On Genealogy

NO! You are NOT Cherokee! History of the biggest myth in genealogy!
Family Tree Nuts, History & Genealogy Service, 24 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpdxu_g5rRU

4:47 While 0.78 % is the average from each of 128 5 * great-grandparents, it cannot be the actual contribution of any single of them.

1/23 = 4.3478 % and that means any one of them will be giving multiples of that to you - including the multiple that is 0 * 4.3478 % = 0 %.

Also, the 128 ancestors, as I like to call them (easier to keep track of than "5 times" for me) need not be 128 different people.

When I go to the ancestors of Marie Antoinette and Lewis XVI, I actually only took up to number 127 - i e my last studied ancestors of each of them were the 64 ones.

But when I go to the 64 ancestors ...

Marie Antoinette:

68 = 64 et 69 = 65
[86/87 = 72/73]
[96-99=72-75]
[100 - 103 = 84 - 87]
[106 = 74, 107 = 75]
[118 = 114/119 = 115]

Lewis XVI

72/73 = 70/71
76/77 = 64/65

64 - 16 = 48 - the actual number of different ancestors Marie Antoinette had among the 64, meaning, the 128 would be only 96 different people, or even fewer.

So, that puts each one's average contribution to her into 1.04 %.

6:05 Cherokee ancestors arguably do exist, and it's only on average that there is a likelyhood of one being washed out. But there is similarily the exact same likelyhood for any European heritage ancestor that generation. Getting from 1800 back to 1700 = four more generations (on average), any ancestor that far back would be one of 2048.

B u t. We all do have ancestor numbers 2048 to 4095. This means, we all have our DNA from some of those. Even if the Cherokee was just one, he or she was neither more nor less likely to be the one giving you DNA than any other of them. From certain regions and European ethnicities, I think the likelyhood is there was more than just one Cherokee involved around 1700.

13:51 You might agree this phenomenon is likelier to occur in bourgeois to proletarian over agrarian European culture?

For instance, some Oriental Beduin tribes, as well as some African ones, at least the chieftains of the tribe would need to learn their genealogy as part of their education, simplified to patrilinear ones (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 ... in Sosa Stradonitz).

16:41 I am happy you busted no bubble of mine ... as a European, mixed Scandinavian, plus some Jewish, I have no claim to American ancestry, either Founding Fathers, Slaves, or Cherokees.

17:05 Excuse me, your 3 * great female ancestor, did you grow up thinking she was Cherokee to later find out she was Northern European?

I am not surprised.

I think I have ancestors somewhat similar.

Tim Ballard had real wise things to say, but at near forty minutes, Jordan Peterson became pseudo-wise

The Fight Against Worldwide Child Slavery & the Sex Trade | Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard | EP 372
Jordan B Peterson, 3 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTBGNEliczc

38:49 I would advise you to read the Haydock and the Calvin commentary on Genesis 4:7.

They are very different.

39:02 "taking responsibility for his failure"

A phrase that recurs pretty often in modern psychology. Not one actually found in the text, or in Haydock.

Why were Cain and Abel making sacrifice at the same time?

Were they asking God to decide a dispute?

Manichaeans pretend that Cain should have dominion, not over sin, but over his brother. Calvin gives a similar turn.

But Catholics don't say so, St. Augustine clearly says the opposite, as quoted in Haydock.

So, what if the problem was, Cain was trying to take responsibility for his brother, while Abel finding this oppressive found it necessary to appeal to God?

In that case, God's reaction to the sacrifices was exactly to say "no, Cain, thou shalt not rule over thy brother" - which would make Cain's comment "am I my brother's keeper?" a kind of twisted ironic demand of God if He had changed His mind.

We do not know for a fact that Cain was not what the Greeks would call spoudaios up to the sacrifice. It's more arguable, he was. He was a very serious a very committed person, who was wounded about one of his commitments, that of protecting his brother, against himself, even. You don't become a city founding king (which Cain became) by being a lazy slob or irresponsible. You become that by being energetic, doing every thing imaginable in your power not to fail.

