On Big Bang in a Catholic context

New Teenage Saint, "Yoked" Bishop Barron, and more! | Catholic Social Media News
New Catholic Generation | 25.VII.2018 (St. James' Day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBJ8sRM7Kw

I

Alanson Cleveland

A distinction must be made between which big bang theory you are talking about. As far I have been told, Fr. Georges Lemaître's version said that God is the one who started the big bang. The new atheist big bang theory which is what most people know about says that the big bang was started by a small little pin thing or something.

Just trying to prevent comment wars.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:11 I am Catholic, I do not accept the Big Bang theory, and accepting it as such contradicts, not indeed "creatorem coeli et terrae" but - given Genesis 1 is a prophecy given to Moses - qui loquutus est per prophetas".

Alanson Cleveland

Read my comment up above.

Rodney Burton

The Big Bang theory in no way contradicts Genesis 1; indeed, the scientifically determined order of creation follows it with great accuracy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How many days before creation of man is Big Bang supposed to have occurred?

@Alanson Cleveland, did you note which article of the faith I saw direct issue with?

Rodney Burton

Hans-Georg Lundahl your concerns are not shared by the Vatican.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl No I didn't pay attention to what you said. For that I apologize. I am not really sure, but what I think you are trying to say is that because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created. Correct me if I am wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Alanson Cleveland : yes you are wrong.

What you think I am trying to say:

"because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says about how the universe was created after Moses is wrong because they are not a prophet and therefore cannot know anything about how the universe was created."

No, I am saying: because God spoke through Moses about the creation of the universe, that anything that anyone says contradicting Moses on any item is wrong, because Moses was a prophet.

Kent Hovind has said lots after Moses, and mostly he isn't wrong - mostly also he is not even by mistake and despite his intentions contradicting anything Moses said.

@Rodney Burton : you mean the Vatican occupied by probable Antipope Francis? Previously by probable Antipope Benedict after probable Antipope John Paul II?

[Back to Alanson:]

It is for instance possible that Enuma Elish is older than Moses by perhaps a century.

If so, the reason why Enuma Elish is wrong where it is wrong is not its being said after Moses (by hypothesis it was said before him), nor that author of Enuma Elish was no prophet of the true God. The reason is rather, Enuma Elish is on items contradicted by ... Moses.

Apology accepted, btw, sorry for being too tired to say that at once.

Alanson Cleveland

Hans-Georg Lundahl Then I have to ask. How does the big bang theory contradict the word of God?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Again, how many days does Big Bang Theory put between "beginning" and creation of Man?

Alanson Cleveland

I don't know. Millions of years?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Billions.

Now read Mark 10:6. </dl>

Dr Grady McMurtry on Age of Earth - with comments, part one

On his videos (mirrored?), parts 1 to beginning of 3.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 1
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJGairhrPGc

5:29 stars - an economic way of responding is, stars are not millions of light years away.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 2
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Qr9ZZ-Y30

I

0:52 "none of them work"

Actually false.

Carbon 14 has a fair working outside usually detectable cases of reservoir effect for back since the carbon 14 level, the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, is the same in the atmosphere.

0.9892⁶⁴ = 0.4990946242600414
0.98925⁶⁴ = 0.500711737438632

This means, 64th root of 0.5 is between 0.9892 and 0.98925.

Now, 0.5 is "ratio remaining after a halflife" and it is also known as 50%.

1/64 of 5730 (halflife of carbon 14) is 89 and a half years.

And you DO get sth like 98.92 to 98.925 % modern carbon when you date objects of wood or leather from 90 years ago (a bit of a leeway for wood if tree was significiantly old when felled).*

32:nd root of 0.5 is 0.97858 - and for objects from 179 years ago, you tend to get 97.858 pmC.

You can check it over here:

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html

So, carbon 14 relatively speaking does work.

You have exceptions like reservoir effect (bones of people who ate much fish or shellfish tend to look a few centuries older than they are, sea living creatures, creatures living near ice allround the year and so on). And like during the buildup period before the modern level was reached.

This means, dates like 9600 BC and 8600 BC (beginning and end of Göbekli Tepe) don't mean they are necessarily that old (they could well be from Biblical years of Babel), nor the distance is necessarily that long (if older date is significantly more inflated than younger one, 40 years can look like 1000), but they DO come in that order.

0:58 If Libby "admitted it didn't work" I'd like a reference.

It certainly did not work for his halflife, done by lab tests on decay, I presume, since the Libby halflife is abandoned, I just gave the Cambridge halflife which replaced it. Somewhat longer.

3:30 That Potassium Argon doesn't work seems fairly obvious, even before looking at your example.

How many hundreds of thousands or millions years is the lava dated to which covered 900 year old artefacts?

And that should be enough for refuting old age, since it is the most used radiometric method except carbon 14 and since the latter can be squeezed.

If Flood was 5000 years ago, we expect 54.616 % of what level there was at the time.

But if level was a very low one, 54.616 % of it can well be 0.792 pmC.

With Potassium Argon, you don't even need to account for relative accuracy.

45 000 years old charcoal? That would mean the charcoal is a bit older than 5000 years, a bit older than the Flood. Lava surrounding it 37.000.000 years? No accounting for Potassium Argon ...

*

98.929 / 98.917 pmC according to the carbon date calculator - for 89 / 90 years. Meaning 89.5 years should be between that ...

II

dialogued

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:11 Can you be sure all three samples are from same lava flow?

If you can, well, we may see why lava flows vary in correct height sequence, for instance at Laetoli.

There could be a question of how deep down it was in the water during the Flood, however that may influence argon capture or argon retention.

George Baxter

Radiometric dating is not really applicable to fresh lava. One of the key requirements for dating is that sample must not have changed. A lava is a liquid and argon is a noble gas, it will rapidly diffuse out of the sample. That will inevitably lead to a very low argon reading. If that is used to "date" the sample then it would be erroneously old. So it is wrong and misleading to use fresh lava samples as a "proof" that the technique is flawed

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but it is not a low argon reading, but a high one which translates as very old.

If fresh lava is flawed for the technique, how can you prove from it that the lavas you date (for instance in Laetoli) are not too fresh for it?

