Did it Happen, or Is It Misanalysis of Models?

I frankly don't know, because the videast isn't disclosing the arguments of this, now pretty widespread, view among Academics.

8,000 Years Ago Women Made a Choice That Erased 90% of Men Forever
Psychryptoria | 6 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=054XkNgMsWU

Final thoughts.

Wealth accumulation isn't going away. Collectivising it will not counter an evil capital concentration, it will more likely radicalise it, into the hands of those controlling collective wealth.

And mankind won't be around 5000 years from now, with a history still ongoing, the best things we can do now is trying to allow happiness to flourish now and for the next generation, not implement drastic schemes that can destroy liberties for now but just might prove of evolutionary value in 5000 years time into the future. That future will not exist. 5000 is a little less time than between Adam and Christ, there is no way the time between First and Second coming (already at 2000 years) will outlast that.

4:57 Between 8000 and 5000 years ago.

6000 to 3000 BC (carbon dated).

2327 BC (!)

63.519 pmC, dated as 6079 BC

This is between Shela's death and Sarug's birth.*

1779 BC

85.963 pmC, dated as 3029 BC

This is after Ishmael died.*

So, did this kind of thing last for 3000 years? Or for 548 of them?

I'd say the latter and in this era when being a man who has descendants now meant so much of "being chosen" ... Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were also chosen. By God.

Psychryptoria

@Psychryptoria

Thanks for bringing up the dating question! You're right to note the difference between calibrated dates and the duration. The genetic studies I referenced use molecular clock models that suggest the bottleneck period itself lasted roughly 2,000-3,000 years (with peak intensity around 7,000-5,000 years ago), though dating precision at these timescales always has uncertainty ranges.

The key point isn't the exact century-by-century timeline, but the pattern: for an extended period during the Neolithic transition, we see dramatically reduced Y-chromosome diversity while mitochondrial DNA stayed stable. Whether that's 500 years or 3,000 years in specific regions, the social dynamics that created it remain worth examining.

I appreciate you engaging with the details—these conversations help refine our understanding!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Psychryptoria Oh, molecular clock ... even less accurate than carbon dating, then.

I don't mean 500 years for a specific region, but I presumed the researchers had done palaeogenetics for carbon dated 10000 YA and for 8000 YA and found a pretty normal male reproduction, and then palaeogenetics for 5000 years ago and found only 1 in 17 lineages remaining.

Those 3000 crucial years would all over earth be reduced to 548 years in my calibration.

However, if the real issue is "the genetic clock" showed such and such a timespan, that's a different story. What if Y chromosomes mutate more or less than mitochondriae and so this miscalculates what's the same lineage with mutations and what's a different lineage?

Because "10 000 years ago" or "8000 BC", that's 401 after a world wide Flood, and just after the Flood, before anyone was born, humanity was 3 men with their father, each having a wife.

9:38 This is inaccurate.

The agricultural societies of Pre-Flood times have been wiped out by the Flood. But they were the main thing for 2262 years.

A human society dominated by hunting gathering only lasted from the Flood to 401 years later. The beginning of agriculture coincides roughly with the fall of Babel (a k a Göbekli Tepe), and I mean, agriculture as dominant.

"10 000 years ago" = "8000 BC" = 2556 BC.**

Psychryptoria

My video focuses on the mainstream scientific interpretation of the genetic and archaeological evidence, which dates the Neolithic agricultural revolution to roughly 10,000 years ago and the Y-chromosome bottleneck to 8,000-5,000 years ago based on molecular clock models and multiple independent dating methods. The genetic patterns I discuss—the 17:1 female-to-male reproduction ratio and the bottleneck itself—are well-documented in peer-reviewed studies regardless of absolute dating. The key point is understanding how the shift to agriculture and resource accumulation created new social dynamics that shaped human reproduction. I appreciate you engaging with the content, even from a different interpretive angle!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Psychryptoria "My video focuses on the mainstream scientific interpretation"

I gathered as much.

"which dates the Neolithic agricultural revolution to roughly 10,000 years ago and the Y-chromosome bottleneck to 8,000-5,000 years ago based on molecular clock models and multiple independent dating methods."

Multiple meaning which ones apart from carbon?

"The genetic patterns I discuss—the 17:1 female-to-male reproduction ratio and the bottleneck itself—are well-documented in peer-reviewed studies regardless of absolute dating."

OK, which is it?

Do we find 17 times x Y-chromosome lineages in skeleta dated by carbon to 8000 years ago and 1 times x in those dated to 5000 years ago?

Or are the dates and perhaps even the assessments of what the separate lineages were just dependendent on someone assessing by "the genetical clock" that it happened?

By "documented" using my history based approach, I'd mean "documented" in primary sources, but you seem to mean a different thing, it's "documented" that scientists came to this result and you aren't presenting their methodology so I can scrutinise it for possible logical errors. Or obviously fallacious dependence on the mainstream but nevertheless false Evolutionist narrative.

16:06 "infant mortality is high"

Proven by what metric of our observations?

18:53 Christianity, by banning polygamy, equalised reproductive success for men.

Obviously, if men are free to hold harems and if children of concubines are as high status as children of a (main) wife, that's very different.

It created female hypergamy and a kind of masculinity in men that some of us, including me, find toxic. And note, this is probably far less the case with the Muslim community I am noting with some displeasure, than with the people who invented idolatry after having known the worship of one God (or of a parody of Him) in their older generations.

Because, the end of the timeline you propose equals the beginning of idol statues, Ishtar temples here and necropoles of god kings there (Newgrange) ...

---

* Citing the post Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt. For the former date, 2361 BC is when Shelah died, 2295 BC is when Serug was born. The (!) is because the full calculation of the pmC value involved three consecutive sixes, so could be the time when Nimrod died. I calculated the pmC before the the carbon dated year.

** Here the carbon dated year, as last carbon date of Göbekli Tepe, is per se identified with the Biblical and real year when Babel ended, 401 after the Flood when Peleg was born. The pmC value was calculated from the number of extra years and is 51.766 pmC.

What About the Oral Torah?

Did Moses REALLY Give Us an Oral Torah? Reacting to Rabbi Tovia Singer
Reason & Theology | 5 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbygRTQI6vM

6:40 The oral transmission could have been preserved but dismissed?*

7:26 We know it isn't, they rejected the true Christ and so the views on what the Torah commanded were reassessed accordingly, falsifying it.

If you want the correct oral Torah, you need to get it from Apostolic Tradition, not Rabbinic.

Sts. Paul and Timothy were repositories of the oral Torah before they became Christians and became the fulfilment of that by becoming Christians.

* Mr. Lofton refers to the loss of the book of the law, recovered by IV Kings 22, arguing, the oral tradition needs to have been lost too. I argue it could have been preserved and dismissed.

Thank You Very Much Mr. Lofton

@reasonandtheology
Did Pope Benedict XVI Believe the Magisterium Has Erred?*
Mailbag: What is the Age of Consent in Catholicism?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jV0R-eCFcE4

As to consent, 1917 also sees it as puberty, and also takes the biological medium age rounded to nearest whole year.

Yes, marriage is raised to 16 for a male, 14 for a female, BUT in order to contract infamy by law, in that specific category one could equate to "pedocriminal", the limit remains 14 /12.

As you may know, the people who reject "Vatican II" and its "popes", we still hold to 1917.

16 and 14 are when c. 95 % of males and females each have gone through puberty.

* Haven't seen the whole video this is a clip from, but if he did, that's a warning flag against taking him for having been Pope.

Sharing on Abortion of Girls ...

Sex selective abortions MILLIONS of Girls being aborted where are the Feminists ??? #womensrights
Marion O'Riordan | 26 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEYeez1VQng

Christine Niles on (against) the claims of "Fake Sister Lucy"

New blog on the kid: Sharing About Sr. Lucy of Fatima · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Christine Niles on (against) the claims of "Fake Sister Lucy"

'Fake' Sister Lucy Revisited | FORWARD BOLDLY
Christine Niles | 26.XI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7KAIK_CGs

I take it, your position is, Elderly Sister Lucy's angles look different because she has lost teeth?

[This is much of the content of the second half, which I have not commented on item by item.]

4:31 Dead things can swim with the stream, only living creatures can swim against it!

4:41 I don't like confrontation over people, but I love confrontation about ideas.

Yesterday, someone citing CSL considered that in the Medieval Worldview, the Primum Mobile (I think that might have been the Materia Prima) moved out of love for God.

Nope. That's one Medieval worldview, but not the Catholic one, in the Catholic one, God actively moves the Primum Mobile (God moving the Universe around us each day) and actively endows the Materia Prima with form and therefore substantiality (back at Creation or at any subsequent creation event).

At least that was the view at the university of Paris, it is possible what I spoke against may have been better regarded in the School of St. Victor, for the authors of which CSL had a great fondness.

6:37 The family could, if the theory were true, have acted under pressure (even going along so as to save her life). The community and top clergy in the province could back then have been motivated by extreme obedience and also a sense of discretion, like in 1950 the Franciscans in a part of the Netherlands, they had abused a pupil and made sure he came to first mental hospital for homosexuality and then castrated. In the Netherlands, a "community first" sentiment came from living in a Calvinist majority country. In Spain and Portugal, the Church had in living memory been persecuted.

Between 1926 and 1946, she was in Spain, in Pontevedra, which is, unlike the Carmel of Coimbra, about as far North of Fatima as the South tip of Portugal is South of Fatima. So, those years, I don't think she received all that many visits. Also, as she was at this point a Dorothean, she was busy teaching.

7:09 Conclavists also believe that "Paul VI" and "John Paul II" were no valid Popes.

But we do believe there is a valid one today, Michael II, and has been most of the time from 1990, emergency election of Michael I.

So, I came across this via the Dimond Brothers, who, yes, have promoted the thesis of Turnowski Chojnowski.

8:57 I just saw that "John Paul II" consecrated Russia and Ukraine, while the Fatima request mentioned only Russia.

Now, the Kiev Rus' to which Ukraine is heir and Muscovite Russia doubtfully heir was already consecrated to Mary, much like France by (I think) Lewis XIII.

My reading of Fatima consecration request is, a) allowing Russia to catch up with Ukraine, and b) Pope stepping in for the lacking goodwill of the sovereigns, these being most of the time concerned, including 1984, Commies, at least the de facto sovereigns.

Have you heard of the apparitions of Hrushiv (in Russian that would be Grushov)?

11:36 In Romania, the couple Ceaucescu were actually executed in a less than fully court procedures manner. I don't claim Lewis XVI and Maria Antonia, best known as Marie Antoinette, got a fair hearing, but they had more court procedure. I also don't claim the Ceaucescu couple was innocent (except they had done one good thing: banned abortion), and they didn't deserve it, but their overthrow was not fully peaceful.

