Saturday, March 17, 2018

Some Non-Catholics have the Perfidy of Approving of Abortion

Francis Gives Medal Of Honor To Dutch Pro-Abortion Activist Lilianne Ploumen | Ajoutée le 16 mars 2018

It seems he is targetting Chestertonians.

The exact same medallion (except it isn't when Bergoglio is no true successor of Pius XI), or actually one higher, was given to Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

He was, for real, Knight Commander with Star

Liliane Ploumen is, for fake, Dame Commander.

But of same general distinction. What a horror. G. K. Chesterton had a horror of people not just aborting, but even using contraceptives, in order to keep up a pleasant life (notably, going to cinema).

His point of view is, if you have a child, you don't need cinema, the child will provide entertainment for free (ok, you have to feed it with money presumably not given to cinema)...

So, Bergoglio is insulting the memory of Chesterton.

Ploumen quote at 0:43 is so Soros ...

Here is how a not quite Chesterton of our days deals with him:

George Soros EXPOSED (or, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”)
March 5, 2018 by Mark Shea

Reminds me, I have this one as yet not answered.

"Yeah, Soros is wrong about abortion like every other lefty. But then, he’s Jewish, not Catholic, and his tradition has never taught him to believe what the Church teaches."

In other words, there are some occasions for the prayer Oremus et pro perfidis Iudaeis in this quote.

1:58 I am reminded of how "Pope Francis" once said, sth like "while abortion is murder, this doesn't mean you should shoot an abortionist in his leg" ... in the light of what Mark Shea brought up, this could be the bad influence from his friend Rabbi Skorka.

with words by Dimond Brothers to appropriate image:

How come there is no world peace?

While Eitan Bar and Moti Vaknin have not found the true Church, they have at least found the true Messiah and the true God.

"If Jesus is really the Messiah - how come there is no world peace?"
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | Ajoutée le 29 juin 2017

[Rabbinic discussion on how Messiah will come]
Riding on a donkey - fulfilled first day of the week on which He was Crucified on sixth day.

In the clouds - remains to be fulfilled, see Apocalypse 19 for details.

Actually, Christ already has established a kind of world peace, that being the Catholic Church.


Brod on Isaiah 53 ... what would you do, if you heard of some plot to single out a man today for the role of "Messiah son of Joseph" so that through his sufferings Jews might be saved? What would your reaction be if you met such a man? Wouldn't the next step be a plot to set up someone else as "Messiah son of David" in a sense every Christian would need to dread?

Friday, March 16, 2018

... on Evolution of Mammals

Video commented on
How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 64 Mammal Evolution?
Tony Reed | 17.XI.2017

It set out to answer
these claims from other creationists:

CMI : Mammal-like reptiles: major trait reversals and discontinuities
by John Woodmorappe

ICR : The Mammal-Like Reptiles

AiG Kid's Answers : Mammal-Like Reptiles: Transitional Forms?
on May 9, 2016

He did not set out
to answer a question about evolution of mammals from the first one to the present variety, presumably since it was not asked.

When I started viewing the video, I was waiting for it to come up (or not to), and as it didn't:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
On your view, Tony, all mammals should have one common ancestor.

That common ancestor would have one specific number of chromosomes.

Fusing chromosomes is not very over the top difficult to imagine and mice on Madeira have fewer chromosome pairs than the house mice on the continent. But fission of chromosomes is a thing which P Z Myers has tried to and failed to explain. His diagrams seem more coherent than they are since he omits centromeres and at least espacially telomeres from diagram.

In the end, even with a reduplication even around the centromere, resulting in a version with a double centromere, you cannot from there go on to split it next generation into two chromosomes with each a centromere and two telomeres. A split between the doubled centromeres would result in an arm without a telomere and a split on one of them would result in one of the new chromosomes having a centromere/telomere coincidence, being telocentric and not just acrocentric.

My creationist claim is thus:

  • original mammal if any cannot have had a very large number of chromosomes, since these are less typical than 2n=48 and since large numbers of chromosomes tend to go with large bodies
  • original mammal if any cannot have had a typical number of chromosomes, like 2n=48, since that would leave mammals with large numbers of chromosomes unexplained
  • the original mammal from which other mammals descend would have to fulfil contradictory conditions and cannot therefore have existed, therefore mammals were specially created.

Tony, investigate!

  • 1. How do you test those predictions?
  • 2. How could any of them potentially falsify creationism?
  • 3. You have my main account blocked so I can't respond. Unblock me or this will be your last post on my channel ever.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
  • 1. "How do you test those predictions?"

    They are not predictions, but facts.

    "original mammal if any cannot have had a very large number of chromosomes, since these are less typical than 2n=48"

    I take it that any trait original to a real monophyletic clade would be either universal, or dominant or at least typical among the diversified clades.

    "and since large numbers of chromosomes tend to go with large bodies"

    In salamanders (which is not a mammal) tetraploid salamander is smaller than octoploid salamander. In lagomorphs, hare has two chromosome pairs more than rabbit, and rabbit is smaller. Rhino being one of the biggest clades also has a large karyotype.

    "original mammal if any cannot have had a typical number of chromosomes, like 2n=48, since that would leave mammals with large numbers of chromosomes unexplained"

    See detailed discussion above, the test is in geometry.

    "the original mammal from which other mammals descend would have to fulfil contradictory conditions"

    Follows from the above premisses.

    Also, chromosomal aberrations outside cancer do not show fissions, only trisomies, tetrasomies, aneusomies and fusions, and the fissions in cancer involve chromatid arms without ending telomeres, which is fine for the cancer but less fine for heritary karyotypes.

  • 2. "How could any of them potentially falsify creationism?"

    If you mean potentially falsify the creationist claim I just made, rather than creationism as a whole, here is the deal:

    • higher animals (in fact all eucaryotes with more than one chromosome pair) not having genome divided into chromosomes would have left you with one difficulty less (one not yet foreseen by Darwin, by the way)
    • mammals having plenty of cases of tetraploidy and also of tetraploidy rearranging into diploidy with a larger number than original diploidy would have been a boon to you
    • trisomy not being handicapping and tetrasomy known to lead to an extra chromosome pair would have made your day
    • chromosomes having such a geometry that any extra mere would have made a fission easy ... if that were imaginable ... I don't think it is ... would have meant you could go by the chromosome fission theory
    • no mammals having more chromosomes than 2n=48, alternatively the number 2n=84 or more being as typical as 2n=48 would have given you one worry less.

    If you meant falsify creationism as such - sorry, there are not just criteria where one solution will prove evolution and one prove creationism, there are also such where one will disprove and other leave alone only one of these. For instance, on your side, proving millions of years will disprove creationism (the version I care about), but proving them will not prove evolution, as seen by Hugh Ross.

  • 3. You have my main account blocked so I can't respond. Unblock me or this will be your last post on my channel ever.

    I took a "wild guess" and unblocked "theoledevil" - is that the right one?

    Well, "qabbalah", I never blocked "Tony Reed" but I had blocked and now did unblock "theoledevil" ... is that you?

    Now you are able to answer (if it is so) how about doing so?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[three days later]
I got no answer.

Wondering if Tony Reed and qabbalah agreed to trick me to answer someone pretending to be Tony and who wasn't, so Tony could ignore me.

Especially, if I had blocked Tony Reed's main account, how would I still be able to see videos on his channel?

Thursday, March 15, 2018

... on Modern Cosmology vs Angelic Movers of Celestial Bodies

Catholics Watch & Respond to Star Size Comparison
New Catholic Generation | Ajoutée le 8 mai 2017

My comments
in order of chronology by timesignatures in video.

Opinions differ:
that of the video commented on in video and that of those commenting on it being Modern Cosmology, without the shade of a doubt, and mine being Celestial bodies are most of them 1 light day up and moved by angels.

Would Renee and Joseph and the rest like to take a look at this minority report on stellar sizes?

New blog on the kid : Stellar Radiuses (If Sphere of Fix Stars is One Light Day Up)

8:29 "we haven't mastered space travel"

Good one, if you think that the message is about life on exoplanets.

You might like this story:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Year 10 950 ARC (After Rocket Crash)

8:43 "Earth is not the centre of the universe"

Hmmm ... sounds like a very good reason to including billions of light years like sizes ...

Earth being immobile centre of universe and not even turning around itself would - on that view - involve movements of several billion light years' radius in the time of 24 hours.

A speed in which very distant stars would perhaps not be very wellhandled ...

Is this the speed Geocentrism of necessity involves?

No, since the stellar distances and therefore also stellar sizes (any calculated size is calculated from distance and apparent size, right?) are themselves calculated from Heliocentrism, via Stellar Parallax.

The 0.76 arc seconds difference of angle of proxima Centauri from December to June, not as directly observed, but as observed in relation to stars surrounding proxima Centauri and presumed to be further off, is in Heliocentrism presumed to be due to Earth moving between December and June, while proxima Centauri is supposed to be still.

Now, if proxima Centauri were exactly one light day up, if the 0.76 arc seconds of "parallax" and the broader picture of c. 20 arc seconds of "aberration of starlight" (measured in itself, unlike the 0.76 arc seconds) are due to an angel moveing each of those stars, what would we see differently?


What would we conclude differently?

Well, check a full Latin version of the Thomistic proof for God's existence in Summa contra Gentiles, book one or two, and whichever it was chapter 13.

9:47 "getting to Heaven"

Which is where?

On St Thomas' view, the abode of faithful angels, saints, Our Lord Jesus in His Human form is Empyraean Heaven, just above the sphere of the fix stars.

[Someone might say:] "Heaven's not material!"

Pure spirituality is cheating. Christ is present in the sacrament, not without the dimensions of His body, but without these dimensions touching our space which is instead touched by the dimensions of what used to be and still tastes like bread.

But in Heaven, the dimensions of His body do indeed touch the surrounding space, so, Heaven is not purely spiritual.

Also when we get there just after death, most of us (the reverse perspective to that of St Paul who concentrated on "we who are still alive"), we don't come in bodies.

But, when Resurrection of the Flesh happens, we will be having our bodies again. Up there.

7 Day Adv solve it by saying we will actually be living on Earth after reigning from a a specific place in Heaven not yet there since before the Resurrection of the Just.

But we are not 7 D Adv, right?

