Monday, July 29, 2013

... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.

... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

first video comented on
Discovering Religion : Episode 05 Semantics of Science
why was episode six blocked in some countries? because it talks about evolution? ahh man, what in the world have we become, knowledge should NEVER be banned or limited in any measure
Hans-Georg Lundahl
More probably because of strictest possible copyright laws application

UK, Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man (that's four of them) are very much more evolutionist than US
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hey, here is one at once: Music Theory!

You are dealing with a composer - not publically played yet - with lots of studies in music theory.

So, is Riemann's theory a system of certain facts? What about Rameau's theory? Or Schenker's? Each of them would analyse C F6 G7 C differently, and Schenker even differently on different occasions and depending on melody in bass and descant.

All three can't be right about C F6 G7 C even though dealing with the same facts:

C F6 G7 C

There are similarily at least three theories of gravity on the market:

Aristotle (the pen drops to the ground because it is made of earth more than air and earth is heavy, tending naturally to centre of universe)

Newton (the pen drops to the surface of earth because the mass of earth attracts the mass of the pen and vice versa, only earth acts much more since having a much greater mass)

Einstein (gravity - a kind of geodesic in space created by great mass in proportion to greatness)

Not to mention the theory of gravitons or the theory of occasionalism (17th C. Theological Theory, somewhat close to Buddhist thinking)
I am not sure what you mean by "on the market". Aristotle's theory is not used by even a minority of people. Newton and Einstein's theory of gravity are combined in the current scientific theory of gravity as they are complimentary, not competitive.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
By "on the market" I mean on the over all market, not just contemporary expertise.

Does that clarify?
Tyson Kehoe
and if it just started as Adam and eve that would make us all Insest.i dunno about you but that just dont sit with me .
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There would have been sibling marriage the generation after them.

In that generation it would not have been incest, since siblings were the furthest off relatives (excepting nieces and nephews).
So who were the mothers of generation 3? Adam & Eve had Cain & Abel. Who did Cain & Abel have kids with? Eve? Puppy dogs?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Genesis 5: [3] And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. [4] And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters.

Other reading (LXX) he was 230 when begetting Seth and lived 700 years thereafter. One way or the other, Cain and Abel were not the only children of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Seth married sisters or nieces. Whether Abel was married or not? Dont know.
No wonder I could never read the bloody thing! So awkward.

Incest - a game the whole family can play.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, it was not incest, since for the first of Adam's and Eve's children to marry, a sibling was the remotest relative there was.
If incest is sex between close relatives, and most would agree that brother/sister is very close, then that is incest, pure and simple. As they say in those horrid yank law shows, it is an open and shut case. Incest it is then. By implication the Abrahamic god chap knew that brother & sister would have to go through the mating ritual if the creation was to continue. Either that or the story is made up. No Excises for incest.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
It would have been incest probably if further off relatives had been available.

Morally and medically it was not incest, since God forbade brother and sister from marrying later and since the genetic diseases that are furthered by incestuous relations had not yet evolved.

Bleeder's disease (aka haemophilia), colour blindness, all those things are really results of human evolution. After the Flood, thank you.
You are talking about sin, not the subject here, unless you feel some need to make it seem ok. I have no comment about sin or god's disfavour. Brother being fucked by sister IS incest. God dies NOT define what incest is, in your world the god thing gefines sin, but not words.

If was was a calithumpian suicice bomber would it be ok for me to blow up up other calithunmpians because there are no infidels nearby?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The problem with incest is that it is a sin. And your disgust with it is a reflection of God's disfavour.

Meaning that such a disgust would not have existed between brother and sister back then, nor be relevant for it when looking backwards to it.

The Church has since also added first and second cousin marriages to the list of incestuous relations that are no marriages.

I generally appreciate that good and evil do not change because of changed circumstances, but when it comes to anything involving "close relatives" a circumstance which is really relevant is how far off relatives are available.

In the generation after Adam and Eve fourth degree cousins were not available, not even first degree cousins were.

So, even if "it" would be incest now, "it" was not incest then. However relations between parent and child were on the contrary already incestuous and no one even came to think of that evil.
I have nowhere expressed disgust at incest. Non-human animals refrain from incest too, it is bad practice genetically speaking. People find it disgusting for the very same reason non-humans do. Nothing to do with YOUR god whatsoever. It is trait brought about by evolution. We are talking about the definition of incest here, not sin, how many times do I have to tell you? I do not recognise the concept of sin as being at all relevant to me or any thinking person.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you do not consider sin a relevant concept, how come your parallel for proving sibling marriages incestuous even in the generation immediately after Adam and Eve is precisely another sin?
I did not use sin to prove anything at all. I was talking about the definition of incest and how the Abrahamic creation myths imply it must have happened. Sin is relevant only if one is a believer in one particular pantheon or another. I am talking about the definition of incest, you are the one relating it to being sinful. If sin is a transgression against one's god(s), then I am unable to sin.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
suicide bombing is a sin and that was the example you used as a parallel

not my fault you are unable to keep track of what you said previously

you could of course mean incest and suicide bombing remain wrong regardless of what any god thinks of them, but an act being wrong implies it is sinful

there are two ways out: mine implies that sin was sin only insofar as God calls it so, and that he made a dispensation for sibling marriage in that generation (as for Samson in your parallel) your way out would seem to be God OUGHT to have created more than one primal human couple and was sinful himself for not doing so, since it was going to force one generation to sibling marriage.

And in that case there OUGHT to have been more than one Adam and it is a mystery why all men are cursed for the sin of only one of them, the Adam we know.

Or you might deny original sin, and thereby say misery is only natural - I think that is the worst option. Leaves no hope.
You seem to really not get it . I thought it was an act, but now I think not. In that cae I cannot help. We might as well call this discussion closed. No matter how many times it is said, it will not hit the mark.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have similar fears about you. Somewhat at least, and for now.

Did not stop me from arguing.
other video commented on:
Discovering Religion Ep 06 Theory of Evolution
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Can you show:

- that the wild form of banana is the original form?

Dingos are not the original dogs.

- that if so the mutations on which banana cultivation bases its bettered banana would have come into existence without God designing them?

If they come into existence they are of course chosen, but that is exactly the rub. Precisely as with sweet apples that get grafted a lot more than sour ones - would they have existed without God making that mutation? If left to reproduce naturally - sour.

[Unclear due to 500 signs limit: if original apple was sour, and if God's grace had not given us a mutation of sweeter apples - would we have them or just sour ones?]

Friday, July 26, 2013

... on Nephelim and Jericho's Destruction

video commented on:
(first half of) Doug Hamp : Quest 4 Truth with Rob Skiba and Douglas Hamp May 19 2013
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I) Only up to 5:15 this one.

Father versus Son never actually was my idea about the Old and New Testaments. It comes through a bit like Enlil versus Enki, if you see what I mean.

Then, having nephelim tainted genome is not in itself a death warrant in God's eyes. Jericho may have had no or very little Nephelim blood, still it was destroyed. I think Carthage in Hannibal's and his successors' time was human as far as genome goes.

But Tanit cult was clearly giant behaviour. That's a death warrant

Conversely again, a certain Reprobus who had served both a human king and Satan, who was nine feet tall, I think if the general lines of your research are correct or some of them, he would have descended from Ham's wife with a lot of her nephelim ancestry, but when he saw Satan cringe before the mere image of a cross with a crucified man on it, he knew the crucified man had to be mightier than Satan.

He later carried the Christ Child on his shoulders, St Christopher was yesterday.

II) 7:47 and the Sons of Seth scenario.

1) we cannot say that Nodian monarchy continued undivided and unmixed up to flood. 10 generations Adam to Noah, 7 Adam to Lamech - and a situation ripe for dynastic rivalry (confer Mahabharata)

2) if Sons of Seth married Nodians, they might have not continued as a separate people

3) look at today's society ... how far can Christians go along with it without counting as apostates? How much "flesh is corrupted" by late marriages in a sex maniac world? Abortion?

III) [A bit later:] Nephelim tainted genome impossible for Messiah?

Was Rahab from Jericho nephelim tainted or not?

If she was not nephelim tainted, probably neither was the population of Jericho. Yet it was destroyed.

Unless you say she was only human among giants.

But if she had ancestry from Ham's nephelim tainted wife, then so has King David and Our Lord Jesus Christ who descend from her. Confer Matthew chapter ... 2? 1?

Your line of thought may have originated as one Samarian excuse for rejecting the Davidic line. Or in a certain horror movie from the eighties.

But if Jericho was destroyed for deeds rather than for seeds, like Carthage, then maybe you should take another look at Cortez in Mexico and at Simon of Montfort taking Albigensian strongholds.

For introduction about Albigensian evil, I recommend "The Night's Dark Shade" by Elena Maria Vidal (her pen name, real name of her grandmother).

Amazon : The Night's Dark Shade [Paperback] : Elena Maria Vidal

my comments on second half:
... on Diverse Details in an Interview Skiba/Ulrich on Sept 11, and in Skiba/Doug dialogue May 23

Thursday, July 25, 2013

... on Geocentrism with God and Angelic Movers, versus New Age, versus Newton

video commented on:
Leo Souto : TRUTH! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - The exposure of hiding - April 2012
Couleur D'amour
Nice musicvideo! I really liked high notes.
Un Disclosed
We don't live in the center of the universe you dumbass.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I believe we do.

However the point of this video was not that, I also thught it was Geocentric at first, it is not.

It is New Age.
Un Disclosed (parallel comment to following)
First of all, yes, we do. He extrapolated the fact that there are multiple orbits that affect the motion of the Earth to make a ludicrous claim that somehow all the planets achieved a revolution around a central point without the help of the sun, which we orbit. We orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the center of the universe. It's a very simple to understand if viewed as if we were sitting on the blanket that is space-time but is not easy to understand if you're an uneducated plebeian.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not agreeing with the video, except about one thing:

spiralling motion is back about heavenly bodies.

When Tycho Brahe's view was rejected, it was because planets themselves orbitting a sun orbitting us would have been performing too much of a spiral motion for the uneducated plebeians to understand who eventually opted for heliocentrism.

Galileo part time among them, St Robert Bellarmine was with Tycho Brahe.
Un Disclosed
But that's not true. That's impossible. What your describing is a binary orbit which technically, is the state of any orbit. Our gravity as well as the other planets gravity pull on the sun and "wobble" it but not enough give our orbit a center of mass outside of the sun. This wobble is how we can tell if there are planets revolving around other stars.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What you presuppose is that all movements of heavenly bodies (excepting collisions) are explained correctly by a combination of previous momentum and gravitational pulls.

Even so it would be possible (if the explanation could explain orbits and spiralling orbits in the first place) that earth were in a node of equal pull into every direction = standing still, as Sungenis explains.

But moreoever you ignore the possibility of moves being made intentionally, by God or angels.
Un Disclosed
While I am religious I don't think God is a great way to argue anything scientific because it's a deus ex machina that can explain anything without us producing a proper explanation using what we know of the world he created. If earth retrograded enough to cancel out any movement we had in orbit, we would have no centrifugal force keeping us from being captured by gravity and centripetal force would drag us into another space body. Orbit is achieved by matching the centripetal force with speed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"using what we know"

Point is heliocentrism is using what we don't really know but what some of us only guess.