Now, the promise related to the effective consecration was not just peace, but also conversion of Russia.

Today, Russia has more abortions than Ukraine, I think is the fifth leading country in Europe as continent and all top five are either Romania or former Soviet Republics (none of them Ukraine). Abortion was introduced into Romania after the Ceaucescu couple was executed.

Meanwhile Russia has obliterated the Ukrainian and Tatar communities in Crimea and the parts of Donbass they already control. Putin promotes plutocratic oligarchy and it's spreading. Putin says abortion should be fought by persuasion, not bans. Putin's best admirers tend to promote "Christianity and Evolution are not in conflict" which is an error (also spread by Wojtyla in the 1992 CCC), and "taking the Apocalypse as foresight of events is Zionism" (which is certainly not true in my case, since I take it the Knesset today is both Sodom and Egypt, considering the Pride Parades and what is done to Gaza, so, I think Apocalypse 11 is soon upcoming, with Henoch and Elias witnessing against Zionism). Putin is perfectly capable of having goodwill with total incompetence as to apprehension of facts. You recall that clip when he laughed at the idea of pork exports to Indonesia, unaware that Indonesia has Christian and Hindu minorities and that tourism also involves people who eat pork? He also promotes the idea that denying the gas chambers killed so and so many of this or that community is an agression against it.

12:38 Yugoslavia also disbanded.

This pretty quickly led to the Balkan wars. A repeat move of Assisi 1986 was done by Wojtyla in 1995 or 1994 ... and the massacre of Srebrenica followed. Former Yugoslavia, to this day, is not a peaceful area.

However, not only did Wojtyla meet Gorbatchev, he also knew exactly what Polish priest in the Vatican was a KGB agent.

If the Fall of the Wall and the disbanding of the Soviet Union were not miracles, they could have been negotiated sham victories, with Wojtyla hollowing them. Meeting a Rabbi and then the Assisi meeting before the fall of the wall were shows of "Catholicism is not exclusivist or antisemite" (in the sense that word has been applied to Catholicism) ... betraying Mgr Lefebvre, betraying converts in Sweden, betraying Fr. Mawdsley. In 1992, and around, CCC and "Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" were a payment afterwards, with the message "we don't allow people to oppose the theory of Evolution" (I had missed it, or overlooked it, since I was a Ecclesia Dei to FSSPX type trad at the time, only found out in 2001) and in the same weeks as they were praying for peace in the Balkans with Orthodox and Muslims and maybe more, there was some kind of reconciliation with psychiatry, thereby betraying any Catholic persecuted by it. This is my conspiracy theory about the apparent miracle.

12:52 Conversion of Russia, Russia is not yet converted from that Schism.

The Ukrainian Uniate Church is not legally recognised in Russia, and religious activity other than by recognised churches is an offense in Russia. As Fr. Charron mentioned, if he tried to celebrate Mass anywhere in Russia, he would go to prison. The FSSPX has a presence in the St. Petersburg region.

It has also started to pay Russia by cracking down on Creationist polemics.

Up to 1988, Revd Bryan Houghton was very good friends with Mgr Lefebvre, though in that year, like Dom Gérard, he chose Ecclesia Dei. Now this obviously means, Lefebvre saw nothing wrong in Bryan Houghton openly arguing against the Theory of Evolution (which he traces to Buddhism). At present, Father Robinson FSSPX is campaigning against Young Earth Creationism under the pretense it is some kind of bad fruit of the "bad tree" of Sola Scriptura, whereas in reality, Young Earth Creationism is the historic view of Catholics. In 1860 or so, when US Baptists split over the issue while also splitting over slavery, Catholics were in the vast majority Young Earth Creationists. But Father Robinson takes the decision of 1909 as a magisterial ban on Young Earth Creationism, which it obviously isn't.

13:14 So the supposed Sister Lucy saw those changes but didn't see the other side?

13:59 Yes, to him as to Kant (mentioned by Robert Barron), the Christian faith is something you practise ... it is not something you hold and defend as notionally true.

He's about as Orthodox as Dag Hammarsköld was Lutheran. I e, not at all insofar as the Confessions are supposed to be Christian heterodoxies rather than rituals masking apostasy.

14:27 Putin's own party, however, promotes the selected Communist tenets that Putin and Kirill still hold to.

Like "abortion must be fought with persuasion, not actual legal bans" or "Evolution is true, a Christian isn't supposed to oppose 'Science' " ...

Both of which are clearly Communist rather than Christian views, on key issues.

---

To illustrate my point:

ORTHODOX MISCELLANY- History, Ecclesiology, Spirituality, and the Struggle Against Ecumenism : Black Cloud Over Moscow (2006)
Fr. Nicholas Chernjavsky | November 27, 2006
https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2025/11/black-cloud-over-moscow-2006.html

The Moscow Patriarchate again finds itself with a government that does not tolerate dissent. Ever since Vladimir Putin’s election as president of Russia, nostalgia for the Soviet past has increased just as personal freedoms have been eroded. This is not a man who would let a powerful organization like the Moscow Patriarchate do as it pleases, and he has found willing accomplices in the top hierarchs who continue to trumpet Sergianism as heroic. In today’s Russia, critics of the Kremlin are dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly, but this has not affected the Patriarchate, as there seems to be not a peep of criticism coming from those quarters. It is also a curious thing that it was Putin who initiated the process to bring the Russian Church Abroad under Moscow ’s influence.

On Islam

“Muhammad Left Nine Wives CHILDLESS” - Christian Apologist QUESTIONS Islam's ‘Mercy’ Promises
Valuetainment | 13 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL-ugjSPPNQ

---

Other perspective:

We Now Know Why They Chose Mecca -- Dr Jay Smith Exclaims!
EVENTS -&- HISTORY | 22 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9uZ4zqaWVg

16:42 It cannot literally be dated to "AD 697" if the AD was only in common use from after the millennium shift.

You mean it is dated to 77 or 78 Anno Hegirae, right? (Masjid al Haram*).

18:48 In 708? In 89 or 90 Hegirae, you mean?**

* The one in Mecca. They hypothesise there was an earlier one. ** I'm not a wizard about Islamic calendar, but it is simple to look it up on wikipedia for any year. Loss of the ZamZam well.

The Will Rogers Phenomenon

How a Comedian's Math Joke Exposed Modern Medicine's Biggest Lie
Weird Math | 24 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4qbPPgqg6w

CSL, Medieval Thought, Stars and Planets

Narnia and the Christmas Star | Narnia Lore Explained
Into the Wardrobe | 26 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cnBLJkbxzI

2:47 Apart from a Bishop of Paris defining in 1277 that stars aren't actually alive or to angels like flesh is to our soul, how do you know, they are not alive in our world?

Or were you using "cosmology" in the sense of "current model of"?

3:08 How do you know light years even exist, in our world?

Apart from blind trust in experts and "current model of cosmology" that is ...

6:01 Plato and early Medieval Macrobius (who may have been a Pagan) considered stars were alive.

What we see is to a kind of sentient being, like what flesh and skin are to our souls.

Aristotle and Scholasticism (Thomas and Stephen Tempier were not Pagans) considered stars were moved by angels.

What we see is to an angel, like a bike is to a cyclist.

8:40 While the primum mobile (I think St. Thomas considers this as sphere of fix stars not above it) receives its (daily) movement from God in a non-mechanic way, as a direct result of God's will (like a planet moving through its sphere receives that (larger periodic) movement from the angel, like the Sun moving full circle eastward in relation to primum mobile in one year), the transfer down, as I read Aristotle and Thomas, was mechanic.

I think this point, invisible crystalline spheres that touch each other and transfer the daily movement down, since then disproven by Tycho Brahe, may have been the one item where St. Thomas on that famous occasion felt all his works were like straw. He presumably felt he had strawmanned St. Paul's proof of God from Geocentrism (Romans 1) in his own version of Prima Via.

8:45 The idea that the Primum Mobile was compelled by the love of God is actually a position which would probably fall under condemnations in 1277, the Averroistic slant to Aristotle (inherent in the Philisopher himself, though Thomas preferred glossing over that).

That's the kind of position held by people like Boethius of Dacia and Siger of Brabant. Now, to be fair, Dante doesn't judge their heterodoxy the way Tempier did.

No, in St. Thomas, the Primum Mobile is moved by a direct act of God ... just as in St. Paul. That's why Geocentrism and the succession of days proves God's power inexhaustible.

9:00 Would you mind giving me the reference in St. Thomas?

I know Latin and can look it up in Opera Omnia. If CSL stated Thomas held this, he may have misread a Quaestio form and mistaken an objection (videtur quod) for what Thomas really held (respondeo esse dicendum). Obviously, it's ages since I read The Discarded Image, so, I'm not trying to correct you on CSL.

[To the poem, I object not]

I Don't Think It Breaks My Claim

8 Quintillion Mutations: The Math That Breaks Creationist Claims
Dr. Joel Duff | 22 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO6ObhGnJVk

1:07 Can you document 1 quadrillion mutations happened*, or is that what you conclude from supposing we developed from one-cellulars?

I can mention one post on Quora c. 10 years ago, or more, where someone used blind cichlids to prove evolution.

I looked it up thoroughly.

The retina depends, for correct development, on 10 genes. Two of these are mutated and the retina never develops, and this doesn't matter, since they live in the dark. When related species are cross-bred with them, that do not have the mutations, even one item of the correct version sufficed to make offspring with correct sight, correct retinas.

Now, each gene presumably had hundreds of loci, of triplets, and this poses the question: how many useless genes must an organism carry, until mutations make them useful?

4:01 By the way, thank you for mentioning 2 000 000 000 infections!

63.5 mill, 69.7 mill, 62.3 mill, 61.7 mill, 62.4 mill

319.6 mill died 2020 through 2024, all causes ... how many of those are Covid?

There have been reported 7,101,788 (updated 15 October 2025) confirmed COVID-induced deaths worldwide.

Read that methodology is inverse between Covid infection and Covid vaccines. If an 80 year old diabetic has Covid when he dies, it's a Covid death. If an 80 year old diabetic got vaccinated and died, he died because 80 with diabetes. But let's say the numbers are something, not totally off.

7 101 788 / 319 600 000 = 2.222 % of deaths (or less, since the 7 101 788 is up to 15 Oct. 2025, the 319 600 000 only up to 31 Dec. 2024)
7 101 788 / 2 000 000 000 = 0.355 % die

Seems ... some over hysteria?

10:54 Hidden assumption: you change an actual parallellism of mutations into a serialism of them. No strand has 8 quintillion mutations. Given each infection is a new strand and several ones within it, I'll go back and see what your numbers were again ...

2 billion * 100 billion, let's assume that's like a triangular number in relation to the strands ... not sure if it's the best modelling, but here goes:

A simplified method for triangular roots = sqrt(2x), so 20 000 000 000

8 000 000 000 000 000 000 / 20 000 000 000 = 400 000 000 ... 400 million mutations per strand.