So, Heaven is a material place and we will having bodies there, if we get there and don't squeeze in Hell (centre of Earth) ... if it is just beyond the fix stars ... how far are they?

12:37 My perspective on the beauty of a billions of light years big universe is ... God wanted even the errors to have some beauty.

God has a plan, it involves a Great Deception, that much Satan earned by Adam's disobedience to God.

Now, there is beauty to a sentence, also erroneous, but ... inspiring : "we all live in the gutter, but some of us look at the stars"

It is arguable, while God allows the Great Deception, it is not allowed to be "all gutter" and "no stars". Therefore He has planned what it would be allowed to involve.

(Didn't I give some reference for the quote about Lady Winderemere's Fan being a kind of King Arthur's attitude about Queen Guinevere, minus the royal and historical setting?)

14:17 "everything seems to be going around us"

Well, as long as there is no proof positive to the contrary, that is at least preliminary proof that is what everything visible (Empyreal Heaven beyond fix stars not being visible) is doing.

15:28 "and that Jesus did go to these other life forms and preach"

One such group would be 7 D Adv.

They take it as revealed in private revelation to Ellen Gould White.

As I recall it, planets we named thousands of years ago ("our solar system" except I don't consider the word choice correct, it reflects Heliocentric ideology) were included in those where Ellen Gould White pretends that Jesus went to preach to other creatures.

Now some of these seem honestly fairly lifeless by closeup pictures ...

15:57 I would most definitely not count Krishna as Jesus appearing in a Hindoo culture.

I suspect he was a pre-Flood saint (probably the flute player among the children of Lamech, see Genesis 4) who was unusually peaceful (acc to Mahabharata) in a time when And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (Genesis 6:5), but he was definitely not Jesus appearing to Hindoos.

16:02 - 16:09 "Padre Pio said to a reporter when asked about extraterrestrial life he said it would be an injustice to God's glory to limit His glory to this planet alone."

Reference welcome, if any.

16:12 "so he thinks that there are planets that"

The answer, as given, was evasive. We do not know it was that he meant, it is possible he was "leading the reporter on" without directly lying and letting him think it was that he meant.

16:15 "just like ours with beings that haven't fallen"

With unfallen only rational or intelligent creatures, a globe would not be "just like ours". Was that part of the quote or not?

16:25 "and I'm guessing"

Ah, ok, you are interpolating what padre Pio could have meant by initial quote.

There is another solution. Angels do give glory to God. Angels do move celestial bodies - this latter is not from padre Pio, but from a whole list of Church men, including St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, I think ... no, I did not find Nicolas of Lyra, but on the other hand I did find Suarez and St Bonaventura.

St Thomas says it is of the faith that angels don't move celestial bodies only but also bodies down here, as he is quoted by Riccioli:

Sed placet S. Thomæ sententiam adnotare, qui q.6 de Potentia art.3. inquit : Fidei autem sententia est, quòd Angeli non solùm corpora cælestia suo imperio moueant localiter, sed etiam alia corpora Deo ordinante & permittente.

Reference being: Almagestum Novum. Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus cælorum
CAPVT I. An Cæli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura
and the quote is given on page 248 in the edition dedicated to Honoré II, Prince of Monaco (other editions could have other pagination, the volume is here Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi)

St Thomas is further quoted from opusculum 10 art 3 and opusculum 11 art 2 as saying he doesn't recall reading any saint or philosopher denying that celestial bodies are moved by spiritual creatures and that on his view it would have to be either God directly or God through (giving orders to) angels, and he prefers the latter, at least outside miracles, due to the ordered degrees he takes from St Denys of the Areopagus.

Obviously, this solution is also well suited for God's glory to be there in the heavens, and either this or stars having souls (which Riccioli had dealt with in an earlier section, he's not repeating it and therefore I don't know what authorities would favour it, except I know from elsewhere St Augustine was neutral on that question) fit with certain passages of the Bible.

When you look up at the stars, you can say : "there are some guys who hated the guts of Sisera's army" - read Judges 5:19-20

[19] The kings came and fought, the kings of Chanaan fought in Thanach by the waters of Mageddo, and yet they took no spoils. [20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

I repeat last sentence : the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Aha ... so, either the stars and planets in and of their own souls, if any, or the angels moving celestial bodies showed intentional action at a distance that time ...?

Well, can't just be big balls of gas then, however pretty these are!

Oh, the edition of Almagestum Novum is actually available online ... here is the page:

Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi, p. 248

16:55 [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

This is certainly a reason to be attentive to Church Tradition not directly in Bible.

It is arguably a reason to be open for things neither in Bible nor Church tradition, but not contradicted.

But, it is not a reason to neglect what is actually in the Bible and Church tradition, as Judges 5:19-20 or as St Thomas Aquinas' view on angelic movers.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Michael Matt Overpraised Legion of Decency and Denigrated Greydanus beyond Demerit

TheRemnantvideo | Ajoutée le 17 févr. 2018

On the caption of the video, for some reason, Greydanus is shown in liturgic clothes (as deacon) for either Laetare Sunday (as Sunday past) or Gaudete Sunday, when his pretended offense was a purely extraliturgical affair:

9:17 Have you read Greydanus' written version of the review?

Artful veneer of “Call Me By Your Name” masks shallow, distorted view of sexuality

The Catholic World Report : Artful veneer of “Call Me By Your Name” masks shallow, distorted view of sexuality
February 13, 2018 Steven D. Greydanus

Notably, he notes the film changes the year of the novel from 1988 to 1983, to avoid irksome references to AIDS ... well, seems Greydanus can have a clue at times at least.

Here are some more words from him:

"Insofar as a lot of people have perceived my video review as a glowing recommendation of the film, which I didn’t anticipate, obviously I failed both to be as clear as I should have been on my overall take on the film and to foresee how my review would strike many people."

In other words, he is not recommending to see it.

As having some experience from a background pre-Catholic conversion, I suspect his video review was ironising about the seducing qualities of the film : subtly - a bit too subtly, as he admitted - warning against that seduction.

Call me naive for believing him, here is where he stated it:

National Catholic Register : ‘Call Me By Your Name’ Q&A
Steven D. Greydanus Feb. 13, 2018

Why would I for my part bother to defend someone who has been considered as promoting a same sex movie?

I have been considered as promoting same sex marriage, when I, repeatedly with a reference to the marriage of Josh Weed, a homosexual man heterosexually married, I said that homosexual people (not couples) already have the right to marry.

Can two homosexuals marry each other? Sure, a homosexual man can marry a lesbian. The Catholic position says sth about what the sexes must be, says sth about what the intentions must be (and with four daughters, I think Josh Weed has taken that part seriously enough) but nothing about what the natural, instinctive and spontaneous orientation of a man or woman must be, as prerequisite for marriage.

N o t h i n g

Now, if a homosexual orientation is there, that is a tragedy, but it is not a reason to commit an atrocity like banning people like Josh Weed from marriage.

Note very well, I have not said this as a homosexual, nor as a homoliberal, but simply as an ex-patriate and formely resident Swede. Everyone in Sweden knows about the gay couple Jonas Gardell and Mark Lewengood, I did not go out of my way to find out, and everyone knows they have children, not adopted, but with the women in a lesbian couple (who have shared custody).

I have proposed in Sweden, and have proposed since getting out of Sweden, that the parents of Amos Gardell should marry and the parents of Miss Lewengood should marry, forsaking the respective same sex partners, of course.

I could be presumed tp meddle in none of my business, but no, while in Sweden I had that story pushed into my face, it is public knowledge, I have not gone out of my way to prie in anyone's private business either, I am commenting on private knowledge. To a Swede of the modern type (those who feel they can stay in the country), this comment amounts to expressing homophobia.

To certain others, people who are eager to read first part of a sentence without reading the end of it, or to seek out hidden motives without inquiring honestly about known ones, my recommendation is a confession of being homosexual.

And to certain people who take both these sides into account, I am a "homophobic homosexual" and therefore "self destructive" and therefore probably mentally ill.

13:23 I note you seem to agree with James Martin on "I deny: That Jesus wants us to insult, judge or further marginalize them."

You just made a point (or are coming to one) involving Tenessee Williams. A gay man. Not "gay and married" as Josh Weed, but "gay" as in "gay" as Lewengood and Gardell.

Btw, I have some difficulties with that guy, after seeing Suddenly, Last Summer and then finding out he did not save his sister from lobotomy ... before, just today, finding out he was involved with Pancho Rodríguez y González, Frank Merlo, Robert Carroll ...

13:46 It is certain that Greydanus was not doing as Cardinal Spellman. And your point is not as pro-Williams as I thought, but neither are you totally marginalising him. Now, Spellman did more than Greydanus, obviously.

But Greydanus is a deacon, not a cardinal or archbishop.

Perhaps directly telling people watching what was that film called again, "Call me by your name" constitutes a mortal sin would in his book be a thing for his curate in the parish or for his bishop in his diocese and not for himself in a film review.

14:03 Speaking of Spellman, he was cardinal archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967, when he died.

In the first article I read on Rosemary Kennedy, I read her father had actually consulted a bishop - perhaps that one - before lobotomising his daughter. If Spellman is culpable of that "go ahead" he is clearly a worse man than Greydanus.

Lobotomy deprives the patient of the adult use of free will, perhaps of use of free will altogether (if Rosemary had the faculties of "such a baby" after lobotomy, it may well have been her case), and therefore of the faculty of converting. In other words, if Rosemary was not reconciled with God when being lobotomised, she had no chance to escape damnation after that. In that case, Spellman or whoever else had recommended or even cautiously allowed the "operation" would be guilty of soul murder.

15:09 Pledge of resistance by Bishop Murray?

Might be an idea. But how would one formulate it?

Perhaps Greydanus has as great ideas as you do. If you have the text of Murray's pledge, fine, link to it.

15:40 I am not sure if you have heard of a film "portraying" St Joan of Arc in the actress Milla Jovovich as basically suffering schizophreniac auditory hallucinations under her also otherwise obviously anguish inspiring trial (and she was anguished for real).

I withdrew from that, with my company, a girl I was then courting and hoping to convert. She went back to next session and this is part of why we fell out (she also admitted she was a bit above ideal age for a first childbirth).

So, without having taken the pledge, I have followed it.

