Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Such as your proposal that the common YEC view on the Flood is waves were a mile high?

That proposal is evidence free, like it's evidence free to pretend a Geocentric (yours truly) is a Flat Earther. No, I'm not Rob Skiba II, even if I liked him for other reasons.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl There is no way to determine the actual height of waves in a mythical Flood which never happened. A mile high is a common claim made on YEC sites based on the claimed destruction the Flood supposedly wreaked.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 A common claim made on YEC sites, as if you knew them better than I ...

Care to give an example?

On CMI one hit gives me this:

Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.

source
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
By S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 8(1) Pages 26 - 36, April 1994
https://creation.com/en/articles/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

On AiG, I find this:

In fact, the 520 m tsunami height of the 1958 landslide quoted by ark skeptics took place within a narrow Alaskan bay where there was no time for the wave to develop a standard profile. This is not a deep-sea tsunami wave height.

The article, while referring to the same Korean Naval feasability or sea-worthiness study, refers to waves of 47 metres ... and that as being unlike the deep sea tsunamis.

A tsunami is caused by a sudden displacement of water. The most frequent cause is an underwater earthquake, but less frequently, tsunamis can be generated by volcanic eruptions, landslides, or even oceanic meteor impact. The length of these waves, from one crest to the next, can be up to 200 km long, and they travel in the deep ocean at speeds around 700 km/hr. Their height in the open ocean is very small, a couple of meters at most, so they pass under ships and boats undetected.

source:
Noah’s Ark: The Problem of Violent Waves
by Tim Lovett on August 9, 2024
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noahs-ark-problem-violent-waves/

The mile high wave heights is not what you find on AiG or YEC, you are sure you weren't consulting an ANTI-YEC site?

Sam Burns

[first answered with an insult and with asking for the evidence for the Flood instead of continuing the objection. But to the exchange, as my answer is now visible]

Sam Burns

@hglundahl You're still just urinating into the wind since you still have zero evidence the mythological Flood ever happened. 😄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You forget you by now have zero evidence that the waves would have made it impossible, which makes the Flood account perfectly capable of being what it has purported to be, a historical account.

Other thread

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You did not give any reason for any of the three to be impossible to be formed during a one year Flood, so you gave no "three examples" worth my while.

Luminiscence? There is a question of when Mungo "man" is from. The luminiscence involving sand around him (or her) says 40 000 BP. BUT the bones themselves are more in the 20 000 range, as dated by Carbon 14. So, carbon 14 would be more reliable on my evaluation than luminiscence.

You mentioned argon argon dating. I looked it up:

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.

It so happens, K/Ar can be skewed by lava solidifying quickly because of lots of cold water, as in the Flood. Here is another thing, you attributed its use to "archaeologists" ... but that's a different chapter from palaeontology. Now, again from the Ar/Ar article:

One problem with argon–argon dating has been a slight discrepancy with other methods of dating.[3] Work by Kuiper et al. reports that a correction of 0.65% is needed.[4] Thus the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction (when the dinosaurs died out)—previously dated at 65.0 or 65.5 million years ago—is more accurately dated to 66.0–66.1 Ma.

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating

That's palaeontology and definitely within the scope of Flood geology, unlike much of Carbon 14.

Try again.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! I love the way you just yell NUH-UH! while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood. 😄 Also the way you C&Ped the usual creationist excuses for dodging the multiple independent and consilient dating methods.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Is this example "worth your while"?

1) In the Pacific Northwest is a geologic feature called the Columbia River Basalt Group. It's a huge lava flow area covering most of eastern Oregon and Washington, western Idaho and part of norther Nevada. Geologists have identified over 350 separate volcanic lava flows which K/Ar and Ar40/Ar39 show occurred from 16.7 MYA to 5.5 MYA.
2) To add to creationist problems we have the Grande Ronde River which flows some 200 miles across the same Columbia basalt fields in Oregon and Washington State. The Grande Ronde makes S-shaped meanders and has downcut basalt cliffs some 3000 ft. tall.

Questions for you:
1. If the Columbia Basalt fields all formed in one year why do they date so differently over an 11 million year span? Don't just yell "bad assumptions". Explain why all the dates are different.
2. How did the Grande Ronde River form? The usual excuse "the rocks were soft" doesn't work because soft basalt is molten lava. 😮

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "while still dodging the geologic formations you can't explain were caused in one year by a Flood."

Prior to this example, you weren't giving any evidence against within one single year.

Now, the 11 million year span has to do with K/Ar dating.

I'll cite an article by CMI, which deals with this exact formation, including the River.

I'll just answer on the 11 million years:

They do not, by themselves, give unambiguous information about the cooling rate of the lavas. However, entablatures can solidify and cool very rapidly by water-steam convection.

source:
Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA
By John Woodmorappe and amp; Michael J. Oard
Published 28 Jan, 2006 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 16(1) Pages 103 - 110, April 2002
https://creation.com/en/articles/field-studies-in-the-columbia-river-basalt-northwest-usa

This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down.

For other solutions, the article I quoted is Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA.

CMI, as I mentioned.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Keep lying and dodging. You're really making a case for creationism! 😅😅😅 How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?

@hglundahl Here's an example you won't be able to C&P the usual creationist lies over.

In Northern California, Tuolumne County is a geologic feature called the Stanislaus Table Mountain. Its formation began 10.4 MYA with a volcanic eruption from the Little Walker volcanic center near Sonora pass. The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river. It's over 1000 ft. high, 1000 ft. wide at its widest point and some 80 miles long. I can't post photos but do a quick search - it's an amazing sight from the air.

I defy you to provide a reasonable explanation for how this feature could have formed in a one year Flood only 4500 years ago.