23:22 There is some lopsidedness to the (I suppose) implied parallel.

A virus is outsourcing all of its functioning, with very few exceptions, to host cells. That's why you can't cultivate them on petri dishes, unlike pathegens like bacteria or amoebae, and that's why vaccines involve artificially providing viruses with host cells (in the case of this virus, the host cell of choice has been a cell strand from an aborted boy in the 70's).

In that sense, a virus can afford lots more of "loss of function" because the losses hit what anyway isn't essential to it functioning.

30:39* I don't think that there is a model for mutations adding up to ten genes that are all needed for forming a retina.

---

Trevor McKenna-Williams

@MrDeadhead1952

Guess no one at AIG drinks milk then.

Jake Ramgren

@JakeRamgren

I understood this comment. 🔥🔥

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

The mutation is in a way beneficial for the organism, but it still deletes information rather than produce it.

Going from A) info to turn on lactase production around birth and B) info to turn it off some years later to only A) isn't exactly like creating the info for lactase production and doesn't explain it.

Trevor McKenna-Williams

@hglundahl Actually I suggest you do some research before you post nonsense. No information has been deleted as the the allele that turns off production still exists and works but as the allele that turns it off is dominant Lactase is still produced.Lactase persistence is the result of at least six mutations (single-nucleotide polymorphisms – SNPs) have been associated with lactase expression.[25] They are all located in a region of the gene MCM6 upstream of LCT. This region is considered as an enhancer region for the transcription of LCT. This is a clear example of information not being lost. And this trait isn't sort of a benefit, it's a clear benefit as it allows an additional food source to be utilised for an entire life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MrDeadhead1952 "the allele that turns off production still exists and works"

Oh? That is news to me. Well, enhancers would be another way for lactase production to get past that gene ... but they enhance, they still don't create new information.

Thank you for the info.

@MrDeadhead1952 By the way, on Trevor McKenna-Williams, a search, I don't find a scientist, but a resigned secretary and a business analyst ... are you sure you are also a good amateur at science?

---

* This is where he featured another video, which seemed to be about mutations adding up in us.

** In response to these words:

There's like one individual that has a has like just the right combination of 30:27 new changes that then go on to spread and then they have more mutations that find a few new 30:34 additions that are reach the sort of the magic threshold of making that virus 30:39 better for its current environment. Uh and so over time they add up sort of the the common mutations that they share 30:46 that are all functional mutations

Calvin Smith Paid me a Compliment

This CORROSIVE Lie Is Spreading FAST Among Christians
Answers in Genesis Canada | 17 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXP3N3IvuM

Given I've managed to avoid the tactical and worse errors of Stanley, since my teens, I take this video as a kind of compliment.

Next to God, you have lauded those believing His word, of which I am one.

6:00 You have misscited a verse of Hebrews perhaps in order to pretend the Bible "is the only source of true knowledge" ...

Here is the actual verse:
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him

Natural revelation can very well teach us the first part "that God is" ... a Hegelian who believes that God is, isn't wrong about what God is, he's just (as CSL once was) wrong about WHO God is.

That natural theology can teach us WHAT God is and that God isn't Hercules (whose powers were exhausted reputedly in the fight against Geryon and certainly at other times, like when he died and didn't rise again) is taught by St. Paul in Romans 1. He specifically mentions "inexhastible power" ... incidentally, this proves Hercules was an actual creature of God, and not a figment of human imagination. Why is St. Paul specifically referring to Hercules? Well, he mentions the punishment for idolatry, and in the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality, specifically male such, was especially associated with precisely Hercules.

So, before we get to FAITH, which goes beyond the evidence we can rationally analyse on our own, we must add of God, not just that He exists, but also that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him.

So, Biblically, Natural Theology, even apart from the Bible, actually does give true knowledge.

8:07 That guy started out copying a certain 16th to 17th C. erudite. Let's quote him:

Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."*

The Catholic Inquisition held that a doctrine could be heretical if it contradicted the Bible, even on a topic not directly related to the process of our salvation, neither to what God did on the Cross, nor to what we need to do on our part. The Catholic Inquisition held that the Bible, all of it was useful for the salvation of souls.

In 1633, Galileo was lucky (or his former pretty close friend Pope Urban VIII had favoured him) that he was not asked about this view, only about one where he had applied it (and where he contradicts the most probable reading of Romans 1).

10:22 Jesus is where all our beliefs and doctrines come from.

Through NT books, certainly. But also through Apostolic tradition.

If you undermine the Bible or Apostolic tradition, you undermine the Christian faith.

For instance, we know there is a Christological exegesis of all of the OT (which doesn't take away from its literal historic truth, just shows why it is important), which Jesus gave, arguably on more occasions than once, but one particular time is in Luke 24:27. Some very few and highly important details of it are indeed in the NT texts, like St. John mentioning Jesus fulfills the law about the Paschal Lamb (because He is the lamb of God), John 19:36. But most of it, including cross-references between Luke 1, Genesis 3:15, Judges 5, book of Judith, are available through Tradition.

And because the allegoric meaning of the OT is directly related to Christ, so, the literal meaning of it, is indirectly but still actually related to Christ.

12:56 Stanley, on that clip, contradicted the Councils of Trent and the Vatican (1545 to 1563 and 1869 to 1870).

We hold to 73 books, with all of their content, and with the meaning that the Church hath held and now holdeth.

Geocentrism being part of that (Joshua 10 and parallels being part of the prooftexting).

* Modern History Sourcebook: Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/galileo-tuscany.asp

"Et in Acadia ego" (quoth Mors)

Discover the First Mass-Deported Europeans in North America – The Acadian Genetic Mystery
Evo Inception | 16 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6igWKqFsXQ

The Vatican was horrified. 4:23 Letter after letter arrived from Rome 4:25 demanding the colonists stop polluting 4:27 French blood with indigenous marriages.

This is a blatant lie. Catholicism isn't and historically wasn't racist. Where Catholic states have been racist, this has been a question of political or social convenience or prejudice, out of touch with Catholic dogma.

Two very different things could be totally true, however.

1) Settlers not waiting till the Miqmaq fiancée was a baptised Catholic. A marriage with an unbaptised person is automatically invalid.
2) Settlers who had left wives in France and preferred getting a new one rather than wait till the wife could afford getting over to Acadie too.

The latter would be rarer, if at all occurring, France would hardly have encouraged married men to leave their wives.

---

The 6:32 Catholic Church kept meticulous records 6:34 of pure French marriages, but 6:36 conveniently failed to record marriages 6:37 with converted Mikmach women.

If this is true of the Catholic clergy in place, it is very surprising, but especially it is not a policy coming from the Vatican, but from Gallican clergy, tending to independence from Rome.

Dubh

@Dubh-u1h

The presenter makes a false claim against the Catholic Church. (Anti-Catholicism is common amongst the Scottish). He claims a "cover-up by the Catholic Church" whereby the marraiges between Indian women and French men were "hidden". He "supports" his claim by stating the marriage records "did not mention the women were Indian", and that they had had their Indian name changed at birth! Oh no! Well the facts of history have news for the presenter. The first fact is that race is not recorded in marriage records. The second fact is that it was/still is, common for a pagan to change their name to a Christian name at baptism. Eg, when the Chief Rabbi of Rome durring WW2 became a Catholic he took the name of the Pope as his new Christian name.. Thirdly, for a Marriage to take place in the Church, the Indian woman had to be Christian, so with her new Christian name, and with race not being recorded, this anti-Catholic presenter sees a "cover-up by the big bad Catholic Church". The Catholic Church always bent over backwards to facilitate the marriage of natives and Europeans. That's a way for the Faith to spread. The Vatican would have been discouraging invalid "marriage" between French men and unbaptised Indian women, not valid marriages as the presenter asserts. The presenter is a shonk. This is probably A.I. too..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Dubh-u1h Not sure it is AI.

When it comes to conditions in Acadia, let's not forget the clergy could have been very Gallican, so, morally different from Rome (it's a big difference about how death penalty is applied, among other things, like Gallicans taught the condemned could confess, but not receive Communion, Rome taught and teaches they should both).

While race is not recorded in Baptismal records, it could happen nationality is, and the Miqmaq were not fully French subjects.

Dubh

@hglundahl I have no idea what you are saying

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Dubh-u1h Too bad, I'm not your English teacher. Tried to teach you some French Church history, but OK ..

---

7:41 "we record them as French, to avoid scandal"

Ah, this means, in clear, that the clergy was locally adapting to the prejudice back in France.

Zachary Necan

@Zbezt

Exactly lets not confuse the narratives only a few individuals would go out of their way to help these people the rest are pre programmed citizens from an alien country.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zbezt There is obviously a difference between clergy that feels at home best in Rome and one that feels at home lots better in Lyon.

---

13:13 "In Louisiana ... they faced discriminations as foreign Catholics in Spanish territory"

Louisiana wasn't Spanish territory. Discrimination might be due to accent or being less like homeland France than typical Louisiana society, but unless the original text included Florida (which was Spanish), it doesn't add up.

Pascal Lapointe

@PascalLapointe-z6d

Louisiana was a Spanish territory between 1762 and 1803.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@PascalLapointe-z6d W h a t!

It was founded by French (as a colony) and it was sold by Napoleon, as Emperor of the French to the US, so, I always presumed, it had been French all this time ...

My bad, I suppose ...

Looking up 1762 and finding:

November 13 – In the Treaty of Fontainebleau, Louis XV secretly cedes Louisiana (New France) to Charles III of Spain to compensate his ally for territorial losses to Britain.

Looking up the latter, yes, it was a secret in 1762, and then finally revealed in the full open in 1769 (a disclosure in 1764 having been met with a rebellion, so in 1769, after it was quenched, it was settled ...).

OK, you always happen to learn sth. I did today, thank you!

Rose Lee

@roselee4445

Well itvwas owned by both. Look at street names in the French Quarter New Orleans. Street have both french and spanish names.

Creoles were the french side originally

Michele Broyles

@michelebroyles6941

I read when they left on the trip to Louisiana it was still a French territory. However by the time they arrived- it was Spanish

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@michelebroyles6941 Ah, OK.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@roselee4445 "Well itvwas owned by both."

After what I read, it would have remained culturally French after getting a Spanish governor.

Even if they put down rebellions by French, they didn't do a wholesale population change.

---

The church was 15:13 literally trying to erase the culture it 15:15 had once worked to preserve.

Again, this is a calculation from local clergy, not an order from Rome.

The Acadian story isn't just about 16:05 one small population in Eastern Canada. 16:07 It's about how peoples emerge, evolve, 16:10 and endure.

It's also a case study of genetic bottlenecks, you mentioned the genetic disease Retinitis pigmentosa hitting one in 27 of a subgroup, against one in 4000 generally.