But some seem to have taken a similar pledge about my blogs ...

Note, the wording of the pledge as cited (in extenso or not?) up to 16:28 involves "he must withdraw patronage ... as long as it may be an occasion of sin to any person"

The word "may" is unnecessarily broad sweeping for a normal Catholic morality, outside the special pledge. How about "is likely to"?

The word "unwholesome" is unnecessarily vague.

It is much less precise than "depraving". Watching a person with tattoos getting drunk on stage may well be depraving if that person is portrayed as hero rather than side character or anti-hero and in the habit of getting drunk up to end of film rather than about to convert. But watching it without knowing these things is not yet depraving. Even if it would clearly be unwholesome to a child.

So, suppose there were a film in which a tattooed man got drunk and then got cruelly victimised by some puritanic crooks, and he is not the hero, he is just occasion for the hero to moan over his bad habits and get a reason to actually deal with the crooks. But the tattooed man, as victim of the crooks, getting drunk as occasion for their puritanic bullying, is the first scene. And it is, obviously, somewhat unwholesome.

A Catholic having taking Murray's pledge walks out.

On Murray's terms, any theatre showing that film should be boycotted till the theatre promises never to show "such" a film again.

Sure, Murray's terms would tend to get things done and it got things done and introduced the Hays code. And the Hays code meant, Catholics took a breath of relief and became permissive with films. Except perhaps when Spellman intervened.

18:46 Yes, Catholics certainly did influence Hollywood.

Was it just a good thing?

"Any time you see Christianity displayed onscreen, there's a strong chance it'll feature exclusively or almost-exclusively Catholic trappings, such as rosaries, the Sign of the Cross, confessional booths, nuns, clerics referred to as "Father", and so on. It could be because Roman Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity in the world, or it might be because the vestments of Roman Catholic clerics are so quaint and distinctive, or perhaps it's the fascination of the mystery and ritual, or maybe its our bewilderment at priests, monks, and nuns taking a vow of celibacy, or that those ornate and massive Catholic churches make the most awesome sets, or the usefulness of the sacrament of confession as a narrative device. ... "

TV Tropes : Christianity Is Catholic

But is it correct?

"In much fiction, despite the portrayal of Christians as Catholics, most Bible quotations will be from the King James Version, a Protestant translation.note Everything just sounds way more "biblical" with thee's and thou's and ye's (although Catholics have the Douay-Rheims, an English translation which came at about the same time). Still, the King James renderings are much more familiar in a highly "Protestant-by-default" culture. Psalm 23, for example, is usually rendered the "KJV way" ("The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.") even among English-speaking Catholics.note The even more traditional Vulgate Bible will almost never be quoted, although it can happen because it's written in Latin."

So, you have a Catholic padre quoting a Protestant King James ...

"It's not always a positive portrayal, mind you. If there's a big Corrupt Church that has the power to subjugate kings and governments under its will, it'll probably be Catholic, too, and using Catholicism for such is popular due to historical associations with The Spanish Inquisition, a Knight Templar Church Militant, and torturing and burning heretics, and in modern times, the pedophilia coverup scandals. An "evil" Protestant church, by contrast, will usually be engaged in small-time villainy, maybe being a front for the Ku Klux Klan or even a televangelist scam (though there are some real-life exceptions, such as Jim Jones's Peoples Temple Full Gospel Church, which grew into a dangerous cult). This is largely because Protestant churches have far more local autonomy than exists in Catholicism, and thus no particular church would have the worldwide infrastructure and hierarchy to make world domination seem plausible."

Outside A Man for all Seasons - how many films portray Anglicanism as corruptly dominating England and persecuting Catholics? Which they did.

"Even Hollywood"

Come on ... was the positive portrayal of priests in certain films because Hollywood caved in to Catholic pressure?

Quoting TV Tropes again:

"Or maybe it's just that it's downright absurd to associate rural Midwestern Lutherans, for instance, with Ominous Latin Chanting and Gothic aesthetics.note It also may well be that Catholicism is simply a more visible form of Christianity in the bicoastal urban milieux in which most writers work. Or that many writers hail from predominantly Catholic regions like Ireland, Poland, Bavaria, Italy, Latin America, or New York City.note Not to mention that a considerable number of writers are themselves Catholic (or were raised that way at least), and may just find it easier to write what they know.

"Whatever the reason, if there's a form of Christianity that exemplifies the Rule of Cool, it's Catholicism. Protestant denominations might occasionally appear, but don’t expect the Eastern Orthodox Church to make an appearance, and don’t expect the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East to even be mentioned."

Hmmm ... remember the nuns stealing a motor from the car of a Nazi and "confessing" that as "a sin" in Sound of Music? Obviously incorrect. In historical fact, that is not how the escape of the von Trapp family happened, in the mémoirs of Maria von Trapp. In principle, it is wrong. If the nun had by epikeia the right to take away the motor from the car of persecuting Nazis, it was no sin. It would not have been the sin of stealing. It would not have been confessed as the sin of stealing. We are in the moral world of Dennis the menace, not of real Catholic nuns. Most definitely, they would not have mocked either sacramental confession or confession in the chapter (at end of each day as per monastic rules) by saying "I have a sin to confess". So, Hollywood respecting the Church .... no, not quite. It seems the von Trapps were obliged to take that libretto for the musical, because of economic difficulties.

Perhaps US Americans didn't like Austrian talented singers earning a good life with little work. I have heard of such an attitude with even worse effects on some immigrant's soul.

Do you know of Christine Arnothy? She wrote the excellent "I am fifteen and do not want to die". You should have read about the Jew who was spared by the Nazis (who wanted to buy their lives) and killed by Commies, who killed him because he refused to work - on a Saturday, I think. It has a follow up, sometimes in same volume, known as "Living is hard too" or sth. On her arrival, French bourgeois made sure she could not earn money from her cultural talents, so she took work as a domestique. It was so gruelling, she went into a bad marriage for eagerness of getting out of it, and as a result, she divorced and remarried.

She is dead now, God rest her soul. She lived past her non-husband, and so probably can have had occasion to make up with God.

16:58 I was recommended to see Peter Rabbit.

Maybe, if I get to seeing it on a video after Lent, I will.

The person recommending it seemed to have no idea Lent is a time for "no public entertainment" (but no ban on private occasional ones), and for my part, I resolve that also by not going to movie theatres all that often.

Tenessee Williams was actually the last time I was to cinema. When you have a video, you can turn things off.

Without making a public fuss. Perhaps I should have got out after the initial lobotomy scene.

17:08 If Greydanus is holding a sermon, he has of course as part of his job in that sermon to preach, for virtue and against sin.

If however he is writing or speaking an essay, which is not a thing alien to Church men, cardinal Newman was a great writer outside the pulpit, obviously it is not his job in that essay (and film reviews would be one kind) to just warn against sin and no more.

You are comparing a film review with a message from the pulpit, it is comparing apples and oranges.

Btw, as far as I know, you are also an essayist, and you are here also not preaching against sin, but warning with some subtlety against a state of affairs - as Greydanus tried to do in the film review. Which, note it well, is not directed at Catholics as Catholics only, but to general cinematic culture.

1934 and US as opposed to 1534 in Rome, I think the people who went to Heaven in Rome 1534 and watched Bishop Murray from Heaven would have debated "do you think he looks like Calvin?" - "no, more like Savonarola". And perhaps some more.

17:28 There is a difference between "fortress mentality" and Puritanism.

I think Murray may have been too little of a fortress against Puritanism.

Chesterton was not - and note well, he was a man who would definitely have reviewed "Call me by your name" and some others Greydanus reviewed in a bunch and as one sign cinema was overrated and becoming dragged down by filth, already in its beginnings.

Here is what Chesterton had to say on the dangers of cinema:

“THERE IS a real danger of historical falsehood being popularized through the film, because there is not the normal chance of one film being corrected by another film. When a book appears displaying a doubtful portrait of Queen Elizabeth, it will generally be found that about six other historical students are moved to publish about six other versions of Queen Elizabeth at the same moment. We can buy Mr. Belloc’s book on Cromwell, and then Mr. Buchan’s book on Cromwell; and pay our money and take our choice. But few of us are in a position to pay the money required to stage a complete and elaborately presented alternative film-version of Disraeli. The fiction on the film, the partisan version in the movie-play, will go uncontradicted and even uncriticised, in a way in which few provocative books can really go uncontradicted and uncritcised…. A false film might be refuted in a hundred books, without much affecting the million dupes who had never read the books but only seen the film.”

~G.K. Chesterton: Illustrated London News, Jan. 5, 1935.

Note, in 1935 Chesterton took as example a film which had been released as a sound film in 1929 ... perhaps he was not so eager a cinema goer ...? - mute film in 1921, sound film in 1929 ...

Murray's pledge more or less presumes that cinematic theatres are sensible to the Catholic customers, i e Catholics are generally cinema friendly ... except when sth is unhealthy.

19:39 "people flocking to convert"

To some, the converts of back then count, those of today don't ... or did I get your attitude on Greydanus wrong?

I was wandering where he stood on evolution, but since it was "deacon's bench" which was echoing in my head, perhaps I confused him with Greg Kandra, also a deacon ...

19:52 "overseeing the worst sex scandal in the history"

While I think it is symptomatic of a new and false Church, of invalid masses, and of clerical discipline getting out of hand, it seems to be by now a matter of the past, at least in some countries, and in Poland it is not even there.

20:25 If "John XXIII" was no real Pope, his assessment of the recent past was perhaps not a Catholic one.

There are only two options (plus their combination) for his not being Pope : a) the see was not vacant; b) he was not a Catholic.

Quoting vigilanti cura:

"Your leadership called forth the prompt and devoted loyalty of your faithful people, and millions of American Catholics signed the pledge of the "Legion of Decency" binding themselves not to attend any motion picture which was offensive to Catholic moral principles or proper standards of living."

For Catholic moral principles, I heartily agree. As to proper standards of living ... does it mean "brushing teeth, eating with fork and knife, having a roof and good insulation" ... no, while that would have been puritanical in the sense I deplore, here is the Latin of Pope Pius XI:

"rectaque vitae praecepta."

Correct precepts for life does seem like more or less a synonym with Catholic moral principles.