@hglundahl This means, the lava cooled at different rates, and earlier flows during the Flood cooled quicker and therefore more Argon was trapped lower down. I couldn't let this lie slide. Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters? In either scenario your hand-waving excuse doesn't work. 😅

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "How did the Flood form the Grande Ronde River in molten lava?"

Referring you to the article, as given.

River formation are not my even amateurish expertise.

"Did all these eruptions happen before the Flood waters covered everything or did they happen under the Flood waters?"

They happened while water was rising and therefore different parts were covered and different ones weren't.

But arguably they happened under water and were cooled by different heights of water above them.

This one I actually found no CMI article on:

"The eruption produce a large lahar (mud, ash, lava mixture) which flowed down for some 80 miles and filled in an existing river channel. Over time the lahar hardened into stone and the land forming the original river banks eroded away. What is left is an inverted 3-D cast of the original river."

The lahar hardened very quickly as waters cooled it, which also eroded the surrounding land.

CMI had

an article on lahars and pyroclastic mud flows, though:

The Pinatubo eruption—catastrophic pyroclastic flows and lahars
By Andrew Sibley
Published 05 Nov, 2021 | First appeared in Journal of Creation 34(2) Pages 5 - 7, August 2020
https://creation.com/en/articles/pinatubo-eruption

Probably applicable to Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California) too.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl LOL! As expected if you can't C&P some ready made creationist lie you're totally lost. 😄😄😄 You clowns are too funny!

@hglundahl Now that you've established you know nothing about geology or dating methodology or ocean waves or wooden ships, what else do you want to talk about?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You have just established that you are out of your depth, resort to insults and laugh when you don't know what to answer.

With you, I might not want to talk of much else.

(Nevertheless, I gave him a link to the two parts)

AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology

AiG, Good on Flood Topic, Less Good on Soteriology · Continuing with Sam Burns Who Seems Unaware of What Creationist Sites Actually Say

Don’t Think the Biblical Flood Really Happened? Watch THIS!
Answers in Genesis | 21 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw5FDIuHUeY

I

16:31 Vessels ride over the waves because they move, and that is an additional strain on the construction.

I very clearly picture the sidways existence of the Ark, and as to motion sickness, I calculated the rolling period. 11 seconds or so.

So, unless I totally got the way of calculating radius of gyration wrong, the rolling period of the Ark, according to the formula given in wiki, would have been between 11.71 and 12.82 seconds. Recall that first sentence?

.. A passenger ship will typically have a long rolling period for comfort, perhaps 12 seconds while a tanker or freighter might have a rolling period of 6 to 8 seconds.

In other words, God saw to it, they were fairly comfy on the Ark, whenever the natural rolling period prevailed!

The long rolling period would counteract motion sickness. I just quoted what I wrote in 2018, eight years ago.*

A

Science Rules

@sciencerules2825

It was wrong then, it's just as wrong now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@sciencerules2825 care to be specific?

Settle Down**

@settledown444

@hglundahl How high were the waves during the Flood? Remember the waves were supposedly powerful enough to scrub the top two miles of material off the Earth's entire surface, sort the material, then redeposit the two miles as distinct sedimentary layers.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 The destructivity of a wave to a vessel is not just about how high it is, but also about how abrupt it is.

A mile above the remaking of the earth, that would have been pretty non-abrupt waves, like on the Pacific. Dunes, not breakers.

The reason is, "abrupt" means, there is much height to little width (maximally equal), and the width and height ration depend on how far down the centre of the radius is.

In shallow water, the bottom can pose severe limits on the width, not so on a world wide ocean.

Settle Down

@hglundahl In other words you have no explanation for how a wooden vessel would survive mile high waves that destroyed the top two miles of the planet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 In other words you either forgot all I just said, or you disqualified yourself from speaking on vessels or on waves.

Settle Down

@hglundahl What is your professional experience with sailing vessels and/or waves that qualifies you as an expert?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@settledown444 I didn't say I was an expert.

I do say I know what waves work like.

If the bottom is very low below, that means that the radius of the wave (yes, mathematically they are circle segments) is long which means the parts on the top are not abrupt.

That's how a large radius works.

B

Sam Burns

@samburns3329

I hope you realize the Noah's Flood / Ark story was scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago and the evidence against it has only piled higher ever since. Arguing the seaworthiness of a mythical boat is like arguing if the Starship Enterprise could defeat the Death Star.

i

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Seaworthiness has objective and mathematical parameters.

If the Ark were mythical, how come some myth maker gave just the right proportions for seaworthiness?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl The floating box Ark as described in the Bible would immediately capsize and sink in even a moderate ocean storm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You miss what actually capsises ships.

Wyoming sank in Nantucket Bay, average 9 meters deep.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Mile high waves in the supposed strongest storm ever on Earth would flip the Ark and smash it into kindling. Kind of a moot point since the Flood /Ark story is still mythological.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Have you heard of "strawman"?

The Ocean was miles deep. Underwater currents, not storms on the top did the erosion.

Kind of what you miss in your very mythical reconstruction.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Have you heard of "strawman"? I've heard of ridiculous evidence-free pulled-straight-from-your-nether-regions claims. 🙂 Like that last one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Such as your proposal that the common YEC view on the Flood is waves were a mile high?

That proposal is evidence free, like it's evidence free to pretend a Geocentric (yours truly) is a Flat Earther. No, I'm not Rob Skiba II, even if I liked him for other reasons.

ij

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 "scientifically proven impossible to happen well over two centuries ago"

Details?

