God gave the seventh day as one day of rest because he created everything in six days, not six thousand years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

I agree, but I was asking in order to give an exact evaluation of the argument from those seeing "day" used in other senses ...

II

Celeste Read

"the evening and the morning"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Celeste Read Good point, but not exactly what I was asking.

Celeste Read

almost Sabbath here now❤

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Hope you enjoyed it.

III

Donivan Felty

Friday and Saturday had to be 24 hour days

The Sabbath began at dusk on a 24 hour Friday and ended at dusk on a 24 hour Saturday

The sabbath BY DEFINITION is a day of rest. Man will work 6 days and rest on the sabbath

You could also assume to get to the 6th and 7th day, there must have been 5 preceding days of equal length, but I’ll just put that out there. But why would one day be different than the next?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Donivan Felty Good point, but not exactly what I was asking.

IV

Luigi Ciapparelli

Meilleur contributeur

Genesis ! : 4 and 5 God defines a day, and it was good. Evolution is like glue once anyone falls in they never get unstuck. By denying a day is a day you are 1. saying God is incapable of creating in a day 2. putting evolution ( Darwin's word) above God's Word 3. questioning God's character as He said and defined a day and meant something else 4. if you do not believe the first few sentences in the Bible then what or when do you believe anything in the Bible? That all comes under the heading of blasphemy. Evolutionists are deceivers, like satan, they either admit they are evolutionists or they keep evolution in their sticky pockets for later. You can run but you cannot hide - God sees everything. That is why God knows every motive, you may forget that but He will not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

"By denying a day is a day you are"

I am not denying the creation days are 24 hours.

I am seeking arguments against those who misuse other Scripture passages to "prove" it could be longer.

They will not be impressed by you, since they are often enough under pastorals that encourage them to take their error for complete orthodoxy, and I am not impressed by your mistaking me for sharing it.

Luigi Ciapparelli

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry I was not referring specifically to you but those who deny a day is a day. I am also stating that you don't need to go much further than the first few verses of Genesis, where a day is defined. If you are seeking arguments against longer ages then you have my full support, and the reasons why I support a day is a day. If I gave you the wrong impression then I apologize.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

accepted!

Luigi Ciapparelli

Meilleur contributeur

Thank you Hans-Georg and thank you for accepting my apology. It was meant as a general comment and not a reply specifically for you. I would probably have worded it better in Italian. Ciao and every Blessing to You.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Grazie!

V

Mitchell Goldberg

Every ancient Hebrew commentary without exception agree that it is 6 24 hour days like the days of our work week. Not six eras not six epochs, 6 24-hour days.

Genesis & the Big Bang - Biblical Age of the Universe, 6 Days or 13.77 billion years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN9DutcGf_Q

loL scroll to 5:34

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Thank you, I agree, but I was asking a more specific question to answer those who don't.

VI

Rod Carty

Meilleur contributeur

Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 show that they were ordinary days, just like the days of our week.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

I would agree, but that was not what I was asking.

I am not here to decide myself on the matter, I am here to find ammo for an argument with those taking the opposite side.

One of their arguments being "in the day of" can mean sth other than "in the 24 hours of" ... my follow up question is, in the Bible, outside Genesis 1, what are the longest periods which are being referred to as "day"?

"In the days of Noah" in Matthew 24 (or whereever it was) would refer to maximally 120 years - the ones when God was planning the flooding. Very maximally, 600 years, those that Noah lived before the Flood.

Rod Carty

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I understand. My experience is arguments about yom will not be fruitful. That's why I gave the 2 verses I did, because they are what I use.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

I think that there is a way round what you have experienced? - can you help me out?

I tried a search in Douay Rheims, but "in the day of" had more than 500 hits so wouldn't show, and when I limited to NT, it appeared some give only some words in the phrase, and not the whole phrase.

VII

David Harley Prince

Modérateur

Meilleur contributeur

The qualifiers of evening and morning & numerical indicators conextualize "Yom" as a 24 hour period.

