... on Appreciating Work Ethic in Diverse Venues

Some Roofers Offered This Homeless Guy A Job, And He Soon Showed Them His True Colors
watchjojo | 17.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmsitqPfcZo

Let's put it like this.

If editors - I tend to call them "paper editors" since I am my own internet editor - had had the same response to a homeless writer with work ethic as roof contractors to a homeless worker with such, I'd be off the streets long ago.

I wonder if some wanted me to see the video to show me what could happen if I "showed work ethic" like John.

Well, the problem is, they want work ethic in the venue of workers' works. I'm showing it in Academic type works.

And some Academics just don't like my work ... because it contradicts theirs.

That said, I congratulate John and definitely the roof contracters at Murray's as well!

Jolly good show, as I think some Brits would express it!

... on a Physicist who Debated WLC

Some people are very easily pleased with "proofs" that atheism is viable.

William Lane Craig vs An Actual Scientist
TMM | 6.III.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4

I

1:13 "this kind of Aristotelian [...] causation was cutting-edge stuff 2500 years ago, today we know better"

Or we don't, because outmoding Aristotle is not a valid way of debunking him.

"//if the universe began to exist, it has a trascendental cause//"

That was not the premiss, that was the conclusion.

"you will not find the word/phrase 'transcendental cause' " (anywhere in a standard physics' text book)

So? It's not the kind of question a standard physics' textbook is supposed to be dealing with!

And things do not pop into existence without causes. Whatever a physicist may be imagining on that one.

The "real scientist" here reminds me slightly of a Swiss dramatist's representation of Die Physiker ... they were in a madhouse.

OK, without being actually mad, but still.

II

2:42 Guth Flanken theorem - well possible.

[watching video without headphones, and going by subtitles]

Here is another reason why the universe we are dealing with needs a beginning.

• 1) It contains Hydrogen.
• 2) Hydrogen is all the time depleted in stellar fusional processes (at least in the standard models for astrophysics) by fusing into Helium
• 3) and Helium never gets back to Hydrogen.

Therefore, in a universe with an infinite past, the Hydrogen would be all used up an infinite past ago.

Hence, our universe had a start. H/T to Dom whoever that benedictine was, who was cited by Revd Bryan Houghton in Unwanted Priest.

Found him, Stanley L. Jaki, o.s.b.

Cited in Unwanted Priest or at least French translation Prêtre rejeté which includes a translation of a pamphlet of his too.

Sorry for misciting the coauthor of the theorem. Found it:

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.

Creationwiki : Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem
https://creationwiki.org/Borde-Guth-Vilenkin_singularity_theorem

Here is one in memoriam for Father Houghton, anyway:

Rejected Priest: Fr. Bryan Houghton
Una Voce (after November 19th, 1992)
http://unavoce.org/uva-archive/rejected-priest-fr-bryan-houghton/

III

3:42 "Alan Guth does not believe the universe is eternal because it's a hunch or personal preference, it's because he's a scientist and he's trying to develop models that fit the data"

Well, Guth preferring "as a scientist" an eternal universe, despite Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, would perhaps be like, he understands too well that a universe with a beginning needs a cause from outside the universe. In other words, because "as a scientist" one of the "data" he's trying to fit things with is his absence of God.

My experience with scientists is, they have a lot of atheist bias. Lawrence Krauss has shown his anti-theistic bias on record.

IV

6:10 - 6:19 "that's a good thing that helps us distinguish between viable models of the multiverse and non-viable models, and there are plenty of viable models where the Boltzmann brain or random fluctuations do not dominate"

Picking and choosing are we?

Seriously, I think this shows some "atheist bias" not in the sense directed against Theism, Platonic or Christian, but in the sense directed against Homeric Paganism.

Jew and Anabaptist Quarrel, This Catholic Comments (on First Minutes)

Rabbi confronts Christian proselytizing at Israeli Independence Fair in L.A. 2014
JewTube | 7.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC63_bemI2I

I

1:20 "Inquisition" - "Those are Catholics, Catholics are not Christians."

OK, Inquisitors "slit Jewish throats"?

Perhaps fake converso throats, before burning, but I actually think a fake converso missing his umpteenth (or second) chance of being a true Catholic, if he were killed before the burning, it would be by strangling.

No Jew remaining a Jew had his throat touched by Inquisition.

Some had to leave France to nearby Holy Roman Empire. Some had to leave Papal states to nearby parts of Italy. Most traumatising, some had to leave Spain either to Portugal or across the sea.

But they were not liable to killing by Inquisitors.

If a Jew converted, however, he was expected to really convert.

II

1:40 "Martin Luther" - "He came out of Catholicism, he is kind of Catholic lite"

When it comes to anti-Judaism, he was actually heavier than Catholics, most of them. [of us]

Interesting also that this Baptist is so well informed that Lutherans are not a Church existing for 2000 years outside Catholicism, but a sect separating from them more recently ... and yet he is not a Catholic.

Wonder if he has some Ruckmanite myth about where the Church persisted before Luther?

If he says "Celtic Christianity" I'd say it recently revived, in Switzerland. Check out Écône. Monseigneur Lefebvre was kind of a "maverick Catholic" doing his stuff without really taking too much the Pope into account, and that is more or less what Celtic Christianity was.

When he decided the four bishops would not have territorial jurisdiction, but just serve within the community, he was even modelling that on Irish monasteries having several bishops under an abbot who did not need to be a bishop.

III

3:36 "in those days Jesus was called sth else, he was called Astarte or he was called Baal"

Epic.

An Anabaptist loves to make this charge against "Mariolatry" or against the Holy Eucharist or (if he's into Sabbath keeping) even the Julian or Gregorian Easter date.

Now he gets it back from the real source, a Jew who, very incorrectly, considers that even worshipping Jesus is worshipping Baal.

Now, of course all these charges have to be answered to a Jew. But a Jew calling the worship of Jesus Baal worship is the top answer to an Anabaptist making Hislopite accusations against Rome.

Hislop = Judaism lite.

IV

3:46 "Jesus is my lamb of God, where is your animal sacrifice?"

Right.

Jesus is the Eucharistic Host. Or sacrificial lamb. He fulfils the prophecy of Malachi 1:11.

Jesus is also the Eucharistic Priest. He fulfils the promise "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in the Psalm by David "Dixit Dominus Domino meo".

In other words, in the time of St Paul, Christians and Jews could be disputing on which sacrifice would be lasting.

In AD 70 (or most place it that year), the temple was destroyed, and the Jew can now only say:

"we pray daily, and that takes the place until we have an altar again."

I am not sure the Anabaptist should be saying "lovely" to "we pray daily".

One of my doubts about Pius XII as a Catholic Pope is this, he allowed Jews to pray their daily prayers in the Assisi Cathedral while no Germans and no unknown Fascists were watching, but they switched to singing the hours (disguised as Franciscans, so the Franciscan zuchetto could replace the kippa or yarmulke) when an unknown Italian Fascist or a German soldier entered the Cathedral.

This was of course in his rescuing of Jews, but it seems the Assisi Cathedral was not exorcised and reconsecrated after Jews had been praying in it.

Why is this grave?

"Birkat HaMinim ("the sectarians, heretics") - asks God to destroy those in heretical sects (Minuth), who slander Jews and who act as informers against Jews."

This is prayer number 12 in the Amidah prayer.

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

It is directed against the Catholic Church. Against the people of God.

Also, the prayers 14 and 15 are at least erroneous and will be taken as "fulfilled" when Satan sends the Antichrist, by some:

"Boneh Yerushalayim ("Builder of Jerusalem") - asks God to rebuild Jerusalem and to restore the Kingdom of David."
"Birkat David ("Blessing of David") - asks God to bring the descendant of King David, who will be the messiah."

The Kingdom of David is the Catholic Church. The Messiah has already come, 2000 years ago.

So, no, the Anabaptist should not be saying "lovely" when the Jew says "we pray every day".

V

4:34 I've enough of it for now, I like neither of these fat men, neither the rabbi nor the pastor.

Yes, I know, the video is 17:38 minutes:seconds, but I'm quitting here for today.

This reminds me so much why I prefer debating over internet.

If I'm insulted, I will at least probably calm down before my answer is ended, while I research it.

... in Defense of the Eucharist (to Another Commenter under Krauss)

David Randall

25 seconds in, and Krauss is wrong already. I am a Christian, I believe in the doctrines of my faith, and I know MANY Christians who do. But Krauss is a atheist and knows nothing of Christianity so I am not yet surprised by Krauss. Also, like most atheists, Krauss does not know or understand the difference between faith and religion. A person can religiously pick their nose or proclaim there is no God. It takes faith in atheism, and atheists and atheist dogma to practice that religious practice.

Faith is preference. You decide to adopt of belief despite not having conclusive evidence. No one can prove does not exists, so to believe there is no God is a kind of faith, just not a wise one from my point of view.

For Krauss to make the assertion that the 21st century has no place for religion, I have bad news for him, and its of a Biblical nature. The Novus Ordo Seclorum gang is about to run smack into their creator.

I am curious how Krauss will address his creator God when he dies. Probably much in the same way Sagan, Marx, Asimov and Hawkins did, and I'm sure it was not and is not a pleasant experience for them.

30 seconds in. Okay, he is right about something regarding Christians, but its accidental so it only half counts. Yes, Christians want to believe because what ever faith a person has, it is first preference. If you don't want to believe in God, that is your preference (faith). You have faith in your beliefs and those who also believe as you do and even those who author the ideas that you subscribe to. So an atheists has faith, that there is no God. They just can't prove it. Faith.