George Baxter

Yes. My error about the low value. The logic is still true though. The lava is not from a closed environment. The argon could have been from outgassing of the rocks/magma during the disturbance. You cannot reliably date lava via radiometric methods.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree, lava cannot be reliably dated, but my point is, more argon gets caught lower down in the water.

This explains the APPEARANCE of reliability of the lava of Laetoli.

Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry Part 3
Arne Karlsen | 15.V.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc-qInfV174

1:38 On this video, I only have your word for speed of light not being a constant.

Sounds at least as good an explanation that stellar distances are not true, because the .76 arc seconds back and forth each year, measured for alpha Centauri against comparison of stars in the background are not parallax but proper movement.

In other words, most basic stellar distances closest to pure trigonometry are not known, and one therefore cannot deduce stellar distances by other methods based on this one either.

Your website, I'll have to ask you over FB.

Next time : rest of part 3, 4.

On Babel as a Proto-Type Earthly City

The Story of the Tower of Babel Explained (w/ Jerry Robinson)
True Riches Academy | 22.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGt0VYVxwDE

As usual, I comment at diverse places of the video. First two links to posts of mine:

I

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project, Why was it Called a Tower?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/07/if-tower-of-babel-was-rocket-project.html

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : If Tower of Babel was a Rocket Project - What Else Can We Expect?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/07/if-tower-of-babel-was-rocket-project_23.html

II

4:03 "they stopped building the tower and they stopped"

Actually, it only says they stopped building the city. If the Tower of Babel was a rocket project, like the ones at Cape Canaveral and at Bajkonur, a continued building or projecting of the project could go on in other sites, independently of the city.

One probably actually continued doing the rocket project : observatories here and there like Stonehenge and Nabta Playa (both younger than Göbekli Tepe), Sumerian relief sculpture depicting Göbekli Tepe and Babylonians / Sumerians confusing Göbekli Tepe or the rocket up with Mount Hermon and the sons of God going down, Chinese experimenting with rockets, Greeks (and Aborigines of Australia) telling stories of heroes gone up to Heaven, Greeks telling a story of Giants piling Ossa and Pelion to conquer Olympus ... I think even Dream of Scipio by Cicero involves some kind of reference to a skytrip, herein possibly imitating a dialogue of Plato.

III

9:10 Pagan Babylonian ... first, he was a Hebrew.

Hebrews had "bailed out of" the Babel project. Hence they remained Hebrew speakers and they remained worshippers of the true God. If Thera was an idolater, he was an exception.

Babylonian, Ur of Chaldees ... well, if he was from the Ur that Woolley dug up, yes, he was in a very Classic sense either Babylonian or Sumerian (I'd say Sumerian, because Babylon was founded some time between Genesis 14 and Joshua's conquest, relating carbon dates of Amorrhite era to a carbon / Biblical date table, so Babylon did not exist in Genesis 12 - its precursor at Göbekli Tepe did no longer and Babylon as such not yet).

On the other hand, if he was from the Urfa also called Edessa, I am not sure Babylonian is quite an appropriate designation even geographically.

Woolley's Ur : 30°57′47″N by 46°6′11″E
Urfa : 37°09′30″N by 38°47′30″E - very close to Göbekli Tepe

IV

11:03 A city whose guardian is God.

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum, in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifiant eam, nisi Dominus custordierit civitatem, frustra vigilat qui custodit eam.

13:17 A city built for the glory of man can be converted and be guarded for the glory of God - even to eternity.

Christians of Mossul mean, conversion of Ninevites under Jonah's preaching is still bearing fruit.

15:36 While both Canaan and the City have a curse, both Canaanites and Cities can convert and escape the curse.

A Syrian or Lebanese is not under the curse of Canaan if he is a baptised Christian.

A city is not under the curse you mention, if it is ruled according to the law of God (like Rome was up to 1870, when "Italy" invaded the city of Popes).

16:33 It is also true a converted city can fall again (or be inadequately converted) and be Babylon; the Pope and several other good Christians escaped one of the sacks of Rome, because they fled in time from the bad manners of chariot races and perhaps worse.

But once Rome had been sacked, once Popes decided there, and worldly power found it awkward, Colosseum was a homeless shelter of gigantic proportions - and the poor slept close to where the martyrs had "slept".

V

11:58 I wonder, are all of the cities we have all the time counterfeits?

Or have some cities, some of the time, been remodelled, partially and imperfectly, after the model of New Jerusalem?

Well, look at Matthew 28:[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I think I saw something like "teach ye all nations" in there, and some of them had cities, both Greeks and Romans, both Cretans and Egyptians ... so, if we accept Christ gave power to the Apostles with successors to fulfil this, and I do, this means some cities have been cleaned up.

Someone the other day considered it so cool the Khazar Khagan Bulan Khan became a Jew ... I think Constantine, Clovis and Volodymyr of Kiev, to name a few are even cooler. Rome became, Paris remained, Kiev became a Christian city.

This obviously also means, real freedoms have been added to cities, as they converted to Christianity (and taken away again, as they fell into the hands of the enemies of Christendom).

Long Reply to Hovind

7/20/18 -Dr. Kent Hovind: Creation that Destroys Evolution - Beryllium
Kent Hovind OFFICIAL | 20.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N55HEpU0qRw

I

6:47 "four elements" is not exact equivalent to "elements" in chemic sense.

II

12:06 I agree that big bang is stupid, but on another point.

IF all matter and energy were one time squeezed into a space as small as a period, well, it was very crowded and very hot and that would explain why it exploded.

The theory neither says it came from nothing, nor from a great squeeze or crunch, and obviously also not it was eternally a dot in eternity past before big bang, it leaves the question "open".

It is just that each of these secondary interpretations has a huge problem, crunch to bang having a spring quality perhaps least problematic, that the theory has a huge problem at this level.

It's the next level which is REALLY idiotic.

Matter and energy explode outwards, and somehow each bit starts to rotate and matter starts to gravitate together along each of the directions. How do you explain THAT?

