A Fundie's No to a Certain Type of Academia

The three (yes, 3) creation stories of the Hebrew Bible - Ola Wikander's "Banal yet Awesome" #6
Ola Wikander – [Baalcycle] | 30 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu01CX_7ifs

0:49 Chapter 2, Adam's autobiography. Chapter 1, Moses' vision.

1:18 Did Mr. Mettinger (is he still alive by the way?) believe in the Elohist and the Jahvist?

2:19 From the pov of the first narrative, it's sufficient they were created the same day, day VI.

From the pov of the second narrative, while it is not totally unambiguous from the text, some racists like Isaac de la Peyrère have considered Adam was created later than mankind, is at least compatible with this being on day VI.

Panorama and closeup.

3:32 I recall Tryggve Mettinger, as lecturer to my mother, and I came along one day at age 13, gave this theory.

After the lecture, I confronted him, he said he did not necessarily think I was wrong, but he had to teach this way.

I got a fairly good impression of his person, but a lifelong disgust of the system he was, as far as I could tell from his words, caught in.

Theology at a Swedish university for me ... huge nono.

I'm missing out on the Hebrew of course, I'm not quite able to the discipline necessary to learn a non-vernacular language, whether you call it "dead" or "classic" or in this case obviously "sacred" without an actual teacher, but it's worth being free from pressure to accept this kind of misreading of, for instance, Job.

As a believing but not baptised quasi Evangelical back then or as as Trad Catholic now, I'm a Fundie, I don't accept that kind of thing. Tryggve Mettinger, if still alive, is very welcome to debate me, on a setting like correspondence and publication to both person's or my own blogs or blog, but he is not welcome to teach me in a university setting.

God really made a monster like the Leviathan (whether monster shark or T Rex) a plaything for himself, after it became a ferocious creature at the curse. God equally did not need his carcass nor that of a supposed "Tehom = Tiamat" to have preexisttng material for creation. And the moment when Babylonians started to confuse the two levels was arguably when Nimrod made a brag about being creator of the earth, while already known as and experienced as a monster killer. At Babel, which is Göbekli Tepe ...

Neither the Pentateuch nor Job is by Ezra. Nor are substantial parts of them.

4:06 I suppose you mean this passage?

Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters Thou hast broken the heads of the dragon: thou hast given him to be meat for the people of the Ethiopians Thou hast broken up the fountains and the torrents: thou hast dried up the Ethan rivers [Psalms 73:13-15]

Alludes to:

Flood (most mountains we see were mudflow in the sea during the Flood, a mountain is obviously firm)
Exodus (walls of water are another sort of miraculous firmness, not implying an actual solid, something to keep in mind before dismissing the Raqiah as non-factual)
Crossing of Jordan but also no globe spanning X cross of Eden rivers any more ...

Does NOT allude to the Baal cycle of Ugarit or the Enlil story in Enuma Elish. I'm sure they are great fun to read, enjoy, but they are not as much of an exegetic clue as you seem to think.

4:50 "heads of the dragons" ... dino-like critters in the Flood ... "heads of the dragon" ... Pharao of Egypt as precursor of Antichrist

After this "God is presented as creator of Heaven and Earth" ... well, lets see:

Thine is the day, and thine is the night: thou hast made the morning light and the sun [Psalms 73:16]

Another allusion that God is giving us night and day by rotating the cosmos around us (below the Empyrean heaven). What is the work that God performs every Sabbath? If it takes 24 hours, it's because God turns the fix stars and the Raqiah around us in 23 h 55 min per full circle, while an angel takes the Sun on an annual tour around the Zodiac. So, it is not the completion of an alternative creation account to those of Genesis 1 and 2, but an allusion to what God is still doing.

Thou hast made all the borders of the earth: the summer and the spring were formed by thee [Psalms 73:17]

Note, Emil's sister Ida is not an alias of God, the song "du ska' inte' tro de' blir sommar" is not Astrid's best theology, if the "jag gör så" is said in the person of Ida ...

But borders, that includes the four corners that the mainland actually has on a globe, where they meet the Pacific, so, the psalmist affirms that the God who revealed the place of four angels in Apoc 7:1 knows exactly what corners He means, because He made them. Inter alia, by application.

5:29 That the mythology is well attested doesn't mean its identity with Biblical themes is well attested.

Before you adress the probability of a Bible text originally giving a very Baal-cycle like story and then getting portions edited out by Pharisees, how about adressing the probability that a scholar from Israel or Egypt or Babylon told this story (as about himself) to a Swedish or possibly Swabian king whom he supplanted, as primeval ancestor of Ynglings through his stepson ...?

I mean the relevant parts of Voluspa and Gylfaginning are a far better match for the Baal cycle than Psalm 73 (or in Masoretic and Protestant versions 74). Or, at least for the Enuma Elish. What was Odin's edit? Well, he replaced a dragon like monster with a giant, which suggests he knew "there were giants in those days" (before the Flood), and he identified Flood and Creation, which some Fundie Mythology scholars consider as a good explanation of Egyptian Creation stories.

Objects are Blessed in Catholicism

Why do things need blessings?
Mercedarian Friars USA | 30 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XrJjV_B58Y

With God's grace and the prayers of the Church.

A sacrament works ex opere operato. A sacramental ex oratione ecclesiae orantis.

Speaking of which, yes, the material world was cursed, because of Adam's sin, and even if an object is not set aside for holy use, the blessing makes the ordinary use saner and safer. Food and cars are blessed, to name an instance.

Also, you obey the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven ... that includes the handkerchiefs that touched the clothing of Sts Paul and Barnabas, but also other blessed objects. Salt cannot consciously adore, but when salt is blessed it is in some ways ordained to adoring God. "Cellar door is such a beautiful word, if it only meant sth more interesting" ... in French it does. Le "sel adore" ... participative, not on its own.

This is why Mark 10:6 really doesn't accept any important stretch of time before Adam and Eve were created. If you were Protestants and didn't bless objects, you might have a point pretending Col. 1:23 proves it means just the human creation. Nope. You are a Catholic, you bless objects, and so objects are also parts of the creation in which the Gospel is preached.

Heliocentrism. Some Think It Has Been Proven. It Hasn't. And ChatGPT Hasn't Thought About Job.

How I Got ChatGPT to Admit God Exists
Morgan Dubie | 25 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QARFiIY01LI

Ha, Miss or Madame Dubie!

I'm here from AronRa's video. You are wrong on the number of books in the Bible.

It's 72, or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremias. The distance from Beroea (Veria in modern Greek) to Thessaloniki (Thessalonica in the Bible) is 73 km as in 73 (or 72) books overall, and it's 45 miles, as in 45 (or 46) OT books. The Bible doesn't exhaustively tell us which books it contains, but it does give a good hint at their number if you check Acts about Beroea and the Epistles about Thessalonica.

2:56 No, not circular reasoning, just a lack of distinction intended to give the impression that the Bible is self refuting.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?
[Numbers 23:19]

Two distinctions to make.

a) God was not a man yet, and even when He became man, it was not in order to lie.
b) While men contrast with God on being prone to lying, it doesn't mean all men lie and especially not that all who lie never repent or stop lying.

In logic, there is no such thing as "circular reasoning", there is "vicious circle of proof" and "vicious circle of definition" which could be extended to involve "vicious circle of causation" (Munchhausen pulling himself up from the swamp by pulling his ponytail) and "vicious circle of explanation" (there are other explanations than just proof and definition).

None of these vicious circles should be confused with any of the other and none of them should be diagnosed just because there is a circularity in the rhetoric. Which was all there was in AronRa's quoted statement.