It is only when nouns/verbs are attatched that it becomes an epoch.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

David Harley Prince The problem is, how long can an "epoch" be and still be qualified as "the day of ..."

David Harley Prince

Modérateur

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl an epoch is indeterminate in its length. Using the descriptor "in the day of" or "in the day that" refers to the time period of that person or event.

"In the day of" King David is the time period of Davids reign.

"In the day that" God created the heavens and the earth is a refrence to the creation week that was defined in the previous chapter.

"In Noah's Day" would be a refrence to the time period of Noah's life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Ah - this makes (outside Genesis 1) 950 years the absolute longest record you can think of.

Really inadequate for those who would say that God used "millions of years, billions of years" and called it days in reference to that saying.

David Harley Prince

Modérateur

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl I suppose an upper limit would be what can be packed into a singular descriptor.

"In the days of" Rome would refer to the time period of roman rule.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Do you find anything like that, exceeding "the days of Noah" in the Bible?

David Harley Prince

Modérateur

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl nothing that I can think of.

Days of Noah usualy refer to pre flood times/leading up to the flood. 120-600 year span.

In Adams day would be the first 800-950 years after being expeled from the garden.

Thats about the longest I can find an example of.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

David Harley Prince There is no part of the Bible which uses the expression "in the days of Adam" ... I search and get ...

And when a famine came in the land, after that barrenness which had happened in the days of Abraham, Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Palestines to Gerara.
[Genesis 26:1]
In the days of Samgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jahel the paths rested: and they that went by them, walked through by-ways.
[Judges 5:6]
And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.
[Judges 15:20]
In the days of one of the judges, when the judges ruled, there came a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehem Juda, went to sojourn in the land of Moab with his wife and his two sons.
[Ruth 1:1]
Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Juda before mentioned, whose name was Isai, who had eight sons, and was an old man in the days of Saul, and of great age among men.
[1 Kings (1 Samuel) 17:12]
And there was a famine in the days of David for three years successively: and David consulted the oracle of the Lord. And the Lord said: It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gabaonites.
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 21:1]
Moreover all the vessels, out of which king Solomon drank, were of gold: and all the furniture of the house of the forest of Libanus was of most pure gold: there was no silver, nor was any account made of it in the days of Solomon:
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 10:21]
And the remnant also of the effeminate, who remained in the days of Asa his father, he took out of the land.
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 22:47]
In the days of Phacee king of Israel came Theglathphalasar king of Assyria, and took Aion, and Abel Domum Maacha and Janoe, and Cedes, and Asor, and Galaad, and Galilee, and all the land of Nephtali: and carried them captives into Assyria.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 15:29]
And these whose names are written above, came in the days of Ezechias king of Juda: and they beat down their tents, and slew the inhabitants that were found there, and utterly destroyed them unto this day: and they dwelt in their place, because they found there fat pastures.
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 4:41]

David Harley Prince

Modérateur

Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl I was just picking a name out of a hat.

You just provided the biblical refrences that show exactly my point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

David Harley Prince Or even further reduce the timeline possible for "day" - so, my point too.

VIII

Gerald Kahlden

Those, especially in the Religious world, that look for ways to change the days into periods of millions of years of "could have been". And then try to claim belief in God's plan of salvation, are "shooting themselves in the foot". If you believe millions of years, at what point did the first sin of man enter into the world? At what point did God appoint him the responsibility of having dominion over Creation? Can that position hold that man existed for millions of years without murders, thievery, or other sin? They have not considered God's eternal plan nor have they understood that Jesus, was there at creation. He verified that Creation was a real event. If you can't trust Him in that claim, how can you trust Him in His historically evidenced claim to be the Son of God who was witnessed to be resurrected From the dead! He is our only hope to get up out of the cemetery someday and go home to live eternally!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Auteur

Gerald Kahlden My dear, I was not arguing for millions of years.

My point is that things like "in the day of Saul" which they use for saying "day doesn't always mean day in the Bible" (technically correct as far as it goes, though not very relevant for creation week which has evenings and mornings), will not be much help if what you want is millions of years.