It seems that Pius XI considered Legion of Decency a somewhat ecumenic venture:

"We are thus able to proclaim joyfully that few problems of these latter times have so closely united Bishops and people as the one resolved by cooperation in this holy crusade. Not only Catholics but also high-minded Protestants, Jews, and many others accepted your lead and joined their efforts with yours in restoring wise standards, both artistic and moral, to the cinema."

I wonder, was "unwholesome" correctly translated to his Latin or Italian?

Were the Jews and Protestants really joining bishop Murray's lead, or were they more like equal with him in it?

"The National Legion of Decency, also known as the Catholic Legion of Decency,[1] was founded in 1933 as an organization dedicated to identifying and combating objectionable content in motion pictures from the point of view of the American Catholic Church.[2]:4 After receiving a stamp of approval from the secular offices behind Hollywood's Production Code, films during this time period were then submitted to the National Legion of Decency to be reviewed prior to their official duplication and distribution to the general public.[2]:5 Condemnation by the Legion would shake a film's core for success because it meant the population of Catholics, some twenty million strong at the time, were theoretically forbidden from attending any screening of the film under pain of mortal sin.[2] The efforts to help parishioners avoid films with objectional content backfired when it was found that it helped promote those films in heavily Catholic neighborhoods among Catholics who may have seen the listing as a suggestion.[1] Although the Legion was often envisioned as a bureaucratic arm of the Catholic Church, it instead was little more than a loose confederation of local organizations, with each diocese appointing a local Legion director, usually a parish priest, who was responsible for Legion activities in that diocese."

If so, some dioceses would perhaps have been open to pressure from Puritans of non-Catholic religions ...

And Jews and Protestants "following the lead" may mean they had similar leagues, not that they joined the Catholic one, if no doubt often collaborating.

This state of affairs would perhaps backfire the day when the partners became more lax ... if that was perhaps happening in the fifties (at least that is how Pope Michael sees the fifties).

"Although in certain quarters it was predicted that the artistic values of the motion picture would be seriously impaired by the reform insisted upon by the "Legion of Decency," it appears that quite the contrary has happened and that the "Legion of Decency" has given no little impetus to the efforts to advance the cinema on the road to noble artistic significance by directing it towards the production of classic masterpieces as well as of original creations of uncommon worth."

Wonder what works Pope Pius XI was speaking about ... League was founded in 1933 ... Vigilanti cura was in June 36. So, what were the major films 33 - June 36?

Top Grossing Films U.S.A. 1933

1. Queen Christina MGM $2,887,285
2. I'm No Angel Paramount $2,850,000
3. King Kong RKO $2,847,000
4. 42nd Street Warner Bros. $2,250,000
5. She Done Him Wrong Paramount $2,200,000
6. State Fair Fox $1,800,000
7. Dinner at Eight MGM $1,207,068
8. Hold Your Man MGM $1,100,000
9. (tie) Little Women RKO unknown
9. (tie) Design for Living Paramount unknown

Did Pope Pius XI see Queen Christina? The historical figure was a tomboy, and her conversion has more to do with conversations with Descartes than with any love affair with any Spanish envoy!

King Kong was March 2, presumably before - I think I checked - Legion of Decency.

Little Women is of course a Classic - no problem. I haven't read it, but would in a less stressed situation than mine now be on my to read list.

Top Grossing Films U.S.A. 1934

1. Viva Villa! MGM
2. Cleopatra Paramount
3. The Barretts of Wimpole Street MGM
4. It Happened One Night Columbia
5. The Thin Man MGM
6. The Richest Girl in the World RKO
7. The Gay Divorcee RKO
8. Imitation of Life Universal
9. The Girl from Missouri MGM
10. The House of Rothschild United Artists

It would seem that Pope Pius XI may have approved of Cleopatra ... certainly not of the Gay Divorcee (which features a divorce and remarriage accepted by Anglicans, but not acceptable as such).

I also do not think Pope Pius XI would have approved of Viva Villa! since portraying one of the revolutionaries making Mexico a secular state. The Richest Girl in the World features sneaking in bedrooms, hardly very wholesome.

I am not convinced that The Girl from Missouri was top, I think Ginger Roger and Fred Astaire did better stuff.

We must presume, if Pius XI was speaking of masterpieces, we are dealing with The Thin Man.


1. Mutiny on the Bounty MGM $4,500,000[2] (rentals)[clarification needed]
2. Becky Sharp RKO
3. Bride of Frankenstein Universal Pictures US$2,000,000
4. Top Hat RKO US$1,782,000 (domestic), US$1,420,000 (international)[3]
5. The Littlest Rebel 20th Century-Fox
6. The Informer RKO $950,000[4]
7. China Seas MGM
8. Barbary Coast United Artists
9. Captain Blood Warner Bros.
10. Anna Karenina MGM

Mutiny on the Bounty is deserving. Cruelty in leadership is clearly a provocation to disaster, clearly a cause for just insurrection (mislabelled mutiny here).

Barbary Coast is presumably also good, dealing with ... no, not what I thought, a love story.

Anna Karenina is probably unwholesome. C. S. Lewis who read it reviews it in "the four loves" as a fictional (but true to life) example of romantic love gone bad.

Bride of Frankenstein is definitely unwholesome.

Captain Blood, probably as wholesome as Pirates of the Caribbean would be if some of the unwholesome stuff were cut out (I think of Curse of the Black Pearl ...)

The Littlest Rebel ... hmmm ... wonder if Northern troops did behave like Dudley, I heard it was "the last gentleman's war" ... and an officer ordering him lashed ... no, I don't think this is totally correct.

Becky Sharp is of course a rough warning to climbers, and as such probably well worth the lauds, and as it came from Thackeray, it is indeed a classic. No, I don't have that much culture, I checked.

Top Hat ... now, that is Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire ...

Even if Naughty Marietta is not on the top ten, it is presumably worth seeing:

"To avoid an arranged marriage to Don Carlos, an elderly Spanish duke, Princess Marie masquerades as her uncle's former servant, Marietta, and escapes from France on a ship with casquette girls who are traveling to New Orleans to marry colonists. On board, Marietta befriends Julie."

Still, as a somewhat elderly man seeking a younger wife, I would wish this theme had been balanced a bit ...

Mississippi and ...

1936, omitting those after Vigilanti cura ...

1. Modern Times[1] United Artists - February 5, 1936

"Modern Times portrays Chaplin in his Tramp persona as a factory worker employed on an assembly line. There, he is subjected to such indignities as being force-fed by a malfunctioning "feeding machine" and an accelerating assembly line where he screws nuts at an ever-increasing rate onto pieces of machinery. He finally suffers a nervous breakdown and runs amok, throwing the factory into chaos. He is sent to a hospital. Following his recovery, the now unemployed factory worker is mistakenly arrested as an instigator in a Communist demonstration. In jail, he accidentally ingests smuggled cocaine, mistaking it for salt. In his subsequent delirium, he avoids being put back in his cell. When he returns, he stumbles upon a jailbreak and knocks the convicts unconscious. He is hailed as a hero and given special treatment. When he is informed that he will soon be released due to his heroic actions, he argues unsuccessfully that he prefers it in jail."

OK, axios ho Chaplin!

1. San Francisco[2] MGM - June 26, 1936 (a few days before Vigilanti Cura)

OK, not bad, a marriage proposal accepted.

4. The Great Ziegfeld MGM - March 22, 1936 (LA) / September 4, 1936 (US)

(Note, the earlier release was only LA?)

A divorce ... no ...

5. These Three United Artists - March 18, 1936

"Lillian Hellman's play was inspired by the true story of two Scottish school teachers whose lives were destroyed when they were falsely accused by one of their students of engaging in a lesbian relationship. At the time, the mention of homosexuality on stage was illegal in New York State, but authorities chose to overlook its subject matter when the Broadway production was acclaimed by the critics.[2]

"Because the Hays Code in effect at the time would never permit a film to focus on or even hint at lesbianism, Samuel Goldwyn was the only producer interested in purchasing the rights. He signed Hellman to adapt her play for the screen, and the playwright changed the lie about the two school teachers being lovers into a rumor that one of them had slept with the other's fiancé. Because the Production Code prevented even the use of or a reference to the play's original title, Hellman changed the title of her script to The Lie. After principal photography was completed, the film was christened These Three.[2]"

Hmmm ... a false accusation of homosexuality sounds like sth which can be edifying - especially if, unlike this film, the mistake is cleared up.

Obviously Pope Pius XI would have approved of this one!

10. Wife vs. Secretary MGM - February 28, 1936

Secretary doing her duty in the end! Good!

15. Klondike Annie Paramount - February 21, 1936

I presume Protestants were more eager to ban it than Catholics would?

16. Follow the Fleet RKO - February 20, 1936 (US)

At least acceptable ...

17. The Story of Louis Pasteur Warner Bros. - February 22, 1936

Medical experimentation - while for the material good of men, and the medical good of quite a lot of livestock, it also involved cruelty ... against Catholic morals? Perhaps, perhaps not. I would say, yes. "the righteous is merciful even with his livestock" (and he did probably apostasise from the Catholic faith, though not to atheism) ... but even if acceptable to Catholic morals, it is clearly unwholesome.

The film as such seems to have totally bypassed the question of Pasteur's religion, whether he remained Catholic or "However, despite his belief in God, it has been said that his views were that of a freethinker rather than a Catholic, a spiritual more than a religious man."

This secularises the question of medical, and, more broadly, technological progress ... Pasteur is a great man, (even if he is an apostate who goes to Hell, but that, the film doesn't mention).

... no, films were perhaps somewhat less gaudily immoral, but taken together, they were a mixed bag.

I think some of the films may have been known to Pius XI in Italian version, in which Italian censors would have been more strict than Hays code.

"Nor have the financial investments of the industry suffered, as was gratuitously foretold, for many of those who stayed away from the motion picture theatre because it outraged morality are patronizing it now that they are able to enjoy clean films which are not offensive to good morals or dangerous to Christian virtue."

I think Pius XI was a bit fooled about what was really going on in US film industry.

Financial investments have not been suffering, because bad films have been bestsellers, each year, not all, but some of them.

Who would have fooled Pope Pius XI? Well, perhaps Legion of Decency, overdoing their good work.