4:06 Who commandeth the sun and it riseth not: and shutteth up the stars as it were under a seal:
[Job 9:7]

Job prophecied how Joshua's long day would look from the Americas.

4:15 AronRa's presuming Heliocentrism has been proven. Hasn't.

alekoper

@alekoperr

Excuse me?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@alekoperr He - li - o - cen -trism.

Aron Ra thinks it has been proven.

It has not.

4:23 Gyros in LXX means "circumference" ... both spheres and discs have that.

Continents have corners. Four main ones if you look on a globe. Can you spot them? They all touch the Pacific.

5:01 Someone pretended Homer was going psychedelic when he described the sea as "winecoloured" ... poetry doesn't need to be non-factual, and when red wine leaves stains on white linen, the stains after washing are blue. Winecoloured is very exact about the sea, when it's lighter sea blue in the sunshine.

6:09 I would not bet on the things in Job being purely metaphoric, though obviously there is a kind of wooden literalism which falls pretty flat ... but not because Job is poetic.

6:37 Edgar Allan Poe possibly aggregates metaphors, like Biblical poetry aggregates facts.

8:44 Do you think Chat GPT understands any of this? Think again.

It's basically a plagiarising machine, so it has gone to verse by verse exegeses commonly found on the internet.

9:09 Whoever ChatGPT plagiarised, said "with celestial beings" (a k a angels) "participating in the celebration."

Very correctly so.

Sharing on the Sprachbund of the Balkans

The Balkan Sprachbund: How Different Languages Became Strangely Similar
Polyglot Dreams | 26 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hkn1Bw_c-CE

Answering Matt Whitman Some

A Protestant's Guide to Pope Picking
Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour | 26 April 2025
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ABZE3jebI

5:15 In fact, a cardinal always is some other post as well.

The bishop of Ostia has always been a cardinal since that existed. So, that cardinal automatically is bishop of Ostia. Again, the curate or deacon of Saint Sabina, a Church in Rome, built over the house Church of the saint of that name, with the saint Serapia, a servant woman who converted her. That curate or deacon is one of the cardinal titles.

9:49 Medieval canonists say, a Pope cannot:

• change the Bible
• change the essential rites of the sacraments
• change the status ecclesiae, and I think that means "Papal State" ...

11:33 The correct answer seems to be, if a Pope fell into apostasy or just even heresy, he would automatically auto-depose and could consequently be judged.

The fact or heresy and auto-deposition are public and verifiable prior to such judgement. Could also mean to conclude someone was never even elected Pope.

For instance, when Bergoglio was close with Tony Palmer, it didn't seem as if he hoped he'd convert from the Anglican heresy. Confirmed by the fact that an unconverted Tony Palmer was not buried as Anglican "bishop" but by Bergoglio as a "Catholic bishop" ...

Tolkien seems more like at least nudging C. S. Lewis now and then, and C. S. Lewis had taken up not just going to Confession, but even belief in Purgatory, of sorts. Also, part of Tolkien's grief when CSL died could be grief at his not converting first.

15:56 Apostolic succession in the sense that Protestants lack is in fact not primarily the Series Pastorum of a certain Church

Early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus do look at the Series Pastorum, it is neater to look at for instance Antioch having first Peter (before he moved to Rome), then Evagrius, then Ignatius, each of whom was in Antioch for a substantial amount of time, than tracing (especially some time after Ignatius) who was consecrated bishop by whom back to the Apostles.

Gnostics lacked both. The polemics with the Gnostics priorised the former info. And in that sense of series pastorum, one could say Wexjo in Sweden or Canterbury in England have "apostolic succession" since Sts Sigfrid (from England) or Augustine (from Italy, probably Rome) ... what the Protestants lack however is a series of valid consecrations. Even if Parker and Larentius Petri II were validly consecrated, by their theology, they did not intend to celebrate Mass, did not intend to ordain priests who could celebrate Mass and did not intend to consecrate bishops who could ordain priests who could celebrate Mass. That's where Apostolic Succession has broken down for Protestants. In Geneva, there wasn't even a pretence of continuing any episcopal office.

However, the question of Series Pastorum. The peaceful succession in any see, including Rome, could be broken by schism or criminal pseudo-elections, even if St. Irenaeus hadn't seen such things. And in that case, the Series Pastorum would be restored by entering communion with the Church again. Rome is a special case. As valid Avignon popes prove, Rome can exist in exile. This is because Rome is the measure by which the adherence of other churches to the Church Universal is measured.

The things you think of, no, the Series Pastorum of Rome isn't broken permanently by a break of the continuity that is healed. Unlike with Apostolic Succession, where an invalid bishop doesn't just need reconciliation, but getting consecrated by someone who actually is a bishop.

Anthony Stine on the Burial of Bergoglio (Whom he Calls "Pope Francis")

Pope Francis' Public Memorial And Funeral Take A Disturbing Turn
Return To Tradition | 26.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QIPOdidC4s

4:40 Homeless are not necessarily sinners.

Heard of the Pilgrim of Loreto, Tom Zimmer?

Thomas Raymond Zimmer, 1926 to 2009 lived homeless, I thought in Rome, it seems to have been Loreto and part time Rome, I met him outside St. Peter's in 1986.

Obviously, in Rome mostly, we have St. Benoît Joseph Labre.

I'm queezy about two fairly traditional Catholics both endorsing the idea that if in any sense, permanent or ad tempus, you chose to be homeless, it's a sinful choice. Yesterday, The Religious Hippie (SSPX, I believe) interviewed a man who had been antinomial while homeless. Today, while I agree "very confused dudes" are sinners and prisoners on day leave are mostly sinners doing penance, when the category homeless are also involved, I don't think it makes sense to exchange the category disadvantaged for that of sinners.

The closest parish in Paris to where I have held my luggage most of the time since first confinement, already second winter was in a position to help me out of homelessness, but only offered conditions inacceptable to me. Mine were to them.

Their conditions: you can live in the apartment of a disabled or aged man. That way rent is cheaper. At the time I had money for 12 months in a cheap apartment without dorm sharing. And my condition of how to make an advantage of that was one they didn't want to help me out with.

9:13 I've seen livor mortis on my grandmother's face, the side she turned down, the morning when ma found her dead and notified me.

It wouldn't seem to match the gravity conditions of a face turned up, unless the greying is supposed to be the inverse, where blood is flowing from, instead of the obverse, where it is flowing to.

11:10 I obviously think Pius XII's discoloration can be providentially related to Humani Generis.

In Chesterton's time, he died 1936 under Pius XI, it was still a major no no to give Adam any kind of evolutionary origins. In Humani Generis, which seems to have precursors on less solemn levels starting in 1941, you get things like at least discussing the possibility and obviously, if a Pope says "you can at least discuss the possibility" there are people who will take it as "yeah, we can believe it" ...

The limitations in that time were very different from S. Joshua Swamidass who basically considers non-Adamites as people, they just don't have the supernatural and invisible extra that image of God is supposed to mean. No, in 1941, Pius XII or his men were perfectly clear, if Adam came out of the womb of a living being, that being was not his mother in a human sense. In other words, the idea involved God committing child abuse in order to create Adam. Guess what kind of things started happening in Netherlands and France in the 1940'?

13:21 Carlo Acutis seems, by contrast to appear incorrupt.

While his body appears to be incorrupt through the viewing glass, it is covered with a wax layer that is molded to look like his body prior to burial. This is not uncommon for the presentation of saints’ bodies.

Aleteia: Is the body of Blessed Carlo Acutis incorrupt?
https://aleteia.org/2023/10/09/is-the-body-of-bl-carlo-acutis-incorrupt

26:52 When it comes to some AI generated videos, it's obvious from the very monotonous accent.

