What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

I'm listening to (or watching without sound but with subtitles) a video where Keaton Halley argues from Romans 1 that humanity is coeval with creation.

However, while he's perfectly right that mankind since Adam and Eve (and that being at the beginning of the world) have been able to conclude for God, he says "we can know from watching creation, there is a Creator" ... but that's not exactly what St. Paul says.

It makes sense in the modern world, where we are aware that an eternal stedy-state universe with an eternal steady-state earth isn't an option.

Hydrogen meets Hydrogen, becomes Deuterium. Deuterium meets Deuterium, becomes Helium. Happens over and over again in the Sun and all self luminous stars. It's a one way process. Hydrogen is being depleted. Helium is being replenished. There is no opposed process known to science. If this had been going on since all eternity, Hydrogen would already be completely depleted and Helium would be all that was left. Or heavier elements. However, given spectral lines, we know Hydrogen is more abundant than Helium:

For example, the abundance of oxygen in pure water can be measured in two ways: the mass fraction is about 89%, because that is the fraction of water's mass which is oxygen. However, the mole fraction is about 33% because only 1 atom of 3 in water, H₂O, is oxygen. As another example, looking at the mass fraction abundance of hydrogen and helium in both the universe as a whole and in the atmospheres of gas-giant planets such as Jupiter, it is 74% for hydrogen and 23–25% for helium; while the (atomic) mole fraction for hydrogen is 92%, and for helium is 8%, in these environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

So, given the universe had a beginning, a finite time ago, sorry, I'm repeating myself, how did it begin? And we can rule out Big Bang from spiral galaxies "13 billion light years away" and we can rule out Abiogenesis from the fact that Miller Urey conditions can't provide materials for cell membranes (which are essential to preserving amino acids from disintegrating in Miller Urey conditions) and we can rule out non-human apes turning to men because of language, as I have argued here:

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2026/03/challenge-not-met.html

If you aren't a linguist having never heard of "dual patterning" or "double articulation", check out the link I give in the status on the forum:

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

So, yes, we are in a position to argue not just generally for God in a Theistic sense, but specifically for a Creator God. There was never when God wasn't (and this is true of God the Son too, see the condemnation of Arians in the Fourth Century), but there was a beginning when the creation hadn't been before. And a beginning that could only originate from a conscious God, not from sth like unconscious space-time with natural laws.

By the way, in Einsteinian terms, Big Bang is a contradiction in terms. "Once, all of them matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a point as small as an atom, then it expanded" — this doesn't work if space itself is a kind of material substance or force field. Because that one would have been expanding, but there is no extension to measure of it as a whole apart from what it contains, so the logic consequence would be, a universe as big as ours could "in our universe" take up the space of an atom, but not that the universe could gain in size against the outside, since there is no space outside it. Space can't expand, even if finite, since there are no "empty space coordinates" for it to expand in.

But, Lucretius didn't believe in the Big Bang. I'll actually go to the Pagans first. Specifically the most non-Theistic ones, the precursors (very indirectly) of modern Atheism.

He had no spectral lines. He had no idea of what happens as hydrogen to helium fusion in the Sun. He had no indication the universe had a beginning.

In the 12th C. the Shroud of Turin could have been a forgery. After Secondo Pia and Barry Schwortz we can't. Just the same way, we know the universe had a beginning, but in the 12th C we didn't know it and Lucretius didn't know it. Noah knew it because he recalled that Adam had been created a celibate adult, but some of the peoples after Babel forgot that and therefore didn't know it any more. St. Paul speaks of what observation can tell us. Even without the tradition from Adam and Eve.

Can you think of a specific observational item, not "special instruments" but "naked eye" observation, since the beginning of the world, which tells us of God, but not necessarily that He created? I can. If we take the words "his eternal power also" these are in the Greek: ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις and 126. aidios has two definitions:

1. (forward and backward) eternal
2. (forward only) everlasting

It's both, if it's everlasting, as we observe it to be, it can't be acquired from somewhere else, so it's eternal in the first sense too, but what we observe is, "no God didn't get tired, He gave us another day" or "another night".