From wiki article:

"The efforts to help parishioners avoid films with objectional content backfired when it was found that it helped promote those films in heavily Catholic neighborhoods among Catholics who may have seen the listing as a suggestion."

23:16 I think you do Greydanus somewhat of an unmerited dishonour in considering him a "seventies" and "reformed" Catholic.

23:28 "there was only one religion which was depicted as having priests able to drive out evil spirits"

  • 1) Legion of Decency would probably have banned The Exorcist back in those days. The Lutheran "priest" who baptised me (validly or not, have since been rebaptised sub conditione) considered that film as "a speculation in evil".
  • 2) There is a reason. Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists traditionally do not do exorcism. It is in their religions, unlike Pentecostalism, considered as "superstitious". Since about back in Reformation. And Orthodox are just so less well known. Among millennials, 16 % were Catholics and only 1 % Eastern Orthodox, US.

Also, Pentecostals have "less style," confer the article on TV tropes.

No, this is not a merit of Legion of Decency, it is a merit of US cultural situation in general.

Certainly exorcist priests are not due to Elia Kazan standing down to Catholics.

Now, was Elia Kazan unsuccessful due to the Catholic Church?

"The movie was banned in many countries, such as Sweden, due to what was called "exaggerated sexual content". The film was also condemned by Time magazine, which called it the "dirtiest American-made motion picture that had ever been legally exhibited"."

Sweden is no Catholic country. Was not then, is not now, even if there has been a "sexual revolution" since then making it worse.

[Or making some things worse]

So, you can bet there were many other actors than Spellmen involved in discouraging its viewing.

Were all of the Catholics united? No.

"Other religious figures became involved in the controversy surrounding the film, including Francis J. Spellman, the Catholic Archbishop of New York, who called it "sinful" and forbade Catholics in the archdiocese to see the film and James A. Pike of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, who countered Spellman by pointing out that there was more "sensuality" in the film The Ten Commandments than there was in Baby Doll, and argued that "the church's duty is not to prevent adults from having the experience of this picture, but to give them a wholesome basis for interpretation and serious answers to questions that were asked with seriousness."[11] Others agreed with Pike, including the Catholic Archbishop of Paris and the head of the Catholic film Institute in the U.K., while the Catholic Bishop of Albany, New York also forbade Catholics to see the film, which the American Civil Liberties Union objected to as a violation of the First Amendment.[11]"

In other words, two prominent Catholics were in agreement with Anglican Pike : the film did not merit banning.

So, Catholics alone doing the film in ... no, not really. Catholics along with others, yes.

Agreeing, however, on the need for Church really to do exorcism.

And one more ... Legion of Decency did nothing to stop exploitation of stars from very early on in very horrid circumstances of only the final production was decent.

1939, after Vigilanti Cura, you get Wizard of Oz ... did you know about Judy Garland?

The list : The tragic, real-life story of Judy Garland

The Church should have instead encouraged either total abstinence (it would have agreed with message of Fatima) from cinema, or a parallel and Catholic, decent Hollywood, from which malpractise as the one mentioned was absent.

Against a Muslim accusation against "Paul" for taqqiya and false prophecy

If you see it through, the accusation for false prophecy is not just against Paul, but against Jesus Himself.

Jay Smith's Pfander Films Shocked: Mike Licona Admits Muslims Are Right:
John Smith | Ajoutée le 16 janv. 2017

1:40 Did Paul say he was doing taqqiya?

No. He had more than one identity and he did not object to using each as appropriate.

To a Jew, he knew Jewish legalia. To a Roman he knew Roman justice.

Here is the quote:

I Cor 9: [19] For whereas I was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. [20] And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: [21] To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law. [22] To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.

He said "I became" not "I said I was".

He used his freedom to fit in, he did not lie about restrictions he didn't believe in nor deny the restrictions he did believe in.

Fitting in and lying is not the same thing.

1:43 he'll act like anything ... more like Christian version of anything ... to gain converts ... yes ... that's a deceiver ... no, not unless he lied or acted against his normal conscience.

1:55 Did Paul make a false prophecy in I Thess 4?

No. You are probably referring to:

[14] For this we say unto you in the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who have slept. [15] For the Lord himself shall come down from heaven with commandment, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead who are in Christ, shall rise first. [16] Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord. [17] Wherefore, comfort ye one another with these words.

Since the "we" extends to all of the Church, "we who are alive" means those who are alive in the last days, not that he or his hearers would necessarily be that.

It seems the guy said I Thess 4 verse 17, meaning the one which is in our Catholic version verse 16, no doubt.

"speaks of Jesus coming back"


"in Pauls own lifetime"

No. His "we" extends to all of the Church, not to his own generation only.

He is not necessarily included among the we, as one person, but he is dividing the "we" for those who will be.

3:23 [Matthew 16:][28] Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Here it is Jesus Christ Himself who would be the false prophet, if this were not true.

The beloved disciple did not taste death. Whether he was or was not the son of Zebedee, he was there and he was lying down in his grave and doing a sign of the cross, there was a light, and the grave was full of mannah.

No tasting of death there.

It is also possible ... well, here is the Haydock comment:

Ver. 28. Till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Some expound this, as fulfilled at his transfiguration, which follows in the next chapter. Others understand it of the glory of Christ, and of his Church, after his resurrection and ascension, when he should be owned for Redeemer of the world: and this state of the Christian Church might be called the kingdom of Christ. Wi. — This promise of a transitory view of his glory he makes, to prove that he should one day come in all the glory of his Father, to judge each man according to his works: not according to his mercy, or their faith, but according to their works. Aug. de verb. apos. serm. 35. — Again, asks S. Aug. how could our Saviour reward every one according to his works, if there were no free will? l. ii. c. 4. 5. 8, de act. cum Fœlic. Manich. B.

Wi = bishop Witham.

4:03 "John the son of Zebedee is the only one of the disciples not to have been martyred"

If St Irenaeus didn't confuse two different John, the son of Zebedee with the Gospeller, the beloved disciple.

If he did, both the predictions of Our Lord are accurate.

The sons of Zebedee were both martyred and the beloved Disciple did not taste death. If so.

Note very well, this was a solution which was available in the diocese of Paris since 1968 and on print in bookshops since next year, it has been there all of my life.

See Jean Colson, Le mystère du disciple que Jésus aimait.

4:15 If you read the words of the sons of Zebedee literally and still take the beloved disciple for one of them, one could say being boiled in oil even if miraculously surviving was martyrdom too, since naturally it would have killed the beloved disciple.

4:39 "Christians please look into Islam with an open mind"

The material given here either needs refutation, as I have given, or better, or if there isn't any, it is as deadly for Islam as for Christianity, since it would make Our Lord a false prophet too.

He obviously was not.

Muslims, when you attack Christianity, you serve Jews who take the word of a necromancer about the eternal state of Jesus, whom you call a prophet.

On clip added after contact info (which I used to forward this):

5:33 development of "Nicaea" and "Constantinople" in creeds - successive fatwas, you should be able to understand that successive fatwas deal with successive errors.

5:41 You do not have proof in Apostolic creed only the Father is God.

You do not have proof in Nicene Creed the Father and the Son are both God but the Holy Spirit is not.

You do have proof in Constantinople version of the Creed all three are God.

If the guy admitted the "development" started even in the Gospel of St John, why is he not a Christian?

... against Carrier on Theism and Christianity

Quick Rebuttals to Common Christian Claims
Science For the Win | Ajoutée le 22 nov. 2017

1:09 "in infinite number of points on your fingernail"

Geometry is infinitely divisible into the smaller. There is an infinity of potential points.

A body is sth actually existing. A plane (bent or flat) is a limit of a body. A line is a limit of a plane. A point is a limit of a line.

When you say "on" your fingernail, you have pinpointed we are already talking of the plane where the fingernail meets the air or whatever else, and yes, you can divide that fingernail with an infinity of different lines, even if two possibilities are one nanometre apart, you can still insert two more between them as possibilities and same for the points dividing any of them. That doesn't make your fingernail infinite.

This means, there is not a positive and actual infinity (even in geometry, let alone arithmetic) to be deduced from the infinite divisibility of space. Which, by the way, is contradicted by Quantum theory, if you believe that.

1:13 "you are looking at an actual infinity right now"

No, at a potential one. Points don't exist until they are marked off by sth.

1:24 "if you have an infinite string of pearls"

You don't, noone ever saw one.

There are better arguments for leprechauns than for infinite series of pearls. Some people have claimed to see leprechauns. None claim to have adequately observed the whole of an "infinite string of pearls".

Dee Bunker
So a book with stories of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth and zombies must be true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have you heard of the logical fallacy called "false dichotomy"?

The argument hear had a bearing on general theism, not on certain specific and controversial claims of the Bible. These specifically Christian and controversial claims of the Bible cannot be construed as proving general Theism is even less likely, like you tried to.

Next question is, how unlikely are they, but that would be one to pose logically either separately or even more ideally after settling in favour of general Theistic metaphysics of the world we live in.

3:23 "That's the universe we see"

You are speaking from things like ends of visible universe being on each side 13.8 billion light years away, right?

Because, that is not a direct observation, it is a deduction. One premiss of which is Heliocentrism on the scale of the Solar System, each year it is we who move, so each year we see alpha Centauri, 61 Cygni and some more from slightly different angles.

If it is sun moving, it is actually a problem of determining that alpha Centauri is 4 light years away.

If instead sphere of fix stars exists, each star is moved in time with the sun but not necessarily in pace with him, by its angel, the movements show other kinds of life than our biological one and the universe perhaps only one light day away on each end centres in daily motion around Earth showing a design for Earth, the only inert body in the middle of all Heavens, actually carrying biological life.

Some maths:

New blog on the kid : Stellar Radiuses (If Sphere of Fix Stars is One Light Day Up)

Dee Bunker
So a book with stories of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth and zombies must be true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
See other subthread on which you made same false dichotomy.