Other point is: what is real is always really the explanation of something.

"If earth retrograded enough to cancel out any movement we had in orbit,"

Geostasis means earth having neither orbital movement nor retragradation.

"we would have no centrifugal force keeping us from being captured by gravity and centripetal force would drag us into another space body."

What if:

  • God held us in place?

  • Sun does not have that much pull (or if it does other things cancel it out)?

  • All movements of orbital and retrograde kind are achieved by wills of God and of angels rather than by masses and gravity?

Your argument does not really answer it, only presuppose the contrary.
Un Disclosed
We would always be in movement if another body is near us. I'm not going to continue if you ignore gravity.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hold it:

  • how massive must such a body be to keep us in movement (according to Newton)?

  • could masses supposedly known from orbits be wrong, since orbist have other causes (like, immediately, under God, angels)?

  • and to honour Sungenis: could a greater gravity in greater masses in uninterrupted rotation around us keep us in place, despite bodies larger than us pulling?

I think your honest answers would be: "that is not what my teacher taught me" and "I don't know how he knows."
1) Earth is in the vacuum of space. We are always moving. We are in motion even if we collide with something and "stop dead". Your question makes no sense (YQMNS)

2) There are other causes for differences in mass without resulting to deities like the build-up of planets. The mass known from orbits is a calculated approximation. So if you want to be anal, it is wrong by 1 x e-25.

3) No. Space Vacuum, Constant Movement and the fact that orbiting(pulling) works both ways.

Please spell-check.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
orbist for orbits, noted when I had already posted, alas

If I drop a pen, it will fall to the ground. If I hold it, I will write whatever I want with it and it will not drop on the ground - barring my clumsiness. That has nothing to do with reducing its mass so it is not attracted to earth.

And angels guiding planets have nothing to do with changing their masses either.

It has something to do with whether their masses can be checked from their orbits, though, since angels = other explanation.

  • how massive must such a body be to keep us in movement (according to Newton)?

    1) Earth is in the vacuum of space. We are always moving. We are in motion even if we collide with something and "stop dead". Your question makes no sense (YQMNS)

    1) My question was how massive a body must be to keep us in movement even if we had stopped still. Not whether we had so or not.

  • could masses supposedly known from orbits be wrong, since orbist have other causes (like, immediately, under God, angels)?

    2) There are other causes for differences in mass without resulting to deities like the build-up of planets.  The mass known from orbits is a calculated approximation. So if you want to be anal, it is wrong by 1 x e-25.

    2) Already answered as main point.

  • and to honour Sungenis: could a greater gravity in greater masses in uninterrupted rotation around us keep us in place, despite bodies larger than us pulling?

    3) No. Space Vacuum, Constant Movement and the fact that orbiting(pulling) works both ways.

    3) Your answer is too compact to be understandable.

    Several stars are thought to have greater masses than sun. If not true, they are closer than thought. How do you prove their cumulated constant equal tug in all directions is not stronger than that of any body in solar system including sun?
momentaiwaikien (1/3 parts, divided by me)
Relativity (i.e. Local)

1) Because there is no such thing as "Stopped Still". That is a localized concept.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 - and if universe is localised?
1) It is. Much like galaxies are localized and the solar systems in them. "Relativity", "Localized Systems", "Towns", "Continents", etc. These systems are all governed by the same rules, but are affected individually by their own situations.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) I meant in a smaller way. However, I answered your point that stopped still is a localised concept. Since you admit Universe is localised, earth can be localised stopped still in it.
momentaiwaikien (2/3)
2) A large mass attracts small masses, the earth attracts your pen. If you hold it, you are applying force, so for your localized space, the pen is still. Mass doesn't change, but is a calculable variable of the attracting force (i.e. gravity).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2 - and if angels are applying force to the planets (not mentioning that the concept of universal gravity might be wrong), including the Sun?
2) Then you'd get perfect orbits of which all orbits are not. Or are you trying to surmise that the wobbles are created by Angels are having a giant game of football with planets in order to keep them in orbit?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
2) What exact kind of orbital perfection are you saying would be the only predictable kind of consequence angelic movers could have?

I do think wobbles are also created by angels. More specifically, "wobbles of earth" [are] created by God 4 all stars/[or by] angels [for] many [of them].
momentaiwaikien (3/3)
3) "Localized areas".Gravity get's weaker with distance, so higher mass mass in a local area holds the planets in the solar system in place.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
3 - to take out Sungenis' view (not mine, but I honour fellow Geocentrics) - could not the daily rotation of those masses make something about "interlocking gravitational forces" (of Sun and planets daily orbitting earth too) holding earth in place?

Un Disclosed (parallel comment to previous)
"I believe we do"

Are you daft? 
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What question is that?

With observations and granting distances within Solar System as correct, Geocentrism gives exactly the system of Tycho Brahe or perhaps rather ellipses (though not very oblong ones) rather than circles.

The exact problem with this is the spiralling flowery motion of Mars and Venus and the rest. A problem not there in Newton's alternative, with sun as literally a *fixed* star, except for moons of planets and supposedly our moon too.

Sun moves / galaxy? Problem back 1930.
What is the point of this video ? Subtly attracting people to a new-age sect by claiming everything we learn is half-false ?

Have this "non-profit educational project" never heard about the last *cough cough* theory about GRAVITY which explain this "invisible energy" ?

ps : their website is about UFO and crop circle...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Which theory of gravity was now the latest again ... Newton or Einstein? Does Quantum Mechanics have another one?

1) Gravity is a force

2) forces, gravity, angels, God are all of them invisible

3) even if he thought it was gravity, he would not have been lying about "invisible" only misnaming "force" as "energy".

Still bad he cannot deal with God or angels invisibly causing the visible movement of Heaven around earth, of stars and planets around their places in Heaven ... can you?
Please don't send me link to your geocentric blog "for god sake" that's been proven wrong and stupid for century.

Go back to school and learn about the scientific method.

"Damnit !" I knew I shouldn't comment stupid video.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I feel a public response is due on one item: you confound scientific method with modern scientif world view.

As to sending you blog link, it was to notify you that your comments here had been copied to it.
Stuart Hamilton
What the hell was this supposed to be about?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) whether the total motion of earth was circular or spiralling, in favour of second

2) whether spiralling motion could be explained like Newton did, in disfavour thereof

3) whether the spiralling motion comes from some kind of vitalistic principle seen also in other spirals, like DNA or cyclones or galaxies or hair spirals on top of human head, in favour thereof
Get a dictionary and look for gravity, in g
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Newton explained circular or rather elliptic supposed movement of earth around sun by gravity and inertia, which on his view included uniformity of motion. The orbit would be a compromise between gravity pulling inward to sun and inertia making previous movement continue outwards.

That is because Newton believed stars to be more or less static and equidistant in an infinite universe.

The modern view of galaxies, since 1930's, means sun moves around in the galaxy. He [man who made video] draws a conclusion of that.
Christopher M
The facts are true, but the interpretation is not.

The planets and such rotate in a spiral from the perspective outside the galaxy, but rotate around the sun from the Sun's perspective.

The "invisible" energy is called Kinetic, or momentum; nuclear power has nothing to do with it.

Sorry, folks, you need to go back to physics class, and actually pay attention this time.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, get to a look at Tycho Brahe again.

According to him Venus or Jupiter spiral from our perspective, while also rotating around the Sun from its perspective, while Sun rotates yearly in an orbit which changes its position in the zodiak, and daily with the zodiak.

The video said nothing about "nuclear power" being the invisible energy. It made the point the energy is invisible - and maybe not Sun's gravity since concretely planets do not orbit the Sun.

Whatever true explanation is unseen.

Happy Name's Day, by the Way!

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

... on Abortion

video commented on:
TheAmazingAtheist : Stupid Comments
continued from:
... on Christian Ethics
And that makes a difference how? Are you still afreid of the "pagan falsehoods"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I certainly am.

Pagan falsehoods like allowing abortion and contraception. Pagan falsehoods like allowing mercy killing of innocent people. Pagan falsehoods like denying the One God in Three Persons and the Two natures of Christ, Son of the Father and Son of Mary.

You see how many mix certain amounts of Christian truth with falsehoods such as these, nowadays, don't you?

I am very much against that, and if I should catch myself on the verge of a heresy it makes me afraid like a snake.
Abortion, contraception? What the fuck have those to do with paganism? They are what we call social progress, you theocratic nitwit. Denying your stupid god on the other hand belongs to free will you christians seem to think is important or whatever the fuck.

No, I see your stupid, ass backwards beliefs doing all in their power to stop social progress, happiness and good will from this planet. You are the enemy of every good person, and I hope some part of you deep inside realizes that.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Abortion and contraception and denying God are all possible uses of the free will. But not the ones its Creator prefers.

They are also regress to pre-Christian times of the Roman Empire.

They are also a recipe for slavery. Unlike the "rules for slavery" you find in the Bible.

It is your side which is an enemy to every human person, not just the good ones, but even bad ones like yourself.
How? Draw a line between abortion and slavery. Please, I am waiting.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
two lines:

1) an embryo or foetus cannot have deserved abortion, but a slave may be a convict (and one does not chose death as not-yet-born, but one can chose slavery to survive)

2) abortion is not survived (unless it does not succeed), but a slave may be freed (for good behaviour or because master is a Christian wanting to pay for his sins or ...)

Oh, you meant connexion, I thought you meant limit. Sorry.

as for line you call connexion it is this: a free mother does not choose abortion, any mother whose foetus is aborted either is openly being acted on as a slave more than slaves have been under Christian societies ever or acting herself as if she confessed herself to be a slave of certain circumstances, and problem is that she will often be treated in practise like that in the future as well if she does.

Another connecting line between abortion and contraception and slavery is this:

In a society where they are not available, a pregnant unwed mother can tell who made her pregnant "marry me" if he is not married or "pay allowance for your child" if he is.

In present Swedish and I suppose also Finnish society, a girl can be told "if you sleep with me, we use ..." and if she gets pregnant she can be told "abort". Pressure exists, even if not legal.

Worse than having to work 4 one, it is.
Yeah, that does indeed suck. But that is not something that can be made better with banning stuff (that only leads people to use black market back alley coat hangar abortions instead of the safe and good ones). Also, if abortion is much more mainstream and isn't looked up your nose by people like you, why would any pregnant woman who doesn't want to be pregnant force people to marry her sexual partner? And even if one did, isn't that the person who is the scum bag, not the procedure itself?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Black market back alley stuff?

That can be hunted down (one of the legitimate complaints about witches was they were providing abortificents as well as "love philtres").

Many did avoid black market stuff but their dauhghters are not avoiding official stuff.

The procedure favours scumbags.

A pregnant woman who can officially tell her ex: "be responsible, marry me for the child's sake" is not likely not to want to be pregnant.
Kinda like every bit of illegal alcohol was hunted down during the prohibition?