For imagery, some very "faces like Botticelli" and somewhat blurred outlines and gaudy colours are easy to spot.

But on Quora, images with "I am disabled and afraid no one will notice my birthday" ... I was just told by someone "don't bother, they are AI-generated" ...

27:04 Could you take some time off reporting on the Church to make a tutorial about spotting AI, especially when it's photographic?

28:00 There was however a public exposition of the body of the late Mgr Williamson (ordained by Mgr Lefebvre in 1976, very famously consecrated by the same in 1988). His face showed no discolouring.

28:11 Being over concerned with medicine could be the image of the beast.

Apollon in the five cases added together is 2666. And the Hippocratic oath famously begins swearing by him.

In the Renaissance the Hippocratic oath was discussed, and one concluded its wording was OK, the family with Apollo and his children Asclepius, Salus, Panacaea, were a human family of physicians, righteous among the Gentiles in pre-Christian times, so, one could swear by them. In Nuremberg either Cobblers or Meistersinger swore by King David, also pre-Christian, though not a Gentile. This makes "Apollo" a human name.

That's one reason why I opposed certain mask mandates and v[accine] mandates.

Excellent Points, But Why Not Using Prima Via?

My New Favorite Argument for God
Brian Holdsworth | 26 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5wNbfMky14

3:00 You were doing very fine on Secunda Via, not first mover, but generalised to first cause, including of non-movement.

Then you said "even if the chain went on indefinitely" ... it couldn't. If it did, it would lack a hook to the roof, and therefore the werewithal to keep the chain links and the chandelier up.

8:07 Now you have transitioned to Tertia Via.

For non-Geocentrics, that one tends to get more popular than Prima Via ... can you detect why?

Obviously, I agree with Secunda and Tertia Via too.

9:41 If you grant Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, personal is actually a given through this argument.

The moving of the universe round and round couldn't be an irrational simple propensity, since circular movement requires some aim.

And if smaller personal beings are concerned with Tychonian orbits, it would take a personal being to command them.

14:50 A final point. The ecosystem we live in, to St. Thomas, was a matter of Prima Via, because the Zodiac going around us in close to 24 hours and Sun going through the Zodiac in a year and Moon going through the Zodiac, not so much in herself as in relation to the Sun, is actually keeping us alive.

But the Zodiac is in the sphere of the Fix stars. So, to St. Thomas, even Sirius, Vega, Aldebaran are in our single ecosystem. This is, if you go to Q11, A3, corpus, the third way in which St. Thomas establishes that God is actually one. And that third way is the only that builds directly on the five ways in Q2. The first and second ways of establishing God's unity build on QQ 3 and 4.

An Attack on Apologetics, of Sorts

An Attack on Apologetics, of Sorts · Biblical Inerrancy is Patristic

Christian Apologetics is Dangerous #deconstruction
C. J. Cornthwaite | 23 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QGCMOsruE0

15:24 He didn't say "total crap" he said "straw" ...

I'm with Chesterton on this one. He was certainly granted a vision compared to which his Summa and Bible commentaries were very inadequate. This doesn't mean we, who have not seen that vision should also find the Summa inadequate for us.

It especially doesn't mean some other school of Christianity, whether Protestantism, ex-Catholic Neo-Protestantism (I recall one man in particular whom I knew some years of my childhood) or simply your "Christianity isn't intellectual" ... should be considered more adequate. He didn't say "burn it and enthrone the Schmalkaldic Confession" and he also didn't say "burn it and enthrone some Bible scholar who says Christianity isn't consistent intellectually, but still true for other reasons" ... he just said "burn it" ...

God knows what we would have had instead of the Summa if he had been obeyed, but I have a hunch, we would have sth pretty close to the Summa. By the way, the comment certainly didn't include Tantum Ergo, which was already authorised by the Church and was out of his own hands.

16:09 Can you prove Heliocentrism?

I don't mean, can you prove it in very big detail, citing exact protocol, but simply, can you, in principle prove it? I mean on the level you can prove curvature of Earth from geography, from watching ships approaching and parting on seas from the shore, from wider and narrower horison depending on how high you look from.

Because apart from spectrography, most of modern cosmology is dependent on Heliocentrism. If you can't prove Heliocentrism, you can't prove alpha Centauri is 4 light years away, for instance.

16:14 Biblical studies ... exactly what prevents, in Hebrew, which I suppose you know better than I, that a) Genesis 2 shows a closeup on day VI in Genesis 1, and b) a certain phrase be translated "and God having created beasts brought them forth to Adam" (which is the LXX and Vulgate interpretation)?

18:28 In c. 1500 BC, slavery was a universal given, and massacring or enslaving enemies who had resisted was also a universal given.

The Hebrews engaged in that under certain conditions, with certain limitations.

Are you saying that the Hebrews were not God's people? Or are you saying that God didn't ensure justice among His people?

And, by the way, the reasons that you gave earlier for early Christians "obviously" not believing in inerrancy, how about they simply didn't believe in Evangelicalism? The guys you probably have been used to calling proto-Orthodox certainly believed in inerrancy. Just look up City of God. An admission "I may be wrong on which text is the right one," St. Augustine certainly being aware of LXX vs Hebrew text, doesn't add up to abandoning there being a right one and that one being inerrant.

20:05 "real scholars were infinitely smarter"

Infinitely sounds like a prerogative of God.

Smarter, in principle possible. Infinitely. Definitely impossible.

20:49 So, Matthew wrote his Gospel in the 40's. Luke independently wrote his in the 50's. In the Holy Land, they carefully hid the Gospel of Matthew from him, so he couldn't sneak peek on that one. One of those who he spoke to was the Mother of God. He also on this occasion made the painting that's in copies known as Hodegetria, not least Our Lady of Perpetual Help. He then went to Rome to get this authorised by Peter. The first Pope read variously from Matthew and from Luke, and his secretary Mark wasn't looking up, he just took notes, he thought Peter was dictating a Gospel. Peter also added things from own memory. He then decided that the work of Mark should be published before that of Luke. This much we have from the Stromatist, at least on the Synoptic Question. I probably added more on St. Luke than Clement actually said in the passage. I'll add one more thing on Mark, I find it difficult to believe all of the Gospel was dictated at one reading, I find it more reasonable that the Stromatist was describing only the first batch of the Gospel. Then Mark went to Alexandria, where the Stromatist was raised in the faith by his successors. So, the Stromatist should know.

Are you genuinely interested in this solution for the Synoptics? Or do you have a confirmation bias for Markan priority which got its big boost during the Kulturkampf from people who wanted to stamp for instance Matthew 16 as a "later accretion"?

21:10 The evidence for Gospels being eyewitness accounts (first hand or one remote) is Church tradition.

I take tradition as the main key to authorship questions. Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, that's from Allen & Unwin. It is a proposition which has been handed down since 1954 and 1955. Handed down as in tradition.

Just because centuries after the fact the tradition has lost lots of details, like first manuscripts and first copyists and so on, doesn't mean it inherently ceases to be reliable.

21:58 No. The Deformation dumbed the Christian faith down. The Apologists didn't.

Then again. In a sense, it depends on what kind of Apologist. Often, the Apologist has the run of the mill audience in mind, and doesn't show up as a geek because he doesn't expect his reader to be one. On the other hand, there are geekier readers and geekier Apologists. While CSL made some disastrous choices in theology, notably accepting Evolution, the trilogy Miracles, the Problem of Pain and the Abolition of Man are a very great and somewhat geeky apologetic ... if you know to watch out for the pitfalls. No, the pitfall isn't "CSL lost the Anscombe debate" but the chapter on the fall of man in The Problem of Pain.