Sam Burns

@hglundahl Details? A literal Noah's Flood / Ark was scientifically disproven over two centuries ago. For example:

1. The world is full of geologic features (angular unconformities, the vertically incised meanders in Goosenecks State Park, the Columbia Basalt Group) impossible to form in a one year one time Flood.
2. We have lots of archaeological evidence of cities and cultures (Jericho is 11,000 years old, The Jiahu culture in China is 9500 years old) which lived right through the Flood without noticing.
3. Modern genetics shows no extant species underwent a severe genetic bottleneck only 4500 years ago. If the Ark story were true ALL extant species would show such a bottleneck.
4. Besides well established radiometric age determination we also have lots of non-radiometric proxies (tree rings, lake varves, ice cores) showing the Earth is way older than 6000 years, certainly older than the claimed 4500 year ago Flood.
5. The fossil record shows five major mass extinction events with a radiation of entirely new species into the open ecological niches after each event. Impossible for a single Flood to do.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 Thank you.

1) Dispute the "impossible to form in one year" argument.
2) Carbon dating is off, Jericho and Göbekli Tepe started around 2600 BC
3) How do you date the bottlenecks?
4) tree rings and so on are circular if you go back far enough
5) The fossil record is from the Flood and the "new species in open ecological niches" are just contemporaries with "previous" misdated by layers of the Flood.

Carbon dating is also not way over 200 years old.°

Sam Burns

@hglundahl I see you completely ignored the geologic evidence besides crying NUH-UH! and the multiple civilizations which lived right through the Flood without noticing. Also 14C dating is calibrated by over a dozen independent proxies to 55,000 years before present so you got that one wrong too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You gave no specific geologic evidence apart from claiming it couldn't have been formed by the Flood.

You missed that our only clue to the chronology of the civilisations is carbon dating. The carbon date of the Flood is 39 000 BP. Before them.

The independent proxies become circular with carbon well before that old.

Sam Burns

@hglundahl I gave three specific geologic examples. You dodged all of them. 😄 There are also over 40 different scientific dating techniques used by archaeology besides 14C dating. Things like optically stimulated luminescence, obsidian hydration, archaeomagnetics, 39Ar/40Ar just to name just a few.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@samburns3329 You did not give any reason for any of the three to be impossible to be formed during a one year Flood, so you gave no "three examples" worth my while.

Luminiscence? There is a question of when Mungo "man" is from. The luminiscence involving sand around him (or her) says 40 000 BP. BUT the bones themselves are more in the 20 000 range, as dated by Carbon 14. So, carbon 14 would be more reliable on my evaluation than luminiscence.

You mentioned argon argon dating. I looked it up:

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.

It so happens, K/Ar can be skewed by lava solidifying quickly because of lots of cold water, as in the Flood. Here is another thing, you attributed its use to "archaeologists" ... but that's a different chapter from palaeontology. Now, again from the Ar/Ar article:

One problem with argon–argon dating has been a slight discrepancy with other methods of dating.[3] Work by Kuiper et al. reports that a correction of 0.65% is needed.[4] Thus the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction (when the dinosaurs died out)—previously dated at 65.0 or 65.5 million years ago—is more accurately dated to 66.0–66.1 Ma.

That's palaeontology and definitely within the scope of Flood geology, unlike much of Carbon 14.

Try again.

[source for quotes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon-argon_dating]

II

50:49 Where in the Bible do you see "Jesus took our punishment" or "was punished for us" ???***

* Rolling Period of Ark?

** Seems like someone is using channel names to bring home "paedagogic" points to me. Including one pretending I'm refusing to settle down. I have been refused by such people to settle down on terms I can accept, i e as a writer, including a Creationist one.

*** "He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?

° The technology of carbon dating is from the 1940's.

Revisiting Indo-European as Sprachbund

Question: Is there any evidence of linguistic contact between Sanskrit and Latin?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-evidence-of-linguistic-contact-between-Sanskrit-and-Latin/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

20.VIII.2026

You are asking about areal phenomenon, no?

Sanskrit may well have started around the first areal connection in Indo-European linguistics, namely the one with Hittite (and other Anatolian) with Mitanni-”Sanskrit” to the East and Mycenaean Greek to the West. Note that in Mycenean Greek, “tis” was still “quis” as we later see it in Latin. And “pente” was “penque” which is close to Latin “quinque”.

THEN there is another areal connection, around the Terramare culture, where Mycenaean Greek actually is involved in the North of Italy, not very far from where later Latin emerged in writing.

So, supposing we take linguistic contact instead of common origin, it would look like this:

• Mycenaean Greek, Hittite / Palaic / Luwian, Mitanni-Aryan are the original Sprachbund, West and East of the Aegean
  
  
  • Mitanni-Aryan moves East and becomes Old Persian and Sanskrit
  • Mycenaean Greek partly moves West and influences Latin to the South and Germanic and Celtic languages to the North
  
  
  
• Balto-Slavic and Armenian are influenced by Persian from the East and Celto-Germanic from the West.

PS, I actually forgot, but a daughter language of Mycenaean Greek, namely koiné, was present in both Bactria and India before our earliest written texts in Sanskrit. Probably not too much of an influence in linguistics, but Greek epics may have influenced the Mahabharata as we have it.

Heschmeyer Ignorant of Helio- / Geo-Controversy

A usually very good video, some places where I tease and challenge Heschmeyer and Hurd, but on one issue over a few minutes, Heschmeyer is absurd about the history of ideas behind the change from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism. Below are not all my comments, just those which relate to this.

Does Studying Aquinas Make You Catholic? (Conversation with Ryan Hurd)
Shameless Popery | 18 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omZgL0hkYBE

52:23 How are they not wandering (across the zodiac) stars (i e luminaries)?

Even Pluto is a luminary and has wandered some since discovered, when viewed through a telescope.

If you know what the older terms mean (a well known Italian song calls the moon Stella d'Argento, you may have heard Elvis sing it), what is "refuted" about "the assumption"?