As to all matter and energy being in that small space, it is per se less problematic as to space question, as long as you believe atomic theory : since atomic theory (as accepted by Creationist Edgar Andrews) says matter is mostly empty space. Mount Everest, squeeze all protons and neutrons and electrons together with no space between = smaller than an armchair.

To squeeze even more, you would probably have to squeeze a lot of matter inside the larger particles too.

But it is at least conceivable.

It is only very unnecessary : you don't have to buy atomic theory on everything between protons and electrons in atom and one and other atom's electron shell being empty space, and you don't have to believe the whole stuff either, unless you believe in projecting expansion of space (see redshift) backwards to the utmost opposite from the direction to where things seem to be going.

III

13:01 Alan Guth has a problem in geometry.

Divisions of space are potentially infinitesimal. There is no such things as an infinitesimal actual division of space.

Divisions of a pizza are infinitesimal (unless you ask about the atoms which take some space not divisible while they stay the same), but actual divisions go like "undivided - two halves - half and two quarters to four quarters - three quarters and two eights to two quarters and four eights - on quarter and six eights to eight eights".

You can go on infinitesimally, but you cannot reach an actual infinitesimal.

This is also why Thomas Aquinas has a point in Prima Pars, Quaestio II, Article III.

Or, he had [Alan, not Aquinas] - not sure if he stays with his stupidity from 1996.

IV

18:58 If God created from nothing, some things would perhaps have looked a bit like big bang, when He did it.

In the beginning - how many nanoseconds? If any at all.

God created Heaven - how many nanoseconds, if any, before earth?

And Earth - appearing in the middle of Heaven, and it took it how many nanonseconds (if any at all) to do so?

Assume verse 1 conceivably could have taken three nanoseconds, or less, if you have a slow motion of them, it might have looked a bit like Big Bang.

Not that the theory itself as a whole is correct or anywhere near it, but the part you object to is the part we have as Christians too, in a way.

V

20:44 the idea of "things that are not going to burn" - was that an idea in OT too?

Because, even if Odin was a fraud and an apostate, he seems to have had some Hebrew good sense left, even in Sweden (I know, it's hard, that is why I left the place).

About thousand years from when he said it, in Old Icelandic his words sounded like:

"eitt veitt ek ther aldri deyr : dóm om daudhan vern"

One thing I know, which never dies : judgement on a dead man.

VI

As to the end, Chesterton did find he liked to have someone to thank for water - and for wine and beer.

And he did go to a priest, to confess before "God and men" he was sorry for some things he had done before that.

If YOU want to get God's absolution, why don't you go to Topeka and ask Pope Michael for details (he may ask you to be faithful to your first wife though).

Short Reply to Roger Scruton

Roger Scruton: How Fake Subjects like Women Studies Invaded Academia
PhilosophyInsights | 26.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98tWAHAv2BI

2:35 Mr Scruton, this attitude* was there before women studies, in regards to for instance evolutionism and heliocentrism ...

* See what he was saying at 2:35 in video ...

Why Tim Challies is wrong to be a Protestant

Why Tim Challies is wrong to be a Protestant · ... on Church Authority and Saints

Answering, bit by bit, this video:

Why I'm Thankful To Be Protestant
Tim Challies | 31.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOhZj_HgHGA

Here are my answers:

I

Come on ...

• when Luther nailed the theses he was still more Jansenist than Lutheran!
• and anyway he would not have approved your take on the "Lord's Supper" as we know from his dispute with Zwingli!

Plus, he was an admitted Bible translation forger (Romans 3:28).

II

0:49 Thanet.

Where St Augustine of Canterbury landed in 597 AD, on orders of Pope St Gregory the Great.

Have you been there?

Is it a root to you as English-speaking Christian?

If so, where was the Church in 597 AD? Were Sts Gregory and Augustine Calvinists? If they weren't, but Calvinism is still the real Christianity, where was the Calvinist Church back then?

III

1:54 Right ... the ex-Lutheran in me notes, Luther would not have been content with your take on Matthew 26.

IV

3:03 Instead he found just further despair ...

Because he was exceptionally clearsighted? Or because he was exceptionally deaf to God's mercy (up to shouting out his own take on it)?

I have my take on that one from back when CMI (I appreciate their Creationism, which is more often relevant than their Protestantism) was celebrating Reformation Day:

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Strays into Protestant Hagiography Today (part 1 of series)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/10/cmi-strays-into-protestant-hagiography.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : What Luther Got Wrong More (pt 2 of series)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/what-luther-got-wrong-more-pt-2-of.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Was the Bible For or Against Luther's Work? (part 3 of series)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/was-bible-for-or-against-luthers-work.html

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Mercator and Geert Groote (excursus)
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2017/10/mercator-and-geert-groote-excursus.html

V

3:51 "a full one year plenary indulgence"

You must have recalled wrong.

An indulgence of "one year" is by definition a partial indulgence, which is less than a plenary one. So "a full one year plenary indulgence" is impossible.

Say you are trying to win an indulgence for your uncle who lived a bad life, but repented on his death bed and so is not out of question he could be in heaven sooner or later.

You fulfil the conditions of a one year indulgence (properly! including the full hatred of all sins you need to have yourself, which your uncle was defective in), he comes out of Purgatory one year earlier (whenever that may be, it could be nine years from now instead of ten years from now). If you fulfil the conditions of a plenary indulgence (your full hatred of all sins even more important), he comes out of Purgatory straight away.

There is a rumour that indulgences for monetary gifts were done away with at Trent, but it seems there was just a decision to better oversee the men in the position of alms collectors (like Tetzel was).

3:56 "for all the sins of the last year"

Ouch, that was a bad take on what the theology of indulgences means.

Years (usually one or three) or days (usually three or forty or hundred) are about time in Purgatory which is satisfied by the indulgence instead of by time there.

You can win indulgences for yourself too, but a plenary one is only valid as no purgatory for your previous already repented and forgiven sins (you can't win an indulgence while in mortal sin), and a one year is not for the last year before winning it, it is a ticket for one year off from Purgatory. And if you were anyway only getting forty days there, the rest goes to a soul on God's choice who would otherwise have spent longer time there, due to no one winning an indulgence for him ...