The bottleneck only increased the frequency after the mutation already existed, didn't cause it.

The genetic bottleneck after Eden and after Mountains of Armenia would have been less deleterious, because there were as yet fewer mutations. In each case it was resolved into a few more bottlenecks that were less bottlenecked, because they could intermarry.

Thank you for making a point about Young Earth Creationism!

Why Day Age was Kind of a possibility in 1909, But is so No Longer

The Ugliest Fight in Christianity: Young Earth vs Old Earth
Theology With Seth | 6 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7p4QbPsTrY

Can we agree that carbon dating basically presupposes samples (exceptions excepted) started with around 100 pmC, because that's around what you would find in an old atmosphere?

In other words: if the Earth is billions of years old, a carbon date of 42 000 years means the Neanderthal died c. 40 000 BC.

Why would this be a problem? Well, Neanderthals had speech organs and language brain, so were created in the image of God. They died, so Adam had already sinned. If a Neanderthal died 42 000 years ago, Adam sinned way before 42 000 years ago.

However, this doesn't match the generations in Genesis 5 and 11 of generations between Adam and Abraham.

Say Abraham lived 4000 years ago, and 42 000 minus 4000 = 38 000. I reckon Abraham received oral tradition for Genesis 1 to 11, or if Genesis 1 was revealed to Moses, Genesis 2 to 11. And then started to put things down in writing. Genesis 5 and 11 would show the tradition actually faulty and the 38 000 years would make oral tradition make a joke of historicity. You also cannot appeal to a prophecy accurately revealing Genesis 1 to 11 in such a case, since Genesis 5 and 11 would show that prophecy inaccurate.

Again, if carbon dating needs to be "taken as given" (no reinterpretation by appealing to a lower initial pmC), Genesis 14 isn't historical. Why? Because in carbon dated 2000 BC there is no population in En-Gedi (Asason-Tamar in the text). Genesis 14 is only historical if events (or organic objects, living organisms) from 2000 BC-ish can carbon date to 3500 BC (end of chalcolithic of En-Gedi, according to archaeologists).

Again, same observation, you have Abraham in 2000 BC. In a LXX version, Peleg was born 541 years before Abraham, so 2541 BC. Carbon dated! You have nothing that resembles an abandoned Tower of Babel at this point and you already have a difference between Akkadians, Sumerians and Egyptians. However, if Abraham was born 2015 BC and Peleg 2556 BC, but the atmosphere had rising pmC, in 1935 BC, when Abraham is 80, it's so low things date to "3500 BC" (Amorrheans of Asason-Tamar), and when Peleg was born, it's so low it carbon dates to "8000 BC" (end of Göbekli Tepe, a good candidate for Nimrod's Babel).

2:52 4004 BC as per Ussher would be a pretty probable count on texts like, not just King James, but also Vulgate and Douay Rheims.

I think, even with the text choice, which isn't mine, he did a blooper about Thera dying physically before Abraham's vocation at age 75. In Acts 7, St. Stephen says And from thence, after his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein you now dwell.

Either this refers to a spiritual father, like Sarug not falling into idolatry at all and therefore suppling a "Christian" education when Nachor and Thera couldn't, or this refers to the spiritual death of Thera, like he didn't fall into idolatry long before his son was 75.

However, while he is now most famous, two people have a near equal fame. Both at least partially for one, used the LXX.

• St. Jerome did a calculation, using that of Julius Africanus for the time up to the birth of Abraham, where Genesis 5 spans 2262 years and Genesis 11 (genealogy) spans 942 years. It came into the Historia Scholastica and is now in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas day (St. Jerome however "corrected" the Genesis 5 span to 2242 years, following the most frequent LXX reading);
• George Syncellus (who had shared the monastic cell with Photius, hence the nickname) did one on the standard text of the LXX (Genesis 5 being 2242 years and Genesis 11 being 1070 years, with the second Cainan).

These give Christ born 5199 or 5500 after Creation. There are other choices than ex- or inclusion of II Cainan between them, though all three hold to a Short Soujourn.

3:06 There is a difference between a genealogy having an occasional gap, very probable in Matthew 1 but leaving out only 4 persons if so, with damnatio memoriae, and this could also be the case with the II Cainan if he belonged to the Genesis 11 line, with a Hebrew text leaving him out directly for a fault of his, but oral tradition supplying and then the translation to Greek involving the adding of him in the text, as Greeks didn't have the convention. Alternatively, he's a copyist mistake in Luke 3, having contaminated LXX copies of Genesis 11.

There is a difference between that kind of occasional gap and having a genealogy that's more gap than actual recorded generations. A huge difference.

3:17 Sometimes they only included the big names ... sorry, but you are taking an info that's not about ancient Jews as much as about ancient Babylonians. Archibald Sayce abusively pretended this was the case for Jews as well.

What's more, the inclusion of "he and he was so and so old when he engendered him and him" actually does at least strongly hint to a chronological purpose of the genealogies, one which would be foiled if only including "big names".

But if we played his game for a bit, what would we conclude?

Supposing we had regnal figures, leaving out children dying before parents (then Enoch would logically have been left out from Genesis 5!), there is only so much longer a hypothetic "complete" genealogy would be. If you count Bourbon Kings up to the French Revolution, it's Henry IV, Lewis XIII, Lewis XIV, Lewis XV and Lewis XVI. The actual generations involve two more people between Lewis XIV and Lewis XV and one more between Lewis XV and Lewis XVI. So, eight instead of five.

2262 * 8 / 5 = 3619
1070 * 8 / 5 = 1712

3619 + 1712 = 5331

(compare 2242 + 942 = 3184)

If Abraham was born 5331 after Adam's creation instead of 3184 after that event, that still doesn't put Adam earlier than a Neanderthal carbon dated to 42 000 BP.

Not to mention that to even have a chance of transmitting Genesis 3 over 38 or more millennia, you need to posit a Lost Civilisation, even apart from the Pre-Flood or Nodian one which YEC posit. If you say between Adam and Abraham most lived as hunter gatherers in small groups, which met chaotically and survived by hasards, you have basically given up the idea of historic transmission. And you have added heavy inaccuracies to Genesis 4, not just about Tubal Cain, but even about Adam and about Cain and Abel.

3:26 Yeah, you have shown 3 of the 4 gaps in a 40 plus long genealogy of Matthew 1.

All three descend from Athaliah, the one woman who has some irregularity (prostitute, gentile, adulteress) and isn't specifically mentioned in Matthew 1. That explains very well 3 out of the 4 gaps in Matthew 1.

A genealogy leaving out 10 % being possible doesn't mean that a genealogy only including 10 % is so too.

3:45 We actually can insist on tight chronology in Genesis 5 and 11, we are not free to invent gaps, since in Matthew 1, you don't have a chrono-genealogy the way those two ones are.

Neither Ussher nor the two others used Matthew 1 to calculate the timespan from King David to the Babylonian captivity.*

Were Adam & Eve Real or Metaphorical?
Theology With Seth | 4 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLfUnDhIWig

10:19 How do you know it's "heavily abbreviated"?

If Adam lived before a Neanderthal (he did), who died literally 42 000 years ago (according to the carbon date that presumes his bones started with c. 100 pmC), the Luke 3 genealogy or it's mirrors in Genesis 5 and 11, would not be "heavily abbreviated" they would be distortions into myth, thousands of years even before they reached Moses.

Young Earth vs Old Earth: How Long Were the Creation Days in Genesis 1?
Theology With Seth | 17 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uUiuyB5sZ4

26:46 In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission declared that the Day Age view did not fall on the simple interpretation of yôm, and could be freely discussed among exegetes.

It merits to be said, Pope St. Pius X:

• allowed this decision to be signed by a Day Age proponent
• in the same year canonised St. Clemens Maria Hofbauer, whose personal doctor and friend, Veith, wrote a Young Earth (six literal days) manual.

A free discussion however involves the freedom to bring up arguments against.

The arguments from animal death before sin and from Mark 10:6 are, canonically speaking, wavered. You can bring them up, you cannot claim they are right now directloy stamping an old earther as heretic. However there is no provision in that judgement (contrary to prior statements from the judge in the PBC) for saying "Adam lived 100 000 years ago" or "Genesis 5 and 11 are not literal, patrilinear, normally gap free, genealogies" or "the story of Genesis 3 wasn't transmitted from Adam to Moses by the people in the genealogies" ... none of that was provided for, and none of that was remotely needed before carbon dating, before the understanding that an old atmosphere means the carbon 14 content has been c. 100 pmC for long and before finding men dated to 42 000 years ago. Not just Neanderthals by the way, in case you felt inclined to deny their humanity, which you shouldn't. "Homo sapiens reached the higher latitudes of Europe by 45,000 years ago" is a paper by Dorothea Mylopotamitaki, et al. from Jan 2024. The paper mentions Homo sapiens bones and carbon dates.

If you accept non-carbon dating methods, which old earthers typically do, you'll have the divergence between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens sapiens races going back some 100 000 * n years before this. Concentrating on Genesis 1 without bringing up the length of the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (and Luke 3) or carbon dates, is putting the discussion into a vacuum artificially put 100 years back into the story of human erudition and recent discussions.

Notes:

* For any Catholic reading this. 1909, Pontifical Biblical Commission, only allowed for Day Age theory, not for an indefinite number of gaps in Genesis 5 and 11. Archibald Sayce abusively transferred observations of Assyriology to Bible studies and any Catholic authority citing his work is only diocesanly approved manuals. In the USA, these have coexisted with Baltimore Catechism and Haydock Comment, both of which encourage a more literal view of Genesis 5 and 11. You cannot say "Day Age is a canonically licit licence about Biblical chronology, therefore so is 'gapped genealogies' " since that was not included in the 1909 decision. Significantly, the judge, Fulcran Vigouroux, had promoted both gapped genealogies (as a possibility, not yet necessity) and non-global Flood in his own 1888 textbook of OT theology, a diocesan manual for Paris. This, unlike Day Age, Pope Pius X didn't give him opportunity to confirm as judge in the PBC.

In Response to a Long One from Christine Niles

Gay Confirmation; Co-Redemptrix Confusion & more | FORWARD BOLDLY
Christine Niles | 13.XI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJALrSptY6g

5:36 This is one beef I have with some Vatican II-ists and even some Trads.

Do they encourage gay men to leave homosexuality for and by marriage, or is their sole offer of conversion a conversion to chaste gay?

How many of the ex-gays who are married are Catholics or were Catholics at the time of leaving homosexuality?

9:22 JRRT invited other Inklings into his home. One of them is known to have been openly gay (he was an Anglican).

I recently heard a horrific story from JRRT's priest son, Fr. John Tolkien, about his childhood.

17:24 Do they have the authority to do that?