When we speak of Cain in this context, Cain as initial responsible "keeper of his brother" gained a victory 100 years ago, when 15 to 16 year olds were banned from marrying in many states. And this obviously makes for sexual drives being frustrated, and frustrated teens getting driven into the hands of ... well, one of the kind of people this video is about.

Looking at the subtitles on what comes next in your words, nope, Cain never charges God with creating the wrong kind of cosmos.

If he charges God with anything, it's rather "but I thought you said, I wasn't his keeper?"

Some people have a great desire to protect, and cannot get over not being the guy who gets to protect someone they think needs protection.

I have in my life been confronted with some homosexuals who seemed desirous of my butt, and some responsible people who seem desirous to protect me from myself. Guess which one of them I find the worse "adhesive plaster"? Yes, exactly, the one who doesn't see anything immediately sexually shameful in what he's actually asking of me. To me, they are what the Beowulf poet called "Caines cynne" - the kin of Cain.

39:24 Abel perhaps actually got everything he wanted.

First, when God released him from having Cain as his keeper. At the sacrifices.

Second, when Cain made sure he would never bother Abel again that way, despite his propensity for being the responsible guy. You can't boss someone around any more if you've already killed him.

But the only way on which Cain could have said to God anything like "Abel gets everything he wants" was by the actual words "am I my brother's keeper?" ... i e, on my view, confusing the release from the duty of positive responsibilities about his brother (actions taken to prevent him from getting into trouble) with a release from the negative duty of not murdering.

39:40 God to Cain: If thou do well, shalt thou not receive?
Jordan Peterson : if you were a bit energetic like your brother ... a bit generous like your brother
Hans Georg Lundahl : if you could gracefully take being kind to your brother without being his "keeper" as he's ougrown it long ago, and you didn't notice.

Neither of them was materially ill off.
Cain was certainly not complaining his crops were failing, since he had crops in superfluity to sacrifice from.

Some Religions Defend the Collective Against Individual Narcissism - Catholic Christianity Defends the Individual from Collective Toxic Narcissism

Here is a video by a man who doesn't get it:

What Would Jesus Say About Narcissists and Narcissistic Abuse?
The Royal We, 8 March 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ8vYCDupdw

Here is are my responses at a two points where he shows this:

I, 3:44 Sorry, I think you are confusing two very different things.

"They talk about all their knowledge, all their travels"

Sounds like a narcissistic (possibly such) individual attention seeker.

What was Jesus adressing? Matthew 23.

27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. 28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Recall, in the Douay Rheims, as in the KJV, there is still a difference between "thou" and "you" ... Our Lord is adressing a collective. What he's talking about is a collective standard on how you show you are a just person (which might involve quixotic modesty about travels and knowledge you have individually) and how it is collectively lived out.

II 9:11 - 9:24 "you have no idea what you might be getting into if you start giving in to people's demands"

Actually, first, the word about "dogs" was adressed to a community, not an individual asking for help.

Second, recall the words in Luke 6:34 - 35? Or Matthew 5:42? Our Lord is expressing just the opposite of your way of cautioning against individual supplicants.

III, Thank you very much for the last point, though!

Grace of State

The Pope has no Clothes
The Kennedy Report, 28 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4uZ8ALgumU

0:09 One problem right from scratch.

Present tense. Pope Michael died last August.
He has so far no successor, I have heard of.

Right now there is no Pope.

Did you mean "Pope Francis"? If you recognise he's like the Emperor whose new clothes were no clothes in H C A's story, how about not calling him Pope?

0:12 Ah, you mislabelled Antipope Bergoglio, as I thought ....

6:24 Best wishes for all eight of you, and hope there are more to come!

7:56 "The Pope possesses grace of state"

My prime reason to no longer believe Vatican II-ers or even those in "incomplete communion with Pope Francis" are right is, the clergy doesn't seem to possess the grace of state, when it comes to guiding me in confession or other pastoral.