Ah, if it's a Holiday Plenary, if it is not a Holiday Partial Indulgence of One Year - that is what must have been the text you mangled ...

Not planning to do precisely the Scala Santa, though, as long as Bergoglio is that close by ...

(And while Santiago is also for indulgences, I actually made it as a petitionary prayer for my life on earth, not for an indulgence ...)

I am sorry, I missed that 300 days (the indulgence marked "300 giorni") is also a typical indulgence time for a partial indulgence.

VI

4:38 Are you sure St Francis Xaver's arm is mummified?

I'd credit him with being incorrupt ...

VII

5:06 Yes, it matters it is the Blessed Virgin, She is called "Hammer of All Heresies"

Why? Because Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites perhaps too, but certainly Arians and Nestorians, tended to get sth wrong about honouring Her - meaning that the ones honouring Her correctly were the ones who saved good Christology at Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus.

Sure that one of the heresiarchs is not Voltaire?

I am not sure you aren't missing a point : the two men could be someone quite else, and Luther and Calvin added in the "book back margin" ...

I actually sent the Jesuits there that question. I mean, their considering themselves and Bergoglio as Catholics, erroneously, doesn't mean in any way that they can't understand basics on the artwork in their Church (I hope ...)

VIII

6:34 "and that's been a very deliberate move on the part of Roman Catholicism"

On the part of what?

You mean on the part of the Vatican II Sect!

I walked into the Cathedral of Tulle. Archbishop Lefèbvre had been archibishop there. In his time, the Church must have had the full Catholic artwork and looked like a Catholic Church should do, but since he was replaced, some things have changed.

Moveable walls were placed as bare walls or walls for pinning things, and they were hiding what was behind ... that is the Vatican II Sect which did that very deliberate move you were talking about, but please don't call that "Roman Catholicism", will you.

Apart from that, Tulle was nice, people were hospitable, meaning, he must have given good catechesis on alms giving and it was not quite forgotten ...

IX

7:01 "Because they return Scripture to the centre of our life and faith ..."

Return? You mean there was no Church in 1500 which placed Scripture where they did?

How then can that placing be Scriptural?

Matthew 28:20. All days means all days.

A Church that did not exist in 1500 or on 500 and anytime from then to our days cannot be Christ's Church.

A practise which did not do so can at least not be an obligatory one, except as replacing other obligations.

7:07 "they found in Scripture there is no support for the system of indulgences"

There is, here: Tobit 4 : [7] Give alms out of thy substance, and turn not away thy face from any poor person: for so it shall come to pass that the face of the Lord shall not be turned from thee. [8] According to thy ability be merciful. [9] If thou have much give abundantly: if thou have a little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little. [10] For thus thou storest up to thyself a good reward for the day of necessity. [11] For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. and same chapter, even clearer as to connection to indulgences for the dead : [17] Eat thy bread with the hungry and the needy, and with thy garments cover the naked. [18] Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.

It is not that they positively did find there is no support, they rather refused to find the support there is for indulgences (some resolved the problem by claiming erroneously Tobit is not Scripture).

X

When it comes to teachers I trust, they do not include either Luther or Calvin, they do include Sts Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine and Ignatius of Loyola.

Answering a non-Satanist who comes close to arguing for Satanism

Well, with this post, this blog on what US refers to as "7.11" has 711 posts. Post-ID has both 999 and 696 - and, fortunately not the reverse of the first.

Now, as usual, who I comment on is on a video. Warning, do not go there, that is why I don't give clickable link:

Satanic Bible vs. The Holy Bible
Repzion | 14.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxBV2ZxSO0

No, it is not very seductive to normally minded people, but some aren't and to the rest, it is painfully stupid.

OK, it can be seductive to ignorant people too. This is what I am trying to fix:

I

5:27 If you are formerly from a Baptist home, it seems that becoming - it would seem - Satanist would have caused you more confusion when wide awake than I have after a night with too little sleep.

• 1) Jesus neither turned nor claimed to turn fish into bread or bread into fish.
• 2) Jesus did multiply on two occasions both bread and fish - and both happened after He had turned water into wine.
• 3) But the glaring point is, if you were right and "he" hadn't - how could "he" have gotten away with claiming "I turned water into wine" or claiming "I multiplied bread and fish" if the adverbs going along with claims were "on a wedding near home" and "before thousands of people who got fed, twice" if nobody ever saw "him" do it?

If I asked you "do you remember last year, when you came over to France and I smacked you on the head in three boxing rounds, each ending with your falling down knocked out?" would you believe I did that just because I had made such a claim?

No way (and very rightly so) ... and that very elementary critical reason does not depend on having a college degree, on knowing how to read or on having access to reliable fact checking news media.

There is no such thing as someone claiming to turn water into wine and being believed without showing anything.

Would the Satanic Bible by any chance be claiming "he" did it by magic? If that is supposed to mean sleight of hand, tell me when Oliver Twist (I think there is a stage magician who took his stage name from a Dickens character) is getting empty handed to a starvation stricken area (big or small, doesn't matter) and by sleight of hand produces food for everyone ...

5:40 Oh, you agree with Jesus not feeding 5000 men plus women and children from two breads and five fishes?

Well, that is one thing.

Next thing is, explain how the story he did arise. "He" claimed it? Could work for acts done out of human observation or with one easily accompliced observer, like what Hercules did with no human or only Iolaus watching. For treating a party near home to wine made from water or feeding 5000 people, the idea "he" claimed it and got away with it makes no sense at all.

II

6:21 "and not hurting anybody in the process of that"

Hmmmmm ... would this mean things like "not hurting anybody who counts" or "well, it's not really hurting him, can't be"?

By the way, at 6:47 you don't look very happy.

III

7:39 "a passage which says that a woman can be sold to her rapist"

It says her father decides on whether he must marry her or has to pay dowry. Wait, that was the parallel passage ... here is Deuteronomy:

22:[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Taking her ... doesn't actually specify by rape, does it?

Also becoming rape victim's husband is not like becoming her absolute master, he cannot get rid of her:

he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Obviously it is a system for paying damages to a rape or seduction victim and her family. Not an option for a rapist to buy a rape victim if he likes to!

7:51 "as a slave" is not specified.

