YEC is Correct, Protestantism Isn't

Someone answered below video like this:

Young earth creationism is based on a catalogue of lies and disinformation against science.

OK, saying a scientist is wrong is "disinformation" against him? If so, scientists are "disinforming" against each other all the time. Or, other possibility, "science" means your catalogue of "scientific" beliefs, and anyone contradicting them is doing "lies and disinformation" ... you can find the guy among commenters, I'll give him a link to the blog post here when it's published.

But here is the video, pretty good overall, I weighed in on two minor details, or minor in this context, but major in very many other ones (see below the video), and here is first the video:

Christians, NEVER Make These Bible Interpretation Mistakes
Answers in Genesis Canada | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iATXJOroJeU

Dialogue I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

4:36 Disagree on thirty-fold, sixty-fold and hundred-fold fruit.

They mean degrees of holiness. In chastity it goes like married, widow(er), lifelong virgin.

Jim Hughes

@jimhughes1070

😂 it doesn't...
really 🧐
But that is a perfect example of "a private interpretation" that has no scriptural foundation.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness

No one gets to the throne room without going through Jesus....

There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible.

"Therefore be ye holy, even as He is Holy."

There is no "1/4 of the way to God" concept in Scripture...
You are either 'in' , fighting against your flesh.... Or you're still on the outside.

Even "good works" are Fruit of the Spirit.
Some Christians seek all of the gifts of the Spirit... Some do not, but they can always be counted on to pray for others in need. Love Is Love.

Paul said whoever you give yourself over to obey, that is whose servant you are.

Of course I do understand that there are 49,000 different denominations.
Different doctrines. different creeds. Different ways of worshiping.

Lots and lots of
"Different"

One Bible telling us that we should all live by the same rule... The same Word.... In The same Spirit.

Isn't that a curious thing?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jimhughes1070 "There are no degrees of "holiness" in the Bible."

Oh, there are.

Luke 18 depicts Jesus calling the rich young man to a higher degree of holiness than he had so far lived.

A parable about talents depicts the master giving more to the one who had won more and less to the one who had won less (only punishing the guy who had won nothing, because he buried the talent).

The one item of "equal" heavenly reward is the men who had arrived 1 h before the day ended and who got same pay.

But the point isn't all get absolutely the same heavenly reward, it's it isn't affected by seniority in service. The good robber began very late, perhaps an hour before he died ... and he's holier than most of us can hope to be.

It is also so not a private interpretation as it is an actual Catholic interpretation, namely St. Thomas Aquinas cites a Church Father for this one.

The connected doctrine is still taught and I learned it in Catechism preparing for conversion. The very opposite of private interpretation.

joe moricone

@tennis563

@hglundahl really go ahead and show me in scripture where one person, other than Jesus obviously, is holier than others. Holiness isn't earned by us it is what Jesus earned on the cross. Jesus didn't call the rich young ruler to a higher degree of holiness He made him realize his posesssions were his god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "He made him realize his posesssions were his god."

Doesn't say that.

Now, loving Jesus is holiness, and here is one candidate for holier:

When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
[John 21:15]

joe moricone

@hglundahl really then why did Jesus ask him to give up his posessions and He doesn't ask that of others? how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else? You think holiness is earned ie a work?

Hebrews 10:10 (NIV): "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 "and He doesn't ask that of others?"

He also basically asked that of the Apostles.

Not sure if even their fishing boats are their own.

"how does that show Peter is any holier than anyone else?"

Because Jesus accepted Peter as loving Him more than the other apostles did.

Loving Jesus is holiness, and here Jesus is specifically grading it.

"You think holiness is earned ie a work?"

You think winning arguments is about strawmanning?

The beginning of holiness, known as justification, isn't earned by works, the increase in holiness is, see Ephesians 2:8 to 10.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.
[Hebrews 12:14]

Parallellish to:

And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men
[Luke 2:52]

Again, "advanced" implies gradation.

joe moricone

@hglundahl you have to assume the fishing boats were their own and there is no indication they weren't. Peter loved Jesus more than the others? don't see where you get that in scripture. in fact if you look at the greed Jesus asked do you AGAPE me? Peter answered with PHILEO a brotherly love not the Godly love that AGAPE is.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

so nothing about those works increasing our holiness.

that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man. Jesus is God almighty from birth so He knew everything and needed no grace since He is sinless. you really have some odd ideas about scripture

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tennis563 Fishing boats could, for two brother pairs, belong to the dads, so Jonas and Zebedee.

Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have
[Matthew 19:27]

"Peter loved Jesus more than the others?"

It would seem that Jesus accepted this as being so, even if Peter didn't directly answer yes to that. The very least is, Jesus accepted this as being a possibility, or He wouldn't have asked.

Ephesians 2
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Good citation.

"so nothing about those works increasing our holiness."

False. Since our holiness is God's doing, not ours, and since these works are God's doing, insofar as we accept to actually do them, they precisely increase God's doing (and being) in us, which is the definition of holiness.

"that was referring to Jesus growing up as a man."

Precisely. And therefore it concerns us too, since we are to conform to Him. Obviously most directly to what He did as a Man, including growing in grace.

Dialogue II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:23 Note, St Paul plainly doesn't take knowledge of God and obedience to Christ as involving Scripture alone.

Subsection II a

James Krych

@jameskrych7767

The more noble Berean Jews would like a word or two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jameskrych7767 The Bereans were precisely not yet Christians while the one common ground they already had with St. Paul was OT Scripture.

Berea or Viria is still a parish in the diocese or metropoly (archdiocese) of Thessaloniki.

Subsection II b

T W

@tw2107-s7i

where does he say that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i Yes, exactly, the quote doesn't mention sola scriptura, that's what I could be asking you.

T W

@hglundahl so you can't back up what you said.
2 Timothy 3

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tw2107-s7i You mean it's saying Scripture is ... sufficient (without anything else as rational faith input) for "every good work"?

Sorry, but "servant of God" is a technical term, doesn't mean every Christian, but those set aside, and these have already, usually before going to Scripture, received Catholic catechesis.

Here are two verses you didn't quote:

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus
[2 Timothy 3:14-15]

This makes it clear:

• OT Scripture is the point, it is only salvific through faith in Jesus Christ, which at this point even in your view was mainly accessible to St. Timothy in oral tradition;
• and this oral tradition is even stated, namely St. Paul reminds St. Timothy that St. Paul was the Catechist of St. Timothy.

Attacked by Enemies of the Faith, Betrayed from Within

New blog on the kid: Do I Have Jewish Enemies? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Attacked by Enemies of the Faith, Betrayed from Within

The Beast Wants Your Will. Here's How to Win.
Fr. Jason Charron | 20 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrrHVMYhaMA

"better than religious people understand religion"

The reason why Soviets insisted, one must believe Heliocentrism and Evolution, from Oparin's Abiogenesis on, and religious people have said "oh, you can believe ..." and they will lump it together, perhaps excluding Abiogenesis, as "the Science" ...

10:03 Are fellows in your Church judging me by that criterium?

When I'm offline, I'm offline. I have far less control over my situation offline, because I'm surrounded. But I do not check updates, because I have no apparatus to do it on. I own no phone. And if I some mornings rush back online as soon as a library or a cyber is open, it's because my offline existence is being harrassed. When I'm online, I want to be online, without people trying to "wean" me. Unfortunately, as I'm on computers that I borrow, there are people who are capable of arranging disturbances when I'm online too like preventing me from signing in again on my email.

If a mail I'm waiting for isn't checked while I can, I may need to wait to tomorrow before I see it, and that can, for some of them, be too late.

The diagnosis "internet addiction" was invented by doctors in Red China. If you are helping shrinks to control my life on the excuse of "helping me against internet addiction" you are:

• degrading my possibilities to get paid for my work
• and adding to the frustrations in my daily life.

The huge difficulty with praying the Rosary, for me, is, a certain line in Our Father. What does Our Lord mean as I forgive you guys? Yes, I also have a hard time forgiving the guys who are using you, but to them, I'm, as a Catholic intellectual, at least an adversary. In your case, you are committing treason, or if you take it very harshly that I have another Pope than you, at the very least a Communist parody on pastoral. But reworking your pastoral on Communist principles is as such treason.