My bad memory, "astro d'argente" not "stella" ...

52:41 Tycho thinks all planets except Sun and Moon are rotating around the Sun.

52:24 The orbits are still fixed in older Geocentrism.

The "wandering" doesn't mean totally irregular movements, it means they don't stay in the same place of the Zodiac.

Sun can be in Virgo and Moon in Pisces, at one moment, and Sun can be in Pisces and Moon in Leo. In another moment, not the following or previous day, of course.

The guy you rely on totally missed what the views before Heliocentrism on the things actually were.

53:01 They very well were knowing what to make of the planets in the Geocentric systems.

Some made inaccurate predictions, but Riccioli is no more inaccurate than Kepler.

53:08 "eventually they get so many things that challenge the system"

Geocentrism challenged? No. Ptolemaic geocentrism challenged. Yes, and Ptolemaic positions other than Geocentrism were never maintained against Galileo.

Some Gringos Don't Know What Communism is, But Think the Condemnations Endorse Basically Republican Economics

I have a feeling someone stamped me as Socialist over my statement that Carlos Ugo didn't become a Communist by endorsing "self managing socialism" as in Yugoslavia. Note, I don't say it was introduced correctly all over Yugoslavia, in Croatia and Slovenia there were unjust confiscations of nobiliary land. But the form itself was Distributist, not Communist. Tito, unlike Stalin, didn't abolish the NEP. He didn't confiscate lands from small farmers. And today, successor states like Serbia and Croatia have more farmers per capita than France. I think each has more farmers for obviously a lesser population. In other words, Tito was rather better than Mitterrand. This is not a Communist statement, it's a Ruralist statement.

Why Christians Can't be Socialists
The Counsel of Trent | 17 Aug 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWk-98DH988

My below comments have disappeared. At least that was the case yesterday, from here I cannot go to youtube (unless using Microsoft, which I boycott since 2009).

Ah, Pius XI.

You know he was what some US could call "socialist" ... Quadragesimo Anno supported the idea of corporazioni, which were also adapted in Austro-Fascism.

Franco, well within the pale of Pius XI and Pius XII, was sponsoring cheap rental flats, and I mean cheap. To some, that's "welfare state" and this "socialist" ...

0:31 Sweden is decently border corporativist in economics.

In education, Church/State, Family/State, freedom of speech (de facto, not just on the paper), Sweden is unfortunately very socialist. Culturally Marxist, one could say.

2:16 setting wages and prices was in fact within Fascism and Austro-Fascism, so not what Pius XI condemned.

If the government tells the owner of Fiat: you must give your workers so much per hour, that's not socialism.

But if the government told the owner of Fiat: move out, I'm running your business and taking the gains, that is socialism. And condemned.

6:09 Ah, just as Quadragesimo Anno is the favourite Fascist work I've read, Rerum Novarum is the favourite Distributist work I've read after Chesterton and the favourite Syndicalist work I've read. Along with Chesterton's The Return of Don Quixote.

6:38 Private property that creates wealth should belong to as many as possible, so that as few as possible need to survive as customers and wage-earners or as customers and dole-receivers.

As many as possible obviously involves without violating the rights of already existent owners. Distributism 101. Rerum Novarum, Vincent McNabb OP, Belloc and Chesterton.

7:27 Mutatis mutandis, for what I earn when holding a cardboard with the URL for one or more of the blogs I've worked to enrich with more texts.

Thank you, Pope Leo (XIII !) for defending my rights. (Wonder if an antipope also called by the name will make as ample a defense of my rights, so far quite a lot of his clergy haven't).

8:03 Such as texts that could be printed and commercially distributed with some good will.

A thing currently lacking.

Economically, I and Catholic Answers have exactly the same right to get texts into print (diverse opportunities for doing it at own cost, though), and morally, I think I have a right superior to people reporting that "Cardinal Baronius in the Galileo controversy" or even in the 1615 letter to Grand Duchess Christina said a thing he is probably not ever documented as saying and certainly documented as not saying in 1615, as he died in 1607.

And if you, Trent Horn, some year ago, took to that because Jimmy Akin believed it, as he stated it again the other day, you should recall Our Lord saying not to call anyone sensei.

9:44 Franco basically had a housing guarantee.

And Mamdani didn't say "let's abolish private property" but "whether you call it private property" ...

Now, such guaranteed housing has its own challenges and are not the way out for everyone on the street (in Paris, a socially acquired housing, where the "bail" [rental agreement] was payed by social services, would deny me the right to house a publishing house in my appartment).

But it doesn't equate to taking away property.

Just as Mussolini could tell the owner of Fiat, perfectly licitly, "you must pay your workers so and so" and this was OK, because the owner of Fiat still got the brut revenue from car sales to do so, and it wasn't the state that did it, so a mayor of Berlin can say "if you have a second apartment empty, you need to rent it if we need it for someone we want to house" ... since it's still the person owning the apartment that gets the rent. Not sure of the details, but that's along the lines I heard. If the second apartment were confiscated so its owner didn't get the rent, that would obviously be socialism.

9:59 Abolishing the distinction between employers and employees can be done in more than one way.

If you confiscate the property of the employer and hand it over to a collective of employees, that's socialist and illicit.

If a factory of grissini is going bad, the employer wants to sell and close it and a collective of employees buys it, as in Buenos Aires, that's within the respect of the former employees rights, since he chose not to run it any more, and therefore perfectly licit.

Companies can also be started with "shareholding coworkers" in cooperatives. This is not uncommon in Sweden.

And while running a business personally may be less frustrating than running it with coworkers, not running it and just being an employer may be even more frustrating.

