Some People Will Cultivate Very Irritating Conditions Around Me, then Observe Me, then Spread the Observation to Pretend I'm Easily Angered

One person did exactly that. In this thread.

No, not cultivate the irritating conditions, not observe me when angry, but spread.

Catholic vs. Orthodox: The Filioque Explained
Journey to Holiness | 12 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ0ddYPPy4

0:16 Catechism ... one more item against it, the fact is, we don't have any 381 manuscript of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

GranMaese

@GranMaese

Neither of 50-90 manuscripts of the Gospels, or Paul's letters, so what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GranMaese My point is, when we get manuscripts later, the Latin and the Greek versions are already different.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Different how? Because by all means and purposes, they aren't. The Vulgate is a very faithful translation. There may be even better modern translations, fair enough, but it is still a very good translation.

Furthermore, how would you even know they are "different" if you claim we don't have any original manuscript to check? (about the creed).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese Presence vs absence of filioque.

I mean in the first actual manuscripts with the Constantinopolitan Creed.

From the second council itself, the Creed is lacking from the manuscripts.

GranMaese

@hglundahl That's not the question, though, my friend, for you said :"we don't have any 381 manuscript" But now it seems to be you say you do, that's a contradiction.

Now, perhaps you wanted to say, that the Filioque is not in the original Creed?

In the end, what does the Catechism has anything to do with it and how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history? How is this "one more item against it", exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese I'm sorry, were you bad at logic?

In 381, we have copies of the canons of the council, but not of the Creed. It's Creed only exists in later copies.

"the Filioque is not in the original Creed?"

We don't have the original Creed.

Filioque is not in the earliest Greek copy, but it is in the earliest Latin copy of it.

"how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history?"

It's not being truthful to history and it's swallowing an accusation from the Orthodox which we have a right to rebut.

One more item, for instance along § 283, which completely destroys the traditional view of creation.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Nice projection, brother, people who get angry so easily and proceeds to offend out of the blue, unprovoked, are always far from God, but you do you.

But I digress. You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?

Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with? The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't, given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that.

Don't [g]et me wrong, we definitively are right to rebut and affirm "from the Son", but not by blind fanatism nor historical conspiracies or however we can classify your position, dear brother.

God bless, may He grant you discernment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese You may or may NOT consider Michael II as "schismatic" ...

You may very certainly NOT consider everything I know or say as having come exclusively from him, I had a pretty motley past before adhering to his predecessor.

Including researching Filioque as a revert from Orthodoxy.

Now, "you get angry out of the blue"... I wasn't angry before you got this psychologising idiocy about me.

"You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?"

Trent. Session V. St. Thomas. On your side one Ratzinger who said one could not get back to the Syllabus, as I recall having heard. His "reading of the Bible in the Church" includes both calumny of Protestant Fundamentalists and an overall distance from Fundamentalism, which overall is the historic reading in the Catholic Church.

"Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with?"

It so happens to be called Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Meaning it was formulated in fine then, and not later ... except for the side that fiddled with Filioque, whether as to adding or as to subtracting.

"The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't,"

Where do I begin? Did Jesus promise His Church infallibility over minute historic facts?

"given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that."

The Third Council of Toledo, in 589, recited the Creed, in Latin, with the Filioque. Orthos often get this wrong and pretend the Third Council of Toledo added it. No, it was there when they opened the Synod. They recited it as they had received it.

The possibility that the Filioque was added on the Latin side is not impossible, if so that was in Toledo a conflation with another Creed from the First Synod of Toledo, in 400, or ending that year. It had the Filioque, but in another overall creed, and the text is preserved.

As to the Greek version, I think the oldest manuscript is in the Greek manuscript of Chalcedon in 451. 130 years earlier than the Third Council of Toledo, which, given the scarce source material from Early Middle Ages / Late Antiquity is not overly substantial.

No to Bowling

Nicholas Bowling debates Catholic student on the Miracle of Fatima
PopeDefenders | 7 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtCgBN9hOg

1:16 I'd say She predicted a great war, it was about to begin in the papacy of Pius XI.

It began in 1936 and ended in 1990.

World War II was a distraction from it.