Dee Bunker
+Hans-Georg Lundahl, The title of this video is "Quick Rebuttals to Common Christian Claims". So your claim that "The argument hear had a bearing on general theism, not on certain specific and controversial claims of the Bible"--is incorrect. The specific and controversial claims of the Bible are the foundation of Christianity. Regardless of how many points can be on your fingernail, you have ZERO evidence for the virgin birth, Jesus being God or the son of God, Jesus healing the blind using magic saliva, killing 2,000 pigs by hurling demons into them, killing a fig tree with magic, or rising bodily into outer space. These absurd claims are made in a book of ancient fairy tales that also has stories about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, the sun standing still in the sky for a full day, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, giant, angels mating with humans, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, etc. Your 'straw man' representations of Dr. Carrier's points can't overcome the obvious BS claims in your fake holy book.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"So your claim that "The argument hear had a bearing on general theism, not on certain specific and controversial claims of the Bible"--is incorrect."

No, the first few arguments actually are about general theism. Things a Platonist, Jew or Muslim would agree with Christians on.

While Christianity as a whole religion is indeed based on the Catholic Church and its Bible (or Orthodox Church and its Bible, certainly not Lutheran Church and its Bible), we Christians are occasionally also philosophers. One statement in the Bible is that general Theism is accessible to non-Christians through philosophy.

Romans 1: [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: [19] Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.

St Paul is here adressing general Theism as accessible and even accessed by Pagans before he came to preach.

Now, one point about general Theism is, Oceanic current is moved West by winds (or sth) which are moved West by Heavens above (including Moon, Sun, Stars) and these cannot be moved by more and more movers further and further out. Infinite regress about movers is excluded.

Here we were arguing on Carrier arguing against this.

I take talking snakes and zombies over Baron Munchhausen in credibility any day. You know he claimed he and his horse were down in a bog and he pulled himself up by the poly tail men wore back then and the horse with him?

That is about the level of Carrier's cosmology. Munchhausen.

This is a thing which general Theism suffices to prove - even before Christianity takes over with preaching the rest of the Gospel.

"Regardless of how many points can be on your fingernail"

Only as many each time as are actually delimited by some fact.

"you have ZERO evidence for the virgin birth, Jesus being God or the son of God, Jesus healing the blind using magic saliva, killing 2,000 pigs by hurling demons into them, killing a fig tree with magic, or rising bodily into outer space."

Except it is precisely evidence we believe these things on.

Carrier has zero evidence (literally, I'll come back to his "ex nihilo onus merdae fit" another day or time) for a Munchhausen universe. We have some, contested, but still some, evidence for the things you enumerated.

Not sure each demon of the legion had a pig of its own, they had shared one man at Gadara all of them, so if there were no legion numbered pig herds around, they would probably have shared pigs as well.

"These absurd claims are made in a book of ancient fairy tales"

Afanasiev? No. Grimm brothers? No. Perrault? No. Arabian Nights? No.
Red fairy book? No. Blue fairy book? No. ...

"that also has stories about a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, the sun standing still in the sky for a full day, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, giant, angels mating with humans, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, etc."

Oh, you meant the Bible? It was not published ever as a fairy tale collection.

Btw, on one item you risk misrepresenting it, since Jonah was alive before and after he was swallowed by the whale, but not necessarily during the time he was in it - he can have been resurrected.

Dee Bunker
Calling something a fallacy doesn't make it a fallacy. You have presented no evidence for the fairy tale claims in your absurd holy book. "At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries...Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds." Dr. Bart Ehrman, [not linking]

Dee Bunker
+Hans-Georg Lundahl, Beneath your intellectual arguments for some vague deity is your defense of a book of absurd fairy tells that tells fanatics to MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS because some authority figure tells them that a deity said so: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). Your fake holy book tells gullible fanatics that they can DRINK DEADLY POISON without harm: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18). These are lies that result in the deaths of innocent people: "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service" And again, you have ZERO evidence for tales of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth, or a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A godless universe is based on fallacies, whether atheists accept that or not.

Bart Ehrman has no evidence for his claim.

His reason is, these eleven books do contain material to settle theological feuds, but that doesn't make them forgeries if original apostles or men trusted by them did write to settle the feuds.

So, as long as he cannot prove the authorships are fake, he has no argument from this reason that the books are forgeries.

You claim to be too sophisticated for walking dead, and now you fall for Bart after previously allowing Carrier to fall for Munchhausen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
added too
"Beneath your intellectual arguments for some vague deity is your defense of a book"

Sounds like Freudian analysis, I don't do that kind of superstition.

"of absurd fairy tells that tells fanatics to MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS because some authority figure tells them that a deity said so: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3)."

The book doesn't tell anyone to do so, since the situation in which Saul was told to do so with Amalekites is past.

"your fake holy book tells gullible fanatics that they can DRINK DEADLY POISON without harm: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18)."

Actually St Benedict of Nursia verified the promise, he started his drinking of a poisoned cup by a sign of the cross and it burst. Note, the Greek form for "drink" is not aoristic but presentive tense of some sort, meaning "start to drink" also counts.

"These are lies that result in the deaths of innocent people: "A preacher and another leader...died early yesterday after drinking strychnine at a service""

I don't call him innocent, Christ did not say it would happen with poisons knowingly and voluntarily taken for showing off.

"And again, you have ZERO evidence for tales of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth, or a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father."

Except tradition, in this case of the Catholic Church and involving the Bible. Tradition is THE trump argument in history.

Dee Bunker
Hans-Georg Lundahl, You said, "A godless universe is based on fallacies". You mean fallacies like witches being responsible for illness, crop failures and bad weather, and that we should murder them like the bible says? "Do not allow a sorceress to live" (Ex. 22:18). "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:27). It's not like promoting a fake book of ancient mythology as the truth hurts anyone, right? "More than 2,000 people accussed of being witches have been killed in India over the past 15 years in poor, remote areas of the northeast. The victims, nearly all of them women, have been swept up in modern-day witch hunts, often accused by a neighbor or family member who might blame devious sorcery for a bad harvest or an unexplained illness."

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You mean fallacies like witches being responsible for illness, crop failures and bad weather, and that we should murder them like the bible says?"

Have you heard of biological warfare?

Demons can be involves in such things too. A man can carry bacteria and a demon can carry bacteria.

In other words, witches existing and communicating with demons is not a fallacy.

However, the Bible does not say we should hunt out witches operating secretly with no spontaneous admissions of guilt. One witch is mentioned, living in Endor and specialising in necromancy.

If you do specialise in necromancy, you do deserve death. The witch in Endor was operating openly.

However, the Bible does also not say that everyone and everywhere deserving death needs to be killed.

Exodus 18:22 is from a civil code valid from entry of Holy Land to the time of Christ.

In the New Covenant, other civil codes, notably based on Christianised Rome, are possible and even preferrable.

In one of the versions, witches are only killed if their witchcraft actually kills someone.

In Leviticus 20:27 we are explicitly seeing a mention of stoning. While every sin in OT which was punishable by death (note, some have changed appearances or gravity because of other circumstance, like Sunday has replaced the Sabbath and in OT the Sabbath keeping was also a prophecy about Christ in the grave, so breaking the Sabbath would have been a graver sin than breaking the Sunday now), while every such sin deserves death if still as grave, it doesn't mean death penalty need be applied in New Covenant too. This is the time of grace, which you are trying to end.

Stoning is a sure sign we are talking of OT civil law.

"It's not like promoting a fake book of ancient mythology as the truth hurts anyone, right?"

I am not sure of your grammar but somewhat of your meaning.

The Bible is not a fake book of ancient mythology and it is not requiring witches to be killed in Christian countries.

""More than 2,000 people accussed of being witches have been killed in India over the past 15 years in poor, remote areas of the northeast. The victims, nearly all of them women, have been swept up in modern-day witch hunts, often accused by a neighbor or family member who might blame devious sorcery for a bad harvest or an unexplained illness.""

I am not sure whether there are witches in India or not behind the bad harvest. Or, in a sense, there are, each Hindoo priest and each Muslim Mollah in a sense is, and God is punishing Assam for not being Christian or all India for two child policy.

The worst witch in India is perhaps Indhira Gandhi who made the two child policy continue after Nehru. And her successors to this day.

No, I actually meant fallacies like those used for accepting a Munchhausen universe.

Dee Bunker
+Hans-Georg Lundahl, Or did you mean "a Munchhausen universe" such as one inhabited by a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth, resurrections from the dead, a man living inside a fish for 3 days, the sun standing still in the sky for a full day, a woman turned into a pillar of salt, and other fairy tale claims in your fake book of ancient mythology? Or did you mean a universe where illness is caused by demon possession, the world is flat and rests on pillars, and invisible people beings like angels and gods exist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
None of what you present qualifies as Munchhausen. Your own view does.

"Or did you mean "a Munchhausen universe" such as one inhabited by a talking snake, talking donkey,"

By Munchhausen I mean a total lack of causal proportion to observed effect, like Munchhausen pulling himself with his horse up from a swamp by pulling his pony tail.

Two animals that talk are nothing like this if there are invisible people doing the talking for them, a fallen angel in the case of the snake and a good angel in the case of the donkey.

"900-year-old men,"

Formerly, before our lifespans were shortened, yes.

"a virgin birth, resurrections from the dead,"

With God nothing is impossible.

"a man living inside a fish for 3 days,"

You would not classify the whale as a fish, even if Biblical writers and common speech does, also, I already told you that we don't know if the Ghepetto scenario is the correct understanding. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jona was alive during the three days, it could be another case of death and resurrection.

"the sun standing still in the sky for a full day,"

God usually turns the whole heavens (beneath the Empyrean one, from the sphere of fix stars down) around Earth, East to West.

An angel usually takes the Sun back along the ecliptic plane making a full circle from West to East in a year, and another one takes the Moon back along ecliptic plane in a Month.

So, concrete movement of Sun and Moon across the sky depends on three freewilled agents moving big things about. If all three stop, the result is, the Sun and Moon stop moving across the sky.

"a woman turned into a pillar of salt,"

Yes. Not sure if it means her body was transsubstantiated into salt or rather that it was totally covered with salt, but either one it was.

"and other fairy tale claims in your fake book of ancient mythology?"

You "live in a Munchhausen universe" if you think there will be a time when Afanasieff or Grimm brothers will be mistaken for history.

"Or did you mean a universe where illness is caused by demon possession,"

Demonic possession does not equal the addition of bacterial illness, and bacteria can be brought by demonic means (without possession) as well as by human ones.

Demonic possession does equal a demon taking control of someone's limbs or mouth, or forcing the person to live through the demon's own anguish of Hell fire.