Even worse if the employee is partly paid by a government programme and is therefore a social case the actual owners may find faults with ... I've been there. The work was OK, but the social environment frustrating, one of the co owners was one lady whose son I had previously tried to punish while being a school teacher, and getting all my lessons disrupted. Him being one culprit. She hadn't forgot it. Neither have I, I'm taking James 3:1 with other than intended literality (as "noli conformari huic saeculi" is not directly meant to encourage historical reenactment, but I do it anyway).

And yet another way is a small business worked by only owner and close family of the owner. The distributist solution number 1. Also not socialist, perfectly licit.

10:07 No, you can't take Quadragesimo Anno 55 as forbidding the preference for mom and pop shops or cooperatives.

The point he is making is, no owner who's running a business should be deprived of doing so and of getting the necessary disposal over the company's resources to do so, just because he isn't doing the manual work.

He is not in any way, shape or form forbidding a company to run by having all workers as coowners or only the owner and his close kin as workers.

Also, he is defending the rights of employers, not specifically of shareholders or other investors. There are licit ways to invest, and I think the ideal one was that you have a right to the gains if you share the risks. This does not mean you have a right to a previously fixed interest if you had a theoretical risk of losing prior to repayment, but it does mean you have a right to get 120 % back if the company is 120 % better off, if and only if you take the risk of getting 80 % back if it's only 80 % as well off, as when you handed the loan.

Share holding is that deal, but the company serially bribing the lenders to postpone the demand for repayment. And begs the question how many times the capital you have the right to get repaid without ever acknowledging you are getting your money back.

And therefore, to the harassed workers there have come "intellectuals," as they are called, setting up in opposition to a fictitious law the equally fictitious moral principle that all products and profits, save only enough to repair and renew capital, belong by very right to the workers. This error, much more specious than that of certain of the Socialists who hold that whatever serves to produce goods ought to be transferred to the State, or, as they say "socialized," is consequently all the more dangerous and the more apt to deceive the unwary. It is an alluring poison which many have eagerly drunk whom open Socialism had not been able to deceive.

Obviously, a factory owner should be able to earn enough as owner to retire to a farm or a vineyard, I agree with the Pope.

This doesn't mean he should pay more to shareholders than to himself. So that they can buy up more housing, more land, more factories under even fewer hands.

10:38 To take your example.

Yes, such a requirement would be highly immoral. However, starting out with three other men on equal or quasi equal footing, each investing and all taking together a smaller loan, and then you four splitting according to your financial or work hour or both input is definitely not immoral that way.

That's the cooperative. It kind of relates to a one man owner and other employee situation like both in a marriage having incomes relates to one income and one housewife. Obviously, in the case of the marriage, unless husband and wife earn at the same place (as when husband is owner or coowner), the one income if feasible is preferrable, both are licit scenarios. The Church does not forbid a man from marrying a woman just because she has to keep working in order for the bills to be paid and the future children to be fed (the Church would however consider the husband's employer as unjust). Similarily, no moral theologian forbids you to seek out three other men, equally good at baking pizza and equally willing to invest, reducing the risk and amount of money loaned.

The Church has also not forbidden the idea that an employer needing to pay interest on the loan (above what a mons pietatis would charge, see Lateran V, and no, the Church has not stated that lending money can be a business to itself, a mons pietatis is a kind of social work to small business) involves undue amounts going to a financier taking so to speak a private tax on the company.

11:02 You are probably motivating the unequal reward a bit wrongly.

Yes, you have a right to it. But it comes from the fact that a contract of salary is kind of a limited contract of servitude.

These three men are under that contract within business hours of their presence, working as your tools, certainly human tools, but still tools in your hand.

Given they give up freedoms (in working hours) for your work to prosper and doing so remain fully human, you have duties to them, but not quite symmetric with their duties to you.

If however the three had been coinvestors and coowners, this would not have been the case.

Using "the risk" as a motivation for what one charges more sounds a bit like the twisted logic of taking interest. I hold to the plain meaning of Vix pervenit. In 1830, this was not overturned, just suspended when penitents were acting otherwise and felt no guilt about it, provided they were willing to change if papacy should reinforce Vix pervenit to the full.

11:47 Is the success story of Pizza Hut a full moral hit?

If the company owns each shop, I would say not. If each shop has a real owner, where Pizza Hut is a franchise they cooperate with, that's different.

Because the expansion of Pizza Hut would in the first scenario be depriving many pizzaiolos of being full owners of their own small shop, but in the second scenario, they are kind of a security around many small owners. Not totally unlike the guilds that I obviously approve of.

But even a franchise has some problems. It doesn't only earn money from each small franchise partner paying an annual fee, it also involves companies that provide for the franchise, like a meat company for Mc Donald's in each country and so on, which makes the provision for independents more of a venture.

I've seen in Paris bakeries get deliveries from a provision company that's not tied to a franchise. Meaning small bakers have equal opportunities to provide raw materials as cheaply as each other for putting tuna in the sandwich. As independent bars get beverages via Tafanel. Oh, and some brew their own. Seems preferrable.

12:43 I'm obviously against wealth taxes as well as inheritance duty.

I got really angry at Bush Jr over reading the news that:

• he had proposed to abolish inheritance duty
• he had refrained due to an intervention by "Responsible Rich"
• which intervention was motivated by "it's not good to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth" ...

The hypocricy. Any child of any billionaire in "Responsible Rich" would very certainly be born with a silver spoon, perhaps withheld partly from the mouth, but certainly there if needed, even with high levels if inheritance duty. But for the heirs of a small shop, this duty could make the difference between continuing and having to sell to the first high bidder in order to pay the duty, and then have to provide as employees instead of as business owners.

That and when his motivation to invade Afghanistan exactly mirrored that of Francis Joseph declaring war on Serbia, while he was making no excuses to Austria for WW-I or the peace treaties of Trianon and Saint-Germain en Laye. I'm obviously biassed, since born in Vienna.

