Has Trump / ICE ~ Venezuela ... Contributed to Apostasy?

Catholicism is collapsing in Latin America, and young people are leading the charge
Friendly Atheist | 28 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDHHQe9VWls

11:47 US American Catholics have a tendency to compromise religion in the political sphere.

I think the party closest to Catholicism right now (assuming Nick Fuentes has no actual party) is Solidarity Party. They have three elected officials in the US, none of these being states or federal legislatures or governors, just local politicians.

Peter Sonski attained 47,070 votes for president of the United States, comprising 0.03% of the total votes cast. Sonski did best in states where he was on the ballot, with Ohio being his best state.

They had ballot access in seven states, and could be written in in most others.

Here is how he started the campaign:

In January 2024 Catholic News Agency interviewed Sonski in which he said that he wants to "provide a means for Catholics to vote in accord with the conscience, rather than just for the 'lesser of two evils.'"[13] Crisis Magazine also published an interview, conducted by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, which describes how Sonski "was born into a blue-collar Catholic family and went on to work in agriculture, insurance, journalism, and public relations."[14]

I only heard of him after Trump had won. On my blogs, I promoted Trump on pro-life issues, while (once in a blue moon) cautioning against his immigration policy, which I thought could not be effected properly and was likely to spark unrest.

Now given the interview, the words cited on wiki indicate, American or rather Usonian Catholics have a history of voting for the lesser of two evils. It was often Democrats given Republicans weren't actually pro-life, that changed with Trump, first election, I'm still happy about Dobbs.

The American Solidarity Party has been characterized as socially conservative and economically progressive.[12] The ASP encourages social development along the lines of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty, with a stated emphasis on "the importance of strong families, local communities, and voluntary associations".[13] The party adheres to a consistent life ethic, opposing abortion, assisted suicide, capital punishment, euthanasia, IVF, surrogacy, and unjust war. They support universal healthcare, immigration, and welfare.[14] It favors fiscally progressive policies,[10][15][16] as well as a social market economy with a distributist character,[17][18] which seeks "widespread economic participation and ownership",[18] and providing a social safety net program.

12:43 We are not on the same line here.

I consider The Great Apostasy is usshering in the rule of the Antichrist.

15:01 I think Atheism is in Sweden rolling back a bit in favour of "spiritual but not religious" ...

I cited, with or without quotation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sonski_2024_presidential_campaign

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

Something Tells Me, Peter Sonski would NOT Have Promised Mass Deportations
Monday, November 11, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 10:43 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/11/something-tells-me-peter-sonski-would.html

Friendly Atheist Took On Connor (part I)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Defending Connor's Honour, So Far (And One Comment,15, Was Censored as I Corrected It) · Friendly Atheist Took On Connor (part I) · I Prefer Per Engdahl over Fridtjuv Bergh · New blog on the kid: In Response to Doug Wilson Who Responded to Caleb Campbell (pastor)

One actual misgiving about Connor, and lots of other Fascists but also NS ... they could be into pushing homeless out of liberties, but not offering actual homes with freedoms. The reason I don't count this against historic Fascism is, every other state did so too (Social Democratic Scandinavia, Democrats of the US, Progressive Democrats in Canada ...), to some degree even Austria (Aufenthaltslager).

The Debate on Jubilee with Mehdi Hasan earned a Fascist Catholic sacking*
Friendly Atheist | 24 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1sRF6wj7c

The only one I hear about is Connor.

I didn't find him scary.

I do NOT think Connor made it a "me" vs "you" thing.

In a certain way, "us" vs "them" ... yes. He doesn't like abortionists or Church looters (neither do I). You don't like Fascists.

In each case, you are both disliking or we are all three disliking someone not for himself or not liking the shape of his nose, but for something added to the person, some choice.

I'm not really sure where Connor stands on a Commie who is:

• not providing or seeking abortion or contraception
• not attacking the Catholic Church
• not trying to overthrow a government because it's Fascist.

If he'd be fine with shooting or even just in peacetime imprisoning someone over simple Ostalgia, I'd be against that, but I don't find it all that probable. If that's so, he would be somewhat like you, except you may prefer sacking over shooting. As he's a Fascist, he's syndical, so, sacking isn't really his thing.

If, like me, he wouldn't hurt that kind of Commie or a Commie probably in those situations, you are the one closest to us three to wanting to degrade someone for simple identity, even if it is a chosen one.

3:14 How much do you have to back up your views against Connor?

"crazy, doesn't want to live in a democracy"

Sounds like prejudice.

3:26 "the rules that apply to you should not have to apply to me"

Not what he's saying. More like the limitations on power that apply to your side should not apply to my side.