"the world is flat"

Sayz zo where, exactly?

"and rests on pillars,"

Continental plates do have a kind of pillars going down into the magma, as far as I have heard.

"and invisible people beings like angels and gods exist?"

Invisible people like God, like angels and like your own soul (except it is not a separate person from your body, however it enables you to things your body without a soul could not - like think).

Either the world is understandable as we see it if we admit that "invisible people" exist, and we believe more than we see, or the world pretends to be understandable with some things we see (like everyday evidence of Geocentrism) taken as illusions, and we believe less than we see. But, this latter view will involve Munchhausen "causalities".

Precisely as with the Bible, Catholics believe more than is in it in so many words, and Protestants less than is in it.

Dee Bunker
Hans, You defended the bible's claim of 900-year-old men by saying, ""900-year-old men, Formerly, before our lifespans were shortened, yes." And your evidence for this is...what? Nothing. All you have are fairy tale CLAIMS from a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, etc. Claims aren't evidence. I can claim that you're a child molester, but does that make it true? While you ponder this, don't go drinking any deadly poison just because the forged ending of Mark claims that Jesus said so: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18).

Hans, You said, "None of what you present qualifies as Munchhausen." According to whom? You? "The fictional Baron's exploits, narrated in the first person, focus on his impossible achievements as a sportsman, soldier, and traveller, for instance riding on a cannonball, fighting a forty-foot crocodile, and travelling to the Moon. Intentionally comedic, the stories play on the absurdity and inconsistency of Munchausen's claims" The absurd claims of your fake holy book are certainly in the same genre. And you still have provided no evidence for stories of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth or zombies. Nor have you rationalized why it's okay to murder children and infants based on some man's claim that God said so. Nor have your explained away the bible's orders to murder gays, witches, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, or people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath. If your fake holy book just contained absurd stories, it would be laughable but harmless. But your fake holy book causes real harm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is sad that, having as empty a life as you have outside your very negative relation with Christianity, as I feel somewhat inclined to conclude, but then I am biassed against you, you have not taken the chance to actually read Baron Munchhausen and see what I am referring to.

I was, once again, referring to an episode which was not there in the enumeration by wiki that you quoted, one which would involve "circular causality".

Munchhausen rides down into a bog. He doesn't want his horse to drown in mud and doesn't want to drown in mud himself. He tighten's his knees around his horse, puts his hand behind his neck, pulls the ponytail upward and in doing so succeeds in pulling up both himself and his horse from the bog.

The part about pulling his horse up with him, like the riding on the cannon ball and switching to another cannnon ball in mid air just involves superpowers. That is not the main problem. The main problem is, the reason why you could pull someone up from a bog by his ponytail is, you are not yourself knees deep in the bog. So, the method chosen has no bearing on the situation.

Your moralising crap of Bible hatred can wait to another time, it is really not the least appropriate under a discussion of the general claim "there is a God" such as my initial comment. I have atheists making that kind of moralising in somewhat more coherent and detailed ways than you and prefer to answer them. Dillahunty is even backing down from part of it. God for him (or at least he was).

"And your evidence for this is...what? Nothing. All you have are fairy tale CLAIMS from a book with a talking snake, talking donkey, etc. Claims aren't evidence."

Claims are evidence of either truth or fraud or mistake.

Unlike a fairy tale, a claim doesn't come from impulses outside these three. I know the truth and state it, I don't know the truth and state my erroneous belief, or I know the truth and choose to state sth else for some reason.

Now, if you think the claim of a man being 900 years old is not the truth, then it is incumbent on you to show how it could plausibly be either a mistake or a lie.

Saing the claim is in a book you choose to classify as "fairy tales" is not a solution, that is you either being mistaken about categories of texts (fairy tales don't come with truth claims) or deliberately obfuscating the issue.

"I can claim that you're a child molester, but does that make it true?"

No, I think you might want to try that in court if you dared to show your real name if you had a case, but as long as you don't, your claims - if you did any behind my back - are not credible.

As for this, it does not count as a claim, since you took it as a hypothesis for arguments' sake.

"While you ponder this,"

What is there to ponder?

"don't go drinking any deadly poison just because the forged ending of Mark claims that Jesus said so: "And these signs will accompany those who believe...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all" (Mark 16:17-18)."

As already stated, He never said He would do it for anyone trying it just to show off. The ending is not forged, but unlike "fairy tale" forgery is a definite alternative to truth, so, you might try to argue who would forge that and for what reasons and who would have been able to oppose the forgery by exact knowledge and didn't and for what reasons.

Dee Bunker
+Hans, Oh, so you cannot provide evidence for your fairy-tale claims, so you have to stoop to personal attacks, that I must have an "empty life". LOL! Yes, that's why countries with high numbers of atheists and low levels of religiosity are so miserable:
See also

Clearly the reverse is true. Also, the most violent cities in the world are those with majority Christian populations:

Clearly, Christianity doesn't contribute to human happiness, and is a source of violence. Your fake holy book makes the world worse.

+Hans, Unable to defend your absurd fairy tale claims of the bible, you move on to "Your moralising crap of Bible hatred"...Yes, I hate books that tell people to MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31: 17-18)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
"so you have to stoop to personal attacks, that I must have an "empty life"."

I think I said sth about "I guess" and "I am biassed against you" which is a far cry from me saying you "must" have one.

//,, World_Happiness_Report //

Relying on those fairy tales for grown ups (who have lost childlikeness but not childishness) actually argues even more you have an empty life outside your hateful relation to Christianity.

"Clearly the reverse is true. Also, the most violent cities in the world are those with majority Christian populations:"

How many of these are dechristianised? Who are the modern élites? Are you aware that Mexico, while not eradicating a personal attachment to Catholicism has had secularised régimes since 1917?

Are you aware Venezuela has been so un-Catholic as to have Catholics sink to 73 % of the population?

In El Salvador it is only 50 % Catholics and in Brazil 61 %.

Mexico is the most Catholic of the countries, but Mexico City is probably the least Catholic big city.

"Clearly, Christianity doesn't contribute to human happiness, and is a source of violence. Your fake holy book makes the world worse."

OK, you think you are entitled to talk, when Karl Marx' and Engels' collected woorks have been making the world a worse place since 1917, if not before.

"Yes, I hate books that tell people to MURDER CHILDREN AND INFANTS: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3) "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31: 17-18)"

Who right now is being told he is to murder children and infants?

Christians? No. We are usually able to read, if we have read these things, and when being able to read we know these orders were given in another time, before Christ told His disciples to make disciples of all nations (no word about excepting some nations and killing them off instead).

So, who? Clearly people who are telling girls they have a right to abort, but no right to be married mothers before 18.

So, all my "problems" about credibility of Bible in the intellectual sphere are so vanished you take to moralising and to moralising with lies?

Dee Bunker
+Hans, The bible says that fanatics should murder children and infants if some guy claims that God wants them to: "This is what the Lord Almighty says...Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:2-3). I mean, if a book says so that has stories of a talking snake, talking donkey, 900-year-old men, a virgin birth and zombies--it must be true, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Bible doesn't say anyone should murder.

The Bible does say ethnic cleansing is a no no for any nation, see Matthew 28.

3:54 I am going through AronRa's defense of Evolution.

While Kent Hovind butchered some of the points he should have made, my comments on that event make a few other ones, and which two atheists have had some trouble defending:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : XII comments and some debates on Kent Hovind / AronRa, first half hour

Since AronRa on it mentions his "tree of life" series, which I was unaware of, I have started that one, as usually commenting:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Beginning AronRa's Series, Third Video ending with a Digression

4:36 "the earlier life was a much simpler molecule"

The viability of a much simpler molecule as life in any environment and especially a Miller Urey one has been contested.

So far not very effectively defended, unless you count the blustering of rhetoric.

(To which I would assign "so we don't have a trouble explaining that" and similar words of high sound and little factual content).

4:57 You sure got that one right.

If God is God, he needs no Teilhard de Chardin scenario to create.

5:21 "this slow evolution over time is exactly what atheism predicts"

Er, no ... unless you ditch the "one answer on one question" definition and agree you are into Western Atheism which by now is Evolutionist.

Democritus and Lucrece, with Epicure between, said that the universe was basically eternal and that different atom structures accounted for different types of bodies, including very fine and small atoms for sentient ones, this having always been the same and therefore these bodies having always been the same.

Man evolving up and devolving down culturally and loss and regain of human speech being even one of the possible conditions, due to which man's historic attention span is limited to after the last great cataclysm ...

That kind of history vs historiography, eternal vs very short, would predict random discoveries of random quite forgotten civilisations with no cultural connection to our own and no limit back in time.

Instead, Göbekli Tepe has cultural connections to both Australia and Easter Island, Mohenjo Daro has cultural connections to later cultures in India, notably that idol which seems to sit in a yoga position. Olmeks have cultural connections to Tolteks and these to Aztaks and Maya.

Also, as I noted under AronRa's and Kent's video (Non sequitur show), pine trees and elephants being both eucaryotes points to a common origin, whether a common designer or a common ancestor. This is inconsistent with the eternal roughly speaking fixism of species Democritism would predict, not to mention that Lucrece as a Geocentric assigns the spheres of sun, moon and other planets as well as sphere of fix stars to diverse levels of density of matter, but the speed of turbulence to the same factors, and therefore would make it impossible for men to walk on the moon.

5:21 bis "but it is not what the God hypothesis predicts"

And neither is it what we in brute raw data find, you have to make quite a lot of analyses which could have gone systematically wrong on more than one level before you get to that slow evolution, procaryotes for a billion years, one celled eucaryotes for another two billion years and so on.

One of the key ingredients in this analysis is the dates ...

5:33 "sperm is not conscious, neither is the egg"

So, the valid options if consciousness only comes from consciousness are:

  • you are wrong on that particular, we've just forgotten how we felt as sperm and as egg
  • souls unite to the united fertilised egg on conception or later up to birth and so there are a few - by now it would be a few billion, right? - eternal souls which return and return to rebirth after rebirth, we've just forgotten how we felt in previous lives
  • after each fertilised egg forming from an egg and a sperm, for each human instance, God creates a soul immediately.

6:03 "consciousness comes from brain ... take a part of the brain out and you have lost part of your consciousness"

There can be functions of the brain in connecting consciousness to body other than just that of being an origin, so, you have not proven consciusness originates in the brain.