There is nothing wrong in abortion. It should always be the last option, but why ban something that

a) will help people

b) people will do no matter what and

c) we have no reason to ban in the first place?

Once again the witch thing is completely pointless. Just because Romans had shoes does not mean people using shoes now are pagans out to destroy Jebus.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Alcohol hurts only by abuse. That is why hunting it down won't help, usually, those supposed to do it know it is wrong.

Abortion is murder.

It is also a murder which in ancient Pagan times made the wife slave of her husband. He had right of life or death over his children.

Usually daughters other than the first were aborted if suspected as daughters or set out to die if born as daughters.
No, it isn't. Killing few cells is not a murder. Or then chemo therapy is murder. Eating salad is murder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Chemo therapy is killing a few cells among many that constitute a human body to save the rest of them. Also their genome (if cancerous) is changed to non-human.

Eating salad is eating the cells of a plant, not of a human.

Abortion is killing the total body of a human person with its own genome

Yes. And abortion is killing a slightly bigger cluster of cells among many that constitute a human body to save the rest of them.

And calad is just as much "alive" as human is.

No, it's not. To be a human person you must first be human. And a person. Neither of which aplies to a early stage fetus. (Continued)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The "cluster of cells" killed in an abortion may be smaller or bigger than those killed in a chemotherapy.

But they are not among the cells the constitute the mother's body, just inside them.

They are human, because they carry a human genome. They are a person, because they have a genome which is neither the father's nor the mother's but its own.

Usually abortions are not even performed to save the mother from dying, that is pretty rare.
(continued:) And once again, we don't live in the pagan times. We want to give the woman the right to choose for her body. Not her husband, not her father, certainly not you and also not fucking Thor. Or Zeus. Or what ever the fuck.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
(continued:) What you say you want about a woman's rights is one thing, what happens is girls are forced to abort, just as among Pagans and women who chose abortion chose to be treated as slaves to the market.
(continued from above) WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How do you know this? You are pulling it straight from your ass. What prove do you have for that? Who is forced to abort? Show evidense or shut the fuck up.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am not pulling it from my ass. There was a girl in Sweden, back in the early years of the first decade of the millennium who for five weeks insisted "no I will not abort" but who was deprived of sleep and social quiet by ex, by parents, by others until she gave in and aborted. They thought she was "too young" since she was thirteen. An age at which it is perfectly normal to be a mother.

There are other girls who give in more easily and it is less easy to prove pressure was used.
Well, good for her for giving up. She was too young. But even though I see your point about cohersion, I think that is not very common. And even if it is, don't you think that is something we should be against, not the procedure itself?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
By saying she is too you you are condoning slavery of the young.

No, thirteen is not to young to be a mother or a wife.

The canonic limits for marriage are 14:12. A young man who is fourteen is not *too young* to marry, a young lady who is twelve is not too young either.

But giving up and aborting one's child - that is agreeing to murder it - because one is told one is too young is a very abject slavery.

That is what I meant about abortion leading back to slavery.
I love the abortion topic :D

Here's a little "uncommon sense" for some people to hopefully at least understand before they "react". People die. Babies die. Oh what a tragedy if a girl falls pregnant and gets an abortion. Human beings are "Sentient" life forms that are so perfect that we haven't killed or will continue to kill again and again - is what you think if an abortion is bad. If you think its that bad then you must be a vegetarian, monk/priest that believes people should not mate.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Man is made in the image of God, but is engendered and born (if born) with original sin.

"Tragedies" or accidents do happen. Sometimes called "act of God" in insurance policies. Now, God is master over life and death. If He wills someone to just happen to die, it's His right, since He gave life in the first place.

Not so for parents, who only second to God give life to their children.

People who are married should mate and make children. And not abort them.

People who are not married should not mate or make children, but if they do they should not abort them.

Getting married belatedly is quite preferrable to abortion. Raising a child as a lone mother is also preferrable to abortion.

People who stop pregnant girls from marrying "because they are too young" (at 13, please!) or who endorse or pressure to abortion are the problem here.

Not sex. Not accidental death.
Moving on from fighting the procedure itself, i live in Australia and the legal age for sex is 16, the legal age of "adulthood" is 18. If a 13 yr old is pregnant its up to the parents of the girl whether or not to support her. If they choose to support her then that's on them. If they can't support her or choose not to then that's too bad. FOR FUCK SAKE SHE IS 13!

would you let a 13yr old go through with child birth?

You sir, are a joke Hans-Georg Lundahl who knows nothing of birth.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"If a 13 yr old is pregnant its up to the parents of the girl whether or not to support her."

Sounds like laws - or better put recent legislations - have been set up for parents to put pressure on pregnant 13 year olds to abort.


Yes, and Canonic age is 12 - for marriage.

"would you let a 13yr old go through with child birth?"

Yes, of course.

I would also hope whoever made her pregnant started supporting her and their child. I e for better legislation than yours.
OK, so you are a pedophile as well. Well, have fun with that.

Canonic? What the fuck does that mean? No, I'm sorry, the proper question would be, why the fuck should that matter?

For the second time, it's not murder. I hope I don't need to tell this to you again.

And do you really think that it's very common to have an abortion because other people persuade you to it? Also, don't you think it's that, telling others what they should do, we should be fighting against, not the procedure itself?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The rest has been answered.

I am not a pedophile, I am not languishing for girls below the canonic age.

And why it matters is that you seem to think the canonic age is 18 or at least 15 or something.

Oh, I do think it is more common for a teen age mother, not totally depraved by modernity yet, to prefer giving birth and to be persuaded by others not to, than to spontaneously opt for the worst. For murder.
No, I happen to have the crazy delusion that the body of a person belongs to herself. Ofcourse the parents have a lot to say to that before certain age, because we just can't take care of ourselves from day 1. Now how big that power over the child is is of course debatable and I think there are areas of fine tuning. However, that has nothing to do with abortion precisely, so it is completely meaningless to discuss here.

Have fun with your beliefs. Just don't push them to others.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I happen to have the crazy delusion that the body of a person belongs to herself."

Including the body of the foetus?

"Of course the parents have a lot to say to that before certain age, because we just can't take care of ourselves from day 1"

Including killing?

"Now how big that power over the child is is of course debatable and I think there are areas of fine tuning."

Forcing a mother to abort or to remain unmarried "because too young" is not a reasonable part of fine tuning.
Yes, the foetus that is not a person belongs to the unhappy person it happens to pe stuck to, just like a cancer would be, or just like your butthair belongs to you. Simple.

We just went over that once. So read the messages again if you are stuck.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You are totally out of tune with genetic facts as you claim that falsely enough. Sure go back and read older messages, I already answered.

To readers coming new here, this message below it has "in response to TDeMona", click it, then appears her message "in response to Hans-Georg Lundahl" and you click that and so on.

Or search assortedretorts ...on Abortion on google.
So have I. And it is you who continuously pull crap right out of your ass [censoring a blasphemy]

And thanks for the manual on how to use YouTube comments. I'm sure all the newbies pray thanks for you before going to bed.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Oh, it is I ...

Well, you will agree that a newborn child has half its chromosomes from its dad and half from its mum.

If you try to tell me it had all its mums and none of its dad's chromosomes one day earlier, but that suddenly changed when it was born, it is not I who pull things out of my arsehole, no.

Btw, your photo in that small format made you look like a girl. I just saw one video of yours and discovered you were not. If you want to change the photo ... go ahead.
And the chromosomes are relevant how?

And oh wow, what a brilliant insult. Your photo makes you look like a light blue snot silhuette. So what? You think I care weather or not you perceive me as a man or a woman? You can call me a carrot if it makes you think it helps your pathetic arguments. If you want to change your brain... go ahead.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Chromosomes are relevant because it is the unique set of chromosomes inherited from father and mother.

They each have their unique set and supposing they have no identical chromosomes inherited from common ancestor the possibilities to recombine their chromosomes are about one million. Absolutely not exhausted in the few children they do at best get.

Now, the foetus not yet born has the same chromosomes as the future child or man or woman. Not as its mother.
Christian Ramirez
So by your logic... Killing sperm (because it has DNA and has a chance of developing into a human) is a morally wrong? Do you have any idea of how many sperm cells don't make it to become people. By your logic, anyone who has a child is committing abortion genocide.

A sperm has no sentiment and individual feeling. A fetus, though in possession of a brain (after week 4, small and hardly a brain) does not have sufficient input organs to self operate. A computer with no input has no output.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Spermatozoa contain half a human genome. Ovula contain half a human genome.

Half a genome only = no human person.

As to human feelings of foetus, we do not know whether it feels or not. It has a soul and an eternal destiny to make, the soul is not a computer, thought and feeling are not computer output. Brain is an instrument for it, not that of which it is a byproduct.
You can't demonstrate that souls exist. Your argument is invalid.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You think (I presume, I know I do), and dead matter or for that matter biological functionings do not think.

Therefore there is a soul.
Your argument is flawed because you don't know any neuroscience to make claims about thinking.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your argument is flawed because you think that correct thought about thinking is determined by neuroscience, i e you think thought is a byprodoct of neurological process.

I do not agree.

You have not demonstrated that neuroscience proves me wrong.

It is possible the neuroscientists claim me wrong, that is another matter.
You're not qualified to debate neuroscience or "thinking" in general. Modern science has shown that we are our brains. It has shown that no immaterial (which is an incoherent concept by itself) or supernatural (which is even more insane an idea) soul is required to explain our thinking or consciousness.

I have demonstrated that you're not qualified to debate science. Science is peer-reviewed. You are not even close to being the peer to scientists. Bye.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I think and have therefore introspective experience of what thinking is. That qualifies me to discuss it.

"Modern science has shown that we are our brains."

Apart from the fact that it is contrary to the truth, how do you propose it could show such a thing?

By enumerating our faculties and showing which ones are impaired by which brain damages?

Shows a causal relation, but does not prove identity.
Christian Ramirez (like Grineolck to "Therefore there is a soul")
"Dead" matter can think. Dead matter makes up living organisms. The most advanced example we have of this is the brain. We also have less advanced things such as computers and robots that can create vocal pasterns from hearing others speak and simulate simple emotions. In the animal kingdom, there is also a direct correlation between brain sises/complexity and output (including thought, emotion).

Besides, there is no medical/scientific proof of a soul. However, this does not matter for this.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Dead matter does not think.

Living organisms are not dead matter. They are not even made up from only dead matter, but from some kind of soul as well.

A creature with only a plant soul or animal soul cannot think either.

Computers cannot think. Their simulation of patterns of thought is comparable to an abacus' simulation of matematical thought: beads do not think, strings do not think and frame does not think. Mathematician handling abacus does think.
Christian Ramirez
to my:
"Spermatozoa contain half a human genome," before discussion of souls.(1/3)
1) We can not base opinion on the possible destiny of an individual entity. I do agree with your point on "half human genome", however...