1) One father confessor, a Pole, 1988 - 1989, after him I have neither started to get married, nor approached a monastery or seminar
2) Another one, a Swede and convert, 1990 - 1991 (89 - 90 I did military service), after him I have neither started to get married, nor approached a monastery or seminar
3) An SSPX priest telling me in confession 1993, after conveying conditional baptism, I can't get to seminar right away, I need to get things in order first - first time round I was a porn addict came after obeying him on that one
4) Same SSPX priest telling me in a letter 1997 to leave Sweden would be to tempt God, I obeyed him over inner promptings I had reasons to think came from God, and in 1998 I landed in prison
5) The SSPX priest I regularly confessed to in 2009 - 2011 (or 12) ... still no solution, his prejudices about homeless people came in the way of his giving me a solution that could stabilise my good intentions.

My worst case against Pope Michael having actually been the Pope is, he didn't seem to have all that much grace of state either, but at least we were at a distance, I could only explain things to him via mail exchanges, I never actually made a confession to him, after he received holy orders on the Saturday before Gaudete Sunday in Civil Year 2011 and Church Year 2012.

8:13 Jesuits.

When I decided to actually convert in 1985, I went to Jesuits. They were the closest by Catholic clergy.

I told them I needed to convert, but also I needed to confess, because I had committed a mortal sin.

"Confession is a sacrament, it's not for mental illness"

Next year I went to another Jesuit, not mentioning confession again, and this meant, from 1985 to 1988, there was one mortal sin on my 16 - 19 year old mind for which I had to seek peace with God by other means than confession (or baptism, since I already was baptised, it turns out my reason to doubt the water had touched my head actually wasn't one, the conditional baptism wasn't needed) ... trying to make an act of actual contrition, and trying to love God above all else in order to do so pushed a red herring into my thinking of vocation, finally resolved the day I earned (or didn't earn) my prison sentence.

If these guys all of them have and had the grace of state, what does that say about me?

They were clearly not acting with my best interests, as normally thought of, when counselling me. None of them.

[added next day:] By the way, is there some kind of collusion in FSSPX circles to shun me bc I am an "incel"?

Oh, obviously outside matters of penance (purple) and martyrdom (scarlet) of course ... because, that kind of prejudice about "incels" as a stereotype may extremely well be one way in which actual involuntary celibates are actually produced, and this is obviously a fulfilment of (if I recall correctly) 1 Tim 4:3.

Can a Catholic Conclude the Pope is Wrong? Check Michael Lofton!

His short:

James White straw mans the papacy
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hitHweEYAVM

My comment, first line a re-emphasised quote from the short:

Compare what he says to the plain meaning of Sacred Scripture.

Excellent criterium. I think that leaves "John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis" pretty obviously wrong about the age of the Earth and the Universe and about the origin of man.

And Pius XII in 1951, allocution to academy of sciences, wrong about the age of the earth, but that was a lower key statement, and for his knowledge did not necessarily imply the thing he shouldn't have authorised to even defend (as per by Catholics) in the previous year.

Explicitly - or as per a syllogism of various explicit statements.

Universe was created same time (at least roughly, give or take within 168 hours) as man, Marc 10:6.

Adam was created within very few millennia from when Abraham visited a pharao, Genesis 5 and 11.

= > The universe was created within very few millennia back from when Abraham visited a pharao.

Other teachings of the magisterium?

Check the Galileo process!

On Miracles Today and Back Then

2 Miracles and the Cessationism of John MacArthur and Justin Peters
Faith On Fire, 28 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YKL3YLKDI

0:35 You are aware that Cessationism in the 16th C. was the hallmark of Protestantism and has never been shared by Catholic or Orthodox Churches?