St. Thomas is even geekier.

22:58 I believe you, at your word, not all of the Oxyrrhynchus Gospels are Gnostic ones.

I look up Oxyrrynchus Gospels on the wikipedia, and I find this on the description of Oxyrrhynchus 840:

The fragment begins with the end of a warning to an evildoer who plans ahead, yet fails to take the next life into account. There follows sections of a narrative unparalleled in any other known gospel tradition, about Jesus' encounter with "a Pharisee, a leading priest" who tries to order Jesus and the disciples out of the Temple as ritually unclean. Jesus responds by contrasting ritual cleanliness — gotten by bathing like a harlot in the water used by dogs and pigs — against the life-giving (metaphorical) water that comes down from heaven in baptism.

I would say, it could be one of the Gospels that Luke mentions, Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word but it wasn't exactly accepted as canonical, because it adds this piece of fan fiction, or a misunderstood digression by the one preaching, to the actual Gospel events. Or, it could be a later thing in the same genre. Perhaps after AD 70, in a situation of Christian Hebrews getting poorly treated by Christ-rejecting Jews and responding with less charity than John did (and John really did respond to that sort of situation, if you ask me).

I don't know exactly why you thought that it would in any way be a kind of threat to the canonic Gospels. Perhaps you thought Christians wouldn't use this tone about Jews ... well, those rejecting Christ were pretty quick to ask for this tone.

23:56 I'm for exploring theology. I'm not for Barth or Balthasar.

Mind you, Hans Urs von Balthasar at least has some decent Mariology, I think.

Conversion or Heritage?

Guess Who Converted to Christianity for Easter!
Apologetics Roadshow | 25 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYgHIOu1bA8

1:23 Could the tweet be by a Christian representative of the state of Palestine?

Meaning someone who was a Christian since he grew up?

I mean, Christian Palestinians are a thing. I even would say they are a prophecied thing, foreseen in Isaiah 11 and coming to pass from Acts 2 and Acts 8.

Jen Thomson

@jenthomson1046

I think so. I watched "The Stones Cry Out" a documentary (on You Tube) on the generations of Christians in that area. They seem to have been forgotten about and they truly suffered a massive amount... Or they have been 'airbrushed' out of the narrative. I don't know?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@jenthomson1046 Yes, can you link to the youtube?

[I left another comment, which disappeared ... or two. Like, Christian Palestinians are a thing and even a prophetic thing, prophecied in Isaiah 11 and fulfilled from Acts 2 and Acts 8. Or like, if David Wood didn't want to believe me, how about believing the Jew Corey Gil-Shuster who actually pretended to ask Christian Palestinians in a video of his ... Palestinian Christians: Are you willing to forgive Israelis?.]

The Religious Hippie Has a Plea

Pope Francis is Gone and So Many Catholics are Getting Him Wrong.
The Religious Hippie | 25 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOhrFyLG74

Responding to successive parts of her plea:

To some, dying is a grace which could even harbour salvation.

Outwardly, he did not confess the faith and was not pope. But his death exonerated him from the suspicion of being one of the two guys mentioned in Apocalypse 19:20, and perhaps God saw a faith that didn't manifest outwardly.

I don't think it's hateful to feel like this. And I hope, even if I might not have the courage to accept it, for death rather than to come into a place of irredeemable evil.

---

Some people, and I think among them "Catholics" have scrutinised me under a microscope.

They have decided "he's not fit for prime time on the internet", I have a large number of views, but most are from people who deliberately want to make it difficult for me to get more of them, to continue, let alone to get a publisher.

I think a man who recently died may have been one of them. A man you called a saint was another of them, I had more charity left for his soul 20 years ago.

---

St. Alphonsus Liguori also held, with Sts Robert Bellarmine and Francis of Sales and against Cajetan, whom the SSPX is favouring, that outward heresy on part of even a real Pope results in automatic loss of office. Automatic. Contrary to Cajetan, it doesn't take a decision of the Church.

St. Robert also held a real Pope probably couldn't become a heretic after validly assuming papacy, but also that heresy already there in the moment of the apparent election would render the election automatically null, and that was explicit Church law in his time, since Paul IV, I think. The bull was formulated so that even prior heresy already repented of would make the election null, that much was part of human Church law, but the part about heresy still not retracted when accepting apparently papacy, it would rather be a question of divine law.

And whether he's heretical in the interior forum before God is beside the point. Since automatic loss of office has to be knowable at least to some part of the Church, it is the exterior confession which counts.

---

If I get you right, your now husband was a homeless fellow, who did nothing except praying and you fell for him?

No. Exactly. He earned a living.

I TRY TO earn a living, and this as a writer on internet. If anyone describes my writing as "petty internet" drama, that's one way of stopping me to get a publisher.

I am not sure that YOU deserve what I wrote here. But someone who prayed for me to see your video certainly does. Namely that someone who is judging me, who is maligning everything I wrote and write as "petty internet drama" ... and who is spreading that lie to "responsible people" all around me, you know what category I mean, the kind who can say "that guy is irresponsible, we need to help him come around" ... someone is saying this about me. When I say I am a Catholic and DON'T say I think Evolutionists are non-Catholics, they pretend I'm perhaps unconsciously inconsistent, I would be so ashamed when I found out such and such a person thinks Catholics are really Evolutionists. When I say I am a Catholic and DO say I think Evolutionists are non-Catholics, I'm being hateful, and need to be marginalised for that reason.

The man you consider as the late Pope was pretty certainly involved. People obeying him or reputed to do so, like archbishop and parish priests in Paris were without even the shadow of a doubt.

Catholics Don't Believe in Parallel Humanities

Aliens, Catechism called "CCC" · Catholics Don't Believe in Parallel Humanities

Who scare Matt Fradd? (Wolves in today's "Professional Catholicism")
Daniel O'Connor | 23 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPu4tN9g1U

1:59 Can I guess that Creationism is off limits with some?

Can I guess Geocentrism is even more off limits, as I think Levi J. Pingleton found out?

32:22 Could it be that he was after all told not to take you by his spiritual director after "Pope Francis" or someone close to him had got wind of the affair?

Bergoglio has pretty much avoided being the False Prophet by dying before the time when that man will be cast alive into the lake of fire.

34:59 From my experience with Rev. Anders Piltz OP Tert. it very much need not be "things could happen" (which is a threat), that was never how he tried to get me to cancel anyone, no, it was more like a) explaining the Trad movement (in an unflattering way, partly psychologising) or, when that didn't work, b) explaining my attraction to it in a psychologising way.

Can you imagine there are some people who would not like to encourage someone in an "ultimately unhealthy" neurosis? I think there are too many people who cave in to that kind of pressure, which isn't so much a threat as it is shaming.

36:49 On your channel, the oldest youtube is from 2010, your pilgrimage to Medjugorje, 10 Aug 2010.

39:04 the one truth

I think there is more than one truth he'll attack or try to do the opposite of, and so, there are more than one truth that could sabotage his rule.

I'm getting cancelled too.

Doctrinal: geocentrism, young earth creationism, not buying into mind being a byproduct of matter
Historic: I'm thoroughly pro-Middle Ages and pro-Historic Christendom, I also believe the "heroic legend" parts of mythologies are mostly true (in other words, your ancestor Conor Mac Nessa existed, as did his Druid Cathbhadh, as did Cúchulainn), canonic age 14 / 12 wasn't just a legal abstraction
Moral: against abortion, contraception, forced sterilisation, lobotomy, psychiatry, against school compulsion and for teens having the right to marry, legally
Procedural: I believe academic consensus sometimes is wrong and can be braved in polemics that don't follow academic protocol.