In other words, kind of a turning the tables on the situation as it is. In "democracy" as it is now, power limitations on Fascists don't apply to people who loved the governments handing the US abortions, contraception and gay marriage. In fact, the kind of things I've seen being pushed against Connor would be regarded as beyond insane if a Fascist tried to push them against run of the mill modern Democrats.

3:47 What right out racist thing could you link to, if not copy?

Are you making this up?

Connor did say the American nation which should be represented by an American government is mainly a white population.

He did specifically say it also included some non-white populations.

I did not specifically hear him say that excluded the Afro-Americans. More probably included, if I can give an educated guess.

4:15 If I may venture an educated guess ... Connor would want US American mothers to have 52 weeks paid maternity leave per child.

As they haven't that, they have less of a chance being homemakers.

Nazis, so presumably Fascists too, have complained on how two incomes have become a standard necessity to even have an appartment.

Citing an actual Nazi (no longer among my FB friends, I can't recall why), "women on the labour market have been driving wages down since ..." (forget the year).

On a video about how other countries are making better deals for their workers, which was spoken by a voice not totally unlike his, though not in a heated debate tone, I heard that some decades back (1960?) only 20 % of women worked full time, now it's far more, not having two incomes is basically a luxury these days ... (the video mentioned countries with 52 weeks paid maternity leave, I think Afghanistan was among them, unless that was the one with even more weeks).**

4:53 It was in actual fact Mehdi who, at once, pin pointed Carl Schmitt as a Nazi. In historic fact and probably more to Connor's taste, he went over to Franco's Spain after a while.

The "yeah" should probably be interpreted "yes, that's the guy" than "yes, that's how I see him too" when he specifically was condescending to NS régime and enthusiastic for Franco's.

Carl Schmitt was not a simple propagandist, he was a philosopher. You may detest his philosophy, but that doesn't make him just a propagandist.

He was the one promoting a nominal adherence to the former constitution rather than a simple change of constitution in 1933, didn't like Jewish authors (a prejudice somewhat common at the time, neither did Waldemar Bonsels) and he fell out of favour as early as 1936. In 1937 Goebbels stopped the NS administration from harrassing him, which they had by then done for a year.

He was after the war banned from professorship, because he refused denazification (persecution for his political views, with the difference that in Germany they were becoming illegal), was a friend of Ernst Jünger and a few more and in 1962 / 63 wrote a work on Franco in the civil war, and the partisans supporting him.

In 1962, Schmitt gave lectures in Francoist Spain, two of which resulted in the publication, the next year, of Theory of the Partisan, in which he characterized the Spanish Civil War as a "war of national liberation" against "international Communism". Schmitt regarded the partisan as a specific and significant phenomenon which, during the latter half of the 20th century, indicated the emergence of a new theory of warfare.

Probably this is where Connor Estelle has his views on Franco from. I used other sources, including documentaries in Swedish state owned TV and one biography written by Michel del Castillo, son of Spanish Republicans who went to France. I didn't know some of the things Paul Preston wrote until yesterday. They are less flattering than what Michel del Castillo had to say. Or the early 1980's documentary on Swedish TV. I suppose the reverse can reasonably be said for Carl Schmitt's work.

6:45 Noting, Connor didn't even vote Trump. Perhaps not even a Republican. Maybe pretty probably not.

7:18 "I do have a problem with giving them this chance to espouse their views"

Expose, I suppose you meant, slip of the tongue, happens.

In other words, you think that while a man has legal freedom of speech, people should by private initiative band together to exclude some from this freedom?

Why don't you worry about a real NS? Kyle Langford:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esj4WN2L-cQ

---

* Not sure of the exact English title, youtube unfortunately pushes an automated French translation on someone watching from France: "Le débat du jubilé de Mehdi Hasan a valu le licenciement d'un fasciste catholique"

** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBkeAo2Hlg

Grace Church Community* Taught Heresy (Plus Was Cruel)

New blog on the kid: John McArthur Has Died, I'm Not Invoking His Prayers · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Grace Church Community Taught Heresy (Plus Was Cruel)

A Woman Prosecutes the Church of John McArthur for Publically Humiliating Her for Wanting ...**
Friendly Atheist | 18 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Du9d2vXtQ

In Catholicism, she would not have had the right to divorce and remarriage, but she would have had the right to separation (and when a separation needs that, using civil procedures for divorce), but still need to stay faithful at a distance.

Also, Catholicism doesn't allow a divorce victim to remarry (unless the earlier marriage was between two non-Christians and the divorce happens from someone disgusted at a Christian conversion).