Hypothetically if there exists 3 eggs (a,b,c) and 3 sperm, (1,2,3) would you care about combo a2's death if a1 makes it? How about a3 or b1? a3 could have had a great life and you would never know. Therefore judging something by its possibility to become a human is useless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
As long as there is only half a genome, there is no human individual.

As long as there is no human individual, there is no murder in the strict sense of the word (though certain contraeptive activities are not far from abortion i e murder as far as intention goes).
Christian Ramirez (still 1/3)
You clearly did not understand the previous statement. a1, a2, a3, b1, ect. are all combinations of a female "egg" and a male sperm.They are humans by your definition because they contain both male and female genes. The full genome is there. a is half "a" genome. "1" is half a genome. I made this clear.

Why care more about human a1 than a2, a3, or a123 (triplets) for that mater? I've never seen anyone grieving over not getting twins because they were possible. Judging by possibility is useless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You did not understand my answer.

If there should be three ovulations at the same time, and if three sperms should hit all three eggs, clearly all three combinations already made are human beings and should be cared for.

Not so with only theoretic possible future combinations not yet combined by the fertilisation of an egg.

NO woman can possibly bear all the one million possible combinations of her and her husband's chromosomes, each usually can bear those already made.

Providence, which 1s.
Christian Ramirez
Fair enough... But even after a set match (a1) is made, you still have a 1 in 5 ( or 4) chance of getting a miscarriage within the 1st 12 weeks. Between these weeks, natural abortion happens all the time. natural genocide (by your definition) still occurs. Judging something by possibility (or future outcome) is still useless.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is a difference between accidental drowning and drowning someone else deliberately. Only the second of them is murder, and probably murderers who do that tell themselves "well, what the heck, people drown anyway!"

Similarily, of the 20-25% spontaneous abortion, no ill will of man can be accused, unless it is the disobedience of Adam.

Like accidental drowning, it is not a sin but the punishment for sin in mankind.

Not so provoked abortion or provoked drowning.

And you have still not grasped that I was NOT judging the humanity of foeti or embrya by possible or probable future outcome.

It is not in the future when the foetus will cease to be such and become a newborn that it will have only then a (usually unique and always new) combination of chromosomes from dad and ma.

It is from the conception.
Christian Ramirez
Fine again... But, why (to put it bluntly) care about something that the body cant even care for 20 - 25% of the time. The body doesn't even consider it a priority at this stage. I would rather someone kill it while it's senseless and intellect-less, before any experience than have some ungrateful douche-bag throw it in a garbage can somewhere or have both a mother and the baby die because of a medical accident. There are some situations where not even adoption can help.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There are some modern situations which are built on to the abortion friendly mentality of today.

Sure the body considers it a priority - except those 20-25% of the time. And in those cases 25% of them are tetraploid, that is killed by the mother's immunity system because not recognised as a foetus of same kind as the mother. Triploidy of chromosome 1 and 3 will each also cause an immunity reaction that ends pregnancy.

Some cases it is also stress.

Where abortion's done, the body does care.
Christian Ramirez (2/3)
2) There is no scientific proof of a "soul" or "eternal life". Those things are pure conjuring of human imagination. (I do not want to debate religion right now) Through medical science ("brain scans") we know that the brain produces thought and feeling and the brain is a computer. (a very complicated, ever-changing and awesome computer) Visual, audio, ect. input goes to the brain, it performs calculations, and outputs action signals. We can read these signals. They do not pas through the soul.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The signals in the brain are tools for the soul. The soul reads them as images, whereas from outside we read them as electric signals.

They are not the soul.

They are not its thoughts, just imagery accompanying them.
Christian Ramirez
Again, get me scientific proof of your claims and I will consider this point.

However, why does the presence of a soul matter for the abortion debate's sake? I wouldn't care about anyone any less or more if they had a brain or a soul. Even if the signals from the brain are tools for the soul, either way there must be a brain present for input and output.

I assume you are religious? Religion has so far not contributed to science.(it has to other things) Do not expect me to take it seriously.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (part i/ii)
Do you consider astrology science?

St Augustine rid astronomical inquiry of the astrological superstition for centuries over astronomers who were also Christians.

Do you consider the workings of nature as bound by fixed laws essential to science?

Christianity contributed vastly to such an understanding of nature. Author of Theogony or Red Indian Shamanists are not what scientists are made of - nor are matter ignoring and nature ignoring Platonists. Aristotle gets some pre-Xtian creds though.
Christian Ramirez
True, that there were and are many Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, ect. scientists who have contributed to science. I acknowledge this already. I Don't have anything against them either. ...

However, (I should have been more clear) the Bible scriptures have not contributed at all to science and even contradict it in some areas. I can not take any unproven or untested hypothesis or idea into consideration in a serious argument..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) St Augustine who contributed to ridding science of astrology did so because of the Biblical story of Jacob and Esau - same hour born and thus same horoscope. But different fates and characters.

2) We can have a branch off discussion on where Bible contradicts "science" if you like.

3) As already said, soul is not an unproven concept nor a mere hypothesis.

Materialistic explanations of thought merely break down, logically. Even without the Bible to start with.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (part ii/ii)
A computer has no soul.

A man has.

Do not tell me you care as little for a man as for a computer.

Thought can presumably exist in other states than input and output.

Either way the essential potential for it - a rational soul - deserves respect with the body it is the form of.
Christian Ramirez
Will you persist to try to convince me of an unproven concept derived from an unproven book? Sorry, but I do and will never take the Bible (or other scripture) seriously.

And, no. The reason I care for someone/thing is that they have (or are meant to have) a brain as complicated as a human's. I care about a computer less than a cat. I care about a cat less than a human.

And again, why talk about a soul? I would care for you the same If I know you had a soul or a brain. It makes no difference.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A soul is not an unproven concept, it is not exclusively known from the Bible (confer Plato and Aristotle proving it) and the Bible is neither one book (it is 73) nor unproven.

Now, whether we think because we have a soul or because we have a brain and nothing else makes a difference of 12 weeks.
continued on:
... on Soul

Christian Ramirez (3/3)
3) We can know when the fetus starts to feel. Through medical science, we can tell what organs form in what order at what rate at what time. Our knowledge of the organs can tell us when the fetus starts to feel. If you want to save a human save it when it's a human. For example, the brain develops at the age of 5 weeks (not 4) and at week 6 neural tubes form. Week 12, we consider it a fetus.

After week 12 (approximately) , a fetus can see and hear. After week 12, I no longer support abortion.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do you support murdering people in coma?

They cannot, as we can know, hear or see either.
Christian Ramirez
People in coma have conserved emotions and experiences. They may still wake up with their conserved personality. Also, people in coma (mostly) have people in life caring and grieving for them.

A pre-fetus has no previous experiences. According to science, it does not feel until 12 weeks. (this is going to sound harsh) They probably have no-one grieving for them if they're getting aborted, and if they do, that person probably can't sustain them..
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And barring the eventuality of abortion, the people existing as embryo or foetus will certainly wake up from non-thinking state.

Your point about grieving and sustaining could be used for murdering people in coma too.
Christian Ramirez (following up on his answer on coma)
Besides, if someone's getting aborted:

a) The mother couldn't support them. (would have starved)

b) They were a girl in Asia. (no-one loves them)

c) They were an accident (no-one loves them or/and can't be supported)

d) They are illegal (will be killed)

e) Could kill the mother. (2 dead rather than 1)

f) Were the product of rape. (will have a horrible future)

g) unwanted (no-one loves them)

In some occasions and locations, adoption is not an option. I wish it was but it's not.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"We can not base opinion on the possible destiny of an individual entity."

Takes care of a, b directly.

We cannot base an opinion someone should be killed on his possible future.

As to c, f: "accidents" mean prevalence of contraceptive and therefore abortive mentality in which getting pregnant after towsing is failure rather than success. As to f, especially, but also c, one should not have death penalty due to one's origin (unless God Himself metes it out, rather than sinful men).

d - making children illegal and killing them after birth is as much murder as abortion is

e - two accidental deaths are not worse than one which is a murder

g - in a pregnancy a mother is rarely if ever in a state of not wanting the child, naturally.

Either pressure would be involved, or a mentality already destroyed by abortion friendly surroundings, by a sick society.

Did I miss one? (I divided the list on two answers)

Sunday, July 21, 2013

... on Diverse Details in an Interview Skiba/Ulrich on Sept 11, and in Skiba/Doug dialogue May 23

video commented on:
Leonard Ulrich : Interview with Rob Skiba: Sept. '11
general comment:
If I do not share the view that Constantine was using the Church to infiltrate it and sully it with Paganism or Gnosticism, I do not condone Templarism, and I do subscribe to the "intentional view of history" rather than the accidental, except in so far as the intentions of another man are not known beforehand, and to one's own intentions they may come as a welcome or less welcome accidental surprise. Illuminati may control much, they do not control all (and will never do so), and they are not excempt from this kind of accident.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (divers comments along the long interview)
US, have you noticed similarities to Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation ... with exceptions like:

Habsburgs and earlier were supposed to rule Catholics vs First Amendment.

Or CSA Secession failed. Prussian Secession succeeded and even parasitized on what was left of HRE.

Spanish Catholic Monarchy tolerated slavery only on a basis of:

  • slaves were supposed to have been taken in just wars (like wars in defense against slave hunters)

  • if proven not so, they would be set free

  • if master maimed, killed relative or seduced to mortal sins, slave was entitled to freedom.

Running away was an offense, but not if misconduct on master's side was proven.

Married couples among slaves could not be separated.

And only non-Spanish powers did the buying in Africa.

Speaking of Nephelim - and Nimrod - guess who the first slave hunter was.

"A might hunter before the Lord" is not about going off on St Hubert hunts while the horns take a tune of Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz, it is about man hunt.

And if you look at Gilgamesh, does Enkidu come through as quite just another pal of Gilgamesh ... in about equality ... or as "friendship means slavery" (c/o Gimli speaking in Isengard)? A bit, at least.

English language developed from ... Gaelic? And it is a Primitive language ... linguistics is not your forte, is it?

Lucifer is also possibly a title of Satan before he fell. It is Latin for Morning Star if you look up Isaiah and ... was it Hezechiel?

A French guy warning about Antichrist meant "if Oyarsas were true, isn't Satan Oyarsa of earth"?

No, rather ex-Oyarsa of planet Venus (whose Oyarsa more than one Pagan system called Ishtar [fake Oyarsa, not rzeal one]). If earth is immobile center, it needs no Oyarsa. (I suppose you know Out of a Silent Planet etc.)

And Luther (Martin) is an Apostate who bypassed Matthew 28 ("every day until the Consummation of time") and in his states forbade the Holy Sacrifice (Wittenberg, Sweden, England ... in England a Catholic priest could well be martyred quickly under Penal Laws for saying Mass)

Speaking of evidence (I've come to George Washington's letter to the pastor), the chess game between Hitler and Lenin, could one have somewhere a better close up?

"Moses pleaded with God" ... which confession said that saints could do that and which that they could not back in 16th C.?

Trentine Catechism proof text "etsi Moyses et ... stetissent coram me" ... even if Moses and ... stood before me ... (was the other guy Abraham, you know "if there are five just" ...)