And obviously, one "human number" is 2666 which is the number of Apollo, if you add up the Greek letters of his name [all five cases], the one context when "Apollo" refers to a human rather than demonic idol being the father of Asclepius. One of his names (from a different context) is Apollyon, Homer called him so in Iliad song one.

"whenever you see something promoted 42:15 under the heading of oh aliens wouldn't refute Catholicism that is always just a 42:22 slippery and underhanded way of promoting the fundamental tenants of the 42:28 ET deception because the statement itself is a complete non sequator to truism cath Catholicism is absolutely 42:35 and certainly true so therefore nothing can disprove it you could put anything 42:42 in the blank and say it wouldn't disprove Catholicism and that's true statement and any tautology is trivial 42:49 in this case it's pointless so when people put these things up saying aliens wouldn't disprove the faith it is a 42:55 backdoor Trojan horse it's a way of defending the very deception that we're 43:00 discussing here"

Brilliant observation.

Note very well that some were interpreting Providentissimus Deus as "saying" that Heliocentrism wouldn't refute Catholicism. More recently some have taken that approach to Evolution as well.

As you may know, one common meaning of "Fundamentalist" is "I believe in the Bible and therefore Evolution and Millions of Years are wrong" or "I believe in the Bible and therefore Heliocentrism is wrong" ...

44:47 One item from the Middle Ages is when St. Virgil of Salzburg was under suspicion of heresy.

It's sometimes towted as evidence for "flat earth Christianity" which it isn't but here is the story.

It seems St. Virgil had used the word "antipodes" in the modern sense, a piece of land opposite to the piece of land you are standing your feet on.

However, in a previous discussion, St. Augustine had denied the existence of "antipodes" in a very different sense.

a) No one could have another origin than Adam and more recently Noah;
b) If it were possible to sail across the great seas East or West, we would have done so;
c) therefore whatever possible land could lie on the opposite part of the Earth would certainly be inaccessible from where we are, and therefore uninhabited.

St. Virgil got cleared of heresy when he clarified that no, he didn't refer to a parallel humanity. In other words, the affirmation of parallel humanities is sinful and heretical.

56:04 Please note, I once started writing a fan fiction on the Narniad.

You may know the premiss of CSL was a parallel incarnation. My fan fic specifically denied it. If Narnia was real, that would be Jesus, in His human body, present in Narnia under the species of a talking lion and NOT a parallel incarnation into a talking lion. Hence the chapter about Bethlehem is called "where Aslan was a lion cub" ...

Then I came to note, well, this doesn't only jar with CSL's premiss, but even with important parts of the story. I have not gotten any well formulated solutions, so the project is lying fallow for that reason, mostly since 2014 ...

Giving the Word to Father Jason Charron (Byzantine Catholic Ukrainian)

Differring from Mr. Taunton on Ukrano-Russian Relations (he could be giving a pov he didn't share) and on Progress and St. Thomas · Giving the Word to Father Jason Charron (Byzantine Catholic Ukrainian)

Steel Manning the Pro Russia Position (Fr. Jason Charron)
Matt Fradd | 22 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWdYsvcQ6Vg

"we don't want secular relativism"

0:54 ... that argument is for very selective use, on the Russian homefront ....

2:50 sth "which dictators don't do" ...

Fr. Jason Charron just said that the Austrofascist "dictators" weren't such, since the changes to the constitution in a time of chaos were drawing on a paragraph of the constitution of the First Republic.

Das war sehr schön, es hat mich sehr gefreut!

3:30 If you want criticism of Russia from the right ...
a) I've mentioned that Ukraine is more Christian, over 80 % versus over 60 %
b) I've mentioned that Ukraine, not just in raw numbers, but in proportion, has fewer abortions.

While I'm no fan of Zelensky, personally (he has a weird sense of humour), I don't think Ukraine should pay for having elected him!

Differring from Mr. Taunton on Ukrano-Russian Relations (he could be giving a pov he didn't share) and on Progress and St. Thomas

Differring from Mr. Taunton on Ukrano-Russian Relations (he could be giving a pov he didn't share) and on Progress and St. Thomas · Giving the Word to Father Jason Charron (Byzantine Catholic Ukrainian)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Differring from Mr. Taunton on Ukrano-Russian Relations (he could be giving a pov he didn't share) and on Progress and St. Thomas · New blog on the kid: A Video by "Capturing Christianity" on Rhett McLaughlin, My Comments, Last One First, Then Timestamp by Timestamp

Why does the West keep getting Russia wrong?
Larry Alex Taunton | 22.IV.2025, Easter Tuesday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyOjaXUy_IM

47:34 Russia as we think of it didn't exist.

I think, in God's and the Blessed Virgin Mary's eyes, Ukraine is heir to Kievan Rus.

Muscovy starts later. And there have only been two supreme rulers Vladimir in Muscovy. Lenin and Putin. Putin is Vladimir II of Muscovy. Zelensky is Vladimir at least V of Kievan Rus ...

Now, admittedly it also stretched into Belarus and modern Russia. AND the part in modern Russia that preceded Kiev was Novgorod ... a stronghold of Paganism well after 988.

Julia Panteleeva

@juliapanteleeva500

To write so is to absolutely not know how Rus lived in that before-Mongol period. The name Kievan Rus was not the name of the land (as we don’t say “Parisian France” or “London England”), it was given by historians as the name of the period of Rus when Kiev was its capital (compare to Vladimir Rus). At that time no countries no nations (as we think of them) now existed. There was a great territory where Eastern Slavs (future Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians) lived all together plus some smaller ethnicities. The territory and the people got the name Rus. Most possible the name Rus was brought by Normans who started the dynasty of the Rurikovichi, were shortly Slavicized and reigned all over the territory of Rus with the capital in Kiev. The territory was one because of the common language (later, after the Mongol invasion it split into 3), common church hierarchy, common law, one multiple dynasty in all the principalities (those war-like siblings were from time to time fighting with each other because of their ambitions) but all of them most of the time recognised the supremacy of the Prince of Kiev. For example Vladimir the St. whom the author mentioned in the video had 12 sons and 7 of them went to reign in northern principalities like Nowgorod, Smolensk, Polotsk etc. Jaroslav Mudry/the Wise spent half of his life in northern principalities then moved to Kiev. It was characteristic for all of them. Before the Mongols’ invasion Kiev got weakened by multiple invasions of the nomads and the capital was moved to Vladimir (Vladimir-Suzdal which are lying very close). During the Mongols Rus went to parts: southern (Ukranians) went soon to Poland, western (Belorussian) was protected by Lithuanian Princes and formed first the Lithuanian and Russian Principality but then made a union with Poles (when Jagailo married Jadviga, was baptised Catholic together with his people and became the King of the new common state). Nothern-Eastern Rus stayed under Mongols for almost 300 years and when liberated, became an independent state with the uniting centre in Moscow. All 3 branches of Eastern Slavs were isolated because of the invasion but they are of the same origin, same age and same rights.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@juliapanteleeva500 "The name Kievan Rus was not the name of the land"

The Weimar Republic was not the name of the land. The actual name of the land was not changed from 1870 to 1943, "Deutsches Reich".

Kievan Rus is a convenient label for historiography, like "Heptarchy" in England.

"Before the Mongols’ invasion Kiev got weakened by multiple invasions of the nomads and the capital was moved to Vladimir (Vladimir-Suzdal which are lying very close)."

Is this in the Primary Chronicle?

I know there was a move by one Kievan Metropolitan to Suzdal. He's "ancestral" to the Patriarchs of Moscow.