Addendum, next day:

The Convert Problem: When OrthoBros become OrthoBrats
Fr. Jason Charron | 21 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdIb8JtoEwc

Just in case you think that's where I'm coming from, no.

When I spoke of your Pope, I meant as opposed to ours that being His Holiness Michael II.

And since I returned from the Orthodox, seeing part too modernist and part too anti-Catholic and part both, Novus Ordo's have probably more than once helped their vendetta on me.

Like for saying Bishop Pablo de Ballester of Nazianzus (Ballester-Convallier) either misunderstood St. Robert Bellarmin, or lied about him, or accepted a fake translation, and lied about where he had found the quote. Like for saying his killer was probably not simply a Catholic fanatic madman. Even if they'd like that.

After getting the real quote in a library run by Dominicans, I was quickly banned from that library, probably because OrthoBros in Paris had complained about my pretended "misuse" and how unecumenical it was.

---

The blog posts I wrote in this connection are, on my first (of now three) main blog(s), Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine · Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote) · Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post — the author of the blog Mystagogy and of the post I reacted to is one John Sanidopoulos who by now is an Orthodox priest. He has hidden the post and the blog and his profile. He has rebooted his blog and the post, which is now visible again as "Why I Abandoned Papism" by Bishop Paul Ballester-Convallier. Without my comments below it. My visit to the library, La Salchoire, is evident in the midmost of the three posts on my own first main blog.

I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I've Noted Some of My Readers Hate Tolkien · HGL's F.B. writings: Are Some Presenting me as Toxic Because of Tolkien?

Apart from rumours he was a National Socialist, when in fact he quarrelled with NS censors in Germany on being asked about his "Arian purity" and went out of his way to defend the Jewish race, apart from rumours he was an Illuminato who got a special permission from their council to divulge runes, a rumour arising in the US, while in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, but also UK, Netherlands, Scandinavia, runes were at this point common knowledge both among learned people and even among school children (my mother who was born 1947 had a book on Swedish literary history which starts with runes), apart from such rumours, there are another class.

"Tolkien wrote badly, he has so many plotholes."

Not as many as Isaac Asimov ... where did Hari Seldon get the raw data to calculate his percentages of chances in psychostatistics or whatever that unreadable stuff was? ... and finding one not already answered (like the Eagles) is pretty hard. Here is a try, then my reply:

The Witch-king and The Shire Plot Hole
Darth Gandalf | 13 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-e2sxl-ss4

That leaves us with the answer, "The Witch King never learned about the Shire." Or in other words, he was focused on capturing Fornost and the rest of Arthodine didn't matter to him. But this would be really odd for an experienced military campaigner like the Witch King. If you're planning on conquering a kingdom, you want all the information you can possibly get your hands on. You would have spies in their lands and detailed maps.

That's supposing detailed maps existed at this point in history.

Did Frederick II of Prussia know where Appenzell was? I think that's about as close as Shire to Fornost. I don't think he knew.

Even if he loved cheese, I was just going to suggest that he might have had Tilsit cheese closer to home, and I just found out he didn't, that production started in the 19th C.

Internet allowing me to verify when Tilsit cheese started, Tilsit cheese, two things that didn't exist in Frederick II's day. A bit further back, detailed maps could be added to the list. Xenophon didn't give a detailed map of Persia and didn't have one. Even if repeatedly he says "pente parasangas" we don't know how far that is. Presumably he was less good in geography than we would be. Thror's map was not all that detailed and it was an item from the dwarves, not men.

So, I presume the Witch-King was simply as bad in geography as many Medievals would have been.

on the battle-field

A Saracen who saw a Belgian (like Geoffroy de Bouillon) on the battle-field might not know where Belgium was.

[Many of the other commenters suggested a translation issue: he never knew the Shire under that name, it was known in a different way when he was a ruler closeish by.]

---

Do try to make a Middle Earth plot holes series!

I predict you will find his plot holes internally are rare. The one glaring plot hole with both archaeology and Christianity is saying this is our world in a pre-Christian era, and Tolkien admitted it was "an imaginary time" a k a an Uchronia.