6:26 "that's producing consciousness"

Not really proven, no. That it helps in this life to regulate consciousness, yes.

But that it produces it, no.

The things that can be cut out from the brain and correspondingly lost for consciousness are things to be conscious about or types of attention. It is not consciousness itself, the fact that it for instance is red I sea, not just a point of the spectrum I analyse as a camera. Sure, you can cut out of someone's brain that red looks red, but that means the brain has lost capacity to process those parts of the spectrum as a colour - the man who goes through such a loss (let's hope not in human experimentation, but because there was a brain tumour) will know what he has lost.

He may be or not be capable of imagining red from memories of red, according to how the part affects it, but he will know that red is something he used to be able to differentiate and relate to. Blood and roses used to have a colour.

6:50 "if you had a soul, you wouldn't need the brain"

Angels presumably do not need any kind of brains and God certainly doesn't need to have a brain to have consciousness.

Men don't just have consciousness, but consciousness interacting with a material body - an angel could directly see whatever it chose to set its attention on, by reason, but man gets his sight by photons or electromagnetic waves in the aether or whatever light is, and therefore has consciousness interacting passively with the body to get the overview.

An angel also can move whatever material object it choses to move (except if a higher ranking angel or God says "no"). No muscles, no never system, no brain needed.

That is simply the power an angel normally has.

However, man moves according to deciding to move his own body, whether a finger or a leg or whatever, and overrides gravity and friction only so much as material type energy, accessible to the body through nutrition, allows. And allows by supplying forces of the material type in opposite directions.

This means human consciousness interacts actively with the body to have an impact.

Whether you do or do not agree on my angelology is not the point. The point is, man being both physical and conscious may have a need for a special and energyconsuming organ to keep both parts together. So, the brain has a function also on the Theistic view. Carrier stands refuted, convicted of a non sequitur.

7:25 On the atheistic view, only an extremely complex organ of material type could produce something "as complex" as consciousness.

Carrier, in our experience, consciousness as such is not complex.

Take maths. A computer can process a calculation in seconds which for me would take hours or even days or even then not get finished - because the calculation is complex.

But it is I and not the computer who can tell that two plus two equal four, not just because I am somehow hardwired to count that way, but also because of a non-mathematical syllogism on definitions.

"two more than two is one more than one more than two"
"anything more than one more than two is the same more than three" (probatio minoris : three is by definition one more than two)
"so two more than two is one more than three"
"one more than three is four" (probatio minoris = definition, not just builds on it)
"so, two more than two is four"

7:52 while it is an objective fact about traffic systems that they won't work if too many people at too high speeds arrive on any side they want, you still are presuming as an objective moral value that a traffic system working is preferrable to a traffic system not working.

I would certainly not have it as a basic moral value, there are situations in which causing a traffic jam or preventing traffic from starting is preferrable, but the fact that a traffic system of the kind where cars is allowed only works with sided streets still leaves which side cars run a non-basic value, a construct only value.

8:00 No, traffic systems neither evolved nor emerged.

Traffic systems were decided. After cars had caused the first grave accident, simply banning cars would have been an option.

Allowing cars to produce more accidents unchecked, by no speed limits and no sided driving would have been possible, but it would have been an immoral option.

8:22 You may or you may not want to live in the murder capital.

But you cannot disagree that some do want to live in it, because they like murdering and get a kick of adrenaline out of the risk of being murdered.

So, the fact remains that morality is an objective standard by which these people stand condemned, not just a subjective standard of the guys who dislike the hazard and the killing scenes.

And on your view, living in Marseille of all cities in France or Mexico City of all cities in the world, and preferring less murder, wouldn't that be a case of being ill adapted?

I think, in order to show it is not, you would need an appeal to objective morals - not just decisions (the murderers who seem to run certain cities also decide things) and still less to what emerges or evolves (that is not true even about the sided and speed limited driving).

8:44 The trouble with your reasoning about everyone contributing to the society he wants is, some people a bit less than a century ago regarded Jews and Gipsies as litter.

They acted on an impulse to have a Jew free and Gipsy free society. I guess you know which guys I refer to.

I have been unjustly compared to them because I am an Austrofascist. Not same thing, it means I don't want Jews to be allowed to run business in ways that will hurt their Christian neighbours economically and socially, but apart from that, they remain owners of their business, it is not boycotted unless doing a scam and they are not put in camps. Austrofascists also put some guys in prison because they did not agree that dislike of Jews should be limited in expression ... some of them emigrated across a North border of Austria and some of these were among the culprits in Nuremberg.

So, supposing your foundation of morality is "we have to contribute to the society we want to live in" that is not a recipe for a valid objective morality - unless you consider National Socialism as one, which I do not.

It is a hotbed for the kind of persecutions and conflicts we have seen during the century after Darwin and some more. Some states in Canada had progressive morality on similar lines involving "I want to see less Esquimaux, less Injuns, less Québecquois" and they agreed to contribute to that society. It lasted to 1970's. The decade when "even" progressives had to face they had been acting like Nazis in some places.

No suprise to me, since Nazis were progressives.

9:03 Compassion as a source of pleasure is not unknown to Nazis.

It is just that they had compassion for victims of Commies and Capitalists and since they saw Jews involved on both thought they could have the pleasure of compassion without giving Jews the advantage of getting compassion.

Arguably, some of them led fairly pleasant lives. Some also had compassion to Jews, the Goerings seem to have had compassion with every Jew they personally knew ... and that means, they helped some to escape.

So, the pleasures of compassion are not a valid foundation of objective morality, unless you are willing to count National Socialism as one.

9:08 "this is the nature of social animals"

You know that Horst Wessel lied was sung by people with a high degree of indulgence in their nature as "social animals" and that they felt a high degree of compassion to Horst Wessel, him having composed it?

By the way, it seems his father and maternal family were Lutheran pastors, according to wiki.

It also seems, he deserved some compassion for being murdered by probable instigation of a landlady who couldn't get him out but wanted to. This murder occurred in 1930, before there was any National Socialist tyranny in the government.

And it seems the landlady was also acting on impulse as a social animal since she was involved in a rival faction of Socialism, being the widow of and talking to members of RFB, Roter Frontkämpferbund translating to "Alliance of Red Front-Fighters".

Neither Horst Wessel nor his killer Albrecht Höhler were living empty lives, they were both very engaged in indulging their nature as social animals, with compassion for some and corresponding loathing for others (general compassion for everyone without making any difference is hardly an option, especially not if you want to make a difference for a better society). And these men, acting on what you describe as what morality is all about, actually made Germany for some time a murder capital of Europe, along with neighbours to the East.

9:36 "well yeah, that's because most of those scholars concur that these were visions and hallucinations"

Empty Grave a hallucination by women who were on very womanly business of catching up with "semi-embalming" (or whatever you like to call the bringing of myrrh)?

The meeting at Lake Genesareth a hallucination by fishermen who were on their very manly business of fishing?

And what about the fact that there is no valid explanation for collective hallucinations?

You bring up St Paul, but his vision was not the start of Christianity. His vision was after he had already persecuted Christians. And his vision was validated by Christians who were already such.

9:38 "and Paul himself is our only eyewitness source"

If you went on like that about Moonlanding, you'd be stamped as a kook.

If you said how many and under what circumstances there are eyewitnesses for people actually dying in gas chambers, in France you would be sued for holocaust denial.

The tradition of Christianity is better attested than either of these contemporary facts.

9:44 False equivalence.

The vision given to St Paul was after Ascension, and it made him a mystic ... very different from the experience of getting a forty day long (or max forty day long) crash course on OT exegesis by the man who had been their professor for 3 and a half years.

So, no the experience on Damascus is not an equivalent with the first reports of Christ resurrecting, neither on account of this, nor on account of the appearances of Risen Jesus prior to Ascension being to collectives, not to solitary men seeing what others did not see.

9:53 You are aware that the latter part of Acts involves its author being the witness to later carreer of St Paul?

You are aware that if St Paul had just hallucinated, it is not the least likely he could have raised from the dead the boy who fell asleep while he was preaching and fell from the window?

You are also aware that same Luke who wrote latter part of Acts as an eyewitness interviewed eyewitnesses to the resurrection when writing his Gospel?

It seems, you take one particular item from the Christian documentation as fully certain when it suits your agenda of stamping it as hallucination, and then you take the rest, equally well (or on your view ill) documented whatever in it would have corrected your conclusion and you stamp it as later mythologising.

Either you accept the documentation or you don't.

If you don't, you don't just pick and choose from the offered documentation, you explain how people came to make a movement whose real beginnings need to be reconstructed and whose documentation about the beginnings is self delusional, not just on some one point, like Freemasons in 1717 pretending to have existed since Nimrod and Solomon and Hiram Abiff and involving Jacques Molay (the latter not necessarily self delusional, Templars could have wrought their kind of non-dogmatic spirituality before them), but on point after point not just inventing what was not there but ignoring what on your view had to be there.

10:03 "We have lots of Pagan eyewitness accounts who also saw gods, had visions."

If Mary had trusted Gabriel without an ensuing pregnancy and without meeting Elisabeth, and if Paul had trusted the vision without being healed from blindness by Ananias and if those two visions had been all Christianity were about, we would have a fair equivalence to the Pagan visions.

Even Mohammed and Joseph Smith go well beyond that and the eyewitness accounts for Christianity involves things that by their nature cannot be hallucinations, since they are very material miracles.

Mohammed never healed a leper. Nor do Muslims claim he did.

Joseph Smith never showed golden plates in Nephitic to linguistic scholars, nor do Mormons claim he showed them even to anyone.

Christians claim there are eyewitness accounts of Jesus actually spitting on the ground, making mud, putting it on the eyes of a blind man and he saw.

Your cavalier pretense that such "pretended" eyewitness accounts came far later doesn't make such accounts equivalents of Mohammed, Joseph Smith or someone seeing a snake shaped god talking.

Also, I don't think you can show any Pagan claiming to have witnessed a linguistic miracle of someone speaking in several languages at once.

Even Joseph Smith didn't show the golden plates in Nephitic to people.

"We should see few people like Paul"

His story implies there were many Christians before him.

THAT story implies many of them converted without needing a special vision.