But a brief move of the Capital from Kiev to Vladimir is hardly proof that Vladimir-Suzdal-Tver rather than less Tatarised Kiev and (I think) Polotsk are the closest heirs to Rus (from the Kievan era).

Also, the old Rus Novgorod, if I recall correctly, was a Hanseatic city, and when it was conquered by Muscovites, it was demolished. I think that was under Ivan the terrible.

I agree about same rights in human dignity, but when it comes to spiritual heirs of St. Volodimir, and of the dedication to the Blessed Virgin, I would say that Ukraine is closer than Russia. That's why (my guess) Our Lady in Fatima asked for Russia to be consecrated. Ukraine and Belarus were under Christian rule, in Muscovy the feet were kissed of Pagan warlords who wanted to be treated as "here it is I who am god" ...

@juliapanteleeva500 My bad, the Hanseatic city was during the Tatar overlordship.

47:55 It's like saying the US were founded in London.

The first capital of the Thirteen Colonies wasn't Washington DC, it was .... London. You know, prior to a tax dispute and all that back in 1776.

So, the action of Putin is a bit like if Trump tried to make UK 51st State.

47:59 As a Swede and back in 1988 a friend of an Ukrainian Uniate Catholic who duly celebrated the Baptism of St. Volodimir in 988, I obviously add myself to the Ukrainian choir disputing that. JUST to be clear.

Also, Ukraine was part time under Poland Lithuania (which certainly beats being under the Tatars), and that means Ukrainians were among the guys who saved Vienna from Islamisation in 1683.

54:55 When Russia had a go at an Industrial Revolution, fortunately Ukraine missed out on it, and it led to a starvation such that Lenin rubbed his hands and said "this is Revolutionary potential" ...

That's why the next failure of crops in Russia proper, in the Volga valley was offset by plundering Ukraine and making a starvation there.

"We can't give the guys the impression that Makhnow and the Peasant Army (black and green armies) had it right, we must boost the image of Industrialism" ...

Said and done, the manmade starvation of ill managed industrialism was displaced to Ukraine ... it did for Ukrainian loyalty to Russia (if any was left) what an earlier manmade starvation of Capitalism had done on Ireland when it came to loyalty to England. "We can't give Irish Catholic farm hands the impression they can just get wheat for free" ... (which wheat they had grown and when the contractual potatoes were failing), and well, one or two generations later, there is a certain Easter Uprising of 1916.

55:36 Evolution claims man came from creatures about the intelligence of chimps or gorillas.

Progressivism claims modern man came from the Palaeolithic.

Note, I would agree we came THROUGH the Palaeolithic, but I would say, compared to most pre-Flood areas (Neanderthals excepted) and compared to post-Flood times from Neolithic on, Palaeolithic is as marginal in human conditions as Industrial Revolution. About 350 years in each case.

58:15 I would actually say it has more to do with being heirs to the Ingalls family than with being heirs to the Vanderbilts.

In other words, you can thank God that the Industrial Revolution came later to you than to England. And has impacted less.

Equally, Ruralism rather than Industrialism tends to make Germans, Italians and Irish optimistic and resiliant.

58:33 What I distinctly love less about that comment is the idea of displacing Muslims and Christians (order of quantity) or Christians and Muslims (order of importance) for not being Jews.

59:42 I would say, from the Tucker Carlson interview, Putin is an Atheist. Or possibly Pantheist and if so probably Stoic or Kantian or Spinozan school.*

There are far more real Christians and far more Christians at least professing to be such overall in Ukraine. I know your daughter had a different experience of it, but still.

64.4% Christianity = Russia.
87.3% Christianity = Ukraine.

1:01:15 Correction.

He's not summarising the MIND of God. He's summarising the REVELATION of God, or in other words "essential doctrines" ... 4000 pages essential doctrines? With some indepth explanation, yes.

He didn't much bother about doctrines which he didn't consider essential. The exciting thing is, when St. Thomas is lengthy, he's excited. He's pretty convinced that the opposing position to his own is likely either to damn you or at least to seriously impair your capacity for theological reflection.

1:02:16 Riccioli who didn't believe the Prime Mover argument was factually correct summarised it as God turning the visible Heavens as a whole around Earth, and dragging Sun, Moon and Stars, along with Heaven around Earth.

Instead Riccioli believed Heaven was empty and immobile [a void cannot move] on the levels we see and only indivual bodies move. The coordination of them still would require a God able to give orders to all of them, but OK.

The problem with trying to combine Heliocentrism with Prime Mover is, without all of the universe participating in one movement and that helping the one ecosystem we live in the middle of, there goes a chance to refute the idea that there are many prime moverS instead. See Prima Pars, Q 11, A 3, which speaks of God being one (as distinct from existing in the first place) where the third way is precisely this.

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (I:3:3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

This doesn't directly go back to I:2:3 or Five Ways, you have to pass by Q3.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (I:4:2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Dito, but Q4.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.

Here we are dealing with Prime Mover as per Q2, AND St. Thomas is saying Sirius and Vega are parts of the ecosystem we live in, they are not some kind of other world with Tatooine attached ... much as I loved Star Wars back in 1977.

1:02:59 Sorry, Larry.

P as in Phail for Thomism. He specifically denied the infinite regress.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

So far we agree on what he said.

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.

Note, you are giving a Kalam or Earliest mover argument, by substituting "was" for "is" ... St. Thomas does not recognise inertia as an infinite potentiality to remain moving in the same direction, but on top of that, circular astromovements aren't staying in the same direction, so, they would even on Newton's view need to be "set in motion" while it happens, they are a motion that cannot sustain itself.

I skip a lot, since it's examples from other motion types than locomotion, as these better illustrate act and potency.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

This underlines how Newton's inertia is definitely not the explanation model for St. Thomas. To Newton, inertia means a thing moving itself because it is already moving. This St. Thomas argues cannot happen.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.

Here he is speaking of a regress. To him, and I would respectfully disagree, God is only moving the sphere of the fix stars, then that is moving the sphere of Saturnus, that the one of Jupiter, that the one of Mars, that the one of the Sun, that the one of Mercury, of Venus, of the Moon (I may have misplaced Mercury and Venus in relation to each other) and then the sphere of the Moon, by friction, moves the atmosphere West (hence winds of passage) which move the oceans West (hence the Oceanic currents). Now, he does not say that the regress is infinite. Once you track a windgust to a cyclone, a cyclone to a wind of passage at the equator, that to the sphere of the Moon and so on up to the sphere of the Fix stars you are not required to look further for this kind of moved movers.

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

1:04:16 More like one Protestant perversion of the Summa.

If you want an indepth argument why Thomists shouldn't be Calvinists, I'd refer to Scholastic Answers, an Amazing channel. (Just a bit Novus Ordo on the edges and so ...).

1:04:35 Education of St. Thomas: Plato, Aristotle, and a few more.
Education of Calvin: Cicero.

As a Latinist and non-huge fan of Cicero and Seneca, I don't play connoisseur of education, but enjoy the one whose education chimes with me and mine ... (CSL loved Plato and respected Aristotle, and found Cicero "a great bore" but he was certainly neither a great scientist nor a great philosopher, his glory is the pater patriae and the appeals to Caesar to be clement after the condemnations of Verres being the opposite ...).

1:04:46 His footnoting may be superb to his own writings, but he's not providing the best footnotes to the endings of Mark and Matthew. I have read his wheedling** around the proof texts for Apostolic Succession and for non-Cessationism.

Speaking of which, a much better exegete, St. Thomas, had sth to say about "mythoi" or rather Latin "fables" in Thessalonians, I believe, I am behind on translating that passage, unlike the Summa, the Bible commentaries of St. Thomas are only available in Latin.