St. Ambrose puts it in a very nice way in a hymn before going to bed (technically Compline, I think, no, Saturday Vespers), here:

DEUS creator omnium
polique rector, vestiens
diem decoro lumine,
noctem soporis gratia

Here is a translation:

GOD that all things didst create
and the heavens doth regulate,
Who doth clothe the day with light,
and with gracious sleep the night....

So, "didst create" is a statement of the past and is known through faith. But the rest of it "and the heavens doth regulate, / Who doth clothe the day with light, / and with gracious sleep the night...." is known by observation. This is the kind of thing we observe and which St. Paul speaks of.

What was the Atheist response? It actually wasn't Heliocentrism, Lucrece was also a Geocentric, though not as much as Sts. Paul and Ambrose. Here is a quote from a translation of De Rerum Natura, book I, 979 to 1068:

Air divides the hills; the earth
Creates the sea, and the sea gives birth
To it, and so it goes. The traits of space
Are such that even thunderbolts can’t race
Across the endless tracts of time, nor may
They rest awhile while they go on their way;
There’s such a huge abundance spread around
In all directions: lest a thing is bound
By limits, every body must enclose
Each void, each void each body, and this shows
That both of them possess no boundaries:
Unless it hemmed the other, one of these
Would be extended, stretched immeasurably,
And thus the earth, the bright-blue sky, the sea,
Mankind and the immortals could not stay
An hour in place, for all things, swept away,
Would through the massive void be borne, indeed
Would never have combined to be the seed
Of anything. For prime germs certainly
Did not with any perspicacity
Fashion themselves in order or decide
What movements for each one they should provide,
But, since they’re multitudinous and change
In many ways among the All, they range
Abroad, pushed out and beaten, venturing
All kinds of movement and of coupling
Until they settle down eventually
With those designs through which totality
Is made: for countless years they’ve been protected
Now they acceptably have been projected
Into their proper motions – thus the sea
By all the streams is freshened constantly,
The earth, lapped by the vapours of the sun,
Brings forth new brood, all creatures, every one,
Flourish and all the gliding fires which flow
Above us yet live on. They could not, though,
Have managed this at all had no supply
Of matter risen from the void, whereby
They could repair lost things. With scarcity
Of food beasts waste away, while similarly
All things must fade when matter, blown aside
Somehow, is then unable to provide
Succour, nor from outside can blows maintain
The world’s united sum. For blows can rain
Often and check a part while others come
Along, enabled to fill up the sum;
But meanwhile they are often forced to spring,
Thus to the primal germs contributing
A space and time for flight that they may be
Borne from this union to liberty.
So many things, we’re brought to understand,
Must rise, and yet the blows must be at hand
Always in order that there’ll always be
A force of matter universally.
Don’t listen to those people who profess
That all things inward to the centre press,
Dear Memmius, and that the entire world
Stands firmly while no outward blows are hurled
Against it, since neither their depth nor height
Can be unbound and all things are pressed tight
Into the centre. Therefore, do not think
That heavy weights beneath the earth can shrink
Upon it, having striven from below
To settle upside down, as images show
Upon the ocean. They also propound
That every breathing thing wanders around
And can’t fall up to the sky any more than we
Can reach the heavens by flying; when they see
The sun, the constellations of the night
Are what we view - we thus detach our sight
From theirs, our night coequal to their day.
These dreams have made these people fools since they
Embrace them faultily, for there can’t be
A centre when there is infinity.

So, his point is, the Geocentrism we observe is kind of a whirlpool movement, by lack of stability. It is also an illusion from lack of circumspection insofar as Earth is only a local centre. Much as modern Heliocentrism isn't cosmic Heliocentrism, but makes the Sun only centre of the locality known as the "Solar System".

This obviously depends on lots of unobserved assumptions, not quite unlike, in our modern Atheism, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". He is asking us to take unobserved "infinity" as inherent in things that are observed as finite, having limits.

So, in contrast, St. Paul tells us we can trust our perception, we don't have to fumble with unproven assumptions in the unknown, especially where they contradict what we know of things by observation, Geocentrism really is absolute, movement isn't just a whirlpool effect, and it comes from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Thursday
9.IV.2026

Jean Colson or St. Augustine? Who's Right?

In Tractate 119 of Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, St. Augustine tells us how the Gospeller becomes the Son of the Mother of God, from the Gospel.