Parallel passage as I recall has father decide whether rapist has to marry her or has to pay damages equivalent of dowry ... and if a father in that position is NOT taking his daughter's wishes into account:

• a) he's not a very Hebrew father to a daughter;
• b) she might be worse off staying with her father.

7:58 Does the Satanic Bible also say the reciprocation need to be in the form of a freewilled verbal yes? Or could it involve sth other?

In other words, I don't think the quoted words are a foolproof guarantee Satanists will neither rape nor commit statutory rape.

They are perhaps however an incitation for Satanists to be too concerned about rape and statutory rape. I recall that Satanist girl who killed a man who made advances after she "admitted" she was underage. She had made fighting statutory rape a kind of "crusade" ... of a non-Christian type.

IV

Oh, Foundational Falsehoods is now an audiobook.

Payable.

Shows that videos that are for free can at the same time be also sold as audiobook - same content in two formats, one for free, one paid - no problem with that one.

And because it is exactly that content, I actually took it on.

This is the beginning of a series of blog posts, on the format on blogger they are for free:

Creation vs. Evolution : A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/02/man-not-at-all-prejudiced-against-god.html

Charles on Confederacy, with My Questions

Charles on Confederacy

Charles's Confederate Sympathies
Tumblar House | 11.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3oUnc-Xbbk

My comments

which include some questions;

I

English abolitionism : Wilberforce, whose sons include one Creationist outspoken "bishop" opposed to Huxley and two (at least) converts to Catholicism.

New England abolitionism : slave traders lost an income ... oh, let the South lose one too.

Hmmmm ... I wonder if the French law on this issue only makes it illegal to defend the New England slave traders or the Southron post-slave trade owners too ...

I recall the terms were "esclavagisme transatlantique" ... sounds like Transatlantic slave trade to me, and I haven't heard Alain Sanders got into legal trouble for his being pro-Robert E. Lee so far, since the legislation was passed ...

II

I suppose you have read Jonah Hex?

In Sweden, his comic, when I was small, was in the albums for Tomahawk ...

III

"When abortion is no longer profitable" ... that sounds like it would be the day when a man or a man's son who has a position and seduced a girl of 13 no longer has to totally hide the fact, but can marry her.

By contrast, in Sweden any man having any feeling for a girl under 15 and expressing it is a big no no, officially, unless he's about her age (in which case he is not in a position to marry her, in today's Sweden, where he is still forced to go to school and can hardly get a job except part time).

Now, Swedes would be included in any "international collaboration against pedophilia" and they would typically (I'm a Sweden but as typical in Sweden as you in US, i e not very) consider lowering marital age back from where Italy and Soviet Russia raised it a pedophile tendency and they also would solve under age pregnancies by allowing abortion.

See why I am against "international collaboration against pedophilia" and as I recall how I unfriended you years ago on FB, unless that's a Mandela effect, you had invited me to such a group - if you are no longer into that cause, we can easily be friends again, from my part, but I do not want to even backhandedly support abortion ... and you were supporting a cause which was making it profitable.

"but can marry her." = "but can marry her or have son marry her"

Sorry, I got too little sleep this night ...

And obviously, a man whose son has slept with someone has no business marrying her himself ...

IV

Can I resume your position that American slavery was more Transatlantic and more cruel in Chicago than in Charleston, like African slavery was no doubt more cruel in Khartoum than in Juffuree? (As also more trading ....)

V

6:25 "free Creoles of colour in Louisiana"

You mean, the story of Chicken George would have been impossible there?

VI

8:00 I am so reminded that Lafayette's friend and mentor George Washington told him the time was not ripe for abolishing slavery (Laf, for short, was obviously from a non-slavery France) and Laf accepted it.

George Rex did not in any way, shape or form pose as a mentor to either Wilberforce or his sons, but also did not tell Wilberforce (too long at least) that the time was not ripe ... Wilberforce was probably behind the abolition of slave trade in US too, insofar as it was either dependent on English ships or even on English colonies or near colonies in Africa, where Wilberforce's action had at least some effect ...

Am I getting this totally wrong, now ...? Cause and effect in this story ... ?

Or can I with good conscience say Wilberforce was a better man than Laf ... ?

VII

20:25 Jim crow laws were probably never a thing in Louisiana.

They lived on to 1965.

If the Confederacy had won or not been attacked, do you think slavery might have been abolished by sth like Robert E. Lee imitating the Emperor of Brazil? Without any racism after it, like Brazil has no legal racism or racialism (the thing is bad even if Trotsky called it bad, but I prefer to call it by the older non-Trotsky name ...)?

Or would Emperor of Brazil not have been sufficiently inspired by the Czar releasing the serfs to give that example?

Lutheran Satire Gave the Word to Luther

Mohammed and Joseph Smith Revisited · Lutheran Satire Gave the Word to Luther · ... on Luther and Swedish Reformation · Where "Lutheran Satire" Misses a Nuance on Where Rome Is (eternal vs present)

Marty and Frank Part II: Romans 3
LutheranSatire | 4.X.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0BGf0Aj-lg

I

1:02 "Therefore there are only two possible relationships" ... between three items?

We have faith, we have works in general, we have specifically works of the law ... note, this last does not exhaust works in general, if by "the law" is meant the Mosaic law.

We are justified apart from circumcision, apart from refraining from eel, apart from having four tassels on each at least major clothing (one in each corner, which gives a clue the earth is round, but this still doesn't mean we have to wear that to be just). Marty said as much in his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, it was as bad an argument back then, and that Sendbrief is one reason I converted, and that "Frank" being ecumenical with "Marty" is one reason Frank is more of a Frankenpope than of a Pope, Catholic sense.

1:09 "either faith justifies with our good works or faith justifies apart from them"

Romans 3:28 (Douay Rheims, not a Luther Bible):

[28] For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Next two verses make it at least probable St Paul is here speaking of Mosaic law.

And earlier on it is, if possible, even clearer:

[20] Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. [21] But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

If we speak of "justice" as being "manifest" we are certainly speaking of good works, and this "without the law" - which must mean, without the Mosaic law.