No power and no food?

Well, food does not grow on Uranium or Petrol.

People will sooner or later need to get back to farms and farms to need more hands and less tractors.

I am not in favour of artificial shortages, I am in favour of getting back to the land and depending less on that stuff.

Electronic food lines?

Ever heard of individual alms giving?

When Christianity took over the Annona was soon finished (two hundred years or less) and unlike tektontv's claim about starvation in Corinth, it was not emergency relie, it was a permanent food line.

When the Hospital of Paris was founded, St Vincent of Paul refused it priests. Because it replaced alms with an institution.

[And possibly even more so because it could use paupers in forced labour in that institution if vagrant or begging.]

Video just went "error has occurred" when the topic was Wancovia (?) Bank ... funny library, Georges Pompidou in Paris ... funny library ... but now it seems to be working again.

The shape of a cross around the Tabernacle ... guess where Armenian and Latin Churches got their layout from?

And even if Pilate had not written


on the title, the Name of God means, letter by letter: hand praises, nail praises. He was - unusually - nailed hand and foot to the cross and, even more unusually, he did not curse but praise on it.

By the way, do read How the Holy Cross was Found by Stephan Borgehammar (Historian of University where I studied Latin and Greek, Lund), and do read The Desert a City by Derwas Chitty.

That will tell you somethng about the Cross and about the Hebrew people.

On Hegel:

Hegelian dialectic is not just a method of ingeneering societal change. It is also a world view, of precisely Hegel.

He considered that:

[in every domain of reality any state] is a thesis

any thesis gives rise to an antithesis

any thesis and antithesis give rise to a synthesis.

That every synthesis is a thesis for a new dialectic triad.

He believed in the "Absolute". Interpreters disagree on whether it means God or matter. Marx and Engels were Hegelian Atheists (via Feuerbach).

other video commented on:
(second half of) Doug Hamp : Quest 4 Truth with Rob Skiba and Douglas Hamp May 19 2013
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I ) I read New Testament first, then Old Testament.

I was not put off by the war like things. Maybe because I had already read Apocalypse 19 where Christ is really making a physical rout of enemies.

A bit like Ulysses with the suitors (and Antichrist would have a mentality similar to main suitor, and Church is already in a position a bit like Penelope onset by the suitors), a scene which JRRT loved.

II )23:08 ... rapture.

Rob Skiba has already correctly concluded that rapture is post-tribulation, when Christ returns on the clouds. Is that also the case with Doug?

Either way, in Gospel Jesus speaks of ONE second coming.

In Evangelical readings of Apocalypse, you get two of those, end chapter 19 and end chapter 20 of Apocalypse.

But in St Augustine's reading all of 19 is end of 20.

Precisely as Genesis 2 is in end of Genesis 1.

First resurrection = of souls.

III ) 23:59 seeking death, not finding it.

Mental patients are usually very little able to find death, while at same time their situation makes life so much less liveable.

Amy Winehouse, in that view, found death. Others seek but do not find.

Caesarius of Arles (Saint?) pointed out that most of Apocalypse is about pre-tribulation times, very little left for the times of the final tribulation to be fulfilled which hasn't already been so before.

IV ) 25:10 "ramparts of Mgog" ... what language?

Chinese? Manchurian? Mongol? Tocharian A or B?

What religion? Jews? Nestorians? Or is some unconnected like Buddhists or Confucians preserving something which sounds similar without understanding anything about who Magog is? Or is Mongolian ancestor worship preserving a reference to Magog?

27:07, your reference is to 13:3 " I have commanded my sanctified ones, and have called my strong ones in my wrath, them that rejoice in my glory."

In that case you have Biblical proof there are good giants, not just bad ones.

Rumblebuffin, Wimblewheather ... CSL was right about something.

29:24 ... gebor means basically hero?

Is that the word used about the Sun in one of the Psalms?

Around 30:00 gebor translated as giant about Nimrod.

One early pope discussed names that add up to 666, and he considered TEITAN (misspelling for TITAN, but one already possible due to itacism) as one possibility.

Not meaning to give up the usual Patristic track on Antichrist's identity of course, "a Jew of the Tribe of Dan". But some family of that description might adopt him ... I would not like to be in their shoes if so.

[Isaiah] 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, my slain shall rise again: awake, and give praise, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is the dew of the light: and the land of the giants thou shalt pull down into ruin. (Douai Reims)

V )32:10

Catholic Church at Trent decided the Vulgate of St Jerome is infallible in all matters of faith and morals. Not however in all matters of fact.

When St Jerome translated the Vulgate OT from Hebrew, St Augustine reminded him that the Septuagint - the Greek Christian OT - has the highest authority.

Vulgate was originally an Apologetic thing, answering Jews from the Scriptures as they themselves kept them, but without having to learn Hebrew. In matters of fact, LXX may trump Vulg/Masor VV.

VI ) 32:48 Anakim ... someone of you already pointed out Annunaki (skiba only or both) ... did you know that very Ancient Greek had a word wanax, wanaktos, which means "lord"?

Did you know that in Homeric and Classic, the word comes as anax, anaktos, and in set formulas it is very much used for Apollo?

Could be confirmation of that Apollo/Nimrod connexion.

34:01 Cedars ... have you read Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch? In it, it seems Antichrist is compared to a cedar.

I just read in a newspaper - French nationalists, Catholic - PRÉSENT, that one third of the Lebanese population is currently refugees from Syria.

VII ) 36:22 Greek "sperma" is also used for seed of wheat.

Pagan festival panspermia was celebrated with diverse seeds mixed together along with other mixtures.

It is also used for offspring.

Christ in the Holy Eucharist is both Offspring of God and Wheat Kernel of God.

One reason we Catholics reckoned original Protestants at Reformation as demonic.

Another is their totalitarian view on Romans 13, as if an order of a king dispensed from obeying God's law. E g Luther on divorce.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

... against certain mistakes and oversights of Lazar Puhalo

video commented on
OrthodoxCanada : Israel, Palestine and the Prophetic Tradition
my comments:
"some of them are Christianised Jews"

You mean the basis of them are Christianised Jews, Samarians and Galileans.

People who had heeded the words of our Lord and fled to Pella before Romans came, missed dispersion, returned after the Jewish War and stayed ... remained Christian (rather than revert to Judaism) when Chosroes came, welcomed Heraclius (the first crusader, unless you count him as second and Constantine as first), and not been Islamised when Omar came.

Then there is among Christians an admixture of Christians from oher parts of Roman Emoire, from Crusaders and later, and among those that were Islamised under Omar (or later) an admixture from Arabia and later other parts of Islamic world.

Now, two more things:

Theodore Herzl visited Pope Saint Pius X to get his support.

He answered two things: 1) Palestinians, 2) if you go to the Holy Land, we have priests there to baptise you.

Joshua: the Cananeans he conquered and in some cases slaughtered were not Palestinian Christians or even Muslims, they were more comparable to Albigensians or Azteks when Simon de Montfort and Cortez arrived (but these only slaughtered armies, civilians not obstinate had to be given a chance to convert, you know "all nations" in end of St Matthew) or to Carthaginians when Scipio Africanus came.

They worshipped strange gods who accepted or required human sacrifice. Not on one just possible occasion like Jephthah's daughter (though I am not sure at all Church Fathers exclude First Nun or Consecrated Virgin theory), but again and again.

And of course, Palestinians are descended from Judah-and-Benjamin as well as from Ephraim, since Acts 8 ecclesiastical reunion of Judah and Ephraim.

As for Amalekites, it seems possible these were the Hyksos that brought such suffering on Egyptians, a point to make because some have identified Moses of the Bible with the later Pharaos Ahmoses and Thutmoses who expelled the Hyksos, and these people who say that have also identified Hebrews with Hyksos.
video commented on:
Models of Reality as Sources of Confict
my comments:
"Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake in the 1500's for suggesting the earth moved"

It was in 1600, it was for apostasy into esoteric and pantheistic and polytheistic beliefs.

Giordano Bruno believed that each solar system (as we call them) was a universe and each universe had its own god and each god was the soul of its universe and each universe, particularly each sun, the body of its god.

Compare that with Avvakum who was burned for believing (with Gregory Palamas) the Immaculate Conception, as well as for a few matters of ritual.

Galileo's telescope made the old model of reality collapse for ever? Nah.

And Scholasticism originating as a remodelling of Theology after chaos of Barbarian invasions is wrong too.

It is one of the fables that Metallinos got from Romanides and Romanides from a 19th C. heavily anti-French and anti-Catholic Anglican divine. Via Harvard.

Nor is it true that it originated with Islamic scholasticism.

It originated with Abélard, who was alive when Jerusalem was taken, and whose intellectual roots were not Crusader mediated Islamic influences.

It got later infected with Averroism, but St Thomas Aquinas and Bishop Tempier were fighting Averroism. Aquinas argued against it, Tempier condemned 219 theses, mainly Averroist ones.

If you know Latin:

You said Augustine's teaching of original sin was erroneous?

You have a problem, it was shared by Gregory Palamas. It is the death bringing infection that baptism washes away.

And as for saying it made mankind "completely depraved or evil", no St Augustine of Hippo did not say that. When Jesuits defended the Orthodox view on that one, they did so against pseudo-Augustinians: Luther, Calvin, Baius, Jansenius, Quesnel. But they did so with real scholarship about what St Augustine actually wrote.

This was rejected as Papist fanaticism by Protestants, including Anglicans.

Romanides had his view of St Augustine formed by Harvard scholars, more Protestant than the Anglicans of Oxford or perhaps even Cambridge.

No, St Augustine remains "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos" as Photius called him in Vivliothiki.

And Photius was a scholastic well before Aquinas. When I was Orthodox for two years, I compared St Thomas Aquinas to Photius and St Ignatius of Loyola to Gregory Palamas.

If you want a reliable source for St Ignatius of Loyola being a hesychast, look up his biographies.

If you want a reliable source for Photius being a scholastic, look up R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries.

Using Plato and Aristotle for philosophy was scholasticism, well before using Cicero for rhetoric became the Renaissance.

Genesis as "absolute model of reality" - if you mean thereby absolutely factual truth, with its story and time frame - certain people did certainly accept that as such.

They are usually known as Church Fathers.

One St Cyril of Jerusalem thought the earth was flat, because he thought the Bible taught that.

One St Basil refused to discuss shape of earth (flat, globe, basket shape, whatever) because Bible gave no answer.

One St Augustine showed how globe shape of earth squared very well with the story of the Fourth Day.

One Origen and one St Augustine laughed at the inflated time scales of Egyptian paganism - "they pretend to know very old history in order to pretend having very profound knowledge" was their take on OLd Earth Paganism.

The first Young Earth Creationist intellectuals among Christians were the Church Fathers.

After St Peter who said that in the last days people will by their own fault ignore the Flood of Noah. And Christ referred to first couple.

Evolution is a fact that you can deny, but not successfully. [said he]

I would say that General Theory of Evolution - common descent of all plants and animals from one or few one celled organisms - is a theory that you can hold, but not successfully.