13:35 And what that man of twitter hopefully meant was he wanted to do his work as an artist.

If he's doing decent art that looks good, I certainly don't mind. A certain man would have done very well to remain in that lane of business.

And, as far as I know, that man didn't quit because he was unsuccessful, he quit to join a war in a uniform which was not the passport he was born too (one reason why he was exiled from there up to 1938).

13:59 I'm not the least proposing economic security to those unwilling to work.

However, given how many business growths have happened at the expense of first opportunities for small business owners and then even employment, I'm also not pretending the idea is totally out of bounds.

I am however proposing a man should have a free choice between economic security as provided by the government, and being unwilling to take a job, with the risks that means. I've taken that risk. And while I have not taken a work, I certainly have worked and in research on the Galileo affair, somewhat better than you have done recently.

Not least Jimmy Akin who seems to propose Cardinal Baronius died in 1607 (if he recalls that), went undead to write a letter to Grand Duchess Christina in 1615 and then somehow managed to get Galileo as a front for that letter, while asking to be anonymised. I think it's more reasonable that Galileo anonymised a still living higher clergyman. Who'd have more reasons to ask for it than a man who had already died and presumably gone to Heaven either immediately or within minutes.

[See however: Marginal Note by Galileo?]

14:05 You have noted St. Paul spoke of "working" and not of "taking employment"?

Anyone who has given me anything has been offered to take a photo of or memorise an URL for a blog and so has free reading after that, and freedom to support me from time to time in accordance with his satisfaction.

No one has been required to give in order to get the reading, just as a street singer doesn't require all who listen to put mponey in his hat or guitar box and just as an albergue de peregrinos does not require everyone to donate for the night (but in that case, as beds are limited, it's obviously their discretion if they take the pilgrim with no money or not and with how much or little reduction). Neither albergueros like Ave Fenix nor street singers necessarily go broke by this and no sane man pretends they refuse to work in the sense of St. Paul. Obviously, Calvinists, or culturally Calvinist Catholics are not sane ...

15:33 And the Plymouth colony went from communal to ... capitalist? Free market and freedom to expand, like Pizza Hut? No, to Distributism.

Each man owning roughly equal farming lots. Men could sell and buy produce, but no one was supposed to sell his farm or buy up that of a neighbour either.

It may be noted that Plymouth colonists didn't have the charity to work communally back then and their descendants have now not the justice to protect the unborn. They were the founders of Massachusetts.

15:59 The problem wasn't communal farming in Ukraine.

The problem was communal farming in the Volga valley.

When Lenin was still a revolutionary in opposition, the Volga valley had a famine too.

Farming in the Volga valley was neglected in favour of industrialism. The Revolution didn't change that.

To hide this fact, the revolutionaries, based in the Volga valley plundered Ukraine and nearby Kuban.

That the means was a pretense of communalising farming doesn't mean that communalising was the core problem. Ukraine's and Kuban's harvests kept being good, but were just displaced to Volga valley where they weren't always good under collective ownership and hadn't been always good under boyar ownership either.

Precisely as Capitalism caused the potato famine insofar as each tenant dying for lack of potatoes could equally have been kept alive by presence of wheat, except the landlords wanted the wheat to do business as usual in Belfast or Bristol or Edinburgh.

Hence Rerum Novarum stating that if someone worked for you, you owe him a livelihood, pretty obviously as opposed for instance to literal contractual recompense even if that for some reason is inadequate for livelihood.

17:42 Wait, Mamdani wants to use tax dollars to invest in five shops with discounts?

Presumably, the shops are privately owned by the NYC government, right?

What's exactly socialist about that?

And before you say that the 30 % discount would make them outcompete other, totally privately owned shops, do you even know what underpricing was in Capitalist success stories like Vanderbildt, Rockefeller and John Pierpont Morgan Sr. and their rise to power?

17:49 You actually did mention underpricing!

Even if the discount is only 30 % and the shops are only five.

Tell me, how does a normal supermarket survive the competition of Lidl and Aldi?

Somehow they do ... and the man who was so much about Capitalism deserves bc of risk taking is upset because 5 shops with 30 % discount are a risk ...

17:56 What exactly did Pius IX mean by "harvest of misery"?

The condition of things at present proclaims, and proclaims vehemently, that there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and-their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.

Graves de communi was by Leo XIII.

In other words, he was talking of civil war, not of economic ill success.

18:05 People buying discounted items and reselling is a problem that can be solved by policing.

So, probably not the greatest risk with Mamdani.

[Given the hostile architecture in London, which also has a Muslim mayor, I googled "Mamdani, hostile architecture" and found this: ‘Hostile Architecture’: How Public Spaces Keep the Public Out. However, the article doesn't actually feature Mamdani and is from 2019, when the probable suspect was Bill de Blasio, also Democrat, but not Muslim.]

18:30 Come on, on Cuba, unlike Mamdani's NYC, there was a ban on private productive economy.

Fidel Castro (or Infidel C if you prefer) did think the discipline of food rations was good for people, like some people think working as employee is inherently beneficial to character, in their judgement of those wanting to make it otherwise.

19:59 Finally a good point.

A very good point.

When economically or just culturally socialist officials decide what apologists deserve, we tend to get somewhat short.

Never did I say otherwise.

[It might be added, some culturally socialist ones may be tip top Capitalistic by now ...]

What About Jews and Catholics over Centuries?

Jesus: The Rabbi We Forgot Was Jewish
HIGHWAY 53 - by Jeff Morgan | 17 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC5wW1RrF_Q

5:42 Don't worry.

There are Swedish Nazis (pretty nice people usually, the bunch that are around today) who will remind you.