* I could be wrong in this regard. There is a claim that Putin prayed for Trump after the assassination attempt: Media Has HEART ATTACK Over Secret Mystery Gift Putin Gave Trump from Russia | 'Big Peace Offering?'. It's not a guarantee, weird crossovers between Christianity and Atheism exist, I knew one at home, but it is at least some sign ...

** I meant weaselling. My bad.

If the Garden Tomb is NOT the Correct Tomb of Jesus, It May Have Some Other Significance

Miraculous Healings in Israel
CBN News | 19 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvshkQcIhqI

Rogelio Sanchez

@rogeliosanchez4221

It's not the place but the power of GOD that heals.

...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

God however has a habit of using the power to endorse persons and places and objects.

God endorsed the Ark of the Covenant, by having it topple and destroy an idol.

God endorsed the preaching of Paul and Barnabas (I think the other one was) by the healings from handkerchiefs that had touched their clothes.

God has also endorsed Calvary, the Cross, the Holy Sepulchre.

Tomb of Lazarus? There is already one.

Tomb of one prophet raised on Good Friday?

Dialogue on the Immaculate Conception

What's the "Church Magisterium" in Catholicism? (From a former Protestant)
LizziesAnswers | 17 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGuEsnv3_SU

1:29 You have just said that CCC §283 is not an act of the Magisterium.

With Pope Michael II, you would have the Tridentine Catechism, which undoubtedly is.

Dialogue:

Prime Time

@prime_time_youtube

a) 1:15 – “The Magisterium does not create new theology; it guards the apostolic tradition.”
Let’s break this down simply:
1. Did any Church Father before the 8th century teach that Mary was conceived without original sin? No.
2. Did Fathers explicitly reject this idea? Many: St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
3. Was the idea popular in the 13th century? No. Even St. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, teaching that only Christ had a sinless conception.

To be clear: I’m not denying that Mary was sinless or pure, what I’m rejecting is the claim that she was conceived without original sin.

Conclusion: If no Church Father ever taught it, many actively rejected it, and it remained unpopular well into the 13th century... then there is no epistemological JUSTIFICATION to claim this was part of the apostolic deposit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

"No."

Su mone hagne, su mone eulogemene ... Greek (and parallelled by Coptic) ending of the prayer called in Latin Sub tuum praesidium, which is a Coptic Christmas song from 2nd C.

"St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, St. Basil, St. Hilary, St. John Chrysostom"

St. Augustine, I knew, and Sts Hilary and Fulgentius as well as St. Thomas are influenced by him.

For Sts. Basil and Chrysostom, I'd like details.

It would seem that Palamas taught the Immaculate Conception, the Old Believers defended it against the Skirzhal, and I think this comes from an East Church tradition that then came back to the West and ousted the position of St. Augustine.

The historic question is, did this happen through Anne of Kiev, a French Queen, who came to Paris pre-schism, or did it happen only later through Crusaders familiarising themselves with the Eastern Tradition?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I checked for Sts. Basil and Chrysostom.

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260). St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).

I would answer these two things do not necessarily describe sins. They are movements of the soul which could lead to sins, but never led to sins in Her. As you said you believed in Her sinlessness, you'd agree.

Now, I got this from Catholic Encyclopedia, and here are a few other patristic quotes they give:

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.").
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (On Nature and Grace 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

Prime Time

@ None of the quotes you provided support the idea that Mary’s conception was without sin. At most, they defend her sinlessness... which I already affirmed I believe in.

Augustine (like I do) believed that Mary was sinless, but in his commentary on Psalm 34 he explicitly states that Jesus was born of sinful flesh and that Mary died because of sin, like Adam. Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe, a follower of Augustine, even wrote: "[Mary] was conceived in iniquity" (Epistula 17.13).

Regarding metaphors and typology like the Tabernacle, none of them state that Mary’s conception was without sin. In fact, typological parallels never claim more than what they intend to teach, and freedom from original sin was NEVER their focus. For instance, Saint Proclus called the Virgin Mary the Ark of Noah and the fleece of Gideon, Jacob's Ladder, and so on... while Cyril said Jesus was the Ark of the Covenant, not Mary... cause she was the Temple.

So once again, no Church Father taught that Mary was conceived without original sin. Many affirmed her purity and sinlessness (as I do), but several also taught that only Christ’s conception was immaculate.

You must be aware that the Orthodox, the Coptic do not affirm the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, but as an optional tradition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube It so happens optional traditions end up as dogmas.

"Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption"

Not just "the tabernacle" but also "exempt from defilement and corruption. St. Hippolytus was anterior to Sts Augustine and Fulgentius. If Mary had had original sin or concupiscence, at conception, She would have been freed and not totally exempt from defilement and corruption.

"Regarding metaphors and typology like the Tabernacle, none of them state that Mary’s conception was without sin."

A metaphor or typology doesn't directly state a thing, it shows its fittingness.

But if above quotes weren't sufficiently explicit for you, how about St. John of Damascus?

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others.

Note, while Peter the Eater may not ring a bell, he is not a nobody, he is the author of Historia Scholastica, a standard work on Biblical history for the rest of the Middle Ages.

Prime Time

@hglundahl “Optional traditions end up as dogmas”
False. They have explicitly stated that there is no basis for considering this a dogma.

“Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption”
This is the third time I’ve said that I already believe in the Virgin’s sinlessness. Hippolytus never said anything about her conception. Augustine and Fulgentius explicitly talked about her conception. Your dishonesty is offensive.

“It shows its fittingness”
Exactly, and yet they never said her conception was without sin.

John of Damascus
He wrote that in the 8th century, which is exactly when I said this idea began to emerge... and it wasn't even popular in the 13th Century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube " Hippolytus never said anything about her conception."

You still miss the distinction between "exempt" (i e from the very first) and "cleansed" (i e from later on).

"Augustine and Fulgentius explicitly talked about her conception."

As did Hippolytus by the use of the word "exempt" ...

Fulgentius isn't independent of Augustine, and Augustine did an over-reading in "in Deo salvatore meo" ... he is the originator of rejection of the Immaculate Conception. He spread it over the West, but not far East, and your example about Sts. Basil and Chrysostom are not proof of any kind of sin during Her life, and therefore also not of original sin.

"They have explicitly stated that there is no basis for considering this a dogma."

Who they? I don't think any Church Father ever said sth like "I think this is true, but this can never become a dogma" and nor are the dogmas fixed over time, since prior to Nicaea, full divinity of Christ was not declared dogma binding on all of the Church. Yet it was certainly, if not optional, at least Tradition.

"He wrote that in the 8th century, which is exactly when I said this idea began to emerge"

I can reply, it was there from the beginning and St. Augustine, in the 5th C. was the one personally emerging the opposite idea.

Prime Time

@ You’re still missing the distinction between exemp
The dishonesty is... No, Hippolytus wasn’t speaking about her conception in that passage. You're so lacking in evidence that you're resorting to subterfuge, implying things that simply aren't in the context. By your own generic, decontextualized reading, Romans 3:23 would apply to the Virgin Mary, which is... LOL.

Regarding Augustine, you didn’t grasp what I said. In De Natura et Gratia, he clearly affirms that the Virgin was completely sinless. If you apply your Hippolytus-style lens to that, you'd conclude that Augustine taught the Immaculate Conception. But as I’ve already warned you multiple times, being sinless is not the same as being immaculately conceived. In another work (Commentary on Psalm 34), Augustine explicitly states that she had original sin.