44 seconds in . . . Christ said "eat this in REMEMBRANCE of me." No one should drive drunk and atheists should NOT quote the Bible or comment on it. They CAN'T get it right because God will not let them.

50 Seconds in . . . Jewish Atheists: Uhm read Romans chapter 11. God blinded Jews just like he blinded atheists. But the Jews gets a second chance, because they did not ask to be blinded. Krauss did.

59 Seconds in . . . Krauss just said that Jews are atheists, but there are some parts of their religion that they like. This is true. It is also evidence that Jews have been blinded, and that religion and faith are NOT the same thing. So that is one full point for Krauss. But since it actually undermines his lack of faith, or at least the reasons for it, I take the point back.

1:07 in . . . what makes the Iron age Jews peasants? They were as noble as anyone else was. They certainly had Kings. . . I would cite the book of Kings as proof of that. Additionally, what they thought about the stars at the time and through the ages is difficult to address, but if Krauss is attempting to make a point about the Sun, all ancient societies had knowledge of the stars, sun and moon far in advance of what the average college graduate does today. More to the point nothing about the observations made by ancient peoples decry flat earth or globe earth as the observations they made work on either.

1:12 Krauss waxes stupid here. The wisdom in the 613 laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were the basis and the only source of early hygiene, financial, agricultural and food preparation that showed any kind of advance knowledge of disease or mystery behind the 7 year financial cycles. Not to mention medicine. Jews were hired by most of the ancient and medieval world as bankers, doctors, financial advisers, historians, scientists and philosophers BECAUSE of the knowledge that they obtained from the Bible. It was almost like someone knew all that stuff BEFORE it could have been known, and that same someone shared it ONLY with the Jews. Hmm . . . weird.

Additionally the Bible has single-handedly been the first document to introduce the world to The Hittites, The city of Jericho, the chariot wheels at the bottom of the red sea, the concept of a binary star, and about 1800 other locations, persons, and events that were all at one time claimed NOT to be real by historical atheists like Krauss, and in EVERY SINGLE CASE, the Krausses of the world were wrong.

Not so weird.

1:31 Krauss waxes stupid again. First of all,does Krauss take some kind of survey of scientists to know what they think about on a daily basis. Its not like most scientists I know even respect Krauss, who is so clearly an atheists first and everything else second. It would be like expecting an honest opinion about a hoover vacuum for a door to door Kirby vacuum salesman.

Additionally to make the both false and again STUPID statement that science in ANY WAY disproves God shows that Krauss knows NOTHING of the Higgs-Boson particle, dark matter and dark energy, visible vs non-visible light spectrum, the multiverse theory, the quantum field theory and just about every other theory. All of which either point directly toward, allude to or allow for the existence of God. Not to mention the geologic column, the mapping of human DNA and the sum total of human history. All of which show God more as a likelihood than anything else.

Krauss's hatred for God is so obvious at this point that he probably gets boils from fake holy water.

1:44 Now with the natural world. I suppose then Krauss has a good reason why there is such a disparity between the complexity of non-living things as opposed to living things. I suppose the Fibonacci sequence, the presences of more than 90% marine life in every geological layer, and the fact that ONLY homosapiens are found in human mitochondrial DNA mean nothing to him. Entire forests existing through many layers of the geological column I suppose can be ignored by Krauss without the need for an explanation, because who needs an explanation when you can have indoctrination instead?

2:16 Krauss here is showing his true self. He acknowledges that the morality of (he says religion) I say faith is required, yet he just wants you to NOT believe in God. Why?

Dude (Dudette,, other) . . . he's a committed atheists. That is what he is selling. If you are buying, you are buying from a second rate used car salesman. He isn't FACTUALLY correct . . why would you trust him with what is potentially your most prized possession? Your immortal soul.

If you are being totally objective, and you need to be because ONLY YOU can make this decision., Krauss is offering you nothing for everything (in its potential)

Its like trading your house AND FAMILY for some stupid beans. And BTW, he tells you in advance that they are NOT magical beans.

Do not listen to this man unless its as a reverse barometer. This man is a moron.

2:24 Krauss claims that the purpose of science it to (I'm quoting him) ""To force people's BELIEFS to CONFORM (my emphasis) to evidence of reality, and not the other way around and not provide the answers before we (ask yourself who is we? Are you we? Is Krauss we?) even ask them."

Not not withstanding that AGAIN Krauss is wrong, it is NOT The role or purpose of science to "FORCE people's beliefs"in any way. Krauss's view of science is a lot like Hitler's.

And what reality? Science is constantly changing and reforming and redrawing lines based one what we learn. Who the hell is Krauss to FORCE YOUR REALITY when he (his we) determine what is reality. As if he was even smart enough to make that decision for himself, let alone you or I or anyone.

The man is a science fascist in the same class as Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye, or Richard (angry drunk) Dawkins. These semi-educated and ideologically frigid thought Nazi's who have decided both for you and for all what is despite the fact that "what is" is still not just unknown, but unknowable.

Don't buy into this turd polishing troglodyte's asinine rhetoric. Us your brain, its likely much more suited for thinking than his anyway.

In Krauss's "Global World" you will have thought policing dullards like him holding posts they are not intellectually equipped to execute and they will build something that makes Nazi Germany look like a tolerant melting pot.

This man is NOT your friend. He is an enemy to your freedom of thought and is far worse than any zealot, because like the Nazi's he doesn't value life, only his twisted perception of reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// 44 seconds in . . . Christ said "eat this in REMEMBRANCE of me." No one should drive drunk and atheists should NOT quote the Bible or comment on it. They CAN'T get it right because God will not let them. //

IN fact, Krauss was commenting on Roman Catholics and our belief in transsubstantiation.

If you, as a Protestant, don't believe it, God allowed even an atheist to get it right before you, but as I recall, he was not commenting in the words in the Bible, but on the Catholic dogma as Catholic.

Apart from that, I agree a lot, see what I had to say about his first 6 minutes here:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/against-krauss-ten-answers-to-his-first.html

David Randall

God blinded those who persist in ungodliness, he did it to the Jews and he did it to all who prefer not to see him. It has nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant, and I am neither. I am a follower of the way the truth and light.

I do not kiss rings, say vain and repetitious prayers, call the dead saints, claim that a man has any power to block my communication with God, or act on behalf of Christ. I do not claim nor is it possible to approach Mary the mother of Christ or dead people called saints for any kind of intercession or answer any prayer or even hear my prayers, as that is Idolatry, and blasphemy and worshiping false gods.

Additionally, I do not keep or use or pray with beads, crosses or other graven images as they are nothing but objects made by man and objects of scorn to God.

Transsubstantiation is another invented neo-pagan adaptation that is NOT Biblical yet for the Catholics is doctrine. Show me where Christ said "eat my corpse".

He said that when you eat, remember me, because no man shall live by bread alone. He didn't mean that one should consume the flesh of Christ. This is obvious to those who depart from foolish man made doctrines and follow only the teachings of Christ.

The Whore that rides upon the beast is the Church of Laodicea and she is the Church of later days.

Atheists who love not the truth, cannot understand the Bible nor its wisdom, this is a pervasive message throughout the Bible. Show me where it says in the Bible that a nonbeliever will know God's laws, doctrine and mysteries before one one of his elect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the things you say [in his second comment, not all in the first one against Krauss] are clearly Protestant heresies, condemned as such by the Council of Trent.

Now, one specific point:

"Transsubstantiation is another invented neo-pagan adaptation that is NOT Biblical yet for the Catholics is doctrine. Show me where Christ said 'eat my corpse'."

Show me where the Church is claiming this is what transsubstantiation means.

There was no Communion held during the three days when His body was indeed a corpse.

At the Last Supper, His body was a live body, and after Resurrection, His body is a live body.

On Good Friday, while you can go to Communion after confessing, you cannot do so on a Host consecrated same day.

On Holy Saturday, there is no Mass celebrated to the evening, and that Mass belongs to the Sunday, according to the Hebrew tradition of starting days at evening.

We clearly do not believe in "eating the corpse of Christ" when we ritually avoid to say Mass when "my body" would be - as per memory - "my dead body".

David Randall

Of course you don't believe in eating a corpse,and I said as much to provoke a response. I wanted to be sure i was talking to a believer.

A few points though:

Transsubtantiation: Again, there is no Biblical doctrine that makes a claim that there is a literal and actual alteration from bread to flesh and from wine to blood.

In fact the eating and drinking of either is expressly forbidden. I know you know that. But then why does The Catholic Church (and Orthodox and Protestant occasionally, its two derivatives) take on this practice as if Christ was saying literally eat my body and drink my blood. That is NOT what he was saying and it is NOT the point of the message. The point is to be mindful of him and to know that his blood was spilled and his body destroyed for the sins of man. The Church doctrine does not correctly express this message during the Eucharist.

On Sunday, Sunday is the first day of the week and NOT the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the last day of the week and the word Sabbath is the root of Saturday (Sabbath Day). Another doctrine that is pagan in origin as Sunday was the say that the pagan who worshiped the sun would pray facing the rising Sun and pray also during the setting sun in some cases.

The commandment was to keep the Sabbath Holy and that is was a day of rest. Yet in the paganized world, Sunday has been given this purpose by in large in Christian countries. Oddly enough our Islamic and Jewish brothers in blood and not in Christ keep this commandment.

The Counsel of Trent was held as a response to the birth of Protestantism. I am not a huge fan of it either in terms of Church Doctrine. However it correctly pointed out the Biblical inconsistencies within the Catholic and by then Orthodox Churches. All that I named previously and many more.