Joe Heschmeyer and Alms

Will I Go to Hell If I Don’t Help Every Homeless Person?
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 13 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDMUvjSnTDw

The good thing on your post is, you nailed it, the caller could have had a genuine call from God.

Imagine people taking that man for a drunkard and drug addict and giving him only food, and he needs to wash ... or imagine God wanted the caller to meet someone else through him or through stepping off the bus and talking to him.

But "intentionality" and Didache.

What Didache sounds to me is, like I did (despite being homeless myself, when I had money) when I took out money every day, and usually 10 or 20 € (it was 2011 or 2012). I took out the money in a bill. I changed the bill for the first thing I needed to buy. I took 1/10 (so, 1 or 2 €) and took the first possible chance to give it to someone. (It's less easy to do this when taking out once or twice a week, since beggars will be there other days too).

I was taking responsibility for myself in a goats and sheep perspective.

What you recommend is taking responsibility for the other ... in a perspective that sounds Quranic. "If someone is doing it for God, if someone is disabled, if someone is ignorant, if someone is in discomfort, if someone is your friend" ... but to no one else. Apparently. Not sure I didn't misquote, but actually Mohammed personally was better than "his god" when he spoke "do not regret it, even if you see him riding away on a horse" ...

And "addictions" ... some evil doers will try to apply a Commie Chinese diagnosis invented in 2004, "internet addict" which to someone actually writing as a kind of trade on the internet is like calling a baker an "oven heat addict" ... even to pure consumers, as an avid reader back in my youth, I'm happy they hadn't invented the term "book addict" ...

Ascension

HGL's F.B. writings: A Heliocentic Heckled the Ascension of Jesus · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reflection on the Ascension · Ascension

Does Jesus Still Have His Body?
Dr Taylor Marshall | 15 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONXdT5F51k

Next question is obviously where is this Body of the God-Man.

"Only on the altars" is obviously wrong.

I hold, in Empyrean Heaven, above the sphere of the fix stars, probably Heavenly Jerusalem is right above the coordinates of Earthly Jerusalem.

Heliocentrics have a problem and as a consequence disunity.

An SSPX priest in St. Nicolas invoked the immortality of risen bodies as a solution. Jimmy Akin said sth like "not our three-dimensional space, but like it in respect of capacity of receiving bodies" ... the obvious solution is Geocentrism.

Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

New blog on the kid: Preston's Death · Should Amy Shepherdson Stand Trial? · Preston Davey Case · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

I tried to add this question:

Who Knows Who the Mother of Preston Davey Is, and Why She Was Set Aside?

I do not get it published, but when I push the button, I get:

This question should be more general. Try starting your question with 'What is...', 'How do I...' or 'Why does..

Papacy and Geocentrism

What JESUS Teaches About HIS Church! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 14 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-URS075N0

7:43 So, Caiaphas = Shebna, Cephas = Eliacim.

Call it replacement theology or not, at least it teaches "translatio sacerdotii" very clearly.

13:45 I sense a little pique about my position.

We would agree that Paul III (?) over Urban VIII bound in regards of banning not just putting the Sun at the absolute centre, but also having Earth move, annually or daily or both. And that they were successors of Peter, indeed given the power to bind and loose.

You would say "John Paul II" was successor of Peter and had the power to loose, and he did so in 1992. From experience, I have seen people state he went further and bound, namely in § 283 of the CCC. In 2001, I was one day a parishioner in a reverent Novus Ordo parish (I hadn't renounced SSPX, but they don't hold that "normal" curates and bishops steal authority with a non-pope, nor that the Novus Ordo is always invalid).

I was promoting my YEC position to a newer convert (after 1990, so he did promise to agree with current positions of the magisterium, even non-infallible ones, and implicitly even non-traditional ones). He told me, showing me that paragraph, that I was wrong.

In Paris, also, even before going Sede and Conclavist, while attending SSPX Masses, I met this attitude from people in "normal" parishes, like the ones hosting breakfast for homeless in St. Ambroise' parish house.

My solution is, Wojtyla was not Pope. Meaning, the office is or was empty, and if it was empty someone else could be elected. RIP, Pope Michael I. Vivat, Pope Michael II.