So, supposing she and her husband were both validly baptised, Grace Church Community encouraged him to commit adultery in God's eyes.

Note, a valid marriage is a valid marriage, can be dissolved only by either of them dying, and if both are non-Catholic but Baptised Christians, it still applies.

And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce 32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery [Matthew 5:31-32]

And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him 3 But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you 4 Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away 5 To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept

6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife 8 And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder 10 And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing

11 And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her 12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery [Mark 10:2-12]

Note Mark 10:11.

Context of the verse that Kent Hovind so likes to cite for the (pretty obvious so not incorrect) implication of YEC in verse 6. I liked him better back when he said "this is not my wife. it's a picture of her" ... that was his first and real wife.

---

I don't want to drag through all of it, I'm only at 7:29 in. But this should come as a check to the people who believed (or in some cases still believe) that John McArthur was standing on the authority of the Bible.

---

* In the title, I mislabelled a denomination, it's actually Grace Community Church ... which is theological nonsense. The Church on earth is NOT limited to a community of people in the state of grace. Tares and wheat. My mistake shows, I was at least not an adept. That's how unfamiliar I was with what he stood for. Except the few sermons I heard.
** Unfortunately the title is translated to French and truncated, so I don't know if it said "a divorce" or "a separation"

Friendly Atheist Gets Unfriendly

The Jehovah's Witnesses are no longer a "religious community" in Norway
Friendly Atheist, 26 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKCHu5d2J_A

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:10 "nor should any group hurting kids"

Why is the Norwegian CPS still funded by tax payers then?

More seriously, CPS have a history of deeming parents guilty of hurting their children's rights and taking the children away over peanuts - or over parents being too overtly Christian.

A mixed Romanian-Norwegian couple, the Bodnarius, had their five children taken away because the CPS considered they (who were roughly speaking Pentecostals) "were too Christian" ...

There were protests by Romanians before Norwegian embassies in more than one country, and rightly so.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:41 I think you were a bit unfair when speaking of a "giant barrel" - you dismiss public education that has similar or greater offense statistics on that count than "Catholic" clergy?

NoMoon777

Public education is not a "religion", it actually serves a purpose.

Also it would be interesting for this point to check what proportion of these cases in the public system are commited by alleged christians.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NoMoon777 "it actually serves a purpose."

To KKK back in 1868, it was meant to serve the purpose of combatting a specific religion, namely Catholicism. Which makes it confessional.

"check what proportion ... by alleged christians."

Or rather, how much more or less the Christians are perps than on those workplaces.

NoMoon777

@Hans-Georg Lundahl About your point on the KKK: Sometimes knifes are used to kill people, is it the purpose they are made? No, does it make them bad? No, does it make so that their real purpose is no more? Also no. Just because some groups try to use does not mean it does not have a purpose in existing. SO this part of your coment is useless.

On the next part, i just wanted to call attention to the fact that not all crimes commited by the ""holy"" happens at churchs. And that the information about how many of the sexual offenders call themselves christians would be a intersting number to analise.

On the point of abuse happening in the public eduation context, i though i was clear but perharps i failed:

It is still a problem that needs to be solved. Yet there is not a option to just close it down because it serves a purpose. Churchs on the other hand as organizations do not, specially when the money used for charity is coming from the government, which is absolutely stupid. Why can't the government do the charity then? why would need to pass by more hands and end up in the pockets of so many religious leaders?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NoMoon777 "Sometimes knifes are used to kill people, is it the purpose they are made?"

Prior to KKK, the parents in the US had a perfect right to decide for themselves to educate their offspring in schools or not to, and to chose school form within their means.

The Casati laws targetted Austria and Catholics, KKK targetted Catholics, Jules Ferry and Émile Combe targetted Catholics, Lenin targetted Christianity, Azaña expanding state-operated secular schools targetted Catholics, Hitler Bohrmann targetted any kind of Jewish even indirect influence, including Catholic one.

"Just because some groups try to use does not mean it does not have a purpose in existing."

I think you misunderstood me. KKK did not try to make every US citizen become a racist. KKK targetted the mentalities which in a racist manner they despised, including the Catholic religious education.

"And that the information about how many of the sexual offenders call themselves christians would be a intersting number to analise."

In order to analyse it correctly, one would need to take into account whether they are overrepresented or underrepresented. For instance, if in US schools 70 % are religious in the personnel, but only 60 % are so among the sex offenders, that would mean the religious are underrepresented, even if they are in the majority. I think you could make some kind of similar observation against them in countries where they are rather rare in public schools.