How then does a counsel of pride hurt men 1500 plus years after the death of Christ come to the point where by doctrine and policy they can overturn the teachings of Christ?

I stated all of my criticisms of Catholic Doctrine truly. Every single practice I mentioned is expressly forbidden, not just by the prophets, but by the words of Christ himself. How then does a body of men come to the point that they can supersede or reverse doctrine expressly established by the Son of God?

I care nothing for the findings of unwed priests servile to doctrine of men and not God. A priest is supposed to take on a wife and she is to be of high stock in terms of faith and character. The laws are not thrown out. Christs is the fulfillment of the law.

As a benefit of Grace we do not need to know or follow the law to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but a priest must know the law and the doctrines of Christ, or he is not a priest of Christ but a man who makes God a liar.

No Counsel of fools can make the words of Christ a lie without both peril to themselves, and without doing harm to their brother.

This is such an important point God waited until the very end of the Bible to make the point, clearly it is important to him:

Revelations 22:18-21
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

That is VERY clear and not in any way subject to interpretation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Again, there is no Biblical doctrine that makes a claim that there is a literal and actual alteration from bread to flesh and from wine to blood."

If by "Biblical doctrine" you mean a direct statement, no, there is not.

Neither is there for your point of view.

If by Biblical doctrine you mean the kinds of statements around the question which allow it to be solved, the Biblical doctrine of transsubstantiation depends on the Biblical statement of the Real Presence: Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24.

"In fact the eating and drinking of either is expressly forbidden."

The eating of a human corpse or the drinking of blood out of a man is definitely forbidden. Both actions hurt the man's either survival in drinking of blood or integrity before resurrection in the case of eating a corpse.

Those bans do not concern the eating of Christ's risen body, since it is not dismembered by the eating, or the drinking of His blood, since it is in the veins.

"But then why does The Catholic Church (and Orthodox and Protestant occasionally, its two derivatives) take on this practice as if Christ was saying literally eat my body and drink my blood."

Read the statement in Corinthians.

this is my body, which shall be delivered for you

Christ did not deliver a piece of bread next day on Calvary.

"That is NOT what he was saying and it is NOT the point of the message. The point is to be mindful of him and to know that his blood was spilled and his body destroyed for the sins of man. The Church doctrine does not correctly express this message during the Eucharist."

Your Protestant theory of the matter - it is Protestant in so far as Zwinglian or Calvinist and it was condemned as such by the Council of Trent - is not accurately rephrasing what Christ said.

You may be thinking of the words (continuing at Corinthians):

this do for the commemoration of me.

He did not say "this is not me, it is just a commemoration of me", since He had just said the opposite. He said "do this" - namely what He had just done. Thereby authorising THEM to repeat the transsubstantiation He had just worked.

"On Sunday, Sunday is the first day of the week and NOT the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the last day of the week and the word Sabbath is the root of Saturday (Sabbath Day). Another doctrine that is pagan in origin as Sunday was the say that the pagan who worshiped the sun would pray facing the rising Sun and pray also during the setting sun in some cases."

Would you mind telling me where the Church is which kept all this time the Sabbath?

If you point at the Synagogue, it denies Jesus.

"How then does a counsel of pride hurt men 1500 plus years after the death of Christ come to the point where by doctrine and policy they can overturn the teachings of Christ?"

If Trent was a "counsel of pride" - where was the Church in that day which could have held a true counsel, like the one in Acts 15?

Orthodox Church also condemned Protestantism, and affirmed Real Presence (councils of Iasi and Jerusalem).

Copts and Nestorians also believe Real Presence, and Copts, Nestorians and Armenians believe Holy Mass is a sacrifice and Armenians previously (back when a monk condemned Tondrakians) affirmed Real Presence too.

Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians are the five confessions which have some claim to Apostolic succession.

"I care nothing for the findings of unwed priests servile to doctrine of men and not God."

Oh, that explains your callousness about Corinthians! You know, St Paul was an unwed priest!

"A priest is supposed to take on a wife"

Is he? Or is he supposed to take only one?

"Christs is the fulfillment of the law."

Did He take a wife?

Or did He live celibate?

the prophecy of this scroll

I e, Apocalypse. The whole New Testament or the whole Bible is possible to write in a codex, but not in a scroll.

"That is VERY clear and not in any way subject to interpretation."

Apart from your interpreting wrongly the verses 18 and 19, at least verse 21 is very clear.

As you cite it.

In fact, it has text variants.

Nestle Aland has μετὰ πάντων - with all. Douay Rheims has with you all and Vulgate agrees cum omnibus vobis - where did you get the reading "with God’s people" from?

If it had been the correct reading, it would have been clear that the Church is a people with a continuous presence on Earth, precisely as Matthew 28:20 is very clear on that one.

Which in turn says : Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians or Nestorians. NOT Protestants.

David Randall

Hans . . . as far as the communion, we agree in almost every single way. I just think that Church doctrine does a terrible job conveying the meaning of the Eucharist, as it seems like many millions of Catholics can't even describe accurately what is being done. Also the practice of drinking blood is VERY closely tied to paganism and Baal worship of all sorts. So while I think the idea of remembering Christ's sacrifice is absolutely Biblical, I think the doctrine of the Church is so milk-toasty and so weak, that the meaning is lost, as is evidenced by the current position of many former Catholics now turned atheist.

Granted they love not the truth anyway, but the message is not clear and not well defined, and of this I am speaking from personal experience. BTW . . you may be interested in knowing that many Protestant churches now offer this service, and they are even less clear about the meaning.

Now I should say a few things just so you know who I am spiritually.

I am NOT a protestant. I am simply a follower of the way, the truth and the light. I am a Christian, born again through faith and a humble servant of God. I am a sinner in need of Grace and thanks to Christ I have that Grace whereby Christ has indelibly sealed my name in the book of life.

I do criticize many of the doctrines of the Churches who have replaced Christs teachings with the folly of men. Revelations 22:18 is something I think many leaders of the Churches are guilty of.

With that said, these same Churches have lead Billions to Christ, so they have done great works and have much to boast about. It is no small accomplishment by any means. Clearly the seeds spread by the apostles have taken deep root in many places.

Still, as stewards of the Church and devotees to Christ first, we also have a responsibility to be vanguards of the word and Church doctrine so that is does NOT run afoul of Rev 22:18 and all that such would encompass.

The Counsel of Trent was both right and wrong. There were some Protestant claims that were not substantiated by the Bible. This is true.

Christ tells us that the only thing higher than God's name is his word.

How then does the Catholic Church justify calling the dead saints?

Or Allowing a man to lead the Church who claims he can excommunicate a person from God?

Or Allow a leader of the church to receive kisses to a ring? The Biblical symbol for a ring is both wealth and power. Why kiss such an object on the hand of a man? This is Idolatry and worshiping someone other than God.

Or the adoption of pagan symbols like the Fish hats from Baal worship, or a huge stone penis in St. Peters square, or making a Pagan dome on top of the Vatican which is also a pagan symbol of the womb?

Or vain, and repetitious prayers that do not communicate with god, but babble a message not tailored to that person and defy the ability for that soul to unburden themselves to God?

Or the use of the cross and prayer beads which are idols and graven images.

Or Statues of Saints which are the same?

Or seeking intercession from Mary or one of the dead people the Church calls Saints? Didn't Christ say the HE was the ONLY path to the father? This is blasphemy, the worship of false Gods and Idolatry.

Then there is the idea that somehow the Pope speaks for Christ, and is infallible. These are CLEARLY 180 degrees in opposition to what Christ taught.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I just think that Church doctrine does a terrible job conveying the meaning of the Eucharist, as it seems like many millions of Catholics can't even describe accurately what is being done."

I actually described according to the faith shared by precisely millions of Catholics.

"Also the practice of drinking blood is VERY closely tied to paganism and Baal worship of all sorts."

If drinking blood physically separated from the body it belongs to.

"So while I think the idea of remembering Christ's sacrifice is absolutely Biblical,"

That was definitely NOT all I had to say. Read again.

"as is evidenced by the current position of many former Catholics now turned atheist."

There is such a thing as bad catechesis. Many dioceses have apostate "bishops" who catechise badly.

"How then does the Catholic Church justify calling the dead saints?"

How do you justify calling the saints dead?

"And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?"
[John 11:26]

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life."
[John 5:24]

"Or Allowing a man to lead the Church who claims he can excommunicate a person from God?"

He more like claims he can excommunicate a man from the Church if he has already excommunicated himself from God.

"Or Allow a leader of the church to receive kisses to a ring?"

Bc this leader of the Church represents Christ.

"This is Idolatry and worshiping someone other than God."

No, since the Church leader is honoured - not adored - for the sake of Christ Whom he represents.

"Or the adoption of pagan symbols like the Fish hats from Baal worship,"

Baal and Dagon worship were happily more or less ended before Christianity arose.

"or a huge stone penis in St. Peters square,"

The point is that there is a Cross over it, and there was an exorcism : Christianity triumphing over Paganism.

"or making a Pagan dome on top of the Vatican which is also a pagan symbol of the womb?"

Bc of the shape? Come on, this is Freudian claptrap.

"Or vain, and repetitious prayers"

Repetitious we agree, what is wrong with that?

A good Bible does NOT have "repeat" or "repetitions" or "repetitious" in Matthew 6:7. Battologein means sth else.

There is actually a Pagan prayer recorded from the 16th year of Tiberius, it is in the end of Velleius Paterculus' Roman History.