Or are people so openly heretical also outside the Church and therefore without authority?

If I were you, I'd contact Pope Michael II to see if he is fine with doing a consecration or leaving it to bishop Clary.

23:19 [Mary is a great stumbling block.]

For a very specific sector of the world.

I thankfully grew up in Vienna, part time, and my mother didn't, she went to a Bible school for summer camp some year before I was born, so, Mary never was a stumbling block to me the way such ideas were to my mother for some time.

23:45 Catholic Apolegetics doesn't need to come as a ministry.

The well known ministry Catholic Answers is unfortunately heterodox on some issues, and even obtuse to limit dishonest.

I saw Trent Horn state that "Cardinal Baronius stated that the Bible doesn't teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven" and I think he even said "in the context of the Galileo affair" ...

Now, the one 17th C. source I know of with that phrase is Galileo's letter to Grand Duchess Cristina of Tuscany. And while he says it was said by a Church man who has reached a high place, he doesn't say who that Church man is.

IF it was Cardinal Baronius, a very holy man, a direct disciple of St. Philip Neri, then it wasn't in the Galileo affair, even if Galileo cited it in his affair. How do I know? Because Baronius died 30 June 1607, before the affair broke out. Catholic Encyclopedia cites him as Venerable, meaning, it is placing a very high moral authority in fake service of Heliocentrism or agnosticism on the issue to state such things about Baronius.

However, IF it was Baronius, it could have been in stating Tycho was as licit as Ptolemy as to Geocentric model.

IF it was instead, as I suspect, since it was a man Galileo knew, Cardinal Maffeo Vincenzo Barberini, future pope Urban VIII, then he obviously turned around for any generosity toward Heliocentrism the statement could have entailed, since as Pope he confirmed a judgement against Galileo.

Meanwhile, I'm a writer, and I do Apologetics as part of that. The "Apologetics Section" of my blogs, well, it's not all of my Apologetics, just essays in English on these issues, exists side by side with other writings, some of which are not specifically Christian (though I hope compatible with Christianity).

1) Creation vs. Evolution, against both Atheists and inconsistent Christians who believe Deep Time and possibly even Human Evolution from apelike creatures.
2) somewhere else, named after a comment by Tim O'Neill, an Atheist whom I respect more than most of them, since he doesn't peddle Antimedieval and Anticatholic takes, dedicated to arguing the Gospels are trustworthy to Atheists, Jews and Muslims, and arguing parts of OT are trustworthy to mainly Atheists, and arguing existence of God, also to mainly Atheists.
3) Great bishop of Geneva! whose patron saint is obviously St. Francis of Sales. Yes, against Protestant errors.

Last essay on each would be: "A Km Deep Global Ocean ... Navigable Or Would the Ark Have Floundered?" / "What Are Pagan Gods, Specifically Greek and Norse and Hindu?" (whenever Pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, but apart from that?) / "Obscurity and Perspicuity"

So, I'm not the first Catholic Apologist to not do a ministry, also true of Chesterton and Belloc (but not of Catholic Truth Guild, whom I also value).

In this connection, being a Catholic Apologist is not a position in the Church, and therefore not sth the Church needs to vet one's moral fibre for. If Milo Yiannopoulos wants to do Catholic Apologetics, so be it.

25:32 It so happens, in 2005, the election of Ratzinger temporarily made me think "we have a Pope" (among those in the Vatican).

I am very disappointed, partly with what he did, partly with what I found out he had done as "Cardinal" ... with all affection I once had for him, as a budding Trad, when he died, I drank a Guiness in memory, not of a Catholic, but of a Bavarian (with lots of Catholic culture, but I didn't dare to find him as having actually kept the faith).

He is also known on earth (whatever he may be known for in the hereafter) of heavy disingeniousness on the issue of Fundamentalists. Both because he was active in the CCC, with its §283, and because he was taking some (indirect?) part in the document THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. It has a section that's both a calumny against actual Fundamentalist Protestants, and a sleight of hand disrecommendation of Fundamentalist positions related to Biblical inerrancy.

So, Tucho citing Ratzi ... no, doesn't mean Tucho is right. As said. There is a specific section of the world that finds Catholic Mariology a stumbling block. Evangelical and even Lutheran / Anglican types of Protestants aren't all of the non-Catholics.

Plus, the point of "co-" connoting sometimes equality doesn't go to the issue that the doctrine has been clearly explained as not denoting that. It's like saying one needs to ditch the phrasing in Catholic Encyclopedia which says we "worship Mary with hyperdulia" because some have taken "worship" as meaning adoration. The United States are a great country, and its Evangelicals are a great section of the non-Catholics, a section in which my mother started raising me as a Christian, but neither the US, nor the Evangelicals, are all of the world. And the same is true of Protestants in the Germanies, to whom Ratzinger was probably being diplomatic.

25:47 "too far from Scripture"?

From Scriptural truth? No. She clearly did sacrifice along with Her Son on Calvary. From Scriptural terminology? So what!

1) Deacon, 2) Presbyter, 3) Bishop is "straying from" Scriptural terminology, since in NT times, the terms were 1) Deacon, 2) Bishop, 3) Apostle / Evangelist / Angel / Teacher, possibly also Prophet.

Normal moral theology says, it's praiseworthy to want to be a priest. It's usually not safe to want to be a bishop, you become one of obedience, not your own choice.

The NT says "he who wants to be a bishop, is after a good job" (paraphrasing), but also "do not many of you be teachers, since they will have a stricter judgement" ...

The NT terms bishop and teacher map on to what normal theology says about presbyter and bishop.

We are not bound to use Scriptural terminology in all we express.

26:12 I thought he was a bulldog for orthodoxy in 1992, and to some extent still in 2005.

29:06 Pope Michael II disagreed on that one.*

29:44 Doesn't the document also speak against Mediatrix of all graces, even as a doctrine?

As welcome as that would be to Protestants, count on backlash from Orthodox, if so.

It was Anthony Bloom, The Archbishop's Prayer School**, which taught me, those redeemed need to be forgiven by Our Lady, and then She prays for them. THEN God saves.

He was founder and for many years bishop - then archbishop, then metropolitan - of the Diocese of Sourozh, the Patriarchate of Moscow's diocese for Great Britain and Ireland (the name 'Sourozh' is that of the historical episcopal see in Sudak in Crimea).

36:29 "until He decides to abolish it"

The usual Catholic view is, He decides to come back and replace it. When the King is physically present, speaks audibly before all, the Viceroy ceases to rule.

This is also the view of Vatican in Exile. Papacy took a pause between 1958 and 1990, it was comparable to another near pause when there were two Popes and therefore both could be seen as dubious, which lasted just a bit longer, 39 years, not 32.

However, the guys usually considered as Sedevacantists actually seem to think Christ has decided to abolish papacy, by allowing an intruder after Pius XII and by allowing all cardinals named by Pius XII and Pius XI to die out before an alternative election could be held. Their view is, only Cardinals elect Popes. That's a law introduced by Popes, and can be either abolished by a Pope or temporarily sidestepped in an emergency such that Popes had not foreseen it.

38:43 My online content is free.***

I don't have a patreon, I don't even have paypal.

There are perks to reading me on paper offline (I've printed out some, but not on a commercial level), like getting things in the logic and topical context instead of scrolling, or reading in a more peaceful environment than over the web (and frankly, many of my posts are totally too long to be easy to read without computers, I don't recommend accessing me on cell phones).

This is why I, for my part, would appreciate someone starting a publishing house. As homeless, I cannot do that myself, partly trouble with bank accounts, but even more, I have no network for selling around me, and I have no place to stock a pile of copies of a book safely.

* "That one" meaning the words after "but" in the following quote:

you can still use the title, but the church is rejecting 28:59 formally adopting that title for Our Lady formally adopting it, including it in the church's prayers, 29:05 you know, referring to her that way in official rights, that's all the church is doing. It's rejecting that as a formal title adopted by the church for Our Lady.

** Probably identic to either "1970 – School for Prayer" or "1986 – The Essence of Prayer (Contains Living Prayer, School for Prayer, God and Man, and Courage to Pray)" ... I backtranslated the Swedish title Ärkebiskopens böneskola into English. It was promoted in Catholic parishes, and I would say, rightly so. From my memory, it contains nothing against the Catholic faith.

*** In response to her appeal for support, from those affording.

Sharing on Eugenics

Is Eugenics really so bad?
Elephants in Rooms - Ken LaCorte | 28 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493vrSL0lJQ

Mount Everest and Grand Canyon Might Differ by Centuries

The Signs at the Grand Canyon Are WRONG!
Answers in Genesis | 11 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeB6GO9n1cw

1:03 Psalm 103:8* indicates that the mountains rose and next verse that the shorelines were fixed in connection with the Flood ending, but the fact is, you'd agree shorelines were very different in parts of the Ice age, up to centuries after the Flood, but also before King David, so, you cannot fix the rising of the mountains to "same year" by that verse.

I'd say the mountains rose during the Ice age basically immediately following the Flood, but it took some centuries. This is confirmed by Himalaya archaeology, the earliest post-Flood culture found in the Sivali hills are from some century after Babel, which ended 401 after the Flood when Peleg was born.**

6:18 Even if your research proved most layers of the Himalayas were bent (those that are bent) during the weeks after the Flood (I tend to think of those weeks as ground solidifying extra rapidly around the Ark, and it took longer elsewhere), that doesn't mean the actual height of the Himalayas was reached as quickly.

What I said about the Sivali [Siwalik] hills suggests that the ground was still unstable the first few centuries after the Flood, and I take that as indicating a rapid rise in the mountain, still ongoing some centuries after the Flood. But I also think the Himalayas are metamorphic rock (according to the quickest check I get, I'm right) and I think part of the heat was God's way of getting surrounding mud dried quicker. Including by making rivers rise in the higher mountains and once arriving down, draining the landscape by creating a river basin.

The Pyrenees also seems to be unstable to get up in to centuries after the Flood.***

* The video say 104:8, Catholic and Protestant Bibles number and at some places divide the psalms differently, though there are 150 of them either version.
** Siwalik, more precisely Patu industry in Nepal: Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees
*** While mentioning them in the Himalayas series, I added a more indepth research on it on this post: Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man)

Sharing

[Automatically translated]*
Breaking Points | 3 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI64Vo7ucDg

* French translation: La société israélienne s'indigne face au « droit au viol » which would mean "Israeli society in uproar against 'right to rape'" ... however, either it's "for right to rape" or "against rape going to justice" ...

Automatic translations keep proving that AI doesn't understand language, is only able to handle it probabilistically .... here the translation algorithm was the wrong one.

Christian Nationalism Doesn't Make Christian Individuals a Privileged Group

What do you think about this Christian Nationalist's simple explanation of the movement?
Rev Ed Trevors | 3 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-yk4cYWBH0

If it's Jan Fugelsang, you pronounce it Yahn Fooglesung if Norwegian or Yann Fooglesang if Danish.