7:48 Some have suggested that the healing of the first beast or even his raising from the dead is performed by real men of God, Henoch and Elias.

He then ungratefully kills them and makes up another story.

A lying wonder may sometimes be a lying story about a real wonder.

8:20 I was nonplussed by the words "in a moment" and find this:

And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time
[Luke 4:5]

I look up the Greek:

ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου.

The lexicon refers to Bellum Civile, 2:14

At hostes sine fide tempus atque occasionem fraudis ac doli quaerunt interiectisque aliquot diebus nostris languentibus atque animo remissis subito meridiano tempore, cum alius discessisset, alius ex diutino labore in ipsis operibus quieti se dedisset, arma vero omnia reposita contectaque essent, portis se foras erumpunt, secundo magnoque vento ignem operibus inferunt. Hunc sic distulit ventus, uti uno tempore agger, plutei, testudo, turris, tormenta flammam conciperent et prius haec omnia consumerentur, quam, quemadmodum accidisset, animadverti posset. Nostri repentina fortuna permoti arma, quae possunt, arripiunt; alii ex castris sese incitant. Fit in hostes impetus; sed de muro sagittis tormentisque fugientes persequi prohibentur. Illi sub murum se recipiunt ibique musculum turrimque latericiam libere incendunt. Ita multorum mensium labor hostium perfidia et vi tempestatis puncto temporis interiit. Temptaverunt hoc idem Massilienses postero die. Eandem nacti tempestatem maiore cum fiducia ad alteram turrim aggeremque eruptione pugnaverunt multumque ignem intulerunt. Sed ut superioris temporis contentionem nostri omnem remiserant, ita proximi diei casu admoniti omnia ad defensionem paraverant. Itaque multis interfectis reliquos infecta re in oppidum reppulerunt.

But the enemy, with no sense of honour, sought for time and opportunity for fraud and treachery, and after an interval of several days, when our men were weary and slack in spirit, suddenly at noon, after some had gone away and others after their long toil had surrendered themselves to sleep among the siege works, and all their arms had been put away out of sight, broke forth from the gates and set fire to the works, the wind being strong and favourable. The wind spread the fire to such an extent that the mound, the sheds, the tortoise, the machines all caught fire at once, and they were all consumed before it could be ascertained how it had happened. Our men, alarmed by the sudden mischance, snatch up such arms as they can, others fling themselves from the camp. They charge the enemy, but are prevented from following the fugitives by arrows and catapults from the wall. The foe retire beneath their wall, and there without hindrance set fire to the gallery and the brick tower. So the labour of many p145 months perished in a moment through the perfidy of the enemy and the violence of the storm. The Massilians made a like attempt the next day. In similar weather they sallied forth and fought with greater confidence at the second tower and earthwork and cast much fire on them. But though our men had relaxed all the keen vigilance of an earlier period, yet, warned by the previous day's disaster, they had made every preparation for defence. So after slaying many they drove back the rest into the town and prevented them from accomplishing their purpose.

The moment lasted long enough for war machines to get burned.

It need not be telepathic communication in five seconds, though it could be that, but it could also be Satan "took a moment" to actually show some "clips" of each kingdom.

I had been used to reading it in Matthew where I didn't find this problem.

Noting when "in puncto temporis" qualified the verb "interiit" it came before, I think Greek has a similar syntax, so, when "en stigme chronou" comes after the noun, unless it could qualify "kai eipen" in the next verse ... Satan interrupts the spectacle by giving the suggestion ... it could qualify the noun. Each kingdom shown in a moment of time. All of them covered.

12:04 I would agree that Satan literally moved Jesus, however, not instantaneously.

The "in a moment" pertains to the showing or to each kingdom shown, not to the moving up on the mountain.

So, Jesus may have sat on a flying carpet or he may have had a Satanic grip around the waist, the latter like Satan's limbs were going to tie him on Good Friday and nail Him to the Cross.

I agree Satan didn't have the power to move Jesus from A to B in a single moment.

Recalling one morning of 12 IX 2001 ...

The Uncomfortable Truth About 9/11 Nobody Wants to Acknowledge
Answers in Genesis | 11 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wFNrpXXO6o

I remember my reaction.