"Let our book be concluded with a prayer. O Jupiter Capitolinus, O Jupiter Stator! O Mars Gradivus, author of the Roman name! O Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire! O all ye deities who have exalted the present magnitude of the Roman empire to a position of supremacy over the world, guard, preserve, and protect, I entreat and conjure you, in the name of the Commonwealth, our present state, our present peace, [our present prince[104]!] And when he shall have completed a long course on earth, grant him successors to the remotest ages, and such as shall have abilities to support the empire of the world as powerfully as we have seen him support it! All the just designs of our countrymen * * * *"

I quoted this here:

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/two-of-these-quoted-silent-historians.html

"that do not communicate with god,"

What do you know about that?

"but babble a message not tailored to that person"

The fifteen mysteries of the Rosary are for everyone.

"and defy the ability for that soul to unburden themselves to God?"

Absolutely not. Personalising your prayer is not forbidden.

"Or the use of the cross and prayer beads which are idols and graven images."

What exact Church out of Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians would agree with you on that one?

What exact other Church or sect has any kind of claim to have been around since 33 AD? And if not, what kind of claim is there in it to be fulfilment of God's promise in Matthew 28:20?

"Or Statues of Saints which are the same?"

Dito.

"Or seeking intercession from Mary"

Which was how the first public miracle was demanded, in Cana ...

"or one of the dead people the Church calls Saints?"

I think we already mentioned this ...

"And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?"
[John 11:26]

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life."
[John 5:24]

"Didn't Christ say the HE was the ONLY path to the father?"

Wherein He did not deny that some others are paths to Him, see for instance - also relevant for next one:

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16]

"This is blasphemy, the worship of false Gods and Idolatry."

What Church among the five non-Protestant ones would agree?

What other Church has been around since AD 33?

"Then there is the idea that somehow the Pope speaks for Christ, and is infallible."

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16]

Or, why not Ascension Day:

[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.
Matthew 28

Here the eleven disciples are given power to speak for Christ, and Christ promises to be with them to the end of days.

Are they all still alive, and did you lie about Saints being dead? Or did He mean they have successors to this day?

Well, who was the chief of them?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16

Note last verse, here we have no ambiguity on whether "this rock" means Jesus or Peter or both. Jesus clearly said "I will give thee the keys"

"These are CLEARLY 180 degrees in opposition to what Christ taught."

Except you did not care to back up what you consider Christ's teachings with actual quotes ....

... to Krauss, Three More Comments in Six More Minutes

(minutes of his talk, that is, not of my work)

I

6:24 Apart from Jews who were not allowed as citizens in 1200 in a Christian society but were so in 1820 almost anywhere, I can't see what is freer about society as a whole in Enlightenment.

Oh, for heretics ... what freedom are YOU offering heretics, when you are speaking of "forcing belief to comply to" what you consider as "evidence"?

Open questioning is a hallmark of science?

I was taught that too.

Recently, this no longer seems to apply if questioner is a Creationist and questions from a Creationist p o v.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Erik Høg on Parallax in New Catalogues
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/09/with-erik-hg-on-parallax-in-new.html

I was denied scientific information by Usoskin bc a Creationist, and by Høg bc I believe in angels. I was not asking either on creationism or on angels, I was asking both on a question they would reasonably have considered as scientific in itself, even if it was one which was important to me as a Creationist and as a Geocentric believing in angels.

Open questioning is dead.

II

10:42 "inevitably it's proved itself not being able to do that"
10:44 "and in terms of the tree of knowledge and the"

The Catholic answer to why we are asking scientific questions is not the tree of knowledge.

Adam and Eve were asking scientific questions and partly answering them, well before they ate of that, as far as we are concerned. They had God to speak to and therefore an excellent opportunity to falsify any wrong theories.

11:15 "why should we try to interpret those ignorant beliefs"

Well, some of us do not consider them to be so.

"there are dinosaurs" - Bible names them differently, behemoth, leviathan and tannin, of which behemoth seems to be a sauropod, and for unicorn a ceratopsian is as good a candidate as a rhino.

"earth orbits sun" "evolution happened" - some of us disagree this is really so.

I as to both, at least if you define "evolution" as "evolution of all or nearly all and of all non-microscopic species of life from a LUCA".

III

You just said you were willing to change your mind the moment nature tells you so.

I suppose you consider millions of years as proven by LOTS of potassium argon dates and into the ten thousands by LOTS of radiocarbon dates.

As you probably know, argon from the air can falsify a potassium argon reading, but you probably count on argon petering out.

What if I told you, it doesn't do that properly if lava solidifies too fast due to cooler surroundings, like lava running down into the water?

There was an eruption on Hawaii in 19th C. The new lava which is above air on land has a value where "recent" is within error margin. But lava ran into the water has been dated by Creationists at millions of years. I think 1 or 2 for something nearer land and 7 or 12 or 5 for sth deeper down into the sea.

Exeunt potassium argon dates.

On carbon dates, I have done myself a job on showing details of how carbon 14 could have risen in the atmosphere in comparison to carbon 12.

And given some speculation on which levels of carbon rise "faster factors" would imply lethal radiation doses causing them.

I have been blocked from checking those speculations by Usoskin:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

He has the means, he refuses to answer the questions.

Meanwhile, what I have done in spite of this block deserves some respect:

• 1) General intro:
  Creation vs. Evolution : General Intro to my Carbon Tables
  https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/04/general-intro-to-my-carbon-tables.html
• 2) Own carbon table in some detail:
  Creation vs. Evolution : Refining table Flood to Abraham - and a doubt
  http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/refining-table-flood-to-abraham-and.html
• 3) Comparison to results for a proposed Masretic timetable:
  Creation vs. Evolution : Masoretic and Carbon 14 NOT Counting Göbekli Tepe in Advance First Time
  http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/09/masoretic-and-carbon-14-not-counting.html

Willing to put your questions to "nature" along such lines?

... against Krauss, Ten Answers to his First Six Minutes

Why Religion is Outdated in the 21st Century - Lawrence Krauss
Answers in Insanity | 26.XI.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow

I

0:42 [Krauss on transsubstantiation]

"No one really believes that nonsense"

Says more about the kind of Catholics who Krauss would frequent than of Catholics in general.

Plus, I am not even sure he even got it from any Catholic at all, he might simply be expressing what he feels is an obvious "guess" which to him doesn't even feel like a guess.

As a sociologist, Krauss is very far from being scientific.

You may have heard of the uproar a few years ago when an atheist stole a host from a Catholic Mass?

Well, the atheist converted, but you can ask one certain P Z Myers of the détails.

Yes, we definitely DO believe "that nonsense" as Krauss likes to put it.

0:55 "Most of the Jews I know are atheists"

I think we can guess where Krauss gets his Catholic sociology from : from his real experience with Jewish sociology.

There are lots of Catholics I would consider apostates, but they are usually NOT atheists, they are some uneasy mix between Deism and still admitting Trinity, Incarnation and Sacraments - in a "scientific" context that falsifies part of the doctrinal content. Bergoglio is an apostate - but not an atheist, as far as I can tell.

II

1:09 "were created by Bronze Age or Iron Age peasants who didn't even know the earth orbitted the Sun"

Nice ... a rather persuasive argument for the people who don't realise that Heliocentric scientists occasionally speak like fools.

Note, Krauss, I didn't call you one!

You are presupposing two things:

• 1) that Geocentrism is false;
• 2) that this matters very much for the truth of revealed religions (like the Abrahamic and semi-Abrahamic ones previous to Freemasonry and Enlightenment).

Guess what? I tend to agree on the second point. Heliocentrism really has contributed to the rise of atheism and of certain religions non-akin to the Abrahamic ones.

But you still have to prove the first one, that Geocentrism is false.

III

1:21 "science has taught us how the world works"

Yes, more or less back in the times of St Thomas Aquinas or Riccioli, when science was Geocentric ... wait, you meant modern Heliocentric "science"?

Hasn't so.

1:29 "now for science God is completely irrelevant to something"

Not in the scientific paradigm of scholasticism ...

1:46 "the more we've learned about the natural world, the more we've learned you don't need divine intervention to explain anything."

Do you need atomic intervention to explain material objects?

Do you need intervention of forces measured in Newtons to explain movements?

You don't speak of intervention there, because they are regular features of your world view.

Well, there are in fact miracles and providential events in which we could say God "intervened" - namely between an already expected normal result and what actually happened.

But we don't think God's regular exercise of His power as Creator and Upholder of the Universe can be classified as an "intervention". We think these are THE most regular feature of the Universe there is, whatever is not God and still exists, has God as Creator and ultimate upholder.

That is why God can also intervene on occasions.

Now, the thing is, the explanations which do not accept God as a regular feature qua Creator and Upholder and which try to make this explanation superfluous are usually not very Empiric.

Heliocentrism has less need for God as Upholder - and is to this day unproven. As well as being un-empiric in the obvious sense and as being counterintuitive.

Moyboy and Big Bang and Planetary and Stellar formation from gas clouds and Abiogenesis from Primordial Soup and Evolution of all or nearly all (and all non-microscopic) life from one single LUCA has less need for God as Creator. It is also to this day unproven, un-empiric in the obvious sense and counterintuitive.

IV

2:25 "force people's beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality rather than the other way round"

Well, Heliocentrics and Evolutionists are not exactly doing that.

2:40 Oh, you are also one umpteenth globalist science believer ...

If we all share the same reality, it does not follow we all share the same beliefs about it or the same attitudes to it.

National separations have allowed rationality - bolstered by the divine revelation - to survive at least in some countries.