"Jesus was a Marrano-Jew who founded" forgot whether he said "the Catholic Church" or "Christianity" (both answers are correct and mean the same) ... what a high compliment to Marranos, thank you!!!

12:52 I suppose that "rabbi" back then basically means like "sensei" ...

The current office that a synagogue hires a man for after his exams is probably later and plagiarised from Catholic clergy as describes in Epistles to Titus and Timothy.

19:26 Those rejecting Christ are not currently in good standing with the Head of the Family.

Y haM v M haY or someone ...

Irving was wrong to call Catholicism (if not Protestantism) "Gentile Christianity" ... Catholics are just telling what is now called Jews what Jesus told what was then called Samaritans.

Also family. Also in quarrel with the actual household. Also currently no source of salvation as long as that goes on.

20:04 The guys who cried "we have no king but Caesar" are the square of "we don't want Rohoboam, we want Jeroboam" ...

21:37 I think St. Ignatius of Loyola (one close associate of whom was the Marrano Diego Laynez) took a cue from that.

Spiritual diary. Draw lines, along your besetting sins. You know the order of the lines or you know what you call them in alphabet letters what they mean, no one else need know.

Every time you do one kind of sin, you put a spot on that line.

I haven't done that really. But I think it might be good.

24:10 I think Second Temple Judaism has persecuted Samarians.

Just mentioning as a comparison.

24:39 I think that was superficial.

Yes, it has to do with Jesus. Just as Jews persecuting Samarians in that day has to do with King David.

But also, as a Catholic, I see the accusations of persecution from the other end.

Spain expelled Jews who didn't convert. AND ... Isabella the Catholic is not canonised.

Two saints expelled Jews too.

Here is where I am obliged to defend the expulsions.

St. Lewis expelled Jewish usurers. He then expelled Lombardic usurers. He then failed to successfully curb indigenous French usurers, but he tried. Deuteronomy 23:19

St. Pius V expelled Jews ... except if they lived in the Ghettos of Rome and Ancona. And he gave them 90 days to leave, the Papal states are just 90 km broad, so they could leave taking a Sabbath journey each day. The reason was magic, sacrilege, corruption of the morality of Christian women. Yes, there were Jews who thought it was a nice move to play sex gurus to Italian daughters or wives.

In the Holy Roman Empire, Jews were targetted for killing or plunder in one of two circumstances.

1) When there was no emperor. Rintfleisch massacres in 1298, while two men were claiming the empire: "Die Rintfleisch-Verfolgung ist in ihrer räumlichen Ausdehnung und Heftigkeit ohne die Thronstreitigkeiten zwischen Albrecht I. von Österreich und Adolf von Nassau nicht zu verstehen. Ihretwegen war ein bedeutender Teil der fränkischen Landesherren bis zur entscheidenden Schlacht bei Göllheim am 2. Juli 1298 und noch kurz danach mit bedeutenden Truppenkontingenten abwesend.", a certain period ending in 1945, which began after WW-I had taken away Emperors from both Vienna and Berlin.
2) In a certain region. Most of which lost contact with the Holy Roman Empire, and partly by becoming Protestant. Strassburg saw a pogrom. Strassburg also saw Bucer. Lake Constance saw a pogrom (and a monk prayed for the American homeland for the end times) and Lake Constance is in Switzerland, divorced from HRE in the Peace of Westphalia. Rhineland is also a region where this happened in the First Crusade, the popular Crusade ... where the preacher took his leave from it after seeing this happen. The Knights' Crusade was different. It's leader was called Jeff too.

Other targetting was special inhibitions, which was clearly more common, or punishment for sacrilege or blasphemy. But not wanton plunder or killing.

25:52 If He spoke about Pesakh, I'd ask Him about the dates ...

John 19:14 has been the sword that was sent between Austria and Serbia in 1914. Does "parascheve of the pasch" mean "Friday within Pesakh" or does it mean the day when you get rid of Chametz in this context? And if the latter, why did He keep the Seder on a different date from those who rejected Him?

One Caerularius pretended "no it wasn't an actual Seder" and also concluded azymes are invalid matter for the Eucharist. Gavril Princip was of his school. Francis Ferdinand was of the school which receives unleavened communion and holds that yes, the Last Supper actually was a Seder.

26:20 And the Catholic Church didn't tone down the (Second Temple) Jewish stuff either.

Judaism did.

27:19 The Jews who reject Jesus are to Catholics (including of Jewish background) like Helsings historically were to Swedes in the Kingdom of a back then much smaller Sweden.

Or some would be happy to fill in "like Americans to Brits" (I have an English Catholic friend who every 4 of July tells his American friends "happy traitor day") ...

27:34 The family that brought it to us would clearly involve a Jew from Galilee and a Jew from Tarsus martyred in Rome under Nero one 29 June.

I'm less happy to consider Poppaea as part of "the family that brought it to us" unless she makes up with Peter and Paul.

28:31 If you want to really support the family that brought it to us. Here are the options. Jewish converts to Catholicism. Protestant converts to Catholicism with Jewish background further back (that's me). Marranos. Christian Palestinians.

As to the state of "Israel" I'm afraid it has been described in pretty accurate detail about its capital in Apoc. 11:8.

No, I'm Not Dispensationalist and Not The Run of the Mill Christian Zionist

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, I'm Not Dispensationalist and Not The Run of the Mill Christian Zionist · New blog on the kid: A Strong Delusion ... · Stephen Powell Seems to be on a One Man "Crusade" (or Jihad) Against Candace Owens

Dispensationalism Didn't Come From Darby — It Started With A Lie
Wholehearted Ness Podcast | 8 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4PRBUEYZQ

3:21 The literality of 1260 times 24 hours (rather than times 365 days) is actually not new to Catholicism.