"L'Education nationale est secouée par plusieurs affaires de pédophilie. Un directeur d'école de Villefontaine (Isère) a été mis en examen pour viols de onze élèves, qui auraient été commis entre décembre et mars 2014."
"Cette figure de l’enseignement privé catholique a été mis en examen pour “agression sexuelle sur mineur” sur un élève de 14 ans. Il conteste les faits."
"Najat Vallaud-Belkacem : « Dans l’éducation nationale, les réponses aux abus sexuels n’ont pas toujours été à la hauteur »"
...

"Yet there is not a option to just close it down because it serves a purpose."

Compulsory education in schools serve no necessary purpose. Societies have done very well without it.

"Churchs on the other hand as organizations do not,"

The Catholic Church normally speaking serves the purpose of getting people to Heaven. Accessorily, it provides a mentality better suited for good policy making than public schools do.

NoMoon777

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hold up, i am confused, are you defending only private schools existing cutting off all the "poors" from any chance of education and a better life?
Or are you defending home education, which is in most cases impossible, given that the vast majority of the population do not the formation/capacitation to teach any subject in a high level?

And on the KKK thing, do you think they did it on the whole world? Are you insane? I am not american and i have public education as well.
The reason education pushes people away from religion is not a conspiracy by the KKK, it is just the fact that the more scientific knowlege you have more obvious all the times the church has been wrong, which is pretty much everytime they go against science.
And then it gets really hard to take the 3k years old book written by goat farmers seriously.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NoMoon777 "And on the KKK thing, do you think they did it on the whole world?"

I enumerated other situations where people conspiring against Catholicism are involved in pushing compulsory education.

For completeness, I could add that KKK are a specially virulent branch-off from Freemasonry, which Communism also is, with predecessors like Carbonari.

For completeness, I could add, the Enlightenment was basically European intellectual culture getting hijacked by Freemasonry.

Note, I said European. That leaves out the KKK per se and only involves their more distant relatives like Voltaire.

"I am not american and i have public education as well."

When you spell "analise" I take it you are Hispanic or Spaniard? For Spain, I already said what I think of Azaña ...

Now, you asked what I am for.

• 1) Parents should have the right to send children to apprenticeships and to keep girls at home up to marriage with only cooking and baby sitting on the curriculum, if that is what they want.
• 2) Parents should have the right to homeschool, no questions asked about the quality, since, see previous.
• 3) Parents should have the right to chose confessional schools, private ones being one obvious possibility.
• 4) If the state choses to make public education available, it should not make it compulsory, or near compulsory for most by ruling out option 1.
• 5) If the state choses to make public educaiton available, it should not order one sided promotion of either Evolution or Heliocentrism. It should make confessional choices available.

In Austria, when I was a child in late 70's, before my ma decided to homeschool me (which is perfectly legal in Catholic Austria), she had to decide what Catechism I should get. No Lutheran Catechism was available, she only had Calvinist or Catholic, and she chose Catholic.

Schools certainly existed in Spain before Azaña and in Russia before Lenin. Publically financed. Available to the poor. But two big differences - they were not compulsory (not sure Azaña changed this, but Lenin did), and they did offer Catechism (which Azaña outlawed as much as Lenin).

You mentioned private schools being available only to the rich. This is not true. There are élite schools where the rich are the priority, because they pay. There are also confessional schools, which are partly run as charities - the parents who can pay and some non-parents for the age group contribute to the school, so it can also take poor children without them paying full tuition fees.

Finally:

"it is just the fact that the more scientific knowlege you have more obvious all the times the church has been wrong,"

More like a few key concepts for world view, being pushed as "Science" and wrongly so called.

"And then it gets really hard to take the 3k years old book written by goat farmers seriously."

I think King David who wrote psalms had more sheep than goats. Moses had an education at a Pharao's court. St. Luke had a professional formation as a physician.

NoMoon777

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Incredible, i was having fun debating with morons about religion. But once again i hit the wall.
The wall being someone with such absurd vision of the world that there is no "agreed reality" and therefore no argument will do anything, no amount of logic will convince.

As always depressing, "keep girls at home up to marriage with only cooking and baby sitting on the curriculum" this says enough about you, the fact that you feel like this is not only fine but the correct.

Well, it is what it is. The only consolation that i have is that each year there is less people like you on the planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NoMoon777 "that there is no "agreed reality""

Do you agree:

• that what we see with our eyes prima facie looks like Sun turning around Earth?
• that sciences are supposed to start with evidence and start from what it prima facie looks like, at least on some level?
• that the societal past is accessible to books?
• that different people depending on where they stand can interpret it differently?
• that people may come to stand on certain issues depending on how they interpret history?
• that some interpretations of history are absurd because they involve heroising cruel people?
• that I might know history better than you do, if I am a history geek at age 54 and started being one age 10-11?