So, Luther is saying that between three items, faith, good works and works of Moses' law, there are logically only two possibilities, either faith justifies with the Mosaic law or faith justifies without good works in general ... not sure his logic teacher would agree, but perhaps his rhetoric teacher would have applauded the performance.

II

2:20 "Paul doesn't do a distinction between works that don't justify and works that do"

Too tired to seek out the obvious counterexample in St Paul, just content to note St Paul was here very obviously talking about the Mosaic law, as seen from context, and St James is saying a thing about works that do justify - along with and under faith.

Otherwise one could also say that Tyndale's Inquisitor James Latomus had a point in conceding the point to Luther (or in that context to Tyndale) and instead say that first justification is by faith without any works, while staying justified is about faith and good works.

Also, the distinction is drawn elsewhere.

Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)

In the following verses Christ makes clear he means the Decalogue, not the 613 laws.

So is getting justified and entering life different to you?

III

2:21 and following "rather he repeatedly says that nothing we do is responsible for our justification"

More like nothing we do while in the state of sinners is adequate to gaining justification.

Having a point and overdoing it is not as good as having a point and staying with it. That is the difference between "Marty" and "Austin" (of some place in Tunisia).

IV

3:39 "in other words they are arguing that justification and salvation are two different things"

If a man who is saved can lose his salvation, the initial justification and the completed salvation of dying in Christ and having avoided Hell at the judgement are indeed two different things, as different as seed and fruit.

So, is "Marty" arguing that OSAS? As I recall, this is not the case, a saved person would need to renew his salvation by renewing confidence in his salvation (this being the object in the versions of Lutheranism that have 3 acknowledged sacraments, including invalid confessions).

While I was Lutheran, I did not think OSAS was strictly true, and I thought the Evangelicals with OSAS were wrong in saying salvation is a foolproof insurance for eternity, you can't lose it by murder or adultery even.

As you correctly said sth about children being regenerated by baptism (in their case without any positive even good works, obviously) and as I don't think you consider a baptised man who dies as murderer and apostate is saved because he was baptised NOR that you think regeneration is anything other than justification, this only leaves open the possibility, after getting saved, you need to stay justified.

V

4:07 Ephesians quote says sth about "you have been saved by faith" ... and therefore talks about initial justification.

And yes, it is certainly Catholic dogma that while getting saved can be merited in some sense (ex congruo, God going "it would be too bad if someone like that got no further"), it cannot be merited in the strict sense (ex condigno, it was over Calvary and over the Second Adam only that God said ... as was heard over Jordan before ... This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.).

VI

4:22 And Frankenpope obviously did not defend "his forefathers" ... showing he was not the heir of Leo X or St Pius V.

Actually, his previous comments showing some Catholic sense means you are actually flattering him, painting him as if he were a Roman Catholic.

VII

[linked here]

One could also mention, that Luther and Charles Taze Russell are in as great a conflict with Matthew 28 ("all days" clause) as Mohammed and Joseph Smith, even if the means was in their case different, false learning instead of false revelation.

On Ireland with Roger Buck

Video

Roger Buck: Episode 15 - Abortion and the Tragedy of Ireland
Roger Buck | 3.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85R5ZnUsxr8

I

1 in 5 it seems that stat was correct for France too.

There is a network of "abortion survivors" - the four in five who were not aborted - while they do not attack the infamous "loi Veil", they express grief over the "missing siblings", one of the symbols is showing a hand with one finger down behind the palm ...

II

3:38 If Hitler had not taken on Jews, would Nazi Germany still stand with Eugenics?

Would the states of Canada and US which had it and would Sweden and Denmark and Norway have kept it, instead of abolishing it in the 70's?

III

End of Leninism with diverse versions in 1990 - was it more like "fall of Barad-Dûr" - or was it more like "fall of Dol Guldur"?

4:03 I'm confident it will come to an end ... well, at Harmageddon if not before (on Ireland it will end seven years before that, if a prayer of St Patrick and God's answering it are genuine history) ...

I am not sure it really is another collective pathology than Leninism (after all, Russia had no legal abortion under Czars and one of the first things LENIN did - it didn't wait to Stalin - was legalising abortion).

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:54 "as a form of creeping fascism"

I think that comment might make the heirs of Il Duce squirm ... Alessandra Mussolini may have some faults, but being too PC ...?

And why would fascism "creep" when Benito took care to stand up in the most majestic position possible?

Not that they did everything right, it went downhill in 1938 with Carta della Razza (80 years ago), but abortion was penalised:

• without "medical" assistance 1 to 4 years prison
• with "medical" assistance 2 to 5 years, both aborting mother and aborting doctor.

Even if Il Duce is in Hell for multiple fornication, for racism and a few more, I think Varadkar, unless he repent, is heading for a lower place down there.

Far lower.

Paul Kilcoyne

Fascism was a reaction to the communist threat all across europe...after 1917 in Russia there were attempted commie take overs in Hungary, Romania, Spain and Germany to name a few.

It all goes back to the Jacobite/ Masonic revolution in France of 1789.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In 1789 you did not have Jacobites, you had Jacobins.

Jacobites are sth different. They lost in 1745 at Culloden.

I agree 1789 and Jacobinism have to be opposed, with Communism. And that more than one Fascist movement was a fairly adequate attempt of doing so.

Paul Kilcoyne

sorry I meant Jacobins :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No problem, as long as you don't confuse them.

I think some people have taken me for Jacobin over being more Jacobite.

Also, Jacobites, unlike Jacobins, were Syndicalist in some sense.

Which the 20's and 30's Fascisms were also.

José Antonio, from memory of reading a speech last millennium, "Karl Marx was a talented Jew, who saw the problem of Capitalism, but not the solution to Capitalism."

Maurras : "audelà de l'anarchie, il y a la monarchie, audelà du socialisme il y a le syndicalisme [Certains/quelques-uns] y voient le mal, nous y voyons le bien"

V

24:20 "lull us all into forgetfulness"

Hypnosis needs to be very powerful, not just the light trance when watching TV (if you do so) to do that.

I sometimes dabble in auto-hypnosis (hoping it's not illicit magic), both when strictly alone and with videos.