I lived in Malmö, now in Paris, both are time zones where you hear of that the next day.*

I also learned Bush had declared war on Afghanistan, because the Afghanis refused to extradict Ben Laden, claiming he was gone.

If the US had made a forceful reaction about one month earlier, when Afghanistan was trying 16 Christians, lives could have been saved, and the US wouldn't have been on two opposite divides of a moral political issue in WW-I vs Afghanistan war.

8 of the Christians were Americans, they were deemed legally insane, they were put on planes to the US. The other 8 were Afghanis. And Bush didn't care about them. And THAT act very certainly, no ambiguity possible, was on the Afghanistan régime, the Taliban.

9/11 wasn't even in the official story (we need on this level not go into questions of conspiracies, if true, a possibly innocent President wouldn't have had time to get into investigating that), wasn't even, in this official story, on the Taliban. It was on Ben Laden. His relation to the Taliban was, the US suspected they were protecting him. JUST as Francis Joseph suspected Serbian police were protecting Gavril Princip.

My reaction was grief, not so much for the lives lost, as for the prospect of the US getting on the wrong side of a war. I sent the US Ambassador in Denmark a message ending in my hopes for the US to get right with this.

"Don't be afraid to be Crusaders"
meaning, defend Christians in that territory, if you are going to pick a fight**
"Don't be afraid to be Monarchists"
meaning, don't be shy of bringing back the King of Afghanistan, who wasn't a diehard Islamist, and apart from being innocent of the terrorism, would have been probably less eager to punish Christian conversions, especially if that was an explicit condition set by the US.

I knew of the Afghan King from one Charles A. Coulombe. His relation to Coulombe's Law isn't discovering it, that's a great-grand-uncle of his, it's naming one of his blogs so.

I was very brief in my reaction, because I was stricken by grief. The Ambassador didn't reach out to me to get any clarification.

Now, in a certain sense, you may find this callous, I wasn't grieving about the Twin Towers. They symbolised one specific take on world economics which I don't like, being much more of a localist. I think angels will feel actual joy (not my reaction, I'm not an angel) when something similar falls.

Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 18:20]

But the US as a country, or US military, that's a different story. I grieved for the possibility of them getting on the wrong side of a conflict.

---

* At least if you have no TV. 9:30 AM NYC = 3:30 PM Malmö. So, lots of other Swedes would have heard it on the evening news.
** The 2003 invasion of Iraq also preferred "democracy" over Christian locals. It may have triggered lots of the Islamism seen after that, not that it excuses all of it.

A Fascist Recalls One Who Was Called One

My Tribute to Charlie Kirk.
Melissa Dougherty | 10.IX.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHPB8R9mdXw

As a painter, don't you think a certain man with closer ties to the Salò Republic than to the Ventennio Fascista should have remained one?

I mean his paintings of architecture are some of the best Disney or Don Bluth background paintings!

---

First image.

Someone's a fan of Mussolini? Comparing Kirk to Il Duce is kind of a compliment to the latter, especially in context of death, when the latter hadn't been doing too well morally in politics for the last few years.

I mean, I'm pretty much a fan of the Ventennio Fascista (with a few things getting worse, like liberties for gypsies and journalists), but in the hour of death?

I hope Benito repented, went to purgatory a few years and was prayed out of purgatory by Italian nuns and a priest saying masses, but when he was hanged, he wasn't showing an absolutely clean slate.

1:47 Let's compare.

Mussolini came out of a civil war (shorter than the Spanish one) and took away some freedoms in a fear, not totally unreasonable, that unrestricted political freedoms might fan one again.

Charlie Kirk, from his own words, was trying to prevent one, by using existing freedoms to the best of his ability.

It's more like comparing him to Calvo Sotelo or José Antonio Primo de Rivera. Two men assassinated by the reds, when the generals on the Baleares saw this, they said the civil war was already ongoing, their rising was a way to fight on the right side in it.

5:11 Pro-Life.

Charlie Kirk wanted abortion bans, and Mussolini had a penal code in 1930, which stated:

• a mother (above 14 and in her right mind and under no external pressure) aborts on her own, 1 to 4 years
• a mother (same qualifications) aborts with medical assistance, 2 to 5 years, for her and for the doctor
• she's under 14, insane, mentally handicapped or under external pressure, is not legally deemed to have aborted on her own, whoever is legally deemed to have forced her gets 6 to 12 years.