After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own
John 19:27

Here St. Augustine pauses to ask, "how could he even have anything 'his own' to take Her to?"

Obviously, St. Augustine belongs to the tradition after St. Irenaeus, and considers St. John the Beloved as St. John the Son of Zebedee. As one of the twelve. About whom the Synoptics say:

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?
Matthew 19:27

In other words, St. John the Beloved lived in Apostolic Poverty, and didn't have a house of his own. Nothing with his property deed to it.

Part of how St. Augustine answers is this:

And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting
Matthew 19:29

The hundredfold is involved even in this life, and part of that, for St. John, was, he had enough to host the Mother of His Master Who was now his own Mother, by adoption. So far St. Augustine. He doesn't stop here. He gives a very concrete suggestion:

And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need
Acts Of Apostles 2:43-45

And on this occasion, St. John had need of a house to host the Mother of God.

Did St. Augustine imagine that St. John and the Blessed Virgin were teleported forward in time to when this was happening after the First Pentecost? Probably not. In Acts 1, Our Lady is among those praying. Part of the idea behind Mediatrix of All Graces is, while we do not know if the Holy Spirit would have been sent anyway if She hadn't been there and prayed, we do know He was not sent without Her being there and praying for Him. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit to Strength and to Witness after She prayed and that means because She prayed. Also after they prayed, and that means because they prayed, but it was worth noticing She was there to pray with them.

And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren
Acts Of Apostles 1:13-14

So, St. Augustine definitely could have a point that community of property in Jerusalem had started before Pentecost because it was already practised before. If the practise already existed before the Crucifixion, then this could be how it happened.

However, Jean Colson said: St. John the Beloved was not one of the twelve, he was the host at the Last Supper (and left his guests among themselves before the First Mass, which means that Judas had also already left and didn't receive the Eucharist). He was a Cohen and as such he was a rich proprietor. He was the man to whom this house belonged.

After hosting God's Mother, he later came to host Her already extant legal stepsons or nephews or whatever, the "brethren of Jesus" after they became believers, like after Jesus appeared to St. James the Brother-of-God. But on Good Friday, he hosted Her, not them. One reason why She did not become their mother after the flesh is, if She had been so, they, not John, would have hosted Her. Hence, two explanations, one is they were sons of St. Joseph's first wife, and he was a widower, another is, they were sons to Her sister or halfsister. Otherwise it would be very curious, to say they least, why they weren't taking care of Her.

However, back to the practical question. In favour of Jean Colson:

And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch But Jesus said: Go ye into the city to a certain man, and say to him: the master saith, My time is near at hand, with thee I make the pasch with my disciples And the disciples did as Jesus appointed to them, and they prepared the pasch
Matthew 26:17-19

According to Jean Colson, the "certain man" here is John the Beloved. And the scene doesn't show the disciples of Jesus and believers in Jesus already practising perfect communion of property before the Last Supper. That certain man seems to have spent his time in his property as his property. It was not full of other believers, it was not full of the poor, it was his to do with as he saw fit, and he could host a very large party.

This is then how Jean Colson explains how St. John took the Mother of Salvation home to his own that very day, that Good Friday. This is a case for his not having been one of the twelve.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday
3.IV.2026

"What is the sole linguistic source you base your language on?"

I frankly don't know what the question means.

On Quora, someone posed it, and I was tagged, but probably not the only one.

Joseph Foster considered the question strange, as he grew up with two different dialects of English and had a teacher who grew up from early childhood in English and French.

Rolf Willers stated "it would have to be the mother tongue" ... and in a sense, that is correct. In a sense that only by learning to speak in the right slot of years (with one or more mother tongues) does one get access to learning more languages. It doesn't mean the mother tongue contains all the words you ever learn to use or things like that, it means that whatever language learning you do later is based on having learned that first. Note, you can forget your first language if you never practise it, but only if you are using another one. It also doesn't mean everyone has only one mother tongue.

But suggesting only one mother tongue is everyone's fare or reminding of the fact that no one learns a second language without having a mother tongue first seems an odd question to pose on Quora. In fact, that wasn't my initial interpretation of the question.