Take a bite at this one:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

Dualistic Platonism put a damper on the way people would explore the material universe?


Your history sucks!

Where was that? When was that? What present day historians - about that period, mind you - say that about that place and time?
video not commented under, because "Commentaires momentanément indisponibles."
Lazar Puhalo : Evolution, etc. reposted.
my comments on this blog:
Evolution best tested theory beside Quantum Physics?

Whose arsehole are you kissing?

Neither of these is extremely well tested.

You cannot claim they are better tested than 2+2=4.

You cannot claim they are better tested than fact that portal tides do not follow exactly the astronomically predicted tides immediately.

You cannot claim they are better tested than medicine (including Evolution in the sense of bacteria developing new characteristics, including non-Evolution because of certain blockages against chromosomal numbers changing.

You cannot claim they are better tested than water freezing or melting at Celsius zero and boiling or condensing at Celsius 100. At sea level. With lower boiling temperature on the Andes.

And so on.

Now, you also claim homosexuality is somethng one is born with.

Your arguments rather prove that a boy can be born feminized, but that does neither damn him to sodomy nor barr him from natural coitus.

You confuse androgynous temperament with homosexuality as if they were the same thing.

They are not.
adding a kind of apology
It seems I used harsh language to someone who nevertheless answered by a blessing, since I have had a very good Sunday.

However, it remains a matter of sadness that a man at least materially succeeding the Apostles should use the kind of false certainties of certain infidels, and I came across a reference to one Theilhard de Chardin when reading.

I hope Lazar Puhalo is not an adept of this false Jesuit, a shame to the frock of St Ignatius, who even went so far as to think that the psychism of the biological species is cause of their future evolution - a theory which apart from leading straight to Hell also seems to come straight from Babylon, where human shaped gods like Anu seem to have developed from snake shaped gods.

If you read French, do take a look at the references to Theilhard de Chardin in my response to an evolutionist propaganda book:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Quelques Mirages et Contrevérités de Cédric Grimoult, avec mes critiques

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mairie du III, Paris
St Mary Magdalene, from whom
Our Lord drove out seven unclean spirits,
and who had the privilege to see Him after Resurrection
(Heavenly Birthplace close to Marseille)

Friday, July 19, 2013

... on Inquisition, Galileo, Emperor (St?) Constantine

video commented on:
tektontv : Miss Dusters 3: Inquisition Fables
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Those that didn't confess received harsher punishments?

As far as I know the procedure, those who did not confess at all could not be condemned (unless they "confessed by behaviour", like crypto-Jews refusing to eat porc or Albigensians - veggies back then - refusing to kill and eat a hen).

Those who denied a confession already given or only confessed after torture were given harsher punishments.
What credentialed historian says such a thing?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My source is Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, from memory.

One more thing, in England (I have this from Henry Charles Lea) the Inquisition against the Lollards gave the local bishop full discretion on trial, it was not like Inquisitions controlled by Rome. It can be noted that St Joan was tried like that, and that bishop Cauchon before accepting had consulted Paris University on whether licit or not. Sorbonne said yes, & when she was burnt regretted and insisted on Roman system.
Um, Lea is precisely the source that historians like Kamen are pegging as full of false information.

And really, can't you do better than a "dictionary" that is over 100 years old? Like something by a credentialed historian?
was going to post following but "Vous avez été bloqué par le propriétaire de cette vidéo." = blocked.
Lea's conclusions suck.

But his precise facts on precise occasions do not.

The 1401 decision by English Parliament, the fact that the 1401 law was behind the burning of Tyndale (and Mary Tudor's other heresy hunts, despite the warning from both Spain and Catholic Church she had better not) and similar facts you can find in Lea have not been discredited.

I looked up:

Henry Kamen : The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision

If we assume that the words, supposedly from Kamen, about Inquisition's suspects confessing falsely in order to get away with more lenient penances by fear of otherwise being falsely condemned and more severely punished, are about the Spanish Inquisition (and mind you, Henry Kamen studied the Spanish one) then also the position is ludicrous.

Saint Ignatius of Loyola was a mystic, a hesychast, a penitent who prayed as a recluse and gave spiritual guidance about avoiding and confessing mortal sins, he got suspect of being an Alumbrado - a near Catholic version of Quakerism - and of putting the Inner Light in the p^lace of external objective factors like Bible, Tradition and visible Church. He was before the Inquisition three times, he got acquitted three times, which would not have been possible if he had made a false confession. The third time he was told: "you cannot give spiritual guidance and differentiate between venial and mortal sins, unless you study theology first", and in obedience to Inquisitors he went to Sorbonne to study Theology. It was in Paris that he met St Francis Xavier and a few other of the original Jesuits.

This would not have been possible if the Spanish Inquisition had been ruthless and condemning suspects more harshly if they refused to confess at all.

But does Kamen actually say that? Maybe about the witches, though what the Inquisitor now known as their advocate found was false confessions of witchcraft for another motive, a hysteric belief - which he combatted - that such and such a sin or temptation against purity could only be forgiven if they were burnt at the stake as witches. This is at least what Gustav Henningsen concludes in this book:

The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition, 1609-1614

After that the standard penance for a confessed witch was a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, to St James in Galicia. After abjuring the Devil, of course.

Now, it seems Henry Charles Lea was or may have been vastly inaccurate on Spanish Inquisition - a book I have not read - in matters where Kamen corrects him. Commparing heretics to terrorists rather than, say, Satanists, makes more sense in a Spanish than in a Languedocian context too. The book I had read of HC Lea was on the Medieval Inquisition. This was also the matter where I was using Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique. Kamen's book would hardly deny what I said about Medieval non-English and English Inquisitions as vastly different. Since Spanish Inquisition, which he is dealing with, started after what is commenly called "the Middle Ages".

other video commented on:
tektontv : Miss Dusters 4: Galileo Fables
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I got it like: "Galileo was not in trouble for Heliocentrism, but for being a pest" ... did I get it wrong?

Now, that would have been a major no no for the Inquisition. The occasion which got Galileo in trouble in 1633 might have been lampooning the Pope in Dialogo, but occasion and given, stated reason are two different things.

Lampooning the pope is not heresy to be abjured, being a pest is not heresy to be abjured, heliocentrism was considered so, specifically against Joshua chapter 10.
No, you got it right. That's essentially what all the historians say.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I don't know whom you call "all", but you forgot Robert Sungenis there.

One of them you hand on the opinion of seems to have been a Jesuit, and he seems to have been popular with Benedict XVI.

Now, the thesis "Galileo got condemned BY being a pest" is tenable, but the thesis "was condemned FOR being a pest" is not.

Condemned theses 1633: 1) sun is center and does not move as observed, 2) earth is not center but is in third heaven above the sun. = is third planet from sun.

1:st now abandoned.

[Except for the part "and does not move as observed" if Sungenis got that quote right]
Sungenis' credentials are not as a historian. I refer only to those who have doctorates in history.

Don't promote nutty ideas about geocentrism here or I will ban you as a troll.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You seem to think that today's universities are the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

St Paul says that the Church is.

Geocentrism = believing your eyes = nutty? C'mon!

Robert Sungenis made a good research on either field, I even think he did better as historian than as natural philosopher.
You seem to think people should give a nut credence just because you're paranoid, uncritical, and ignorant.

Well, you were warned. Bye, troll.

argument not given to tektontv, since blocked to soon
See link:

... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)

By dealing with angelic causality of movements of singular heavenly bodies (but not of Heaven as a whole, that only God can move at will), I did one better than Sungenis as natural philosopher.

Of course, "tektontv" would possibly have called me either ignorant or paranoid or Pagan for saying so too, but blocking me was a more sure way of not coming through as somewhat ignorant and prejudiced himself than letting me argue.

video not commented on, since good:
tektontv : Miss Dusters 5: Constantine Fables

Thursday, July 18, 2013

... on Catholic and Orthodox Conflict in Transsylvania.

Commenting on:
TheMistAnchorite : Ecumenism The Orthodox Church is in Danger New Schismatic churches
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have you one Nicolas Kabasilas or Kavasilas (Greeks pronounce older beta as vita now) in your calendar as a saint? The Greeks do.

He was as much a Cathodox biritualist as Vlad Tepec.

One of his books was by the Catholic Church put on index of forbidden books. However, it seems (from those who did read it) he counts the prayer before anamnesis in Roman Canon Missae as the necessary epiklesis.

Then check out Trent with Jerusalem and Iasi, Constantinople V with Vatican I. Councils.

Did you know that Constantinople V met with a limited condemnation by the Pope or Cardinals of the Old Rome?

"even the saints in heaven do not see God in his nature but only in his energies" - that one was condemned by Rome.

The errors of Varlaam saying God was not knowable were not supported when Rome condemned part of Constantinople V, and were condemned by Vatican I.

I am first and foremost a Catholic. I did a Kabasilas move for some years, with Neohimerite Roumanians. I returned.

I do not agree with your take on Greek Catholic Church.

I have a piety towards Monsignor Ghica. The Orthodox priest who became Uniate priest.

If you wish to know where Catholics and Orthodox differ, and where they agree, look at my side by side of the Catechism of Trent with that of Philaret of Moscow.

Google "trentophilaret". One blog of mine. It is incomplete, I only finished the commandments about God so far. I added two pages about Immaculate Conception and about filioque.
Motto: “From the day the Catholics became the accomplice of an action aimed against the Romanian nation, they lost all rights to our sympathies; for us, they are the same as pagans and the evildoers.” Mihai Eminescu NATIONAL POET OF ROMANIA ( in “Timpul” 1883 – L.R. 1936, page 65). [His reply continues, I give the first part here, as the second part is more historical and deserves another answer more about history.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
A nation has rights, but the rights of the Church come first.

Visarion Sarai tried to defend what he considered as the correct rights of the correct Church.

Mihai Eminescu seems to have put nation above Church.

Hitler did the same later. With disastrous results. Agreed, he did it in a worse fashion than Eminescu.

But Pope Pius XI was right to recall, in defense of Church and of innocent lives, what he recalled in Mit brennender Sorge.

"7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God. 8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or ... any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."


Part of Catholic clergy have been involved in a conflict where one Catholic nation protecting Catholic and Uniate clergy came in conflict with Orthodox clergy of that nation.

I do not see how this can be construed as the whole Catholic Church attacking the Romanian nation. Except perhaps by one who tends to idolise the same and forget what Holy Church is about.
TheMistAnchorite [continued from above]
Attempts of Magyarization of the Transylvanian Romanians By the Greek-Catholic Church. read it on google. General Bukow on the order of the pope, destroied more than 300 very old romanian churches to the ground because we refused to become catholics, do not hurt us again
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Prislop Monastery, a short day's walk from Haţeg?

In 1762 there is no possibility that generals of Catholic nations acted on orders of the Pope.

I have no clue about what happened between Romanian Orthodox and Greek Catholics leading up to general Bukow, nor whether he was Catholic or Protestant.