On one video, a hypnotist would have tried to make me forget "seven" ... er, the number of the sacraments? I snapped out of it and turned off that video. I've been somewhat more wary of her since.

VI

24:28 There are media you forget about - the free and social media.

Perhaps a reason to fight for the liberty of blogging?

24:42 Yeah, like media are for or against some comparatively if not "very" few immigrants getting children taken away at the border, but none of them applying that measure on CPS who take away far more children.

Next to abortion, that is one of the most evil things in the modern world.

VII

27:25 On murder of Irish culture, you might take a look at my analysis:

New blog on the kid : 1933 in Germany, 85 years later Ireland
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/1933-in-germany-85-years-later-ireland.html

New blog on the kid : Other Bad Amendments
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/other-bad-amendments.html

New blog on the kid : Psychiatry and Abortion
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/psychiatry-and-abortion.html

New blog on the kid : She Died of a Fever and No One Could Save Her ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/06/she-died-of-fever-and-no-one-could-save.html

Especially the 2 and 3, while 1 and 4 are less analytical and more simply condemning.

VIII

30:00 One man I met on some Tolkien fora was an Irishman, he seemed to like me personally, but not my Catholicism.

I broke off speaking with him after he said he was proud his boyfriend or sth of the sort had left the Church.

A clever guy. Engaged in a cultural activity which legitimately could boost Catholic culture (Tolkien being a Catholic). And using his position to fight against Catholicism.

IX

39:17 As we harp on "collective pathologies" - why not collective sins?

39:49 I would say yes voters were actually worse than those voting Nazi and even some cardcarrying party members. I would also say they were in fact loosely Leninist, if not precisely Stalinist, and I would say Leninism as such is not better than Stalinism.

It was Lenin's régime that:

• introduced into Russia free abortion (or abortion on demand);
• compulsory schooling (an import from Judaism, a stranger to Christianity, invented among Jews by one of the heirs of Caiaphas);
• raising marital age to 18 for both sexes
• AND at same time encouraging "free sex" as per Komsomol leader Alexandra Kollontai, also an influence on Swedish sexual liberation movement (RFSU, closely allied to homosexualist RFSL).

These ideas are very much part of what is killing Ireland.

So is the belief that Earth is 4.5 billion years old and man evolved from other primates, though not exactly any of the now extant species of apes - also introduced by Lenin.

The Russian Communist yoke was 1917 to 1990, not 1924 to 1990.

At the Matteotti case, Mussolini was accused of having a Cheka. He answered in a hearing before the parliament that no, we don't have one, Russia has one ... and I'll add for you, it didn't wait to 1924 to start existing. It was organised by Trotski, during Lenin's short term. (Italian Fascist secret police did come into existence later, 1926, as a response to how an anarchist boy who had tried to kill Mussolini got lynched by a mob).

Stalin's régime, while per se bad, was on some points a partial return to sanity - the brief pro-Kulak and pro-Church turn during "Great Patriotic War" especially so, as well as stopping Alexandra Kollontai's activities.

40:44 And who would NOT excuse a lot of those voting Nazi in 1933 and even some party members on exactly the same grounds?

In Hitler's invasion of Russia, even some Russians got an excuse (of a somewhat enchanting type) to rally to Stalin.

Your distinction is actually a similarity.

And I said "somewhat" enchanting in order not to cave in to a deresponsibilisation from the use of freewill - in any of these cases.

Do you remember a certain novel by Chesterton called "Manalive"?

One of Innocent's lawyers said "yes, the old civilisation accused a man of theft and locked him up for a year, the new one accuses him of kleptomania and locks him up for life".

Think of that one next time you hear someone excusing someone on grounds of "pathology" or "enchantment".

While we are at Lenin, Stalin and Hitler.

You know that the list of kings "five are gone, one is, the seventh shall rule for a brief time" - there is an exposition of this making the five fallen ones range from Nimrod to Antiochus Epiphanes, making Nero or Domitian (I'd say Domitian) the sixth and making the seventh Hitler.

I think Lenin is as good a candidate if not better as Hitler.

In ASCII "Hitler"="616" and "IULJANOV"="616".

Obviously called Lenin "Iljitj Uljanov" (with Swedish spelling, he was partly Swede) is as valid as calling him "Vladimir Uljanov". Of the Iljitj Uljanov's in his generation, he was arguably best known.

And do check out how WLADIMIRA (Polish spelling for genitive and accusative of WLADIMIR) and how VLADIMIRB (a Vladimir B coming after a Vladimir A, like after Lenin), add up.

Speaking of which, has Putin said a word to deplore the result on Ireland ? I know these times some Nationalists in the West are a bit pro-Putin ... but is he very different from Varadkar on this question?

Roger Buck

Hans-Georg Lundahl, I regret I only just discovered that YouTube had dumped most of your comments into the Spam folder from which I retrieved them. I also regret that I just don't know how to find time for the kind of rapid back and forth commentary on social media that comes so easily to most people. (See my response to Minky in the pinned post above.) So I will take time to chew on this. I will go to your blogs now though - thank you for posting these.

I just removed a comment from someone else - not you HGL - that seemed less than helpful to me and a harmless one from you, HGL, in response to that person. I regret if my actions seem willy-nilly or inconsistent or inexplicable. One thing I have very little time for is the kind of intense back and forth internet interaction - as I said above - nor monitoring comments. In fact when I started this channel it is thing I most DREADED. Can't stand Facebook for similar reasons. May be I have a problem - but it is who I am, for better or worse.

So, alas, I am invoking the right to automatically delete comments without explanation. Hint: Holocaust denial will not be tolerated. However, I share so much with you HGL in terms of our mutual love of the faith, many people and things that this actually pains me. Still haven't gone to your blog entries yet. I can't seem to find them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The posts would be here:

New blog on the kid : 1933 in Germany, 85 years later Ireland
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/1933-in-germany-85-years-later-ireland.html

New blog on the kid : Other Bad Amendments
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/other-bad-amendments.html

New blog on the kid : Psychiatry and Abortion
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/psychiatry-and-abortion.html

and here:

New blog on the kid : She Died of a Fever and No One Could Save Her ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/06/she-died-of-fever-and-no-one-could-save.html

For each, click link, if you see any "no such post" try to see if there is an invisible addition after html and remove it, then renew.