"this says enough about you, the fact that you feel like this is not only fine but the correct."

In fact, I didn't say it was the universal correct, I said it was fine. How about learning to read?

If your reason for thinking it was my version of "the" correct was my putting it at position 1, I did that to get a misunderstanding out of the way, that one being that the priority is to get children into the same curriculum (which was a priority for the evil people I've mentioned, including but not exclusive to KKK).

I hope your consolation, which seems genocidal on a KKK and Margaret Sanger kind of plane, will be taken away from you quickly.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

8:28 I am reminded of how Swedish CPS was isolating me from my mother, 40 weeks per year, namely the school weeks ... from 9th to 12th grade.

True, only 9th grade was actually enforced. 10th grade, I wanted an international education to help me out of Sweden (IB of Geneva). ...

But Swedish CPS basically punished me and ma by such isolation for my:

• being YEC
• roughly speaking National Socialist sympathiser (having as yet heard little of other Fascisms which I definitely prefer over Hitlerism), even if I was so with reservations, and preferred the Middle Ages
• believing it was OK to get engaged to and plan to later marry someone when one was in 8th grade ... and consequently trying to talk a girl into it by being a "very young stalker" ... who didn't stalk all that much.

Secularists in Sweden and Norway, in the CPS, are treating teens and children as bad as JW's treat rebellious children ... or at least comparably bad, if not as.

IV

AMG Guy

Russia outlawed Evangelicals... once Putin saw how Murderous, Worthless, Racist, Hateful, Adulterous and Treasonous Evangelicals are in America. . . Putin said: OH HELL NO. EVANGELICALS ARE ILLEGAL IN RUSSIA. Sadly that mean most must remain in America.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You agree with Putin's assessment of the Ukraine too?

Hemant took on Exodus 1

Everything Wrong With Exodus 1 in the Bible
Jan. 17, 2021 | Friendly Atheist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4X_wBQiOQE

I

0:51 This is not a novel, this is history.

At the very least supposed to be such.

Genealogies are prime proof the Thora was not written for entertainment purposes and only later mistaken for a historic account. You either have history or fake history, you do not have a novel. I suppose this genealogy should have finally proven that point to you?

I suppose ...

II

1:58 75 or 70?

Acts 7:14 And Joseph sending, called thither Jacob, his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls.
http://drbo.org/chapter/51007.htm

Exodus 1:1-5 1 These are the names of the sons of Israel that came into Egypt together with Jacob their father; they came in each with their whole family. 2 Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judas, 3 Issachar, Zabulon, Benjamin, 4 Dan and Nephthalim, Gad and Aser. 5 But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls [born] of Jacob were seventy-five.
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=1

St. Stephen quoted a text agreeing with the Septuagint, which I just quoted.

III

2:56 "to a countless number of people"

We are talking c. 1590 BC, 80 years before the actual Exodus (the event).

They would still not be quite as numerous as at the event. In Numbers we come to how numerous they were in terms of full grown men in 1510 BC:

Ruben : forty-six thousand five hundred
Simeon : Fifty-nine thousand three hundred
Gad : Forty-five thousand six hundred and fifty

Judah : seventy-four thousand six hundred
Issachar : fifty-four thousand four hundred
Zabulon : Fifty-seven thousand four hundred

Jo-Ephraim : Forty thousand five hundred
Jo-Manasses : Thirty-two thousand two hundred
Benjamin : Thirty-five thousand four hundred

Dan : Sixty-two thousand seven hundred
Aser : Forty-one thousand and five hundred
Nephthali : Fifty-three thousand four hundred

Levites, not counted.

46 500 040 06 0500 59 300 090 15 0800 45 650 130 20 1400 50 74 600 200 24 2000 54 400 250 28 2400 57 400 300 35 2800 40 500 340 35 3300 32 200 370 37 3500 35 400 400 42 3900 550 000 62 700 460 44 4600 048 000 41 500 500 45 5100 005 550 53 400 550 48 5500 603 550

http://drbo.org/chapter/04001.htm

603 550 - multiply by five for family of each 3 017 750.

In how many years? Joseph took his family to Egypt c. 1725 BC, Exodus occurred in 1510 BC. Makes 215 years.

3 017 750 / 70 - I suppose that would be not counting Levites from first batch - equals 43 112. If we get to how many generations, this would be about 6 generations. 6th root of 43112 = 5.92 per generation. Sounds reasonable. Or if you think 35 years is long for a generation (though it wasn't between Levi and Moses, one generation before the ones in Numbers 1), you get even more generations, and even less multiplication per generation.