"St. Francis made miracles and Martin Luther and Hundrich Zwingli didn't - what does that say about who's right?" (a Catholic)
"Oh, the miracles ceased long before your Poverello, some time after the Apostles - those miracles are faked" (roughly resuming John Calvin)
"What about the ending of St. Mark's Gospel?"

Here is from his comment on Mark 16:17

Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in his Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give luster to the gospel, while it was new and in a state of obscurity. It is possible, no doubt, that the world may have been deprived of this honor through the guilt of its own ingratitude; but I think that the true design for which miracles were appointed was, that nothing which was necessary for proving the doctrine of the gospel should be wanting at its commencement. And certainly we see that the use of them ceased not long afterwards, or, at least, that instances of them were so rare as to entitle us to conclude that they would not be equally common in all ages.

Yet those who came after them, that they might not allow it to be supposed that they were entirely destitute of miracles, were led by foolish avarice or ambition to forge for themselves miracles which had no reality. Thus was the door opened for the impostures of Satan, not only that delusions might be substituted for truth, but that, under the pretense of miracles, the simple might be led aside from the true faith. And certainly it was proper that men of eager curiosity, who, not satisfied with lawful proof, were every day asking new miracles, should be carried away by such impostures. This is the reason why Christ, in another passage, foretold that the reign of Antichrist would be full of lying signs, (Matthew 24:24;) and Paul makes a similar declaration, (2 Thessalonians 2:9.)

That our faith may be duly confirmed by miracles, let our minds be kept within that moderation which I have mentioned. Hence, also, it follows that it is a silly calumny which is advanced by those who object against our doctrine, that it wants the aid of miracles; as if it were not the same doctrine which Christ long ago has abundantly sealed. But on this subject I use greater brevity, because I have already treated it more fully in many passages.

This is one reason I am Catholic, not Calvinist.

4:33 I do believe that is possible.
I do not necessarily believe it is true.

The chronicler of Asuza Street was a late comer, he had had an inferior position prior to getting integrated there (kind of like how John Todd could have been pressured into the false witness about CSL and JRRT), he took down what he was told, and it is probable that only one witness was available from the purported occasion to when he was taking it down.

Another reason is, Seymour interpreted certain verses of Joel onto what happened in Asuza Street, when they are about Pentecost (the original one, Acts II).

So, since the people there were not Catholics, those praying were not Catholics, why did God do the miracle?

Well, there are possible reasons. One could be modernist "Catholics," whom God wants to shame for not really believing in miracles. A bit like Jesus said of a Centurion his faith was more than He had seen in all Israel. Or how Elijah had worked miracles among Canaaneans, rather than among Israelites.

5:28 Indeed.

But it is a gift from God to a specific person, when God makes miracles:

• on that person's prayers
• and even more, if the person in God's name commands the miracle to happen.

Acts 3:6 But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise, and walk.

That was a specific gift of God specifically to St. Peter. Note, he said "what I have" and he said "I give thee" ... the words after which the miracle happened were not "Lord God, if it please thee, heal this man" but "arise and walk" spoken to the man.

5:55 I am fairly confident Peter and Paul indeed could chose whom to heal.

B U T this still doesn't mean it was done by their own power.

7:56 Is Justin Peters the guy with "Deeper Waters"?

10:55 I believe St. Luke was a proficient physician prior to this, and find it probable he himself made the attestation of death for the boy prior to seeing St. Paul raise him.

So, yes, I believe it happened, the evidence is fairly excellent, and Sts Luke and Paul were actual Catholics too.

However, good for you not to be a Calvinist!

15:38 Just in case you (or some readers of my blog) should happen to compare me wanting an editor and paid for book sales from my blog posts to asking money for miracles - I never claimed my texts were miraculous or direct prophecy.

I'm not like a guy charging for money because God* spoke to me, but I definitely am a man wanting in diverse ways money for doing the job of writing texts down on the internet.

When it comes like paid for books, that will be great.

So far, it has (mostly) come from holding up posters with URL's and getting money (at least theoretically)** in return for that.