So, here is what I thought. Someone thinks, what I write about language must be wrong, so, thinks my linguistic source is outdated or has sectarian bias, and I don't have any other or better one, and in a offhand manner, like I would answer without thinking, or he were hoping so, asks what that is. He hopes to identify it, identify its fault and the point me to better sources. More modern. Less sectarian.

Here is my reply to that. I have studied linguistics in one way or another since I was a child. My early readings in this area involve:

• an essay or two in Junior Woodchuckers' Handbook (Disney concern), probably not written by the usual comic book staff, though illustrated with Disney style illustrations;
• an essay by Tolkien on English and Welsh, which among other things tell us that Rotomagus, while it became Rouen in French, would have become Rhoddfa in Welsh;
• a book about linguistics which featured examples in Germanic and Finno-Ugrian to examplify language family differences and different language typology (it taught me the difference between Isolating, Agglutinative, Flective, Polysynthetic), no longer on the Malmö library's catalogue*;
• a book about Medieval languages of Europe that suggested the development of definite article in both Romance and Germanic (absent from Latin and Gothic!) was a Sprachbund phenomenon, dependent on influence from Greek Hebrew, Arabic (it also said a thing or two about the process of how English and French and I think German too were standardised), no longer on the Malmö Library's catalogue;
• Languages of the British Isles past and present — I fortunately recall the title, so don't need the Malmö library catalogue to identify it, and I find it is from 1975;
• Der kleine Stowasser, which was a Latin lexicon my mother used before her Latin exam prior to entry into Med school in Vienna. It has lots of the words given with etymological equivalents in Germanic or Greek. Though, to be fair, Menge-Güthling has more of those. Also true of the Greek version of Menge Güthling. It says in a undertitle "mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Etymologie";
• Die Fähre, a school book of German literary history, involving some language history, bought in Berlin during a visit — it could be from a series of school books by Dr. W. Urbanek, but I don't think it was Bd. 10. = Oberstufe. Weiter Horizont; it began with Our Father in Greek, Latin, Gothic, then Old High German, Middle High German and early Modern German from Luther's Bible, it ended with Opitz and Simplicissimus and had good portions from Niebelungenlied and I also think Gûdrûn, both Middle High German and Modern German translation;
• a similar book for Swedish, I think it was "Svensk litteraturhistoria" ...
• observation of typological differences between Germanic languages, German having four cases, Swedish, Danish, to some extent English, two, Dutch like Romance consistently replaces Genitive with "van" ... English has "of" with common nouns, Genitive with proper names.

By "early" I mean, before I started learning Latin in school, in 11th grade.

Thanks to both Stowasser, Woodchuckers' Handbook, and item three, I was familiar with the theory of Indo-European languages coming from a common prior language. My earliest vision of an alternative was when dismissing my Greek professor's reference to Trubetskoy, which he took up in the interest of Pyrrhonism (yes, his favourite Greek school of philosophy was Pyrrhon), and only much later did I connect back to that when someone said "your timeline from the Bible doesn't line up with Proto-Indo-European being spoken 3000 BC" ... while I don't think glottochronology is an exact science, I think the argument holds. I looked up Trubetskoy and found he was the founder of Balkan linguistics, plus I recalled the Sprachbund arguments in item four on my list.

So, my knowledge of language studies is not based on just one source of linguistic scholarship.

But back to the answer of Rolf Willers. Someone may have meant another kind of snyde remark against me. Swedish is not French, not even English. As none of these two is my native language he may imagine "I'll never be fluent" ... that's wrong. Now, in the last two weeks, I've twice made embarrassing gender mistakes in French in contexts where Swedish wouldn't necessarily gender the nouns. I have also admitted to my Swedish perception of the phoneme [e] overlapping to some degree with the French perception of the phoneme [i] (Swedish has the series [i — e — ε — æ — a] in the space where French has the series [i — e — ε — a], so French has more space of variation allotted to [i] than Swedish has — item three taught me about vowel triangles or vowel diagrams). I also regularly confuse in words I have not fully learned yet whether the syllable has an e or an é in spelling, since to my ear "böcker" with -ər and with -εr sound the same, it's the same word, just regional variation. Yes, the very finest points about French phonetics are filtered from my experience of Swedish.