It means Johnny Birdsong.

1:59 I'd say, so far so good.

The Latino immigrant isn't against Catholic Christianity in the same way that some Sudanese or Algerian immigrants are against it in France.

Is he arguing that Christian Nationalists should oppose ICE? If so, nice.

3:17 You do admit that one of them is teach ye all nations — right?

A teacher is a culturally dominant force in his classroom.*

Jesus says the Apostles (and their successors) should have entire nations as classrooms. In such a way that ... baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So, all or most citizens are supposed to be Christians. Not just give out the message and let any individual who will take it up (that's part of it), but go on and specifically target politicians (like targetting the Candace of Ethiopia by her Eunuch) and do other stuff intending for them to actually succeed in teaching all or most of the baptised to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...

Sounds like some degree of Christian nationalism is actually incumbent on the actual Christian Church (that being the Catholic one).

This doesn't mean necessarily all the Trump régime is currently doing is the exact right thing to do, but some things are in the right direction.

4:10 It's not all Jesus asked us to do, but clearly part of it.

Yes, there are lots of things one can and must do individually, not matter what the régime, but Matthew 28 clearly states wanting a Christian nation and therefore also government is a good and for much of the time necessary thing.

Obviously, once the world enters Apocalypse 13, it's no longer an option. Speaking of which, the restrainer, if you ask me, was the Roman Emperor as a monarch. Taken out of the way in 1918 (Nicholas II killed, Charles I abdicated, and some pronounce him as "Charles the Last" for that reason), and Russia finds Lenin and Hungary Bela Kún in power. And if Jesus doesn't, at least St. Paul does say:

only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

Perhaps it's been too late for Christian nationalism for 100 years and some. 16 Nov. 1918, but he left some room for others to continue resisting. Suggesting the time of withholding may not be over.

There is obviously a relation between a restrainer like that and what was in the ending centuries of the OT the Fourth Beast. So much, the Roman Emperor, if actually such (like Karl Franz Josef Ludwig Hubert Georg Otto Maria up to 1918) is too old to be part of the Endtimes Beasts. Wonder whether AEIOU will be true in a Christian sense or ... I'm sad to see the Austria I knew is not quite itself when I see headlines ...

4:49 That Christianity is the dominant cultural force doesn't make every Christian upper class or high cast and also doesn't degrade non-Christians to lower class or low caste.

It may involve more or less feeling at home within the society, but it would be true of all classes and ... a thing that shouldn't exist in a Christian nation ... castes.

Now, having Marxists as cultural force actually does depend on having Marxists as a favoured class. For instance, a class is favoured if having at the same time better access to becoming teacher and demanding equal access of others' children to the school. A very obvious example to me as a former teacher.

But Catholic bishops don't automatically** draft people into Sunday Mass and Confession just because the country is Catholic. And bishops are anyway much more restricted as a venue than teachers, especially in a country with twelve years of more or less imposed school attendance for most of the population.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Christian Nationalists are not just likelier to favour Christians as teachers, they are also likelier to favour homeschooling, meaning, it comes with less power to be a teacher.

I'm also not sure if you've noticed, but Christian Nationalists are not saying "ban Atheists from aborting" or "ban Christians from aborting" but more like, where they have the power for it, "ban all abortions" ... they are not shouting for Christian girls having more ways of getting out of motherhood or Christian parents' babies having better guarantees for not getting aborted.

5:53 "keeping us attached to the things around us"

The rich man didn't become an unbeliever just because he didn't follow Jesus.

Jesus didn't say all believers had to be disciples.

Nor did St. Peter:

Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God
[Acts Of Apostles 5:4]

In other words, while overcoming attachment to personal belongings is virtuous, it is not obligatory on all Christians. Ananias and Sapphira would have been free to be baptised and Christians and share only some extras, if they had done so openly.

6:16 "transcend into the spiritual"

Sorry, sounds like Gnosticism to me.

We are, body and spirit, poverty or possessions, to become partakers of God's nature***, God's ways°. But we do not become pure spirits, and the bodies will resurrect.

* If he's good at his job or lucky or both. I wasn't.
** In Medieval Sweden absenting from Sunday Mass possibly, absenting from baptising your babies, certainly, got you fined. But this was not the case with Eamon DeValera's Ireland.
*** By infused grace.
° By matching our actions to grace.

Since I'm Young Earth Creationist, Some Will Always Speculate on How I Read Genesis 9 (and 11), and Danielle Romero Gave Me an Opportunity to Answer

The Curse of Ham & The Southern Baptist Convention
NYTN | 10 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld2bLAtdWpU

2:51 "son' is also used of grandson, and Canaan may at this point have been the youngest descendant of Noah.

Now, why is it marked that the one who sees him naked is "Ham, the father of Canaan" and why is Canaan rather than Ham cursed?

A wild guess is maybe not so wild if there is a passage in Habacuc (misused by Mr. Hovind to argue teetotalism as a Christian duty) that says:

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

Ham came in and saw Noah's nakedness by surprise, but Canaan had already gone away and tipped him, after, being the first tester, having deceived his grandfather about what quantities are safe and what aren't. He was thereon condemned to be a sommelier while others drank wine. And preferrably an honest one.

3:48 So far, so good. The whole human race comes from these brothers.

Harvey Wabbit

@harveywabbit9541

and they were the ancient year divided into three seasons of four months each.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@harveywabbit9541 Look, if you divide the year into three, four or five seasons depends on the climate, not on the calendar.

Very localised calendars may take only the local seasons into account, but that doesn't mean the seasons depend on the calendar rather than the climate.

Now, I don't know exactly why you adress me on side issues, hope it's not calculated to drag me into some kind of freemasonry ...

[my response disappeared]

gal has

@galhas537

No this is not the reality but a Jewish story you people choose to believe in for no rational reason except to use as a justification to your culture crimes. Gth

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@galhas537 I don't see any culture crime involved in believing all men descend from Shem, Ham and Japheth.

If you meant racism against black people, you are barking up the wrong tree. The Theory of Evolution has been much more involved in it.

Your bad. And I don't know what gth is supposed to mean.

5:45 There were different moments in different confessions, in America.

As a Catholic, I don't really have a stake in this, but the idea that slavery is pronounced on black people, while extant among Latino Catholic theologicans (Brazil, I think), is pretty absent from Catholic clergy, even when they are for continuing the slavery that's already there (like when Pope Gregory XVI had pronounced a ban on slave trade).

Among Baptists, there is a three way split. A majority South, leading to Southern Baptist, take Genesis 9 literally and as pronouncing slavery on the black. In the North, a majority reject this and reject a literal reading, but a minority also reject the pro-slavery implication (at least for blacks having met Christians, since Philemon supersedes Genesis 9, basically), while still being literal about what Genesis 9 says. Noah actually did get drunk.

6:22 Ethiopia = all of black Africa.

As you note, Cush is not Canaan.

As far as I'm concerned, the wider and prophetic sense of the curse was already fulfilled in OT times. Joshua who came from Shem conquered "the land of Canaan" (except the parts that are now Lebanon) and Scipio who came from Japheth conquered the Canaanite or Phoenician colony Carthage.

"The Third Punic War (149–146 BC) was the third and last of the Punic Wars fought between Carthage and Rome."

So, OT times.

10:18 Dabney was not Southern Baptist, he was Southern Presbyterian.

11:31 God is selectively doing the opposite.

He's uniting nations in the Church, starting with Jews within those nations, sometimes also metuentes, but He's not promising world wide political or social unity outside the Church.

At least not on Pentecost.

There is an argument both that slavery will exist on Doomsday and that all nations will be united on Doomsday, but that's a different beast ... literally.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:7]

Political reunion of the nations ...

And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand, or on their foreheads
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 13:16]

Bondmen, a k a slaves, exist. This is within 3 and 1/2 years from Doomsday.

Perhaps not the argument that the fourth SB leader was looking for ... and it doesn't need slavery in Christian nations to be fulfilled, since the AC will obviously be ruling over non-Christian nations as well, and in some of them, slavery is thriving.

12:43 I'm not sure Anglos were for 400 years referring to Ham for black slaves.

I think it's a meme from Jews and Muslims, which first entered Christian circles by a Lutheran professor in Kiel, in the 1600's, and later became popular in the Netherlands (with some contamination to Catholic Belgians, who should have known better, I'm not a fan of Leopold II). And even later than that, English speakers in the Americas.

The main argument for keeping a black man as a slave after his shipping from Africa is, you bought him, and you presume the African king had a right to sell him for some crime he had committed, or if he had asked for it in the hope of allieving poverty. The main argument for keeping a black child on your plantation as a slave is, he was born into the slavery of his parents. But the normal upshot of this, and it happened in French Louisiana, and quite a lot in Brasil too, sooner or later you start liberating slaves by generosity or as asking for their prayers to get you out of Purgatory, and a slave once liberated is (at least up to the Enlightenment) treated as an equal of the majority white free population. With no segregation.

Even the Latino theologian (Brazilian, I think) who brought in curse of Ham didn't argue the curse was per se a justification of keeping anyone as a slave, but brought on the misfortune of bad education, leading to the crimes (including mutual wars of enslavement!) that then in their turn justified slavery.

13:27 As far as they are speaking of people living in different countries, they are at least partly right.

God probably doesn't want all the differences to remain, since some of the cultural uniqueness of some peoples are actual sins, like slavehunt (if that's still a thing) or like considering for instance Christians or people who use alcohol in any (even just moderate) quantity as fit for slavery. While other peoples have a uniqueness in overusing alcohol every weekend, when they drink.

13:36 Ban on interracial dating?

Ouch! I mean black and white Americans are Americans (in the sense of Estadunidenses), right? There's probably more difference between a Georgian and a Canadian, than between Georgians of different pre-Columbian main origin populations!

13:44 Tower of Babel is not bad theology, but let's not ignore that some nations now existing are composites compared to the earliest ones after Babel.

The Roman Empire mixed Germanic and Canaanean, and the US has been involved in some melting pot too ...

Harvey Wabbit

Babel is two words of bab (gate) and el (god).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@harveywabbit9541 To Nimrod. To Peleg and Noah, it's more like a verb form or verbal nouns of balal.

Some Think I Have More in Common with This Man, I Think I have More in Common with That Lady

No, it's not about gender confusion.

I mean some think I should take homelessness like this man does:

I Asked a Homeless Man Why God Allows Suffering — His Answer Moved Me
CPR Missions | 5 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYKRrw6VCFM

For my part, I take "background discreditation" the way Megan Basham does:

Christian Publishers Tried to Stop This Book | Megan Basham
Eric Metaxas | 9 nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxCm6gEpIv8

Anyone who is asking me to ignore things about publishing, and just take homelessness like this man in a wheelchair, who for that reason cannot do physical work, and according to his accent wasn't trained for intellectual work the way I was, is, as far as I am concerned, my enemy. Just as pastor so and so was enemy to Megan Basham or remains so./HGL

He might call this "shameful denial" ...