I'm thankful for Charlie giving me the chance to remember a good side of Il Duce! (It was under the Ventennio, not the Salò Republic, which I find reprehensible, for camps among other things).

Communications are a Bit Rocky (with Caleb Howells too)

Was Homer’s Troy Ruled by the Assyrians?
Caleb Howells | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1lS2-E56A

1:03 Barring your proposal of placing Troy in the Iron age and closer to Homer ... my view is, first Hattusa was destroyed (with possible Trojan involvement) and then Troy itself was temporarily destroyed and permanently joined to the Ionic Greek world.

May I remind that the famous Trojan war was not the first conflict between Mycenaean Greece and Troy, it seems that Priamos means "hostage" in Greek (correct me if I'm wrong) and got that nickname when Hercules took him hostage in an earlier war, when he was a boy.

As to the earlier war, I have no doubts that Hittites were involved.

2:37 I've noted that too.

With the exception of the word, presumably Myc. Greek *hethos and then by dissimilation of aspiration in Classical Greek ethos.

The possibly oldest and crudest meaning being "duty" or "taxation" ...

Hittites were forgot because they were plundering some guys with too much taxes. Damnatio memoriae, except for the Bible and one Greek word preserving the memory one tried to erase.

4:17 I would place Ninus in carbon dated 6000 / 3000-ish BC.

6000-ish ... Historia scholastica considers him a contemporary of Sarug.

3000-ish ... he is credited with having initiated idolatry over grief of his father Belus. Idols, specifically of Ishtar, come to the foreground in Mesopotamia around 3000-ish BC.

In both cases obviously carbon dated.

5:05 Assyria can have after taking over the Hittite heartland have taken on all Hittite loyalties as claims, and retroactively branding them as Assyrian ones.

30 kings, from Ninus. I'll go with the real historical years of Sarug, born 2295 BC. Nineve was destroyed in 612 BC. 1683 years.

Now 22/30 * 1683 = 1234, and so many years after 2295 = 1061 BC. One century off traditional date of 1180 BC.

5:25 Can Plato be dependent on Ctesias?

[All ensuing comments are lost]

6:13 Sure. But I obviously dispute that the actual Ninus lived in the 1300's BC.

Ninus and his father Belus are tied to a story in which Ninus invented idolatry over the statue of his dead father Belus.

And if I give the medium time for 22 kings out of 30, it's 1061 BC, a pretty good match for Troy destroyed in 1179 BC, 120 years earlier.

What's the time for each king on my view? 1683 years = 1683 / 30 = 56.1 years per king. Now, that's not realistic for the times of the Trojan war, and one could imagine that kings have been forgotten or interregna overlooked, perhaps deliberately so. It is more realistic for times back near Sarug.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243 f.Kr.-1208 f.Kr.). 1243 to 612 = 631 years = 631 / 30 = 21 years per king. Realistic as far as it goes, but why would Ctesias have come across people who forgot about his father Salmanassar, who must on any view have been pretty famous?

8:03 Some have said Cadmus is a myth and Herodotus was wrong in crediting him with the Phoenician letters.

Some have said the Greek alphabet is older than we thought.

Archeology doesn't quite prove that Thebes ever was a Phoenician enclave, Bronze Age or later. Herodotus can have been wrong in crediting Cadmus with the Greek Alphabet.

8:59 I would say that the Ethiopians in the Trojan war actually point to Hittite times.

How so?

My theory is, Hittite memories of Kadesh were mixed with Trojan memories of the War.

However, in Kadesh, Hittites were fighting Egypt and may have had Ethiopian allies. So little battle-field archaeology exists, this Ethiopian presence can't be ruled out.

Later, when one deliberately forgot about Hittites and their name got nobler connotations than taxation, these memories were reattached to the Trojan war.

I need to go back to the video* with Mary Bachvarova (channel Lantern Jack interviewing her) to get back to whether there was a Hittite version of the Iliad.

[tried to add:

Also, apparently Assyrians never conquered Ethiopia, so the info in Ctesias is spurious, i e garbled info.]