Globalism can allow rationality to be persecuted world wide, because whoever is de facto running the "global society" is not agreeing with it.

2:47 "a morality based on rationality and not outmoded religious beliefs"

Translate that phrase word for word into German and take a wild guess who would be saying that in the 1920's 30's and first half of the 40's ... OK in the latter part of the 40's you will have Commies reviving in Russian occupation zone part of who was saying it in 20's and very early 30's. And there it will continue even to 1989.

V

3:22 "I wouldn't want to live in a universe with one, okay"

[with a God and a purpose]

Well, that is at least honest.

Here is where a Christian shows his sword on the fencing ground and says "en garde"

It explains your preference in science and explains your disdain and probably wilful ignorance for past paradigms in science.

VI

3:45 "the purpose and meaning in our lives is what we make it"

Collectively, right?

You just spoke of global society.

Your words hold quite a lot of social hopes for those hoping with realism to be part of the cabale running it - and quite a lot of social apprehension for those who fear with some realism to have their lives clustered with this global "we" and have its meaning made what other men make it for them. Because that is what is being done "together".

Nimrod had a global society over in 37° 13′ 23″ North, 38° 55′ 21″ East. Also known as Göbekli Tepe. Also known as Babel.

In GT, you find skulls which have been pierced and piled vertically on ropes or strings. And Nimrod did get his share of obedience and social compliance, or quite a lot more than his share.

We know the story from the Hebrews - Heber and Peleg and the guys - who refused to be part of that. Those who ran GT in the carbon dated year 8600 BC actually buried GT in sand.

Tower of Babel is the part of the Genesis 1-11 story which is least likely to be retold in non-Hebrew legends around the world.

Creation? Sure. Flood? Plenty. A first couple? Fairly common. A first male being from which both sexes came? Sometimes in twisted versions suggesting hermaphroditism, but you have Ymer in Nordic Myths and Mannus in the Hindu ones. A kind of conflict severing us from God or from the gods? Yes, that too.

But a globalist project buried in national separations imposed by God or by gods ... no.

In fact, Mahabharata is about "India" as a global society - and I believe it fairly correctly reflects some aspect of a pre-Flood globalist Nod.

To Hindoos, it happened AFTER the Flood of Matsya during the Satya Yuga, while Mahabharata takes place between Dvapara Yuga and the present Kali Yuga.

The non-globalism of close to present society is a kind of anomaly to them, they have no real myth about how mankind lost its unity. Mahabharata shows a "global" society and somehow the Bharat dwindles from the world disc as a whole (except rim and Mount Meru) to what Hindus could see when Alexander, Moguls, Portuguese, English and French came, when Pakistan and Bangladesh became Muslim countries. That is why speakers of Sanskrit, Hindi and Tamil are in conflict, each thinking he speaks the original language and accusing the other of having neglected it.

Hence Tamil Tigers vs Sinhalese.

VII

4:17 You can imagine a globalist and scientific society will continue to produce compassion.

We are all one species ... heard of transhumanism? Heard of species in which populations are in conflict and the best adapted ones win, which is advantageous for evolution of its becoming an even better species?

Well - those are strands of thought which you might not count as "scientifically accurate" but which come from the general outlines of your world view plus perhaps a little twist here and there, if even that.

It was science which in Sweden, Norway and Denmark gave us decades of Eugenicism.

Since we had no defeat in 1945, it continued to the 70's.

"no different from other animals ... evolved species ... we share the earth with"

Attention, transhumanism and veganism ahead.

VIII

4:38 "if we keep going back to this medieval or earlier myth, we won't adress that"

In fact, a medieval outlook on production as something which shall not just adequately feed and clothe and so on a reasonable number (all alive more or less) of consumers but also give wages to an adequate number of producers is part of a solution which will:

• neither be "population reductional"
• nor consume very much fossil fuel (local production = less transport, more work for hands = less work done by modern "energy sources")
• nor necessarily even be globalist, even if one can hope it will eventually cover the globe.

However, as things are going, this is not too likely.

IX

5:17 Large Hadron Collider, Geneva

Sure, the hundred different people come from very many countries and speak very many mother tongues.

They even have very many different cuisines, festivals, dances, if that is what you mean by "different cultures".

But they share one culture, the scientific one. Or scientific technological one. Or the technocratic one.

An Indian who has a full scale Hindu national culture will probably not fit in there. A Hispanic with a full scale Catholic and rural Hispanic culture won't do so either.

It is not really about a real variety of full society peoples, it's about a single élite with diversified origins.

And diversified origins is always easier in the élite.

In the Middle Ages, you had élite who had part Arabic origins in Europe - since Crusaders had married locals - or part Armenian or part Byzantine - since Crusaders met others than just Arabs and went elsewhere than just Palestine.

But the locals they ruled were locals. The people in Tours were Gallo-Romans, not Arabs, widely.

X

6:04 Human culture is always one way or another, imposing our beliefs on nature.

Contra James Martin and Some of His Opponents

Fr." Martin proves Francis and the Vatican II Sect endorse homosexuality and "transgenderism"
vaticancatholic.com | 17.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JUoozmjck

I

It so happens, homosexual orientation need not absolutely have fruits in the mortal sin of sodomy.

Look at Josh Weed. His temptations against chasty are, as far as he has told, male. His sexual acts are making babies with his wife (to desire whom is obviously not against chastity and not a temptation).

Or at the wife of Roy Campbell. She had an affair with Vita Sackville West - was punished and forgiven.

Some people both at left and right of this debate are promoting the lie that people with this problem cannot make a normal Christian marriage.

A left handed man can learn to be ambidextrous and to use the right hand for tasks where it is required - like using certain machinery not produced for left handed men traditionally.

I also do not think one is born homosexual ever. Except perhaps extreme situations during pregnancy.

One is born with a certain level of manliness if man or womanliness if woman, and a certain level of traits of opposite sex (in so far as we are talking aptitude for acquiring cultural traits which are not per se inborn). Some machist cultures encourage only very manly men to feel and be considered as heterosexual.

I think the Stuart family has a trait of feminine side in men. In James III of Scotland, it was a heterosexual man with an artistic bent. In James VI / I and Charles I, it was bisexuality (more predominant in the father who knelt before the sacrament while absolutely NOT believing transsubstantation, thereby making his Anglicanism genuinely "wafer worshipping" - and so God punished him). In Francis II of Bavaria, one wonders if it has taken a turn to full homosexuality. He is on good terms with a male doctor and unmarried.

I think the four men were born with same traits, genetically, but it took different turns for moral reasons both of culture and of God punishing one of them.

II

3:44 "the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives" obviously SHOULD not be accepted.

It is one heresy of "Paul VI." You will agree he was an antipope.

Pius V, a holy man, a canonised saint, and a real pope, said that some "GB" men must be celibate all their lives, since having vowed eternal celibacy, but need to be removed from the social context that vow originally opened on.

He never said that a homosexual layman may not attempt what Josh Weed succeeded.

Saying they need lifelong celibacy is as erroneous as saying they need "gay marriage".

And a fortiori this applies to people who are just rumoured to be LGBT without admitting so themselves, since the "diagnosis" could be as superstitious as reading their horoscope and concluding they are homosexual.

III

4:30 I would definitely consider barring a person from - real - marriage bc he is or is by others considered as homosexual as comparable to racialism.

This is obviously no warrant for the non-marriage called "gay marriage".

It is as prohibited for heterosexuals as for homosexuals.

Suppose in a dystopic future someone could save his mother from torture by entering a "gay marriage".

Is this just forbidden to homosexuals? No, it is equally forbidden to heterosexuals.

Both in the real right to real marriage (unless already married to someone else or bound by vows to lifelong celibacy) and in the real ban on gay marriage, homosexual and heterosexual orientations make no difference. They make a personal difference to how easy it is to live up to a thing, but not a juridic or canonic difference as to rights.

IV

7:07 Vivat Kim Davies, obviously!

V

8:20 sth - encouraging even civil gay marriages is obviously making a sect whore of some kind, and if sufficiently big, Babylonic.

So is, as obviously, discouraging men from settling the issue by real marriage.

When "Paul VI" claimed "homosexuals are called to chastity" (understood : perfect chastity, celibacy) he insulted both free will (by which a homosexual can choose heterosexual behaviour) and celibacy (which is 60 to 100-fold fruit and hardly at the fingertips of the least chaste).

Forbidding a gay man to marry a woman or a lesbian woman to marry a man, because one feels they are predestined to not do what is right if marrying is an ultra-Calvinist heresy (since Calvin probably had been branded for sodomy in his youth, before he actually married later on), it is a doctrine of demons, and as such obviously foretold by St Paul to St Timothy.

Other doctrine of demons connected to marriage, pretending teens are too immature to marry and should therefore legally be forbidden to do so, even if otherwise there should be any opportunity.

... on Illicitness of Being Accomplice with Excommunicated Bergoglio

Video

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate Excommunicates Francis
Catholic News Network | 25.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oD0CTc9K0c

My comment

I am in Union with Pope Michael, and therefore not in union with Bergoglio.

Pope Michael HAS made the Nostra Aetate passage one of his reasons to condemn the Vatican II council as a robber council.

He was elected in an emergency conclave in 1990. He was ordained priest a Saturday and consecrated bishop next day the Gaudete Sunday in end of civil year 2011 and beginning of Church year already 2012.

His episcopal orders go back to Duarte Costa of Brazil.