The non-literality qualified as "prophetic days = actual years" is new to Protestantism a bit earlier, like in Newton (a Protestant and a Non-Trinitarian, as well as a Mechanicist who saw God in corporeal terms).

That Luther and Calvin saw papacy as the Antichrist (and Calvin saw St. Gregory I as one of the last Popes not to be the Antichrist) didn't necessarily reflect into that detailed views about the world wide rule of the Antichrist.

In Catholicism, both Patristic and Medieval, the Antichrist was seen as an individual, but as a specific one, not as the office held by an individual.

And 1260 days was seen as literal both in regards to Henoch and Elias and in regard to the Antichrist (usually, I think, not concurrently but consecutively).

3:35 That part, he is against Catholic tradition at least the majority version.

The chapter 20 of the Apocalypse is referencing a "first resurrection" which equals "from sin" and not "from corporeal death" and which therefore takes place in Baptism and in Confession, sometimes in Extreme Unction, in Communion, in Spiritual longing for the Sacraments.

I agree the saints reign in Heaven 1000 years .... on average.

St. Stephen Protomartyr has reigned 1992 and 1995 years in Heaven, supposing he was killed the calendar year after the Death and Resurrection and depending on whether that was AD 33 or 30.

Carlo Acutis and Clare Crockett, who are not yet validly canonised, but I presume are in Heaven, have been reigning respectively 20 and 10 years.

(1992 + 10) / 2 = 1001 years, but we know St. Stephen and Sister Crockett are not the only two, and the total number, therefore the actual medium time they have been in Heaven, is known to God alone.

So, the millennium already started by Pentecost AD 33, whether it was that year or three years earlier.

4:07 God's covenant with ethnic Israel is ongoing in each ethnically Israelite Catholic ... whether he be an individual convert baptised by Monsignor Ghica, a Marrano from the Baleares or a Palestinian from Bethlehem.

It is also broadened to ethnically non-Israelite Catholics.

I'm covered on both sides of my ancestry, insofar as I remain a good Catholic (or become one again).

4:22 A partial return of Jews to the Holy Land, in connection with their conversion seems to have been taught by Anne Catherine Emerick, independently of Lacunza.

A reading of Apocalypse 11 seems to indicate sth like that.

And the treading by the Gentiles may refer to some violence by Zionist Israelis, and against precisely Christian Palestinians.

4:28 Not even fragments ... well, a millennium after Armageddon was actually taught by Justin Martyr and a few more, before Lacunza.

To Justin it seemed to be the majority view.

5:33 The "Gentile Church" in Irving is a misnomer.

Catholics are Jews and Gentiles united, not one separate from the other. Note I'm including Marranos and Palestinians in the count, not just individual converts from Judaism.

8:27 Two tenets of Lacunza, sourced before him.

Both on Apoc. 13:1.

Ver. 1. I saw a beast coming out of the sea. By this first beast several understand antichrist, as St. Irenaeus, lib. v. chap. xxviii. and St. Gregory, lib. xxxi. Moral. chap. xli. But this is not certain. By the other beast[1] coming up out of the earth, (ver. 11) many understand antichrist's false prophet, some famous impostor and magician in antichrist's time, who will do great wonders and signs. The seven heads and ten horns, may again signify a great number of kings and princes, who shall be overcome by antichrist, and submit themselves to him. The dragon, or devil, gives that great power to antichrist, signified by the different parts of the beast, some like to a leopard, others to a bear, and others to a lion. The head wounded to death and cured, is either antichrist himself or some one of those heads or kings, cured by the devil and diabolical arts after a mortal wound. (Witham)

This first beast, with seven heads and ten horns, is probably the whole company of infidels, enemies and persecutors of the people of God, from the beginning to the end of the world. The seven heads are seven kings, that is, seven principal kingdoms or empires; which have exercised, or shall exercise, tyrannical power over the people of God: of these, five were then fallen, viz. the Egyptian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Grecian monarchies: one was present, viz. the empire of Rome: and the seventh and the chiefest was to come, viz. the great antichrist and his empire. The ten horns may be understood of ten lesser persecutors. (Challoner)

So, Witham considered that the antichrist is a future tyrant.

Challoner that it's a system, but not futurist.

Witham is probably not George Witham (16 May 1655 – 16 April 1725), but Robert Witham (1667–1738), both dead before Lacunza came to manhood.

Challoner is Richard Challoner (29 September 1691 – 12 January 1781), whose life overlapped with Lacunzas.

Now, in favour of a "future" (or no longer so) Antichrist system, one can mention that A) Antichrist can't come to power in an absolute vacuum, he needs a power base, and B) St. Paul says the Great Apostasy must happen first.

However, I would not consider that a late Apostasy within the Catholic Church is this beast, I rather take that as Harlot ... I'm wary when I see clergy persecute the Latin Mass, Traditional Nuns or Young Earth Creationists. As to the Beast it's probably a much wider coalition than the Apostate parts of Catholicism, and apostasised much earlier and sometimes indirectly.

With four leopard heads as Judaism, Islam, Calvinism and (probably) Freemasonry. I could be wrong, the fourth leopard head could be Dispensationalist Free Churchers, and Freemasonry be entirely "mouth of a lion" ... which is otherwise where I would cast Liberal Anglicans and Liberal Lutherans, the majority over in Europe (the remaining faithful are a different matter, even if not actual Catholics).

Bear, mystical Persia and Russia (with passivity against power quasi required).

Fourth Beast, end times version = Communism (and might involve atheist versions of Freemasonry, like Grand Orient). Its "state religion" is DiaMat, which features Heliocentrism and Evolution. Its "Inquisition" is Psychiatry, when it isn't KGB or clerical KGB agents. Oh, FSB ...