However, I do not propose to become a conférencier in French. As to my capacity of writing in French, that's the kind of thing I can check before publishing, and often do. When a "bésoin de debut" (instead of "besoin de début") slips by, I actually authorise the correction of it.

An even worse kind of snyde remark would be if someone thought I had some mental trouble about my language capacity in Swedish, because I write "vi ha elfva timmar qvar" instead of "vi har elva timmar kvar" ... the use of plural verbs was standard Swedish up to 1950, and is very unlike the proposal of corresponding to English "thou art" from Shakespear, one needs to be really uneducated to make that connection, it's far closer to "nous arrivâmes en moins des onze heures qui nous restaient" instead of "nous sommes arrivés etc" ... and "elfva" and "qvar" is like using a "colour labelled axe" in English spelling rather than a "color labeled ax" in American spelling. Both the US and Sweden had reforms in 1906. So, no, nothing like a language incapacitating mental symptom in my most basic, i e native language, just a use of my actual capacity of Swedish to make a polemic point in a consistent, but low key way. The point being I hate modernity and not least modern administrative tyranny, whether directed against language (Frans G. Bengtsson was against the spelling reform) or against family (see Sweden Doesn't Have Communism for Everyone, Just Selective Communism Where it Hurts).

No, my Swedish is fine, just not to everyone's taste, and so are my later learned languages English and French. Well, French is languishing somewhat from lack of practise. When a whole neighbourhood agrees to overwhelm me with lots of "bonjour" and "comment allez-vous" and nearly nothing else, that's not conversational practise. But not to the degree that anyone has to take into account I could have "meant something else" since French is not my first language. If someone says "Fascist" in French means "Nazi or at least very close", sorry, that's not a feature of French, that's a feature of a political climate I try to change.**

Another possibility is, someone has had "the mother tongue is the sole linguistic source one bases language learning on" in the homework and wanted to check if the homework actually made sense. And it doesn't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Turibius of Mogrovejo
23.III.2026

Limae, in Peruvia, sancti Turibii Episcopi, cujus virtute fides et disciplina ecclesiastica per Americam diffusae sunt.

PS. There is a question which some classify as "linguistics" and I don't, where I also had an early source. For evolutionary linguistics, the kind of thing that Jean Aitchison is trying in The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin and Evolution (Canto), I did have a loaned and later given book on anthropology which pretended the first phoneme and word was the sound "φφφ" as per blowing on a fire, it was a pretty racist one, but the thing is, later works (I've seen samples) seem to retreat from even that question. However, I'd not classify that as linguistics, but as one of the more problematic problems in the Theory of Evolution. The problem should be apparent from my essay doublet (from two quora questions) All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"./HGL

* It also involved the concept of phonetic change. I thought "fagus" meant "book", which is actually "liber", since "book" in Swedish is "bok" but that also means "beechtree" which is the real meaning of "fagus" .... ** It has two different meanings, applicable either to Italian Fascism only or to all of the Fascisms many of which were even less like National Socialism than Italian Fascism was. I use it in the latter sense.

Could China See the Sun Go Dark on Good Friday?

31°46′44″N 35°13′32″E, the coordinates of Jerusalem. Let's keep 31°46′44″N as it is.

3 hours = 1/8 of the nychthemeron (of the 24 hours).

365° / 8 = 182° 30' / 4 = 91° 15' / 2 = 45° 37' 30"

So, at the end of the three hours darkness, the Sun was at 10° 23' 58" W.

180° - 10° = 170° E
169° 60' - 23' = 169° 37' E
169° 36' 60" - 58" = 169° 36' 02" E.

That's South of Sakhalin, basically, that the Sun was in nadir at the end of the Cross Death.

However, it's below horizon 90° to either side of that.

79° 36' 02" E is pretty close to Qangzê, which historically is in Tibet, not China.

However, let's recall the beginning, at 12 noon. Then the Sun was 45° 37' 30" further East.

045° 37' 30"
079° 36' 02"
______________
124° 73' 32" = 125° 13' 32"

When the Sun went dark, the Sun was setting at a place a bit East of China, and the Jerusalem latitude is a bit South of Western Korean Peninsula.