... on Church Authority and Saints

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

Last time with this, I answered the video, here I answer another commenter:

Why I'm Thankful To Be Protestant
Tim Challies | 31.XI.2017 (500 years after 95 theses)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOhZj_HgHGA

Vesna Stihovic

What the hell?! I was in there and I didn't even see that statue!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I wonder if it was taken away after the video was made ... I did not see it on the virtual tour ...

Or perhaps he confused with another Church?

Vesna Stihovic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

The Scala Sancta are in Rome, thanks to that Helena or whatever, near to basilica of some saint. That's where they're crawling those stairs. And this mother Mary I thought it was in Vatican, in st. Peter's temple, but it's a different church because in Vatican I think is only st. Peter's temple and everything else is in Rome. Vatican is a state and they (Catholics) call it a holy land. Google says that it's a city, no, it's a completely separated state, The smallest state in the world, BUT it's there, in Rome. :-)

There's also paws & claws in St. Peter's temple where you put your entire hand in a huge paw and make a wish,... and I guess he didn't fulfill my will.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I was confronted with "bocca di verità" (not on a pilgrimage, and it was, I think, my Latin teacher who told me what it was).

You enter your hand, and if you lie, the statue bites it off, it says..

Vesna Stihovic

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hahaha, yeah, yeah, yeah :-) but also you make a wish, I studied Roman law. There is some other paw besides that. I don't know if they worship saints. They are saying that they don't worship Mary, and then they're calling her "the queen of heaven" ... and other stuff. Wearing miraculous medal which is like miracle metals in budaisam. They have immaculate conception dogma and they interpret it as 'she was born into this world free of original sin'. Which basically means she is a God! Or in their case a goddess! It's like Greek and Roman gods (?!) They are pulling verses from the Bible that priests told them to say... Because Jews had the Queen that was mother of the rulers, it wasn't the wife, that's why she's the queen of heaven. Except Jesus is not King of the Jews, or the Gentiles. He's the King of all kings. He died to save us all.

All people are connected to Adam. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God's law and all break his commandments through sin. There is no difference in the condition of sinners due to age (there was a little girl, under the age of six that was raped by her biological father, I think that was in the 80s and then she was constantly trying to kill parents who adopted her) ethnicity, or sex. All stand condemned before God's law. All human relationships, systems, and institutions have been affected by sin.

Other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is not morally culpable for another person's sin. Although families (like mafia for example and other previous example, families in cults), groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. If modern day living Catholics are justifieing sins of French catholics who committed massacre against French Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day, night, then those are their sins as well. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness.

They don't believe that The Bible is the final authority! God's Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we believe) and what is right (how we live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God's final Word, which is Scripture alone. And they (Catholics) are gonna lose themselves when they read SCRIPTURE ALONE. They're going to pray to some saints, which they did, when was this hurricane Florence (?!)

Christian belief, character, or conduct can't be dictated by any other authority than Scripture alone. The postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are not consistent with biblical teaching.

They don't resonate the concept of clear understanding of what is revealed in Scripture. And then they even brag about that. 'The church is so clear what the Bible says , because if I would read it on my own I wouldn't come to that conclusion' (?!?!?!)

THEY DON'T READ THE BIBLE! Even atheists have read it, and say, OKAY! It's a good literature, but I don't believe in this, BUT it was a good writer, or writers. Some cool atheists, not those who think that Moses was high as a kite when he wrote five books in Old Testament.

God is holy, righteous, and just.
The true justice can't be culturally defined or standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can't be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture. Christians can't live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness. The church penalty doesn't preclude criminal penalties. Any clergyman of whatever rank or responsibility found to be guilty of unchastity of any kind or who enables or hides it should be deposed from clerical rank. BUT they are not! There is no justice in this crazy world that we are living in.

God's Law, as summarized in the ten commandments, is succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin.

Any obligation that does not arise from God's commandments cannot be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living.

The legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God's commandments is not scriptural.

God created every person equally in his own image. All people have value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God.

The Gospel is the divinely revealed message concerning the 💓 of Christianity Jesus Christ, our bright morning star.🌟 Especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection - revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord.

Anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can't be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel. This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel.
Salvation is granted by God's grace alone received through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into him. In God's eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ. Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex. All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ. By God's regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ.

Salvation cannot be received in any other way. I think. Salvation doesn't renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life. The ethnicity doesn't exclude anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone's ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe.

The primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine...evangelizing the lost. The church's mission is given to her by Jesus Christ, her head. Laws or regulations don't possess any power to change sinful hearts.

Believers can use all lawful means that God has established to have some effect on the laws of a society.

They have saints of musicians ?!?!?! Also, they have saint Pocahontas, I call her Pocahontas because she is a specific saint for Catholics that live in the States, she actually has a different name. She's a Native American.

A saint against infertility!!!??? I mean, I could just go on and on, it's a paganism!! Saint of the poor and sick, saint of lost things!!!!!!????? Stop it!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They have immaculate conception dogma and they interpret it as 'she was born into this world free of original sin'. Which basically means she is a God! Or in their case a goddess"

No, it means She is like Adam and Eve were before they fell.

"They are saying that they don't worship Mary, and then they're calling her "the queen of heaven""

[Missed this one : not worship Her with the worship of latreia. We do worship Her with hyperdouleia.]

Check Apocalypse who is King in heavenly Jerusalem.

Check book of Kings who was queen when Solomon was king (one of his many wives? no)

"Except Jesus is not King of the Jews, or the Gentiles. He's the King of all kings. He died to save us all."

He is King of the Jews, since Pilate confessed that.

He is King of the Jews since in Heaven He is telling who is and who isn't a Jew.

He is King of the Jews because regenerate Christians are Jews by a kind of adoption or "grafting" (while Jews not believing in Him are "cut off branches").

So, yes, He actually is King of the Jews and His city in Heaven is even same name as the City of David and Solomon.

"All people are connected to Adam. Therefore, because of original sin everyone is born under the curse of God's law and all break his commandments through sin."

Jesus also descends from Adam? Is He a sinner too?

Or is He an exception? Well, if so He had the power to make His Mother an exception too.

"Other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is not morally culpable for another person's sin."

We are born TAINTED with Adam's sin and therefore excluded from Heaven.

It is not only saying "nothing guilty" but "nothing impure" can enter Heaven.

"If modern day living Catholics are justifieing sins of French catholics who committed massacre against French Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day, night, then those are their sins as well."

There was a report and it was believed that Huguenots had been plotting to kill the Catholic King. It was not a massacre on each and every Huguenot alive, but was at least intended as eliminating the key threats.

It is not as if Huguenots had been peaceful and lawabiding private citizens up to then, that day was a day in a truce during a war of religion.

"They don't believe that The Bible is the final authority! God's Word, breathed out by him. It is inerrant, infallible, and the final authority for determining what is true (what we believe) and what is right (how we live). All truth claims and ethical standards must be tested by God's final Word, which is Scripture alone."

Can you test that claim by ... Scripture alone?

It is certainly inerrant, meaning, it contains no even factual errors. It is not "infallible" in the sense that it can "lead astray" unwary readers. Or allow them to lead themselves astray (and that is in Scriptures).

"And they (Catholics) are gonna lose themselves when they read SCRIPTURE ALONE."

Why would I limit myself like that?

"They're going to pray to some saints, which they did, when was this hurricane Florence (?!)"

I suppose some Protestants were praying to God alone or to the Father through Jesus alone. Before Florence.

"Christian belief, character, or conduct can't be dictated by any other authority than Scripture alone."

I'm sorry, but the Bible itself contradicts you.

"The postmodern ideologies derived from intersectionality, radical feminism, and critical race theory are not consistent with biblical teaching."

In and of themselves, they are not the Catholic tradition. For radical feminism, I agree it is not consistent with Catholic tradition or with the Bible.

For intersectionality, postmodern and critical race theory, would you mind pointing out the contradictions?

"They don't resonate the concept of clear understanding of what is revealed in Scripture. And then they even brag about that. 'The church is so clear what the Bible says , because if I would read it on my own I wouldn't come to that conclusion' (?!?!?!)"

Can you document that from a Catholic?

"THEY DON'T READ THE BIBLE!"

Our clergy and monastics are required to. Laymen have been under different disciplines, some of them spoon feeding very basic Bible truths unless you were deemed mature for reading it, but there is no general and exceptionless ban on even laymen reading the Bible.

"The true justice can't be culturally defined or standards of justice that are merely socially constructed can't be imposed with the same authority as those that are derived from Scripture."

You are forgetting that the Bible itself is culturally defined.

Whether you believe correctly in 73 books or less correctly in 66 books, you will not find any list of the books in the Bible.

"Christians can't live justly in the world under any principles other than the biblical standard of righteousness."

OK ...

"The church penalty doesn't preclude criminal penalties."

Why would that be incompatible with the Bible? I think kohanim were tried by other kohanim and not by lay elders in the OT period.

"Any clergyman of whatever rank or responsibility found to be guilty of unchastity of any kind or who enables or hides it should be deposed from clerical rank. BUT they are not! There is no justice in this crazy world that we are living in."

Deposition from clerical rank and position was the standard penalty from 1568 to recent times for sins of homosexual kind.

The bull by Pope St Pius V was "de horrendo scelere".

"God's Law, as summarized in the ten commandments, is succinctly summarized in the two great commandments, and manifested in Jesus Christ, unchanging righteousness. Violation of that law is what constitutes sin."

Sure.

"Any obligation that does not arise from God's commandments cannot be legitimately imposed on Christians as a prescription for righteous living."

Well, there is a commandment on honouring father and mother, it includes honouring and obeying spiritual fathers (yes, St Paul uses this word about himself) and therefore the IV commandment and obedience to physical and spiritual parents are the ultimate authority behind Church law. This means Church law definitely CAN be imposed as a standard for righteous living.