No reproductive issues for anyone ever ... well, sounds like a fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham.

IV

4:44 In reference to Exodus 1:11 Therefore he set over them masters of the works, to afflict them with burdens, and they built for Pharao cities of tabernacles, Phithom and Ramesses.

It doesn't say each Israelite became individually a slave under a separate master, it's more like collective slavery, like drafted labour ... (probably reminiscent of what Nimrod did at Göbekli Tepe, a k a Babel).

V

5:32 Maybe stop with the slavery!

Yeah! If you had only been around while people like - presumably - Sesostris III were running amuck, you might have made a difference!

Three cheers for the wisdom of Hemant Mehta! It's 20/20 (like I suppose is not quite unusual for hindsight).

Did no one consider this?

People who are plotting to oppress other people are often somewhat ... blind? ... as to consequences.

Did the Israelites just go along with this plan?

Have you heard of how Egyptians dealt with rebels from elsewhere? Have you seen Aida, where Radamès is introduced counting hands of enemies?

While Israelites were already many, they were not outnumbering Egyptians. And they were not in the army.

Perhaps general passivity of Jews under Hitler power was partly meant to show - yes, this could happen. A bit like general passivity of Russians under Commie party too.

5:54 but now they are giving up

We would probably have to give the Pharao some credit for capacity, if not accuracy, of foresight and of projecting tendencies already in the go ...

5:57 The battle will come, God will battle for Israel ...

VI

7:04 "How are there only two midwives"

More troubling still, why are Israelites accepting Egyptian midwives.

I say the latter problem shows how Israelites, while numerous, were not in a mood for opposing Egyptian administration.

The "only two" could either be the names are symbols (I haven't checked what they mean) or these particular two ones are the ones from whom Moses finally got this report, while many others were doing the same thing without being named, perhaps even without answering ... or it could be as simple as these two were ministers of midwifery and acted as first Pharao's officers to the others, then as their delegates to him.

"and yet only two people had the job"

Doesn't say in the text. Obviously, you cannot even in a "big house" (the Pharao is actually so named for his palace, literally "big house") assemble all the active midwives of a whole country.

He and they were like WHO officers these days ... you don't have all medical practitioners assembled in the buildings of WHO.

VII

8:27 Hebrew resistance at its pre-Moses peak - delivering at home without going to a midwife.

"Sturdy" means the Hebrew women were not afraid of dying in childbirth, not that their uteri are magical. They preferred giving birth with no professional midwife and taking risks over risking the lives of boy children.

Probably before the midwife arrives refers to an official duty of calling midwives. Here is the translation in Douay Rheims, clearly supporting of my conjecture:

They answered: The Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women: for they themselves are skillful in the office of a midwife; and they are delivered before we come to them.

The really troubling thing is, Pharao relied on socialised medicine for committing child murder, does that ring any kind of bell to anyone ....?

starofjustice1

"The really troubling thing is, Pharao relied on socialised medicine for committing child murder, does that ring any kind of bell to anyone ....?"

No.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@starofjustice1 well, obviously yes.

The project is described as murder, the details make sense if anyone in Egypt was supposed to call official midwives (aka socialised medicine).

And it probably rings a bell to someone else ...

VIII

10:19 And thankfully, Sesostris III (if it was him) died before the new version of the child killing policy had much effect. See next chapter.

Conciliar Church

Conciliar Church · Why Catholic at All, Then? · What About an Inkling Reading Protestant, which I was · And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? · Extra on Helio / Geo

Not linking clickable since I dislike images of broken Rosary
go there on your own risk, I have warned you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK7IM7m8oYw

Sordid quote upcoming under IX (I suppose Hemant Mehta is ignorant, it seems T. Estable appreciated feedback).

I

0:34 No, baptism is not exactly like a vaccine for evil, it is more like a resurrection of a dead, in this case "stillborn", or less dramatically, restoring breath of someone born drowning.

II

1:37 I suppose those baptisms by those priests are suspect of being invalid. If one shed the water and another said the words, it would certainly be so.

In Latin this is less likely to happen. There is such a difference between ego te baptizo and nos te baptizimus you are less likely to pick the wrong one.

Btw, as far as "allowed" is concerned, it is a very clear no. It is clearly illicit.

III

2:03 There were more than one Inquisition, the one you think of, created in the 16th C., is the Roman Inquisition.

The Spanish Inquisition was founded late 15th, at expulsion of Jews, same year as fall of Granada and discovery of America, 1492.

Less famously, the English Inquisition, by decree of king and parliament, De comburendo heretico or De comburendis hereticis, from 1401. Last heretics burned by it were two baptists in 1611 or 1612 - under the Anglican (with Calvinist tendency) King James.