I do know that in his time Papacy was not ordering the Catholic nations but rather suffering persecution from them, due to Masonry and Enlightenment. About same time when Jesuits were dissolved.

[I looked up Bukow and finally found something:]

"In fact, from 1761-1762, most of the monasteries and sketes present in Transylvania at the time (more than 150) were destroyed by cannons or set on fire, by order of general Nicolai Adolf Bukow, the envoy of Maria Tereza, empress of Austria. Practically, any trace of monastic life disappeared in Transylvania after that period." (source)

Maria Teresia and her Mason son Joseph II did that to Benedictines too. He hated "contemplative orders".

"As soon as Transylvania came under the Habsburgs’ rule (1688-1918), a little part of the Romanian clergy and faithful were obliged, through pressure and deceit, to accept the “union” with the Church of Rome (1698-1701), at the time of metropolitan Atanasie Anghel." (same source)

Pressure and deceit is your version.

I am not sure Monsignor Ghica agreed with you on that part.

I found more in Romanian than in English about Visarion Sarai.

[Found this in English though]

I do know that Catholics have paid in the same suffering since.

The Clergy who had sworn an oath to the French Constitution were quite as unwanted by faithful Catholics as Uniate Priests a few decades earlier [by Orthodox in Transsylvania].

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

... on Jephthah's daughter

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Jephthah's daughter, 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Ever Heard of Claudian Famine in Corinth, and Dinippus?

One response:
Lazar Puhalo : Jephtha's Vow and Sacrifice (Judges.Ch.11)

And Catholics agree.
This guy is either a bold face liar or he does not know the bible, I will quote the verse here.

Judges 11:39 "When she returned home, her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin."

You clearly say at 2m54s that it does not say that she was killed. You are wrong.
No, you are wrong. Even world famous Old Testament scholars follow his view on this. Keil and Delitzsch, for example, have pointed out that the term "burnt offering" (Hebrew, ola) show that it does not mean a literal human sacrifice in this context. Jeptha's daughter did not bewail her impending death, but her virginity (btulim), Judges 11:37-38. He and she bewailed her virginity. There was no human sacrifice here. [Kein and Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, pp.388-95]. God never would allow it.
Lazar Puhalo
You translation/version does not match several others. When you say you "know the Bible," you should specify which version you know, since not all of them match. In any case, I offered an "possibility" and made it clear that it was merely that, and not a statement proferred as fact.

I do realise that you Atheists are always anxious to indict God for cruelty, inconsistency and vindictiveness. However, I wonder if sometimes you might not take a broader look at your highly negative vision of God.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
She died like a virgin can mean two different things:

1) she was killed and this was while she was still a virgin;

2) she never married, so when she died, later, she was still a virgin.

That was the interpretation the jumped to my attention when I reread the story.

St Augustine may have thought otherwise (not knowing exact etymology of 'olah) but he was very hesitating about all of it.
Lazar Puhalo
Not trying to softsell the matter of Jephtha's daughter. There might have been a human sacrifice, although it is forbidden by the Law. In fact, I suspect that God gave very little of the law. In the first place, there is too much in common with Hammurabi's Code to be mere coincidence, and too much of it is rather general
The contrasts between the two are even more significant than the similarities. For example, the Babylonian code makes a sharp class distinction between the free man and the semifree, as well as the slave. In Deuteronomy there is virtually no class distinction. More significant, Mosaic legislation had a deeply religious tone. In the Hammurabi code, we find a strictly impersonal style such as would be usual for a sophisticated legal system pertaining to a more urbanized society.
I was wondering....which translation were you referring to?
Lazar Puhalo
One of the versions of the Septuagint. However, "she ended as a virgin." I did not dispute your renditions either; as I mentioned, I offered a possible interpretations, but never asserted that it was correct, only a possible understanding. All Atheists use the story to substantiate atheism. No reason that you should be different than the others.
Other response:
tektontv : The Tale of Jephthah

He practically argues for same conclusion about the story, with less hesitation as to fact. There is also present an element of parody in the way arguments are put. I might have not approved that but seen that as less essential to argue about.

However, he also argues that it was a tragedy that Jephthah's daughter schemingly chose this for fear of childbirth or domestic chores. I replied that Jephthah's daughter was a promise of things to come.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In the video you find it really tragic that Jepthah had a daughter who could come up with such a thing, but would it not occur to you that St Paul agrees (assuming you are right on the facts):

"who marries his daughter does well, who does not marry his daughter does even better"

[Quoted from memory. St Paul says "his virgin" which might be daughter or stepdaughter or sister or niece etc.]

I tend to agree with you on facts (though I have forgotten what Church Father supports me), but you miss out on her being a promise of things to come: Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and nuns.
That's a creative point, but really rather unnecessary. Particularly since Paul's directive was made under conditions of famine in the Corinth area.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Not really.

Whether there was a famine or not (Corinth is rather infertile and depends on trade anyway) the words of St Paul are there for all of the Church for all ages up to the Second Coming.

Meaning Catholics and Orthodox have got it right, and Protestants (over last five hundred years where they have been) wrong.
The context was there in the first first century. That means adding your own is illicit, regardless of which church you are with.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The context in first century includes verses 32 - 40. Of chapter 7 of I Cor.

They speak of excellency of non-married state in general.

Detracting that context to substitute for it an archaeological or fake archaeological one is illicit, regardless of which confession you have.

Care to defend the famine theory from the Bible or is it just hearsay from expertise? Famine in Corinth back then is like "famine in New York". Not a question of farms in the backland, but of trade.
No, it doesn't speak of the "excellency" of it. It relates particular advantages of it.

You want to deal with the famine idea, try Winter's After Paul Left Corinth. It will be amusing to see you take on a real scholar.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Quoting book review:

"Severe grain shortages, the relocation of the Isthmian Games, the introduction of a new federal imperial cult, the withdrawal of kosher meat from the official market-all of these cultural events had a substantial impact on the life of the emerging Christian community."

Temporary severe grain shortages - granted as possible. Chronically so? I find that hard to believe, as I have not the book here, can you tell me what he based it on?
Evidence. Go read it all, not just a preview. And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life. Also, 1 Cor. 7:1 is a Corinthian slogan he quotes back.

I don't allow multi-comments. Other 2 deleted. And don't just make up lame excuse-questions like "how lasting" as a way to get around the point. That's based on you wanting to reach your conclusion, not on evidence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[my answer not yet allowed to appear, but repeats a point given in one deleted answer, that 3 grain shortages attested throught ten inscriptions actually praising the official responsible for grain imports are hardly evidence that grain shortage was so severe in Corinth as to warrant by itself perpetual virginity. As to "And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life" I answered that by fact he was so himself and by his preference stated in verse 7.

Grain shortage would have been more often occurring more severely in 16th C Germany of Luthre or Switzerland of Zwingli and Oecolampadius than in 1st C Corinth.

Above all since there is an apologetic parallel between Jephthah's daughter and Isaac, he should be prepared there is also a typological one - understood as if Isaac points to Jesus, then Jephthah's daughter to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Nuns and the Virgin Martyrs.]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"And Paul doesn't tell other people to be celibate for life."

Verse 7 he does. He never married.

I did not "get around" the point. You did. Lasting grainj shortages were far likelier in 16th C Germany and Switzerland than in 1st C Corinth.

There is an apologetic parallel between Isaac and Jephthah's daughter.

Should warn you there is a typological too.

Look for parallel words between Judges and Corinthians or betw Corinthians and your explanaition on video.
Please, spare me. His own experience (v. 7) is not an instruction to others. And what he wishes for others to have is his self-control (v 5) not his celibacy, Stop mangling the text to serve your purposes. Yes, you're evading the point, and don't give me any lame claims of "typology" (which are likely forced on your part) or of "words" (since they are 2 different languages).

That will be all. I have a rule here about off topic comments, and have allowed you more than enough.
not under his video (since he requested so), only here:
Disingenious. But what can one expect from a Protestant. The factual points in video are still good.
I Corinthians chapter 7:
Link to Douay Rheims version with Haydock comment
Winter's book, link
After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, Mr. Bruce W. Winter
Quote from index page:

11. The Present Crisis and the Consummation of Marriage
(1. Corinthians 7:25-38) 241

'He Who Marries ... He Who Does Not Marry' (7:38)
I. Personal Dilemmas Aggravated by the Present Dislocation 241
II. Eschatology and Youth's EXpectations of This Life 253
III. Christian Obligations for Singles and Marrieds 263.

My comment:
We see then that there is a certain moral context rather than a merely topical one for the advice.
Quote about grain:
Page 6: There is also evidence that three severe grain shortages occurred in Corinth during the early days of the Church.

Plate 7 The inscription of Tiberius Claudius Dinippus, who was in charge of the grain supply for famine relief on three separate occasions in Corinth during the early years of the Christian community. For inscriptions to him which mentioned his role three times as curator annonae see, e.g., Kent, Corinth, 8.3, nos. 158-63 (Reproduced by permission of the American School of Archaeology in Corinth.) See pp. 216-18.
My comment:
Here he takes curator annonae as an official dealing with famine relief. What I have learned from Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, the Annona was not for famines but for paupers. Anyone who was not ashamed to do so could get his part in the annona. If you could afford grain yourself, maybe you did not. My point about "famine in New York" stands. The three severe grain shortages are only three occasions on which Tiberius Claudius Dinippus was having the honorary office of heading a kind of Caesarian socialism. One that was still going on in the times of St Genevieve's father (the Medieval legend she "herded sheep" as a child comes from her real involvement in the food handouts that had been going on since Julius Caesar).

Even if you took the annona, that did not mean you were "too poor to marry".

But even if there had been a kind of argument, the traditional reading of I Corinthians 7 cannot be overthrown by some archeological find, 2000 years after the text, since a Church having been in the meantime misunderstanding is against end of St Matthew or against "Pillar and Foundation of Truth" claim for the Church.

Paul and Empire edited by Richard A. Horsley does mention Dinippus. Now, the footnotes they give as evidence for famine under Clau-Clau-Clau-Claudius "in Corinth" (their conclusion) are Tacitus Annales 12:43 as well as Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Claudius 18. Neither of these speak of grain shortage in Corinth more than anywhere else, both of grain shortage in Rome. Perhaps a question of bad logistics about a city getting more and more overdimensioned? Hardly a parallel for Corinth. Refounded in 44 by Caesar, therefore close enough to its recent planners. However, the grain shortage in Rome was seen as a prodigy, as supernatural. The grain shortage can very well return tomorrow if God is enough provoked. If Dinippus was no more use in Corinth than Claudius in Rome, well, then these situations may soon return to the world.