"The legitimacy of any charge of sin or call to repentance that does not arise from a violation of God's commandments is not scriptural."

As long as the Church authority which imposes a rule is legitimate, its rules are legitimate charges of sin (Sunday obligation, if a licit and valid Mass is available, fasting tomorrow which is Ember Friday after Elevatio Crucis).

"God created every person equally in his own image. All people have value and dignity before God and deserve honor, respect and protection. Everyone has been created by God and for God."

Sure.

"The Gospel is the divinely revealed message concerning the 💓 of Christianity Jesus Christ, our bright morning star.🌟 Especially his virgin birth, righteous life, substitutionary sacrifice, atoning death, and bodily resurrection - revealing who he is and what he has done with the promise that he will save anyone and everyone who turns from sin by trusting him as Lord."

Sure.

"Anything else, whether works to be performed or opinions to be held, can't be added to the gospel without perverting it into another gospel."

Does not follow.

Fasting in general is enjoined, in Gospel, Church decides which days.

Worshipping at Mass is enjoined, in Acts, Church decides which days.

Praying in general and specifically "continuously" is enjoined, Church recommends certain prayers.

"This also means that implications and applications of the gospel, such as the obligation to live justly in the world, though legitimate and important in their own right, are not definitional components of the gospel."

I don't know what you mean exactly by a definitional component of it.

"Salvation is granted by God's grace alone received through faith alone"

Faith without any willingness to good works would give you salvation? You decide to receive Christ as your saviour, but you are still going to watch porn tomorrow - are you saved?

Luther actually, in his moments said yes, and the Catholic Church condemned that.

"Every believer is united to Christ, justified before God, and adopted into him."

Every believer with sanctifying grace in him.

"In God's eyes there is no difference in spiritual value or worth among those who are in Christ."

Yes, there are great saints and there are small saints.

"Further, all who are united to Christ are also united to one another regardless of age, ethnicity, or sex."

Correct - but not regardless of religious confession.

"All believers are being conformed to the image of Christ."

All with sanctifying grace. There are also believers with a dead faith.

"By God's regenerating and sanctifying grace all believers will be brought to a final glorified, sinless state of perfection in the day of Jesus Christ."

All those who die with sanctifying grace on their souls. Which as said is not all believers.

"Salvation cannot be received in any other way. I think."

Than by receiving sanctifying grace on God's terms ...

"Salvation doesn't renders any Christian free from all remaining sin or immune from even grievous sin in this life."

With sanctifying grace, you do not have the guilt of mortal sins on your soul, and if you commit one, you lose grace and need to get it back.

"The ethnicity doesn't exclude anyone from understanding the gospel, nor does anyone's ethnic or cultural heritage mitigate or remove the duty to repent and believe."

Witness : Swedes or Americans or Englishmen converting to Catholicism.

"The primary role of the church is to worship God through the preaching of his word, teaching sound doctrine...evangelizing the lost."

AND providing sanctifying grace, through Holy Mass and the seven sacraments.

"The church's mission is given to her by Jesus Christ, her head."

Correct.

"Laws or regulations don't possess any power to change sinful hearts."

Grace has the power to make them fruitful in conversions. Matthew 28:20 clearly says there are such from the Eleven and their successors all days to the end of time.

"Believers can use all lawful means that God has established to have some effect on the laws of a society."

Correct. Some are always lawful, some are lawful depending on laws. Also, the effect wanted needs to be a correct one. Which the Church tells us more of.

"They have saints of musicians ?!?!?!"

Saint Cecily, yes, she died a virgin martyr. 22 November.

"Also, they have saint Pocahontas, I call her Pocahontas because she is a specific saint for Catholics that live in the States, she actually has a different name. She's a Native American."

Saint Katheri Tekawitha (not sure of either th if it isn't a simple t).

"A saint against infertility!!!???"

Probably more than one. I was at San Juan de Ortega in Spain.

"I mean, I could just go on and on, it's a paganism!!"

Can you show that it is paganism from the Bible?

"Saint of the poor and sick,"

Not sure who you mean.

"saint of lost things!!!!!!?????"

Saint Anthony of Padua, after the city where he died, a k a Saint Anthony of Lisbon after the city where he was born.

"Stop it!"

Why? You are not my bishop, and you cannot show "stop it" or "it's idolatry" from the Bible alone!

On Calendar Drift

Leap Years: we can do better
standupmaths | 23.II.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkt_wmRKYNQ

I

1:53 Egypt had a year of 365 days only ... a calendar drift every 4 years (and some want me to swallow that Osiris was born in Egyptian version of December 25th ... duh!)

Thanks for a video documenting that calendar drift is sth which some guys lived with ....

II

2:09 Actually, Roman calendar had a very interesting story. I'll break it down in the comments under this one.

Stage one, winter plus 10 months, March through December (and after June you have Quintil and Sextil which were later renamed July and August).

Since each month is a lunar month and since winter can be either two or three lunar months depending on when December ended last time and how moon phases fit in or not with solar years, there is constant calendar drift and no calendar drift at all overall, since it is corrected from year to year by the length of "winter".

Stage two - 12 lunar months. Calendar drift is imminent.

Stage three (not sure how long stage two lasted) - 12 lunar months plus some years a leap month, Mercedonius, inserted with February ...

Stage four, Romans no longer sure which years to insert Mercedonius.

AND stage 5, Julius Caesar solves the problem.

2:16 needs of calendar not top priority - you may say that again (and even so, they were annually reelected, so leap months affected mandate length!).

Heard of Punic Wars? That is when the Roman calendar went chaotic about when to insert or not insert Mercedonius.

(Yes, the part about mandate length was also appropriate ....)

III

2:39 No, Julius Caesar was not fixing one day drift every four years by putting in an extra year every four years.

Or, not in Roman calendar.

The facts are that Julius Caesar was facing a somewhat different system than Egyptian year, heard of the Egyptian 365 days year and of its by then known weakness, and imported it with the weakness fixed.

It's not Roman years that were drifting 1 day every four years prior to 46 Before Christ.

IV

4:57 In fact in 1583, there was a reaction from Byzantium, from Phanar, by now under Turkish occupation, but still.

Popes do bulls. Patriarchs of Constantinople do sigillia. Means, in both cases, a letter which the potentate signs with a seal ("sigillion" is that word, or its diminutive, I thought it was "sigillikon," but that may be Mandela effect - or they may have changed Orthodox wiki, and "bull" is the bubble of lead which the seal is stamped on).

And the sigillion of 1583 speaks of "atheistic mathematicians" ... I somehow don't think the then Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos (1572–1579), restored for first time (1580–1584) meant you, even if I suppose some of you are atheists. I think he meant Father Christopher Clavius SJ.

SJ means, he was a Jesuit. I am not sure Father Christopher Clavius appreciated being called an Atheist by Jeremias II Tranos ....

One of the things the sigillion says is, if you use the Gregorian calendar for either Easter (mobile feasts) or Menologium (date fixed feasts), you are not a Christian.

I don't think Father Christopher Clavius or Pope Gregory XIII agreed.

V

5:09 "and everyone finally was on a new calendar"

No. Not the Eastern Orthodox in Turkish Empire. Also, not the Eastern Orthodox in Russian Empire.

You know why the October Revolution happened in November? Because it takes the Julian calendar still in use in Russia and other former USSR states (excepting the Baltic ones) another by now 13 days to go from October to November.

Fun or less fun fact : John Paul II (who was not so good at persuading Catholics to change things, since some including me consider him an Antipope - he has not persuaded us) visited the Synagogue of Rome on April 13 of 1986.

Now, you may have heard the Chernobyl disaster was on April 26 ... but in Ukraine it was, that day, April 13 ...

Considering how many died in that disaster, perhaps the fact is more like "less fun" ...

VI

I missed one reference.

Numenorean calendar ... Tolkien prided himself on having constructed one (in other ways incompatible with our feasts, and so unusable, but not to the fictitious Numenoreans in .... Atlantis? sth like that?) which was slightly less prone to calendar drift than Gregorian calendar ...

You never mentioned that. If you are not a Tolkien fan, is Adam Gutsche, perhaps?

In Answer to Zack Kopplin, from 2013

The Cost of Teaching Creationism : Zack Kopplin at TEDxLSU
TEDx Talks | 1.V.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VuEKUmnUiU

I

2:56 - 3:02 "and teaching them that creationism is science will confuse them about the fundamental nature of science in [and] the scientific method"

Oh, science is supposed to be about atheism?

3:10 science is:

• explaining the world around us
• explanation can be tested
• tests are repeatable

3:19 "there is a specific set of results ... which will prove our theory false and we will have to go back to the drawing board"

And always something new to learn.

3:31 "Creationism meets none of these requirements"

End of specifics, follows a rant on - this "being so" - teaching students creationism will harm them in all their future scientific endeavours.

Analysing criterium by criterium.

Let's first distinguish, on the one hand, the creationist paradigm (comparable to the moyboy paradigm of naturalists) and on the other hand, specific creationist results, like Neanderthals were post-Babel or Neanderthals were pre-Flood, Neanderthals were exact like we, just very old, or Neanderthals were Nephelim, comparable to specific evolutionist results like Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens both evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis, divergence happening 600 000 years ago.

• explaining the world around us
  
  Both paradigm and specific results do that.
  
  Creationist and Evolutionist science is equal on this point. Obviously, both explanations are not true, but both explanations explain, in the sense of making sense of.
  