17:24 You have a very excellent point about miracles here.

Side note, personally. It is possible to be a counterfeit miracle worker (someone just had a person in a wheel chair come in claiming polio, and then couldn't detect it was a fraud test - that could be a case in point, though healing is distinct from prophecy), but it is more difficult to be a counterfeit writer - if I actually write, how could I be a fake writer?

20:37 Few witnesses are enough if they are good witnesses.

These people were new to the faith, still examining its credentials, and they had definitely not been pre-conditioned to expect miracles, plus arguably the event had been recorded to us by one of the very same witnesses, and that one the medical expert witness.

Most historic events are not witnessed by very many people.

A war is not an event in this sense, it is a series of events. It's easier to have been a witness to "Civil War" than to be one to "Fort Sumter" - just as it is easier to be a witness to presidency of JFK than to have been a witness to the shots that killed him, one hour after CSL died.

22:23 The boy probably hadn't been baptised, so St. Paul raising him was offering him salvation.

However, a martyr was already saved.

* Supposedly!
** Some simply ignore the blog and give money, sad but true, and sometimes those are the ones who keep me going, when the money from the bank withdrawal is up for the weekend (I have no card for ATM machines or similar). Or when a market allows me to get some more.

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution!

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution! · Proto-Languages - How Are they Reconstructed? · Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin · Indo-European and Romance are Very Different as to Diachronic Linguistics · More on Language : Latin to Romance · More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English · More on language in general

Q

What is the phenomenon when one language splits into two different languages called in linguistics?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-phenomenon-when-one-language-splits-into-two-different-languages-called-in-linguistics/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VII.2023

If you mean like Latin splitting into French and Spanish, there is a term for it, and it is “divergent evolution”. Possibly “divergent development”.

What I mean by “language divorce” (own coinage) is sth different.

In 800 - 813, Latin in France received a new, non-vernacular, pronunciation, from England, where Latin had been a foreign language since 200 years earlier and introduced from Italy rather than France, meaning the pronunciation was even more conservative when it took on.

The old pronunciation didn’t die out since it was the vernacular.

When the old spelling (somewhat corrected) received a new, archaic, pronunciation, and the old pronunciation received (by the end of the 800’s it was already a regular occurrence) a new spelling, what had been one language over writing and speech had become two languages. It’s as if the Greek diglossia had totally ended, with on the one hand a very simplified spelling for Dhimotiki, and on the other hand a replacing of Katharevousa with Erasmian proncunciation of Koiné.

Please do not confuse “language divorce” (happened for French, Provençal, Italian, Castilian, Galician, respective to the stage when these pronunciations were the regular pronunciations of Latin) with divergent evolution (what had gone before, making pronunciation in what later became French and Castilian different).

Language divorce is akin to language reboot. Between Anglo-Saxon (last text in 1166) and Chaucerian Middle English, between Latin and Romanian, there is a period when English / Eastern Balkan Romance are spoken without a written language of its own, French and Bulgarian writing being used for French and Bulgarian, not for English or Romanian, and then comes a time when the language reemerges as a written language, borrowing its spelling from that dominant language (hence Anglo-Saxon Y replaced by U in early Middle English : yfel =/= uvel, then shifted to evil; GE replaced by Y : geard =/= yard etc). Similarily, earliest texts in Romanian are in Cyrillic with Bulgarian spelling.

The difference is, the spelling rules for the reboot come from a different language, the case for a language divorce is, the old spelling and the old pronunciation separate and get attached to new pronunciation and new spelling, and the new spelling for the old pronunciation comes from the spelling rules applied to the old spelling to get a new pronunciation.

A consequence of language divorce as opposed to continued diglossia is, there is a break between the popular language and learned terms in the previously written language, and while French prior to 800 developed as if non-daily terms in Vulgate Latin were a higher register, of the same language, French after 880’s has developed by Latin being kind of a foreign language to it, not completely true at first, but more and more so.