Do not click top of the blog, as title, which will bring you to latest and these are a while back.

Roger Buck

Thank you, HGL! Was struggling to find these for at least ten minutes and couldn't find them again. I am not cut out for engaging in all this or monitoring comments. But once I've gone through all that more, I look forward to looking at your blogs.

Roger Buck

HGL. See my comment below. Because I just tried to read these and I couldn't. And alas, I have NO idea what you mean when you write "see if there is an invisible addition after html and remove it, then renew." No idea whatsoever and I could spend an hour trying to figure it out.

Forgive me, unknown friend, I am STUPID with technology and social media -- precisely because I try it avoid it as much as humanly possible!

BUT I would like to see what you have written. Maybe you could email me the text? I am sorry. I have spent much of this morning, stupidlly tearing my hair out about things in these comments that are perfectly obvious to others, but not me, alas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In order to email you anything, I'd need your email. Are we friends on FB?

You DO need to go via links, since one of the posts actually does contain an image which I can't you copy to a mail. MEANWHILE, here is an IT less for you:

New blog on the kid : IT Lesson for Roger Buck
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/07/it-lesson-for-roger-buck.html

I have a little idea, if you don't actually mind showing the world you read my blogs, as certain people would for dishonest reasons, hope you're not one of them, take a video of how you try to click a link of mine, fail to get to the post, and post this video, then I'll see what you were doing wrong.

To Yehudith Kleinman

"All My Mothers" -The Story of Yehudith Kleinman
Yad Vashem | 2.VII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5uVPd1Yvc

Yehudith, you have heard of Judith of Bethulia?

Look up Judith 13:23 and ask yourself where you have heard the words of Ozias before ...

On some confusing me with a National Socialist - questions to the Yad Vashem and one victim-survivor

Updates may come, for now my questions:

Video A

Holocaust Survivor: America Does Not Run Concentration Camps
Daily Caller | 1.VII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuhHc0nkBB4

Sole Q

Some people call me a Nazi.

Now, I am more or less, a Fascist. I like Mussolini with reservations (best before 1938, OK), Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, Franco and Salazar. But Hitler should have stuck to painting.

How do you consider the guys who term me a Nazi?

Question mainly to David Tuck.

Video B

Roots of Nazi Ideology
Yad Vashem | 13.III.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvCkw87FLZk

Q I

Would you consider Christian Anti-Judaism or Eugenics the worse between the two contributors to National Socialist ideology?

Q II

Between Mein Kampf and Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts on the one hand and Father Seipel's Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter, 1907, and Nation und Staat, 1916, which do you think are likeliest to do physical harm to Jews in personal non-public interests?

Note, I am not against for instance sacking Jews from or Muslims from public service, if it is deemed the minority abuses such positions to do harm to non-criminals just because no fans of ... Jews or Muslims.

Q III

By the way, T4 in Austria, didn't it start AFTER Anschluß, AFTER Austrofaschists had largely been replaced by National Socialists (except Zeiß-Inquart who changed role and who repented before getting hanged in Nuremberg)?

And didn't it partially end because Catholic clergy (notably von Galen) and a Calvinist judge protested?

And if Catholic clergy were less eager to protest against the internment of Jews into camps, wasn't it because they were partly themselves targetted and partly preferring to help Jews in secret?

Like the bishop and Franciscan father Ruffino Niccacci in Assisi, who, at least the latter, I think, has a tree in Yad Vashem, earned in times which I would consider not just Mussolini after his best before date in 1938 (the day before he signed Carta della Razza), but Mussolini as a poor puppet?

Just so we are on the same board, Anschluß was March 12 1938.

I seem even to be wrong on T4 actually ending ...

"In October 1939 Adolf Hitler signed a "euthanasia note" backdated to 1 September 1939, that authorized his physician Karl Brandt and Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler to implement the programme. The killings took place from September 1939 until the end of the war in 1945, during which 275,000 to 300,000[a] people were killed at various extermination centres located at psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, along with those in occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

So, if I was wrong on von Galen and that Calvinist judge successfully ending them (but there was a suspension in 1941, it seems), I would have been right in the horror beginning after Austrofascism was well out of the way and Hitler could do what he liked in Austria (under Austrofascism, he had been banned from the country, as were many of the higher ranking National Socialists except when serving prison).

Or did I miss sth?

Q IV

It seems some people consider Creationism as a support of Racism and also of Nazism - I get the feeling you do not agree?

I mean, you mentioned Darwin, but not for instance Samuel Wilberforce, among these roots of National Socialism ???

Video C

Mass murder of the Jews of Miropol
Yad Vashem | 20.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2s_G-TjQA

Sole Q

Did I get it right that brothers were in the Red Army?

Can this mass murder have been an act of retaliation, since Red Army had murdered Ukraineans? ...

Partial answer

... Can one identify a real other root of National Socialism as the idea of being back in the bronze age and taking revenge like Neoptolemos on Priam or related?

I mean, Germans were the big archaeological experts on the bronze age. Ishtar Gate of Babylon - in Berlin. Deciphering Hittite - done by a German.

It seems some may have been more "in tune" with that than with Classical or Christian times. Could be due to dechristianisation (very largely) of Protestants, in belief if not in Church visits.

La Tarasque as a Dino Species ...

Miscellaneous Myths: The Tarasque
Overly Sarcastic Productions | 25.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4sVmnfz9Wk

What was the description of the Tarasque, again?

Could it be a dino?

Head of a lion
Shell of a turtle
Tail of a scorpion
Legs of a Bear
Body of an Ox

One could relate to Ceratopsian (the combs around face looking like a lion's mane) or Ancylosaurus (tail of a scorpion presumably referring to shape of a tail ending in a club like part).

Shell of a turtle, legs of a bear and body of an ox would fit either.

St Martha recommending NOT to kill it probably would so too, since palaeontologists would conclude for both Ancylosaurus and Ceratopsians that they were veggies.

Townspeople could have fed it hay or even small branches of vegetation, or used it to trim the hedges.