IV

2:18 No, Galileo was not a heretic, he was gravely suspect of heresy, but cleared himself by abjuring two errors - sun in middle of universe, immobile, earth moving both "in third heaven" above the sun and by a daily motion around itself. After that abjuration, he was not a heretic.

No, these errors are not true.

No observation proves either of them. Atheist and materialist metaphysics leave no other solution, but one should take it the other way round and see Geocentrism as actually observed as a proof of God and angels (moving the universe each dday, and moving individual stars, planets and other heavenly bodies).

V

2:38 Here is the timeline of the renaming:

1908 The Inquisition is renamed Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office by Pope St. Pius X.
1965 The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office is renamed Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (SCDF).

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

Note very well, "Holy Office" had also been part of the name earlier. The real renaming was by "Paul VI", Antipope of evil memory. At or after Vatican II (a "council" where they decided to heed that kind of "criticism").

VI

3:03 It's not just it's not OK, it's that it's not a real baptism. Invalid and illicit are two different things in sacrament theology.

They are saying, the baptism with form "we baptise you" are strictly not valid, those who wish for salvation need to be baptised "again" but for real this time, it is not even doubtful, it is strictly proceeding as with unbaptised people.

3:29 Yes, exactly, in each sacrament the one giving the sacrament to the other person is taking on the role of Christ.

VII

6:20 There is one sacrament performed by Matthew Hood which is not invalid, since it does not necessitate the one giving it to be priest or even baptised : baptism.

Two atheists converting in the desert could decide to baptise each other (not if they are man and wife or intending to be so, this would be spiritual affinity and render their marriage incestuous). First one baptises the other, then the other baptises the first. As long as both intend to take on the Christian faith, this is valid.

So, while the confessions and eucharists of Matthew Hood are invalid (I think Pope Michael would agree with the "Inquisition" here), his baptisms are still valid.

T. Estable

Wait, WHAT!? "Render the marriage incestuous"!? XD

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Yes, a person who is getting baptised thereon cannot marry :

• the one baptising him (or her)
• the sponsors

It is called "spiritual affinity" and is one species of marriage impediment due to incest.

VIII

6:34 No, they are not "technically unrepentant" but they certainly need to confess all their sins again.

Note very well, if they confessed the same type of sin several times, the real confession would confess it only once, and say how many times added up over the years or how often for how many years, while confessing invalidly.

6:48 Yes, indeed, every Communion by Matthew Hood's consecration was an invalid one.

IX

7:07 "no Jesus parts"

Jesus is not torn into parts by the Eucharist. The whole body with the blood flowing in His veins is present in each particle.

This is why it is not cannibalism.

T. Estable

How is swallowing someone whole NOT cannibalism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Imagine you were dealing with Marvel comics and antman.

He needs to get inside your guts to do a very sensitive operation a surgeon cannot do to save your life. So he takes his tools, gets smaller, and then steps onto a sandwich you take. He gets really small, so your teeth cannot hurt him.

He doesn't stay trapped in you, but once the surgery is finished comes out alive - is that cannibalism?

No.

Similarily, Jesus is also not hurt by the communion.

T. Estable

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just light vore then. (In all seriousness though, thank you for sharing your interpretation of this.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@T. Estable Light core - no way.

Not even that. You are welcome.

Here is St. THomas on the same matter:

S. Th. III, Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm

X

7:21 Last Rites - God can see the intention of the people trying to receive a sacrament, but as to the sacrament itself, no it wasn't there. In the case of Matthew Hood.

XI

9:34 Wait, the "Catholic" archdiocese of Detroit claimed a couple married by him is not married?

In Orthodox theology, it is the priest who confers the sacrament on the couple by the nuptial blessing BUT in RC theology, it is actually the man and wife who confer it on each other (if both are validly baptised) by the nuptial vows.

So, the "archdiocese" (as rejecting the Conciliar Church I don't recognise it quite as such any more than I recognise Lustiger, Vingt-Trois or Aupetit as real archbishops) is using EO theology?

I'm somewhat divided on this, but I think the marriages would be valid, due to what I said.

10:58 - as I said - the priest is not the one conferring the sacrament on the couple, the man and wife confer it on each other.

XII

10:51 In the case of an invalid communion due to invalid orders of the priest, God sees the heart of the one wanting the communion. But of course they missed the real Body of Christ.

XIII

11:31 tertium datur
The intention to receive valid sacraments, even if foiled by circumstances making them invalid, is an intention that counts before God. Saying you don't need the sacraments because they don't matter is exactly the opposite intention before God.