* A Hittite Version of the War of Troy?
Lantern Jack | 28 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ao2sps9bR4

As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

This C.S. Lewis Argument Only Works Until You Read the Bible
Mindshift | 9 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhHZlo0kQg

15:49 I accept 15 cubits.

Noah had built the Ark on the highest mountain of the pre-Flood world, so if the water line of the Ark was 15 cubits (half of the height, pretty normal for a water line) and Noah understood the waterline (he had 600 years of life experience, instructions from God and access to a pre-Flood Nodian civilisation lost to us), he knew exactly when the water was 15 cubits above that top, and hence at least 15 cubits above the other tops.

I would say this mountain may have been flattened by the Flood so the remainder where it's cut off is called the Meseta in Spain.

Even if you project the Meseta up to all the height possible of the angles leading up to it, that mountain will be lower than Mount Everest. Now, Mount Everest and Himalayas are post-Flood phenomena.

And the earliest parts of it rising were the fastest, and you don't find human habitation on the Sivalik hills (foot of Himalayas) until a few centuries after the Flood. Which on my calculations is adequate, given the earliest part was too violent to be safe for human even roaming in the vicinity.

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?

I

Das Bus

@dasbus9834

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?
Floods don't flatten mountains. And the Himalayas are of course way, way older. Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window. And so on.

So yeah, that story fails on absolutely every level. It is 100% false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@dasbus9834 "Floods don't flatten mountains."

High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.

"And the Himalayas are of course way, way older."

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable.

"Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window."

Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it
[Genesis 6:16]

In a cubit shalt thou finish "the top of it" ... how much was the rest of it? Does this mean "the height" and no mention of width and length given? Does "a window" stand for multiple windows by a figure of speech that Noah understood?

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.

"And so on."

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection.

Das Bus

@hglundahl High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone
"Sandpapering stone" and flattening mountains are not the same thing. By far.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.
Then the energies involved would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive. And the effects of these forces would show still today. Which they don't.

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable
It isn't unkowable though, and the Bible is wrong.

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.
Whatever fan fiction they need to make the story slightly less ridiculous.

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection
No. Those I gave are already enough. No reason to mention the countless further facts that make the story impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "are not the same thing. By far."

The difference is one of quantity.

"would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive."

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark.

"would show still today."

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.

"It isn't unkowable though,"

Allegation without argument.

"and the Bible is wrong."

At this level of argument, allegation without argument.

"to make the story slightly less ridiculous."

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light. Ark Encounter had an article in 2012 to that effect.

"Those I gave are already enough."

To give me a nice little taste of the sport called "refutation" ...

Das Bus

@hglundahl The difference is one of quantity
Nope. It's a qualitative difference. One is a surface effect, the other is structural. What you're proposing wouldn't reshape the mountains, it would melt them.

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark
Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone, even if we disregard the resulting vortices. Your version would have cooked off the oceans. It's that simple.

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.
Actual geology doesn't show flattening. It shows slow erosion, no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges.

Allegation without argument
None needed to dismiss your unfounded bare assertion.

At this level of argument
As your entire argument is "the Bible says so", you should probably start improving yours first.

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light
That seems likely given how it was insufficient either way. Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "One is a surface effect, the other is structural."

When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).

"it would melt them."

Allegation. I've seen a few of that precise type before.

"Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone,"

Heat? Melting allegation? I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it.

"even if we disregard the resulting vortices."

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?

"Your version would have cooked off the oceans."

Did you read a paper by Soroka and Nelson too uncritically?

"It shows slow erosion,"

Which sometimes adds up to precisely flattening. And "slow" is guess work.

"no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges."

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.

"As your entire argument is "the Bible says so","

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."

"Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course."

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.

Das Bus

@hglundahl When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).
Buildings aren't mountains. But I can see how that would be an appropriate description if the effect happened over many millions of years.

Allegation
Basic physics.

I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it
Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses. Your cooling gets worse. No good position for your unfortunate boat people to be in.

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?
Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing.

And "slow" is guess work.
It's based on evidence.

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.
Yeah no reason to waste my time with creationist drivel.

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."
Only it's not possible, and the Bible is still wrong.