  
• explanation can be tested
  
  Specific results can in both cases be tested against both facts and paradigm.
  
  Paradigm as such is less easy to directly test against facts.
  
  In both, there is a well known and obvious fact which the middle of the road opponent of the paradigm considers a clincher, and in both, the adherents of the paradigm make theories that account for the fact.
  
  Creationist and Evolutionist science is equal on this point.
  
  
• tests are repeatable
  
  In fact, the actual explanations about the past as such are NOT repeatable in either case.
  
  God won't make another Flood. Heidelbergians won't make another diverging lineage of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on the one and Homo sapiens sapiens on the other hand.
  
  Creationist and Evolutionist science is equal on this point. Neither is in the full sense of Popper "science" because both deal with the past not just as another instance of "eternals" or "perpetuals", but they deal with the past as their specific subject matter.
  
  
• "there is a specific set of results ... which will prove our theory false and we will have to go back to the drawing board"
  
  For the paradigms, there is equality, since no such set of results exists, or if it does, it is chosen so as to be counterfactual and therefore not to the opponents' point.
  
  For the specific theories, there is also equality. That evolutionist specific theories meet this criterion, I'll for here take on trust from this Louisianan. I'll deal with the Creationist part.
  
  For instance, if we have a theory according to which :
  
  
  • a) very old materials show as even older than they are in carbon 14 tests because the original carbon 14 content of entire atmosphere was radically lower just a few thousand years ago
  • b) the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere rose
  • c) this rising obeyed only the present rate of carbon 14 production in atmosphere, and obviously its counterbalancing with "atmospheric sample" having its c14 decay at the same time as its c14 is also replenished by new production, the decay rate having same half life as now ...
  
  
  There are values according to which this theory breaks down.
  
  For instance, if you accept 5730 years as the half life, if we are only at c. 45 % of the stable level, at which decay balances new production, El Alamein will date as Gettysburg. If we instead accept El Alamein samples as from 1942 and Gettysburg from 1863, we will not get the same half life for both, while it will be shorter than the real one, it will not be same for both. And if we say "we already reached the stable level", as long as the production rate is only the present one, there is really not enough time for that since Creation, let alone since the Flood.
  
  On the other hand, if the carbon 14 production is way too fast, since it is produced by atmosphere receiving incoming radioactivity, there is a level at which the fast carbon 14 production is incompatible with the organic life higher than spiders having actually survived this level of radiation.
  
  
• "And always something new to learn."
  
  I was giving the general Creationist theory on why carbon dates are too old a few years ago, I was challenged by someone claiming that this would involve a nuke disaster, so it can't have happened (at least not on the Creationist view, since we descend from Adam and Eve and from Noah's family without interruptions and without going off to space, while radioactivity on earth cools down).
  
  I sat down to do the maths. I made several diverse tables, the first very clumsy ones, on how carbon 14 levels would have succeeded each other along the years.
  
  On the way I learned, partly based on my own creationist theories:
  
  
  • a) fastest C14 addition was during Göbekli Tepe period : building up 11 times faster than now during the 40 years of Babel which in carbon dates come off as 1000 years
  • b) Flood to Babel was nearly as fast, c. 9 times as fast
  • c) Babel to Abraham was however slower
  • d) Abraham to Joseph in Egypt even slower
  • e) there are two levels in Jericho with different conventional dating that have some claim to corresponding to Joshua's conquest
  • f) Ebla tablets don't mention Sodom or Gomorrah, because Ebla tablets start out when Joseph was already dead in Egypt
  • g) on one Jericho theory, oldest tablet with Sumerian / Akkadian flood myth could be about one century older than Genesis, and Moses could have heard of it because he was at Egyptian court where diplomacy and contacts with Mesopotamia were handled and on the other theory, these tablets would even be after the life of Moses and Joshua
  • h) never understimate the capacity of your own side to let you down, if what you are saying is not exactly what they are used to and expect!

William B

Hans sez: "Oh, science is supposed to be about atheism?"

No, science is supposed to have explanatory value, and be able to make predictions.

When you invoke miracles, there is no ability to predict..

EVERYTHING can be explained via a "miracle" and something that explains everything explains nothing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, not everything can be explained via a Christian miracle.

Also, my explanation is not miraculous at each point, it does not involve a mere and generalised suspension of natural laws.

Miracles mean an input over and above what natural agencies normally provide and over and above what God normally provides to them as well.

This is very different from, for instance, every or any natural law working backwards any time for no reason at all.

And since miracles have a maker, they have a reason, and since they have a reason, some things are incompatible with that reason. Hence, the explanation is incompatible with some things and it explains a state of things excluding those.

Conversely, even without miracles, you don't live in a predictable world. Any man who is smashed in a car accident should remind you of that.

William B

Hans sez: "you don't live in a predictable world."

Of course we live in a predictable world. That's how science works.. If the natural world was unpredictable, then science couldn't exist.

For example, if someone drops an object in a vacuum, it will always fall based on the predictability of gravity. Now, It will not matter if you conduct that test in Europe, or if i conduct that test in the USA of if astronauts conduct that test on the moon.. the outcome will ALWAYS be predictable.

My ability to test and recreated your experimental results, results are the cornorstone of the predictability of the natural world.

hans then sez: "Any man who is smashed in a car accident should remind you of that."

How does someone being smashed in their car change natural laws..?

If i said, "everyone who smashes their car and becomes decapitated in that accident will die from it".

that's no longer unpredictable.. The results of that are quite predictable when the conditions are uniform.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"For example, if someone drops an object in a vacuum, it will always fall based on the predictability of gravity."

Big if, and you cannot predict who will drop an object in vacuum.

Your lab assistant has planned to do so tomorrow? There could be an unforeseen circumstance.

"Now, It will not matter if you conduct that test in Europe, or if i conduct that test in the USA of if astronauts conduct that test on the moon.. the outcome will ALWAYS be predictable."

If it's done at all. And nothing interferes.

A miracle is about something interfering with results - from outside material and physical factors.

"My ability to test and recreated your experimental results, results are the cornorstone of the predictability of the natural world."

Which is only one of the abstractions we can carve out from the world we live in.

"How does someone being smashed in their car change natural laws..?"

How does a miracle change natural laws?

"If i said, "everyone who smashes their car and becomes decapitated in that accident will die from it". that's no longer unpredictable.."

True, and if I said "every killed man who God decides to resuscitate revives", that also is no longer unpredictable.

It is just unpredictable if He will so decide, as it is unpredictable if a man will have his head cut off in a car accident.

"The results of that are quite predictable when the conditions are uniform."

And that is true of God's miracles too.

Also, that "when" is what you leave out or take for granted when pretending we live in a predictable world. At least the interaction of factors is definitely not uniform. Therefore, the world we live in is not predictable.

II

3:45 Louisiana students will not be the ones ... I am sorry, but this is futurology - and that is definitely NOT a science.

III

5:36 As a Swede I know something of the Nobel prize.

• 1) Nobel committee is a committee of Swedes, about as brainwashed in Evolution as the Soviets
• 2) Nobel prize winners are accordingly likely to be Evolutionist (I think there was a case when three contributed to a discovery and the prize went to two of them, bc the third was outspoken Creationist)
• 3) they are not the builders of the foundation we live on today.

You owe vastly more to Ancients and Medievals and even probably twice or three times or ten times as much simply to people like Thomas Alva Edison (who, to be fair, would have been on the Nobel committee in his time, so he couldn't get the prize), Wright brothers, companies like Siemens or Decca or Twentieth Century Fox paying inventors ... than to these 78 men.

5:50 American Association for the Advancement of Science happens to be as heavily evolutionist as your brand of civil servants.

Does Margaret Mead ring a bell?

IV

6:22 Fighting Creationism will not bring you to the Moon regardless of whether Kennedy's steps brought Armstrong there (which some dispute).

Btw, you have an opponent here. My battle may (apart from Lousiana, where I don't live) be even more uphill than yours, or has been so far.

Here is a blog where I'll put these comments:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

And here is a blog where I write on creationism without reference to youtubes I comment on or with others under:

Creation vs. Evolution
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/

V

7:14 "living space and clean water is shrinking"

You mean "still available as yet unused living space" - but some space becomes agriculturally useful only just before people go there.

If you mean Sahara is increasing, well, there was a proposal to make it shrink, back when Ghadaffi ruled one of the countries in its northern parts. Make a lake, using water from the Mediterranean, and see how the lake evaporates and produces rain on Sahara.

Since the difference between dirty water and clean water is a cycle of evaporation, this proposal is also for increasing clean water.

And neither has anything to do with denying a recent creation.

"superbugs"

Here is a tip from a creationist (who is also a medical doctor):

CMI : Superbugs not super after all
by Carl Wieland
https://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

VI

8:03 Sorry, your two futures is futurology.

God's prophets can do that, they live on revelation by a God to Whom the time we call future is not so to Him, but as familiar to Him as any other time He created.

You pretend to do the same without God?

8:37 "a future where we teach Evolution, not Creationism, radiocarbon dating, not Noah's Flood"

If you had any clue what creationist materials actually say, you would know that creationists are dealing with BOTH Noah's Flood AND radiocarbon.

But you are of course babbling around about your opponents along with other public servants, and not actually reading them, I suppose.

As to your proposal on teaching, it is a vision for a totalitarian school system, in which schools overall are public service decided, without parents having any say.

The worst thing I can say about Swedish Democratic party is, they are about as Liberal as you are.

Skipping

the peroratio. He seems as excited as Cicero in Third Catilinarian Oration. I prefer arguing about facts and about principles.