What the Catholic Church Shamefully Denies
The Recovering Catholic | 2 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ-5jDDkUQo

Conquistadors

1:08 I think the Delawares are lots more wiped out, if not by the sole Quakers, at least by people coming after William Penn, than ... (citing wikipedia on Nahuatl, language of the Azteks) ...

Varieties of Nahuatl are spoken by about 1.7 million Nahuas, most of whom live mainly in Central Mexico and have smaller populations in the United States.

... or (on Quechuan languages, language of the Inka Empire) ...

Derived from a common ancestral "Proto-Quechua" language,[4] it is the most widely spoken pre-Columbian language family of the Americas, with an estimated 8–10 million speakers in 2004,[8] and just under 7 million from the most recent census data available up to 2011.[9] Approximately 13.9% (3.7 million) of Peruvians speak a Quechua language.[10]

... or (on Aymaran languages, a minority language with sister languages within the Inka Empire after it conquered for instance the Collas) ...

Aymara has approximately 2.2 million speakers; 1.7 million in Bolivia, 350,000 in Peru, and the rest in Chile and Argentina. Jaqaru has approximately 725 speakers in central Peru, and Kawki had 9 surviving speakers as of 2005. Kawki is little documented though its relationship with Jaqaru is quite close.

1.7 + 7 + 2.2 = 10.9 million. Not counting Mayas, whose Quiché (Kʼicheʼ language) also survives:

Quiché, is a Mayan language spoken by the Kʼicheʼ people of the central highlands in Guatemala and Mexico. With over a million speakers (some 7% of Guatemala's population), Kʼicheʼ is the second most widely-spoken language in the country, after Spanish.

10.9 + 1.1 = 12 million.

The largest indigenous language in the United States is ...

Navajo 170,000 Navajo Nation, United States Southwestern United States

... according to Indigenous languages of the Americas.

Significantly, this is a part of the US which once was Spanish.

1:08 bis Let's break it down in a fair comparison.

Latin America and the Caribbean Population (LIVE)
The current population of Latin America and the Caribbean is 669,383,454 as of Monday, November 3, 2025 based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United Nations data. Latin America and the Caribbean population is equivalent to 8.11% of the total world population.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/latin-america-and-the-caribbean-population/#

(PDF) Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages
ResearchGate
only 4% of the languages of the world. Speakers of Amerindian languages in Latin America number between 40 and 50. million, and represent 10% of the total ...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286431659_Spanish_in_Contact_with_Amerindian_Languages

45 000 000 / 669 383 454 = 6.722 %

The current population of the United States of America is 347,902,504 as of Sunday, November 2, 2025, based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United ...

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

The current population of Canada is 40,254,811 as of Sunday, November 2, 2025, based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United Nations data1. Canada ...

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/

The Census Bureau counted about 372,000 people who speak Native North American languages at home.

https://languagemagazine.com/census-shows-native-languages-count/

According to the 2011 Census, almost 213,500 people reported an Aboriginal mother tongue and nearly 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011003_3-eng.cfm

372 000 / 347 902 504 = 0.107 %
213 500 / 40 254 811 = 0.53 %

So, 6.722 % is less than the 10 % mentioned in the quote, but the pdf Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages or the printed text it is based on could be older* than the statistic of 669,383,454 people living in Latin America. If so, the speakers of Amerindian languages there could also have gone up.

But even with 6.722 %, that's way better than the 0.107 % in the US (nearly 63 times better) or the 0.53 % in Canada (12.68 times better).

Where there is a language, there is a culture. Ending Inka pageantry in Perú was not worse than ending Nazi pageantry in Germany. Such pageantry in either case is not all of the culture. Chewing coca leaves survived the Conquistadors and October-Fest survived Patton.

Principle

1:49 Don't you forget something?

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
[Matthew 28:19]

Nations would seem to imply a government, right?

For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil
[Romans 13:4]

So, governments, by the nature of their work, cannot be as peaceful as individual Christians ideally should be and should be safely able to be.

Should be = Christ's at least preference.
Should be safely able to be = a Christian government's pretty clear duty.

If you don't deny both Christ's and St. Paul's words, Christian governments using violence was foreseen as part of the deal.

Crusades

2:21 No. Urban II was not liberating the Holy Land from Christian Palestinians, nor from Muslim Palestinians.

He's liberating them along with pilgrims and holy sites from the Seldjuks, a recent new power.

Only in the Counter-Crusade did Muslim Palestinians get hijacked into a "defense" against the Crusades that was oppressive to Christians (notably, a "local pilgrimage" ... not labelled Hajj ... which had as date "one week before the Christian Easter" in order to survey Christian pilgrims).

Also, it was in the time of the Counter-Crusade that Christian Palestinians were forced to abandon Aramaic in favour of Arabic.

So, you get the facts all backwards.

2:28 Unlike what happened at least in some villages, in 1947 and 48 and the prior years, Crusaders didn't steal village land from locals.

They settled in as the new lords, but Palestinian villagers by and large remained where they had been when Urban II was speaking in Clermont.

They ousted Seldjuks, not villagers, armies, not farmers.

2:37 If people were wiped out in their houses, that were instances of war crimes, not planned.

According to lots of Germans, French and US soldiers in both world wars, notably black, raped German women. Perhaps the story is very exaggerated, perhaps claiming rape was for some women better than admitting an actual love affair, but supposing there was at least some to this, does this mean that Entente and later Allies had no reasons to invade Germany, or that the war as such equals the war crimes?

I don't think so.

The most well known instance of such war crimes was the plundering and massacre of Jerusalem when it was taken in 1099. Three days it took before Geoffrey of Bouillon get the Crusaders in order. It reminds a bit of the Islamic custom of three days of looting (a custom that Mehmed II wavered, after taking Constantinople, by the way). I am very sure that Urban II wasn't primarily thinking in terms of this kind of thing being a possibility, but if he did, he considered the immediate fault to be that of sinful soldiers, and the ultimate fault to be that of those provoking the war by being more repressive than Arabic predecessors in Islamic power had been.

Equally, no clergyman ordered the killing of 5000 in Béziers, the Church just ordered the Albigensian Crusade. For reasons I suppose I'll have occasion to return to when you bring up the Inquisition.

2:59 Would you mind telling me where exactly the wording is "wipe out all these Muslims"?

He certainly wanted the Islamic state as run by the Seldjuks gone. I don't know any source saying he wanted Muslim villagers gone too.

3:10 The pillaging, partial massacre of Jews in the Rhineland belongs to the First Crusade, not to every one of the Crusades (seven major ones or eight, I have come across different counts).

The reason for this was, the First Crusade recruited lots of riffraff with few officers to put them in their place.

Geoffrey of Bouillon never took part in the Rhineland pogroms, he actually wasn't there and wasn't able to stop them.

The People's Crusade was the beginning phase of the First Crusade whose objective was to retake the Holy Land, and Jerusalem in particular, from Islamic rule. In 1095, after the head of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Urban II started to urge faithful Christians to undertake an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the People's Crusade was conducted for roughly six months from April to October 1096. It is also known as the Peasants' Crusade, Paupers' Crusade or the Popular Crusade as it was executed by a mainly untrained peasant army prior to the main church-organized crusade. It was led primarily by Peter the Hermit with forces of Walter Sans Avoir. The peasant army of this crusade was destroyed by the forces of the Seljuk Turks under Kilij Arslan at the Battle of Civetot in northwestern Anatolia.

The People's Crusade was the first, largest, and best documented of the popular crusades. The start of the more official and fully church-backed crusade, called the "Princes' Crusade", occurred a few months later and was better organized, better armed, and better funded; it was also successful.

Citing wiki "People's Crusade"

3:11 — 3:15 WHAT did you just say?

They started massacring Jews in the Rhineland cities, just because that's what the Catholic Church said to do.

This is preposterous nonsense.

Peter the Hermit was a preacher partly authorised by the Church, the Church hadn't pre-vetted everything he said, then he inspired the Popular Crusade, then he actually left it after seeing the Rhineland pogroms.

If you are not yourself a blatant liar, who is it? Whom did you have the bad judgement to believe?

Is it Kevin Annett?**

[on massacre of Jerusalem]

3:23 They killed Muslims, Jews and Christians.

And they were obviously not the Church, but simply soldiery who were letting off frustrations on people weaker than themselves in the most shameful and bloody way possible.

All three days, Geoffrey of Bouillon tried to stop it and he succeeded on day 3.

[Sack of Constantinople, 1204]

3:39 "went in there to wipe out Christians who weren't Catholic"

More like, were detained by non-Catholic Christians, a k a schismatics, and were trapped, and fought back and got the better of it.

Pope Innocent III hadn't planned it, but once it was done, he took advantage of it to make a Latin Patriarch in Constantinople.

The fact of the matter is, the Crusaders had planned to pass through, and ...

Following the siege of Constantinople in 1203, on 1 August 1203 the pro-Crusader Alexios Angelos was crowned Emperor Alexios IV of the Byzantine Empire. He attempted to pacify the city, but riots between anti-Crusader Greeks and pro-Crusader Latins broke out later that month and lasted until November, during which time most of the populace began to turn against him.[10][11]

On 25 January 1204, the death of co-Emperor Isaac II set off rioting in Constantinople in which the people deposed Alexios IV. He turned to the Crusaders for help, but was imprisoned by the imperial chamberlain, Alexios Doukas, who declared himself Emperor on 5 February, before executing Alexios IV by strangulation on 8 February.[12] Alexios V then attempted to negotiate with the Crusaders for a withdrawal from Byzantine territory without payment, but they refused in order to avenge Alexios IV and receive the money that was promised.[12] In March 1204, the Crusader and Venetian leadership decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople in order to settle debts, and drew up a formal agreement to divide the Byzantine Empire between them.[13]

Wikipedia "Sack of Constantinople" footnotes with:
"Alexius IV Angelus". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 25 April 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
Brand, Charles M. (1968). "A Byzantine Plan for the Fourth Crusade". Speculum. 43 (3): 462–475. doi:10.2307/2855839. ISSN 0038-7134. JSTOR 2855839.
Robert of Clari (1936). "62". The Conquest of Constantinople. Translated by Holmes McNeal, Edgar. New York: Columbia University Press.
Robert of Clari (1936). "68". The Conquest of Constantinople. Translated by Holmes McNeal, Edgar. New York: Columbia University Press.

3:49 You pretend that the Church organised the Children's Crusade, but according to wikipedia, it's more like there were two of them and the Church couldn't stop them.