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.
So more fan fiction. Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story. So much for ventilation then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "if the effect happened over many millions of years."

Or with loads of more water.

"Basic physics."
"Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses."

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.

"Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing."

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.

"It's based on evidence."

You are not being precise on which one, and I smell uniformitarian ideology.

"to waste my time with creationist drivel."

Mitchener isn't creationist. He believes in millions and billions of years. They involve, on his view, very cataclysmic changes overall.

"Only it's not possible,"

You haven't remotely given any reason.

"and the Bible is still wrong."

And you are out of truth ...

"Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story."

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Or with loads of more water.
Then that's no longer erosion, so it wouldn't look like erosion.

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.
You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity.

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.
That's not what you asked. And if you don't understand how forces strong enough to remove mountains would create vortices, then that's unfortunate.

You are not being precise on which one
Basic geology.

Mitchener isn't creationist
If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense. If they don't, they're irrelevant.

You haven't remotely given any reason
Or maybe you just don't like the reasons.

And you are out of truth
I have reality. That's all the truth I need.

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about
It doesn't talk about any purpose for the window. It does talk about one window though. Anything else is still fan fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Then that's no longer erosion,"

Well, yes, it is. Water taking away matter is erosion. Some looks pretty quick.

"You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity."

I'm not a natural scientist, my bad, looked it up in the meantime.

"Basic geology."

You're not precise about what aspect.

"If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense."

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books.

But you show a huge display of bias here.

"If they don't, they're irrelevant."

Not if they indirectly support it.

"you just don't like"

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given.

"That's all the truth I need."

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.

"Anything else is still fan fiction."

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Water taking away matter is erosion
Water melting away mountains isn't though.

You're not precise about what aspect
I was exactly as precise as necessary.

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books
Then they don't support your flood story.

But you show a huge display of bias here
And it's well earned, in every way.

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given
You're not exactly doing a good job with that though.

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.
Bad rephrasing for someone believing in the Bible nonsense.

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.
The idea that all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't, is indeed pretty weird. Probably why nobody but YECs would be desperate enough to come up with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Water melting away"

I said nothing about "melting away" ...

"I was exactly as precise as" ... someone lacking the specialist knowledge you claim to be on your side.

"Then they don't support your flood story."

They aren't meant to. But the overall changes on mountains are cataclysmic enough, he just pretends it took way more time.

"And it's well earned,"

You're admitting it exists.

"not exactly doing a good job"

Not right now, not with you, because you refuse specifics.

"all of reality worked completely differently for some unspecified reason, only to end up looking as if it didn't,"

But it ends up looking as things happened that really don't happen any more. Any real contact with geology or palaeontology will have this weird effect on you. Like that time a stampede of dinosaurs like diplodocus size in a river was compared to a stampede of mere bulls in Himalayas ... the river in question would have been bigger than Brahmaputra in flow, and this is in Argentina, where you don't have the place for that big rivers. Not Brahmaputra sized, let alone such that would bury stampedes of diplodocus type animals.

And unspecified reason? That's not what "miracle" means.

Das Bus

@hglundahl I said nothing about "melting away" ...
No worries. I still did.

[omitting the rest of what he wrote.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "I still did."

Showing your dishonesty. I'm blocking.

[done]

II

Rohan

@newsystembad

Any "global flood" would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time. To say nothing of the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp.

Noah's flood is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad "would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life"

Except flotsam.

"and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time."

You are presuming pre-Flood seas were pretty salt, right?

"the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp."

I've already adressed that allegation in the original form given by Soroka and Nelson.

19:08 Jericho was off by 300 years?

From what?

I pose the Exodus in 1511 BC which places the fall of Jericho, first year after the desert, in 1471 BC. The carbon date given is 1550 BC. The only problem is, how I account for the extra years, and my answer is, the atmospheric carbon 14 level of 98.929 pmC is the last stage of a Biblical calibration diverging from the uniformitarian one. Earlier parts have lower carbon 14 in the atmosphere and thus more extra years.

Rohan

The walls of Jericho fell from an earthquake, not from the supposed "conquest" featured in ancient Israel's school shooter fanfic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad The conquest involved as miracle that would look in retrospect like an earthquake.