So, supposing the Sun went dark at one specific time, in relation to any place not under the horizon, in China, it would have been observed as going dark a bit before normal sunset, which would have been at / near 6 PM.

How far East was Luoyang?

34°37′11″N 112°27′14″E

125° 13' 32"
112° 27′ 14″
___________________
012° 46' 18" (less than 15° = c. 1/24 of 365°)

So, grosso modo, in Luoyang, the time when Jesus was nailed to the Cross and the Sun went dark, 12:00 in Jerusalem, would have been 17:00 (or actually, less than an hour before sunset, later than astronomical 17:00).

More than 2 of the three hours would have been after sunset. What if Beijing had been the capital?

39°54′24″N 116°23′51″E

125° 13' 32"
116° 23′ 51″
__________________
008° 49' 41" (little more than 15° / 2)

That is just 8~9° West of the "sunset" meridian for noon in Jerusalem. In Beijing, one would have seen it for a little more than 30 minutes, not for 3 hours.

I've contacted Prof. Emer. Christopher Cullen, an expert on Ancient Chinese astronomy, we'll see if he answers.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Matthias Apostle
24.II.2026

In Judaea natalis sancti Matthiae Apostoli, qui, post Ascensionem Domini ab Apostolis in Judae proditoris locum sorte electus, pro Evangelii praedicatione martyrium passus est.

I wonder if Laramie Hirsch permitted himself an April Fools joke on April 1 2021, even if it was Maundy Thursday that year, in the post Historical World Accounts of the Crucifixion’s Darkness The parts of Thallus and Julius Africanus is however genuine. But the citation from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound apparently isn't from an F-search in ÆSCHYLUS' PROMETHEUS BOUND AND THE SEVEN AGAINST THEBES.

PPS, wonder what time it was in Ulster (Emain Macha) when it was 12:00 in Jerusalem? 54°20′53″N 6°41′50″W

06° 41′ 50″ W
35° 13′ 32″ E
41° 54' 82" = 41° 55' 22", pretty close to 45° 37' 30"

It would have been from about 9 AM to 12 that the Sun went dark over Emain Macha./HGL

* I was referred to Quora:
Is there an ancient Chinese record of Jesus's death and resurrection?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-ancient-Chinese-record-of-Jesuss-death-and-resurrection?top_ans=353431258
probably mostly:
Yugan Talovich answers: Did emperor Guangwu really mention Jesus' atonement? Is there any evidence for it's authenticity? (Christian answers please) Source: History of the Latter Han dynasty, Volume 1, Chronicles of emperor Guangwu, 7th year
https://www.quora.com/Did-emperor-Guangwu-really-mention-Jesus-atonement-Is-there-any-evidence-for-its-authenticity-Christian-answers-please-Source-History-of-the-Latter-Han-dynasty-Volume-1-Chronicles-of-emperor-Guangwu-7th-year/answer/Yugan-Talovich

Sassafras et goutte ?

Le sassafras excite la transpiration, la sueur & les urines. Il incise & résout les humeurs visqueuses & épaisses ; il leve les obstructions des visceres ; il est bon pour la cachexie, les pâles couleurs, & l’hydropisie. Il éloigne les attaques de la goutte. Il tend à remédier à la paralysie & aux fluxions froides. On l’emploie utilement dans les maladies vénériennes. On le donne en infusion depuis demi-once jusqu’à deux onces ; on l’emploie souvent dans des décoctions sudorifiques & échauffantes.

SASSAFRAS, signé (D. J.)
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/L’Encyclopédie/1re_édition/SASSAFRAS

Some People Can't Tell Guido von List from Snorri Sturlason from Tolkien

I'd appreciate if guys like that were kind enough to end their efforts to detect the next Magician behind the next Hitler and leave that to competent people.

You don't validly discredit, you just smudge, Dollfuss by a reductio ad Hitlerum.

And you don't validly discredit, you just smudge, Snorri, Tolkien, or myself, by a reductio ad Guidonem von List./HGL

What's Verbicide?

Sharing:

The Spiritual Perils of Verbicide
Jared Selim | Feb 05, 2026
https://substack.com/home/post/p-185556609

How Murdered Words Lose Meaning—and How Logos Revives Them