You see, this was in 1212, before the Inquisition had given the Church lots of leverage over social affairs, a leverage since then inherited by shrinks and social workers and much less well used than most acts of the inquisition, and this meant, the Church didn't have the means to stop a charismatic boy who was either a charlatan or deluded or both in turns.

1212 is also the year in which St. Clare successfully eloped from her parents and was placed by St. Francis of Assisi in the Benedictine nunnery. So, 1212 was pretty much a year in which young people were so free that the late 1960's would have seemed Victorian by comparison.

Will your next move be to say the Catholic Church planned Woodstock?

4:01 You are inventing manipulators that didn't exist.

Nicholas of Cologne and Stephen of Cloyes were shepherd boys, they were (the latter even at age 12) on an amateur level "manipulating" masses of other boys, but they were not manipulated by the Church.

[Reconquista]

4:17 What did you say, again?

"Crusades in Spain, against Muslims and Jews alike. They're wiping people out."

1) Muslims were a force of occupants. If you missed the memo, in Covadonga, Alqama and Munuza hoped to wipe Pelagius out. They failed. This was in 711.
2) Muslim forces and régimes had plenty of time up to 1492 (781 years) to give Christians (the majority) their freedom back (in a way that Crusaders didn't hurt the freedoms of Muslim Palestinians), but no, they had to keep exacting jiziya and things, and on occasion killed people for apostasy when someone else had promised they would become Muslims and didn't (like the priest Perfectus of Cordoba or the stepdaughters Alodia and Nunilo, when brother or stepfather had made the promise), and the powers were kicked out.
3) Civilian Muslims weren't usually massacred, but eventually asked to convert or leave. With Moriscos, ex-Muslim communities, an expulsion was arranged in 1609.*
4) Jews came at the butt end of this pretty late. Basically, they were seen in relation to Muslim rulers, like Vichy-French were seen in relation to Nazi occupants. As collaborators. Like Muslims, they weren't simply massacred, but also asked to convert or leave, and those converting have not been expulsed, are a good proportion of the population of the Baleares to this day.

*The Expulsion of the Moriscos (Spanish: Expulsión de los moriscos) was decreed by King Philip III of Spain on April 9, 1609. The Moriscos were descendants of Spain's Muslim population who had been forced to convert to Christianity. Since the Spanish were fighting wars in the Americas, feeling threatened by the Ottomans raiding along the Spanish coast and by two Morisco revolts in the century since Islam was outlawed in Spain, it seems that the expulsions were a reaction to an internal problem of the stretched Spanish Empire.***

4:40 The Papal support for Crusades and a President going to war cannot be compared.

Crusaders were volunteer forces, and while they had some obedience to the Pope, they had their own chiefs, who gained power and in the case of the Nordic Crusades ended up turning on the Church and declaring secular states with themselves as hereditary rulers, like Brandenburgs in Prussia (now in Poland and Lithuani + Kaliningrad enclave) and Kettlers in Curonia and Semgallen (in Latvia).

Pope Innocent II was Pope after the Crusades had already begun, and he was persecuted by the Emperor who supported an antipope. Just before the Crusades, two popes before Urban II, Gregory VII had been obliged to flee to Canossa from another Emperor who supported another antipope. His antipope failed, so, the Emperor went to Canossa "as penitent" to force the pope to absolve him.

5:06 Nobles having material motives, not the least disputed.

5:35 No, it was not an atrocity over anyone who believed differently than they.

Especially not in the Middle East.

Idolatrous Prusians and Latvians were perhaps less lucky ... but they were also more Barbaric. Like in massacring peaceful missionaries who had dared to come without Crusaders.

5:46 No, Muslims were not all the population of the Holy Land, Christians and Jews were oppressed by them much as in Spain, and the oppressors were obviously not all the Muslims, so, not all the Muslims were the targets. Just the armies and politicians.

So much for "interesting to have a defense against people in their own land" ... the US actually defended Anglo-Texans against Mexicans in the Mexican province of Texas, making it for a short while a free state and then a state of the Union.

5:50 "The Muslims were not coming to wipe out England or wipe out Spain ..."

Get a clue. Spain was in 1095 Southern part occupied by Muslim forces. Sicily and South Italy had recently been liberated from Muslim forces by a joint venture of Byzantium and Normans, ending up with Normans taking land after being denied wages, in 1033.

Between 700 and 1000, Muslims could do lots of raiding on Europe (outside their conquests in Spain / Portugal and S. Italy), and a reddit comment on a thread about it° reads:

Its honestly amazing how weak western christian nations were around 700-1000 compared to what they would be after 1100

They were fractured into small realms that often weren't very stable, and had to contend not only with the saracens raiding from the south but also the pagan northmen from the north.

In other words, yes, Muslims actually were a threat to Christian Europe.

6:13 Statistics?

When statistics are taken down near the events, in a credible fashion, fine. But in the time of the Crusades, a certain code of military valour loved to exaggerate the numbers of killed in massacres, to the point that some Apologists for the book of Joshua ... I disagree with them ... have explained that with exaggerated statistics.

You don't dispose of graveyeards comparable to Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial where you can walk around and count 9,388 graveplots. You don't have military commanders cleaning up afterwards, so you don't have them report "we killed so and so many, we got so and so many killed, therefore we need five days to bury them all and so many reinforcements" because military commanders left the cleaning up to civilians. There are usually no means of getting actual accurate statistics from this period about killed in battle.

Inquisition

6:37 You are misdefining heresy.

Believing differently than the Catholic Church is "unbelief" (opposite of "faith"). Heresy is just one species of unbelief.°°

Accordingly we must say that if unbelief be considered in comparison to faith, there are several species of unbelief, determinate in number. For, since the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the faith, this may happen in two ways: either the faith is resisted before it has been accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or heathens; or the Christian faith is resisted after it has been accepted, and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such is the unbelief of heretics. Hence we may, in a general way, reckon these three as species of unbelief.

If, however, the species of unbelief be distinguished according to the various errors that occur in matters of faith, there are not determinate species of unbelief: for errors can be multiplied indefinitely, as Augustine observes (De Haeresibus).

The problem is, some people were already obliged to Christianity, either by accepting the OT (Jews) or by even accepting the NT (Catholics, Schismatic, Heretics). These people not believing is a more shameful act than a pure Pagan (one such since childhood) not believing.

As per definitions, Inquisitors could have proceded against Armenians, Copts, Assyrians or even Greeks (variously viewed as Schismatics and as Photian Heretics). But in practise, when heresies comprised populations and these were not in war with Catholics, they were left alone. The one thing one wanted to avoid (even by prosecution and killing offenders not repenting) was an apostasy within the Catholic powers, since it was believed this would ussher in the Antichrist (and I can't say this belief is wrong either).

6:51 "And then burn ...They set up permanent tribunals across Europe ..."

For Inquisitorial processes, as other judiciary, when protocols are preserved, we actually do have statistics.

1) Bernard Guy was involved in 930 procedures, sometimes more than one against the same suspect. No, not the one from Name of the Rose, the real man. Of these 45 were "burned in effigie" because they escaped. This means a puppet of straw was presented as a criminal to be punished, and "he" was burned without anyone actually dying. 42 were actually burned. The proportion is typical.°°°
2) Across Europe is an exaggeration, and the English one was not set up by the Pope but decided by the English parliament in 1401. In 1430, there were no Albigensians left in France, Waldensians were mostly not brought before the Inquisition, the Waldensians burned in Arras were burned by the English Inquisition and St. Joan of Arc too, because a large part of France was occupied by the English.

The Spanish Inquisition was set up in 1478 because there were fake converts, real converts were being massacred (Torquemada was of such a family) and one wanted to defend real converts by credibly rooting out the fake ones (with generous chances of becoming real ones ... or hiding the fake better).

So, neither England nor Spain had an Inquisition set up by Gregory IX. Both had their inquisitions set up much later for their own political reasons.

7:19 Cathars, Waldensians, wiped out, you said.

More Cathars (a k a Albigensians) were wiped out by returning to the Catholic Church (of their youth or their dad's or grand-dad's youth) than by getting burned.

I commpared the Children's Crusade to Woodstock, one could compare what Albigensians did, before the Church got back more control than she had had before over the regions, to Altamont. Except, instead of killing one Meredith Hunter, the Albigensians arranged abortions and prolonged starvations to death of the old who made certain rites in the Albigensians religion (as they had no repeatable confession, they saw such killing as a way of rescuing a soul from reincarnation). And children fared far worse under Albigensian rule than the poor boys in the Children's Crusade. Albigensians had a horror of procreation and of marriage, and therefore obviously weren't too keen on taking responsibility for children.

[tried to add]~

Waldensians weren't finally seen as half as bad, and there are Waldensians to this day.

---

* I couldn't access it while making the comment, hence the ignorance of the year. Checking elsewhere, the publication is from 2012, so, the 10 % proportion may still be valid. And when a language dies in Latin America, the heir do not always replace it with Spanish, but sometimes with a larger relative of the same language. Here are the info on the paper:

Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages
March 2012 DOI:10.1002/9781118228098.ch4
In book: The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics (pp.65-88)
Authors: Anna María Escobar, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286431659_Spanish_in_Contact_with_Amerindian_Languages

**I've encountered him before. Here is my assessment on him:

It is a sad fact that Kevin Annett is himself an ex-pastor from United Church of Canada. He found his own sect guilty, and he found, as habitually among such anti-Catholic sectarians, the Catholic Church guiltier.

And here is the series about his wild accusations: 1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case ... the cited assessment being in number 7.

*** Footnoting within the comment. Citing wiki Expulsion of the Moriscos

° Why were the Saracens/Arabs/Muslims allowed to freely plunder Europe for almost 300 years before the First Crusade?, where the head entry features the blog post Breve cronologia degli attacchi saraceni (termine con cui si designano gli attacchi arabo-islamici del primo millennio) nel Mediterraneo, nella penisola italiana, in quella ispanica, in Provenza e sulle Alpi, di Andrea Lonardo

°° Summa: Second Part of the Second Part : Question 10. Unbelief in general
Article 5. Whether there are several species of unbelief?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article5

°°° I think I may have found the info in Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge by Régine Pernoud. (Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge, Paris, Le Seuil, 1977, 162 p. ; rééd. poche, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. « Points-Histoire », 1979.) She also wrote La Femme au temps des cathédrales, Paris, Stock, 1980. I briefly consulted it in a public library in the South of France, but "Pour en finir" I owned for years.

~ The last of the comments still up, right now when writing this, is on 5:50, so still on Crusades / Reconquista, not on Inquisition. Intentional, or the mass of my comments triggered a spam filter? Either way, 9PM and some, 9.XI.2025, I find it time to leave this video for now. See if I'll have time to add anything tomorrow. The post is getting published by somewhat before 5 PM.