It's like "hey, at least you tried" vs "you couldn't care less, why should I?"

No, people who "have faith" will not be "fine whatever what" that is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent, one of the heresies of Protestantism.

XIV

12:49 Verify - sounds like a good rule with sacraments.

XV

13:07 What's the real problem is that the Conciliar Church has been for decades allowing people who say "we baptise you" to go on acting as priests.

So, Hemant Mehta poses the million dollar question : how many more sacraments are invalid? He could have said, theoretically, in the Conciliar Church, but by a common sociological confusion, he said (or made it in context) "in the Catholic Church".

Hemant Tried to Debunk Genesis 40

Everything Wrong With Genesis 40 in the Bible
Friendly Atheist | 19.X.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjR3XSZOjxk

I

1:11 Just so you are aware, you are right now not asking what is wrong with Joseph, but what is wrong with E G Y P T.

The Bible would actually agree (later on too) sth is fairly deeply wrong in Egypt. When the end times Jerusalem (not heavenly, but earthly) is described as fallen from spiritual greatness into sth bad, it is described (Apocalypse 11) as "spiritually Sodom and Egypt".

1:15 Here is it the pharaonic justice which makes no sense.

That will be a theme later on too.

II

1:31 Most dreams don't matter.

Most dreams of most Biblical persons are not in the Bible, because they don't matter.

The dreams that are in the Bible are those that do matter.

It would be a waste of good papyrus (oldest material for writing on, before both parchment and paper) to state "and someone was dreaming that night, but it didn't really matter". That's why the Bible doesn't read like a realistic novel all that much : papyrus was not as cheap as paper is.

III

2:04 Joseph's point was, his inspiration from God was superior to the pseudo-science of dream books.

Btw, I'd say modern psychology falls largely under the ban of the Council of Ancyra (modern Ankara, but it wasn't Turkish back then) against that pseudo-science.

2:06 These guys were Egyptian pagans and as such superstitious.

God is going to give them sth more precise than they would usually get from that superstition.

Yeah, precisely, Joseph was in gaol with people who wanted readings from psychics all the time.

That was his situation. Now we'll find out how God used it.

IV

3:09 People who work at McDonalds right now may not dream about French Fries, but people who worked at McDonalds two weeks ago and have had a very rough time the last two weeks might do so.

While Pharaos were exacting, I think being a butler would still be less harrassingly stressful than working at McDonalds.

V

4:10 Two things:

• a) Joseph's interpretation isn't wrong
• b) he will come to a position where being wrong would land him very ill with Pharao ...

VI

6:30 No, Joseph had no resources to bribe Pharao with, and Pharao had no way of knowing what Joseph had said.

6:38 "Joseph had to know that"

We don't know how long Joseph had been in Potiphar's house. We don't know if he had been aware of Pharao's previous birthday. We don't know if the pharao changed when he was in prison.

Even with the same pharao and Joseph having seen the previous birthday, he may not have mastered Egyptian calendar (he could have been used to either Hebrew or Sumerian calendar from home, either one is different from Egyptian, precisely like Hebrew is now different from Gregorian).

It is very probable Joseph had no way to know that.

Your interpretation of what happened is more improbable than a miraculous true interpretation of dreams, and you would know that if you weren't prejudiced against miracles.

7:17 It failed in the first round, but if he had been wrong, it would have failed totally forever.

See next chapter.

VII

below II

Infinite Monkey

And yet we see papyrus wasted for this:
“Some time later, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt offended their master,” again, “the king of Egypt. 2 Pharaoh,” aka the king of Egypt, “was angry with his two officials,” we know, “the chief cupbearer and the chief baker,” as if we weren’t already told this, “3 and put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the same prison where Joseph was confined. 4 The captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, and he attended them.

After they had been in custody for some time, 5 each of the two men” who were they. “—the cupbearer and the baker” and who did they work for? “of the king of Egypt,” right! And after they pissed him off where did they go? “who were being held in prison.” How many times do we need to be told this?

And this kind of repetition is common to the Bible. Remember Abraham lying to the king about his relationship to his wife? Three times. Then his son did it too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Infinite Monkey You know, oral style spills off, and oral style means you repeat important information in case it should be lost to the ear one of the times.

VIII

below VI

Anecdotal1

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you say 'probably' a lot in your arguments and then tell someone else's thoughts improbable. Hmmmmm.... I see what you did there.

Daniel

Hans-Georg Lundahl Hello and well said, Joseph had no power, authority or even influence to even be near Pharaoh let alone talk with him about any of these things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Daniel Exactly.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Anecdotal1 Yes, you see I know the difference between probably and provenly.