Rohan

@hglundahl Uh huh, sure it did, very convenient. This is like those creationists who claim that god conjured starlight into existence midway to Earth to make the universe appear ancient. It's cope, nothing more

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad I'm not in the starlight created in transit camp any more, neither is Jonathan Sarfati.

He's explaining it with a stretching universe (which big bangers accept too), I'm with Geocentrism.

Now, I notice you assigned me a motive "cope" and reassured me I only had the motive, but I missed the part where you actually refuted the Creationist claim about Jericho.

20:08 What if:

• the moral atmosphere of the Amalecites was such as to make cohabitation impossible
• and the counterpart of a CPS action on part of Israelites (with relation to Amalecite children) was not in the least feasible?

The children were not being punished, they were suffering very briefly to punish their fathers. But the parents, both sexes, were punished even into the killing of their children.

23:03 Not the exact thing.

The underlying moral principle is in Exodus:

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death
[Exodus 21:16]

That's why God freed Israel, and that's why (after some compromise), Catholics and Wilberforce ended up freeing slaves all over the Christian world.

However, the Chanaanean slaves were presumed guilty. Even if taken by people themselves guilty of above offense, they would probably have done a similar thing the year before they ended up in slavery. In the Catholic compromise, there was miscommunication between the Pope and Portugal, but theologians making sense of it were saying "we presume this slave was taken in a war trying to enslave others or sold by his own people for an offense against justice" (and obviously, this was the cynic part, one trusted the own kings' to have made a sufficient declaration of principle to this effect).

In Chanaan, the guilt of a slave then sold to Israelites was more probably presumable than in Black Africa, even if Black Africa prior to Brazza did lots of warmongering in order to take and sell slaves.

Obviously, a man deserving death, deserves slavery.

Responding to Dr. Taylor Marshall

Priest suspended from Catholic College for CATHOLIC INTEGRALISM - Dr. Taylor Marshall
Dr Taylor Marshall | 8 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g12IAi-Uaqo

1) Hope you had a blessed feast of Our Lady, yesterday!
2) Quibble. Heiligenkreuz is not ending in "croots" but in "croyts" ...

3) When did the Church ever condemn "Fascism"? Specifically in a wider sense than Italian Fascism, since Mussolini unfortunately for a time made what Pius XI had condemned official Fascist ideology outside schools too, so, in a wider sense, including Mussolini prior to signing the book by Gentile it's second edition or including Dollfuss and Schuschnigg.

4) In California, as far as I know, they are not giving hard narcotics to the homeless. Possible exception for narcotics less hard than someone is already hooked on. They are, by contrast, giving pure needles, which is a good thing. You don't want homeless to die in droves from AIDS because they share needles.

32:31 (5) What I was taught ... Latin has six cases, Greek has five ... Latin has five declinsions, Greek has three ... Latin has four conjugations, Greek has -o and -mi verbs, and also Aorist 1 / Aorist 2 ... Positives are either 1 and 2 Decl or 3rd, (Latin and Greek), Comparatives always 3rd, Superlatives always 1 and 2.

bonus, bona, bonum ... melior, melius ... optimus, optima, optimum
tenuis, tenue ... tenuior, tenuius ... tenuissimus, tenuissima, tenuissimum

My Greek is too rusty to give examples from that language, sorry ....

My Latin professor tried to teach me St. Bridget was schizophrenic, and he also tried to and succeeded to teach me, when she predicted someone's death, that someone died. My Latin assistant professor taught me St. Thomas can be understood once you master things like "act" vs "power", ten categories and "motus" isn't limited to "motion" from one place to another and a few more.

I have a somewhat hard time understanding how any of this is bunk, except the Atheist's view on a prophetess' mental state. Which, as said, he didn't manage to teach me.

6) What is a woman? Given government involves giving death penalty and fighting wars, is that a totally feminine thing to get involved with?

Eowyn may excuse me, but drafting all women of a nation into being shieldmaidens is overdoing it ... (a certain state called IL may take note ...)

7) What is a Pope? A man, male, baptised, Catholic elected and having accepted election and so on ...

Little Rock

@littlerock5256

He has to teach the Catholic Faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@littlerock5256 Yes. He first of all has to actually be a Catholic.