Here is Haydock Bible Commentary on 11:31

Ver. 31. Whosoever, &c. Some are of opinion, that the meaning of this vow of Jephte, was to consecrate to God whatsoever should first meet him, according to the condition of the thing; so as to offer it up as a holocaust, if it were such a thing as might be so offered by the law; or to devote it otherwise to God, if it were not such as the law allowed to be offered in sacrifice. And therefore they think the daughter of Jephte was not slain by her father, but only consecrated to perpetual virginity. But the common opinion followed by the generality of the holy fathers and divines is, that she was offered as a holocaust, in consequence of her father's vow: and that Jephte did not sin, at least not mortally, neither in making nor in keeping his vow; since he is no ways blamed for it in scripture; and was even inspired by God himself to make the vow, (as appears from ver. 29, 30.) in consequence of which he obtained the victory; and therefore he reasonably concluded that God, who is the master of life and death, was pleased, on this occasion, to dispense with his own law; and that it was the divine will he should fulfil his vow. (Challoner)

St. Thomas [Aquinas] (2. 2. q. 88. a. 2.) acknowledges that Jephte was inspired to make a vow, and his devotion herein is praised by the apostle, Hebrews xi. 32. But he afterwards followed his own spirit, in delivering himself, without mature deliberation, and in executing what he had so ill engaged himself to perform. This decision seems to be the most agreeable to the Scripture, and to the holy fathers. St. Jerome (in Jer. vii.) says, non sacrificium placet, sed animus offerentis. "If Jephte offered his virgin daughter, it was not the sacrifice, but the good will of the offerer which deserves applause." Almost all the ancients seem to agree that the virgin was really burnt to death; and the versions have whosoever, which intimates that Jephte intended to offer a human victim; particularly as he could not expect a beast fit for such a purpose, would come out of the doors of his house to meet him. (Calmet)

Yet many of the moderns, considering how much such things are forbidden by God, cannot persuade themselves that Jephte should be so ignorant of the law, or that the priests and people of Israel should suffer him to transgress it. The original may be rendered as well, "whatsoever proceedeth....shall surely be the Lord's, and (Protestants) or I will offer it up for a holocaust." (Pagnin. &c.)

The version of Houbigant is very favourable to this opinion. See Hook's Principia.

It is supposed that the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which took place about this time, (Aulis. v. 26,) was only in imitation of this of Jephte's daughter. But the poets say, that Diana saved her life, and substituted a doe in her place; (Ovid, Met. xii.) which, if true, would make the conformity more striking, if we admit that the sacrifice of Jephte's daughter was not carried into effect. Iphigenia was made a priestess of Diana, to whom human victims were immolated. The daughter of Jephte, whom the false Philo calls Seila, was consecrated to the Lord, and shut up (Haydock) to lead a kind of monastic life; as the wives of David, (2 Kings xx. 3.; Grotius) after they had been dishonoured, were obliged to live in a state of continency. Although (Haydock) forced chastity be not a virtue, (Calmet) yet Jephte had no reason to believe that his daughter would not enter into the spirit of his vow, and embrace that state for God's honour and service. We know that she gave her entire consent to whatever might be the nature of his vow; and surely she would be as ready to refrain from marriage, however desirable at that time, as to be burnt alive, which would effectually prevent her from becoming a mother, ver. 37. To require this of her, was not, at least, more cruel in her father than to offer her in sacrifice. The Chaldean paraphrast says, "Jephte did not consult Phinees, the priest, or he might have redeemed her;" and Kimchi gives us a very mean idea, both of Jephte and of the high priest, the great Phinees, whom the Rabbins foolishly suppose was still living, and of course above 300 years old, ver. 26.

"Phinees said, He wants me, let him come to me. But Jephte, the head of the princes of Israel, shall I go to him? During this contest the girl perished." To such straits are those reduced who wish to account for the neglect of Jephte in redeeming his daughter, as the Targum observes, was lawful for a sum of money, Leviticus xxvii. 2, 3, 28.

But (Haydock) his vow was of the nature of the cherom, which allowed of no redemption, and required death. (Calmet)

On this point, however, interpreters are not agreed, and this manner of devoting to death, probably, regarded only the enemies of God, or such things as were under a person's absolute dominion. (Haydock)

If a dog had first come out to meet Jephte, could he have offered it up for a holocaust? Certainly not, (Grotius) because it was prohibited, (Deuteronomy xxiii. 18,) to offer even its price, (Haydock) and only oxen, sheep, goats, turtles and doves, were the proper victims. If, therefore, a person made a vow, of a man, he was to be consecrated to the Lord, (Grotius) like Samuel, and he might marry. But a woman could not, as she was already declared the servant of the Lord, and was not at liberty to follow her husband. (Amama)

We need not herein labour to defend the conduct of Jephte. The Scripture does not canonize him on this account. If he did wrong, his repentance, and other heroic acts of virtue, might justly entitle him to be ranked among the saints of the old law. (St. Augustine, q. 49)

"Shew me the man who has not fallen into sin....Jephte returned victorious from the enemy, but in the midst of his triumph, he was overcome by his own vow, so that he thought it proper to requite the piety of his daughter, who came out to meet him, by parricide. In the first place, what need was there of making a vow so hastily, to promise things uncertain, the event of which he knew not, instead of what was certain? Then why did he perform so sorrowful a vow to the Lord God, by shedding blood?" (St. Ambrose, Apol. Dav. i. 4.)

This saint adopts the common opinion that Jephte really immolated his daughter. But he is far from thinking that he was influenced by the holy spirit to make the vow, otherwise he would never represent it in such odious colours. If God had required the life of Jephte's daughter, as he did formerly command Abraham to sacrifice his son, the obedience and faith of the former would have been equally applauded, as the good will of the latter. But most of those who embrace the opinion that Jephte sacrificed his daughter, are forced to excuse or to condemn the action. They suppose that he was permitted to fulfil his vow, that others might be deterred from making similar promises, without the divine authority. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xiv. ad pop. Ant.; St. Jerome, contra Jov. i.) "I shall never, says St. Ambrose (Off. iii. 12,) be induced to believe that Jephte, the prince, did not promise incautiously that he would immolate whatever should meet him,...since he repented of his vow," &c. We may observe that this great Doctor supposes, that Jepthe promised to sacrifice the first thing that should meet him "at the door of his own house;" whence he seems to take whosoever in the same latitude as we have given in the Hebrew. He concludes, "I cannot accuse the man who was obliged to fulfil his vow," &c. We may imitate his moderation, (Haydock) rather than adopt the bold language of one who has written notes on the Protestant Bible, (1603) who says, without scruple, that by this rash vow and wicked performance, his victory was defaced; and again, that he was overcome with blind zeal, not considering whether the vow was lawful or not. (Worthington).

If Jephte was under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost in what he did, as Salien believes, and the context by no means disproves, we ought to admire the faith of this victorious judge, though he gave way to the feelings of human nature, ver. 35. We should praise his fidelity either in sacrificing or in consecrating his daughter to God's service in perpetual virginity: but if he followed his own spirit, we cannot think that he was so ill-informed or so barbarous as to murder his daughter, nor that she would consent to an impiety which so often disgraced the pagan superstition, though she might very well agree to embrace that better part, which her father and God himself, by a glorious victory, seemed to have marked out for her. Amid the variety of opinions which have divided the learned on this subject, infidels can derive no advantage or solid proof against the divine authority of the Scripture, and of our holy religion. The fact is simply recorded. People are at liberty to form what judgment of it they think most rational. If they decide that Jepthe was guilty of an oversight, or of a downright impiety, it will in the first place be difficult for them to prove it to the general satisfaction; and when they have done so, they will only evince that he was once a sinner, and under this idea the word of God gives him no praise. But if he did wrong in promising, as many of the Fathers believe, he might be justified in fulfilling his vow, as God might intimate to him both interiorly, and by granting him the victory, that he dispensed with his own law, and required this sort of victim in order to foreshew the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, (Serarius and Salien, in the year of the world 2850) or the state of virginity which his blessed Mother and so many nuns and others in the Christian Church embrace with fervour.

Peace, with victory.

Same. Hebrew, "it shall be the Lord's, and (or) I will make it ascend a whole burnt-offering." (Haydock)

The particle ve often signifies or as well as and, and it is explained in this sense here by the two Kimchis, by Junius, &c. See Exodus xxi. 17. Piscator says, the first part of the sentence determines that whatever the thing was it should be consecrated to the Lord, with the privilege of being redeemed, (Leviticus xxvii. 11,) and the second shews that it should be immolated, if it were a suitable victim. (Amama)


St Thomas on Jephthah and generally vows and what they should be about:


Objection 2. Further, Jephte is included among the saints (Hebrews 11:32). Yet he killed his innocent daughter on account of his vow (Judges 11). Since, then, the slaying of an innocent person is not a better good, but is in itself unlawful, it seems that a vow may be made not only about a better good, but also about something unlawful.


On the contrary, It is written (Deuteronomy 23:22): "If thou wilt not promise thou shalt be without sin."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), a vow is a promise made to God. Now a promise is about something that one does voluntarily for someone else: since it would be not a promise but a threat to say that one would do something against someone. On like manner it would be futile to promise anyone something unacceptable to him. Wherefore, as every sin is against God, and since no work is acceptable to God unless it be virtuous, it follows that nothing unlawful or indifferent, but only some act of virtue, should be the matter of a vow. But as a vow denotes a voluntary promise, while necessity excludes voluntariness, whatever is absolutely necessary, whether to be or not to be, can nowise be the matter of a vow. For it would be foolish to vow that one would die or that one would not fly.

On the other hand, if a thing be necessary. not absolutely but on the supposition of an end--for instance if salvation be unattainable without it--it may be the matter of a vow in so far as it is done voluntarily, but not in so far as there is a necessity for doing it. But that which is not necessary, neither absolutely, nor on the supposition of an end, is altogether voluntary, and therefore is most properly the matter of a vow. And this is said to be a greater good in comparison with that which is universally necessary for salvation. Therefore, properly speaking, a vow is said to be about a better good.


Reply to Objection 2. Certain things are good, whatever be their result; such are acts of virtue, and these can be, absolutely speaking, the matter of a vow: some are evil, whatever their result may be; as those things which are sins in themselves, and these can nowise be the matter of a vow: while some, considered in themselves, are good, and as such may be the matter of a vow, yet they may have an evil result, in which case the vow must not be kept. It was thus with the vow of Jephte, who as related in Judges 11:30-31, "made a vow to the Lord, saying: If Thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me when I return in peace . . . the same will I offer a holocaust to the Lord." For this could have an evil result if, as indeed happened, he were to be met by some animal which it would be unlawful to sacrifice, such as an ass or a human being. Hence Jerome says [Implicitly 1 Contra Jovin.: Comment. in Micheam vi, viii: Comment. in Jerem. vii. The quotation is from Peter Comestor, Hist. Scholast.]: "In vowing he was foolish, through lack of discretion, and in keeping his vow he was wicked." Yet it is premised (Judges 11:29) that "the Spirit of the Lord came upon him," because his faith and devotion, which moved him to make that vow, were from the Holy Ghost; and for this reason he is reckoned among the saints, as also by reason of the victory which he obtained, and because it is probable that he repented of his sinful deed, which nevertheless foreshadowed something good.



As to St Augustine's view, I will look up the 28 paragraph's of Quaestiones in Heptatechum, Book 7, chapter 49, which deals with Jephthah's daughter, but not here. Will update with a link when ready./HGL