"Who are they?"
That’s just shifting the burden of proof. You’re the one who suggested that this optional tradition could become a dogma with no PARTICULAR evidence for this PARTICULAR case. BTW, that evidence does not exist. None of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic Church, Old Calendarists, Protestants, etc., consider it a dogma, only the Papists do.

As for the claim that “in the 5th century the opposite idea was personally emerging,” that’s also false. No Church Father taught that Mary’s conception was without sin. You’ve presented zero sources to support that claim. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the idea doesn't even appear until the 8th century, and it remained marginal well into the 13th century

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@prime_time_youtube "only the Papists do."

Which is enough.

It's the Church that Jesus founded.

"As for the claim that “in the 5th century the opposite idea was personally emerging,” that’s also false."

You have no proof against it prior to St. Augustine.

"If you had been here, my brother wouldn't have died" (John 11:21)

How My Brother's Death Brought Me to the Catholic Faith (feat. Debbie Herbeck)
Ascension Presents | 15 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Kjyb8MlFo

Sharing on "no king but Caesar" ...

Was This the Greatest Apostasy of All Time?
Dr Taylor Marshall | Good Friday, 18.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NoJ6uFjcfk

Killing Catholic Ireland (Sharing)

New blog on the kid: God Bless Ireland Said the Heros ... sharing Roger Buck · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Killing Catholic Ireland (Sharing)

Killing Catholic Ireland (Kim & Roger Buck EP 003)
Roger Buck | Good Friday, 18.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W66CK945Vs

Irish Famine, Catholic Church

Why Did the Catholic Church Stay Silent During the Irish Great Famine?
Irish History Podcast | 17 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaKUqDbABtY

Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

Some Seek Fault with the Theology of Prayer · Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

One of the Wildest Things I've Ever Heard a Creationist Say (And Why it Matters)
Creation Myths | 16.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNqHHXa4uOo

Your view on us communicating better now is obviously moot.

But you have at least confirmed that the cultural shift exists.

If you match one sentence 1750 to one sentence 2025, you may see some gain in clarity and much gain in brevity. But if you translate one sentence 1750 and make sure to say all the same things, in your chronolect, you will pretty certainly find more sentences, less connection between them, more repetition, so, not just less clarity, but also less brevity.

I happen to agree with you it's not a loss in brain power. It could be a loss in average brain power of the average reader, simply because more are reading. It could be an effect of watching TV, as I heard in the mid 90's, from a colleague, when I was teaching, or it could be, my view, a lowering of standards of what you teach, in order to adapt to lack of interest in more and more compulsory students with less and less hope the subjects will be mostly relevant to their life after school. So, it's not a loss of total brain power, I agree, but it's not a gain in communication skills either.

11:13 Did I get you right?

Someone who believes God is constantly intervening is, according to you, ipso facto, not doing science?

St. Albert, a good optics and biology researcher, Nicolas Steno (I nearly said St. I believe he was a saint when Catholic missionary in the North), a good anatomist and founder of Geology and also a certain Mersenne, founder of acoustics, were not doing science?

I think YOU let the mask off here.

Namely, you are making science less of a method and more of a doctrine. You are making it a materialistic statement on metaphysics. In other words, from a Christian perspective, you have to be wrong to actually do what you call science.

11:57 "if there is ongoing divine intervention today, we can't possibly scientifically evaluate anything"

Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence? It was not some stray memory from a very anonymous youtube channel just answering a comment of mine? It was you, active content creator "Creation Myths"?

I think I heard you correctly and only missed "in the world today" instead of my "today" ...

With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed. It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic. Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence. It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself.

On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence?" It's amazing you lack the ability to understand how testing works so profoundly. If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural.

"With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed" It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century and accepted by even the honest creationists.

"It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic" He's stating one of the basic assumptions in science that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works.

"Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence" Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs.

"It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself" It's how science works. Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this. This is accepted by theists as well.

"On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you" This is gibberish. If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion. Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural."

False.

Doctors in Lourdes are testing actual healing and absence of natural explanations on a regular basis.

You can also test absence of "natural" (i e evolutionist or mechanistic) explanations for the hard problem of consciousness, objectivity of morals, origin of human language.

"It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century"

Yes, it's anti-medieval bias, besides, you misrepresent what has actually been established in science since the 17th C.

"that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works."

Meaning Geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson doesn't? Come on, how did he earn his degrees!

Or is "how science works" just your dog whistle for your specific world view?

"Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs."

Are you looking into the mirror? It's a very apt response to you!

"It's how science works."

On some institutions.

"Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this."

Grade school as in primary school?

Yes, in the former East Block.

"This is gibberish."

To an illiterate like you, no doubt ...

"If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion."

I wasn't referring to Scripture, I was referring to scholasticism ... and partly C. S. Lewis, Miracles.

Plus your implication is false. When passions are involved that push for disbelief, testing doesn't help. Whether rightly or wrongly, you say the exact same thing about Climate Sceptics.

"Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural."

Faith and the Supernatural are not coextensive.

Faith involves at a minimum that God not just exists, but rewards those who seek Him. Philosophy can only test the former, He exists.

So, correct philosophy can test the supernatural, and a science methodology that a priori excludes it risks doing fake science.

Please be precise about this: since the 17th C. it's a convention that science ignores the supernatural, considering that (conventionally) the domain of philosophy and theology. It's not a basis that science excludes the supernatural. That's more like Bertrand Russell, who, whether you know it or not, didn't live in the 17th C.

hedgehog3180

@hedgehog3180

Do you not know what “supernatural” means?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [hedgehog3180] Supernatural means divine, angelic or spiritual.

This being so, it means sth which regularly interacts with material and biological nature anyway.

I think this answers your question. AND what you meant by it.

12:00 "because anything could be manipulated"

Well, I'd certainly agree that planetary orbits could be manipulated by angels and daily rotation by God almighty, I personally think they are manipulated. Just as much as a pingpongball is manipulated by the players, so it doesn't continue until it reaches the goal of its ballistic trajectory.

But why would that stop you from scientific evaluation? You are obviously fine with lots of manipulated data, as long as your are doing the manipulation, it's known as arranged experiments.

12:32 You are very much preaching to the choir.

I think you are very wrong if you believe every geneticist except Creationists share your badly reasoned concern against any possibility of the supernatural. Yes, lots and lots have certainly gone through that kind of brainwashing, but not all.

Talking to people who don't share your extreme bias is not equivalent to preaching to the choir.

12:45 The statement "God intervenes" is clearly not something a Creationist hides.

It's not relevant on every subject, but the Creationist who thinks he has to hide it has no respect of mine.

And, by the way, I don't think "natural" selection exists. It's properly providential selection. Psalm 103. Verse 21. The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God.

Not "from circumstances" but "from God" ....

Nootman

@nootman4771

Does this mean you don't believe that there are substantial accumulated changes resulting from natural selection or that there literally is no such thing as differential reproductive success caused by varying fitness? Because the former is at least a coherent idea while the latter simply denies that any organism can be more or less successful at reproducing which is pretty clearly untrue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@nootman4771 I'm saying success is determined ultimately by God's providence, not simply as a resultant of fitness.

God would often, but not always, priorise fitness.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl Can you point to an example where God didn't prioritise fitness?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Probably ancestors of Goliath of Gath, for instance.

13:26 "if you're going to describe it to someone who's not already in the club, it's going to sound crazy"

More like, it's going to sound crazy to someone as deep as you in the Marxist club. In 1917 your specific bias didn't flourish sole on the field, it got boosted by ex-Orthodox Russia in the following decades, it got boosted by Carnegie back around then, it had been boosted a little earlier in Prussia, thanks to Kant and Feuderbach, leading up to Marx ... since then the Carnegie influence has coincided with the Soviet influence, into one culture of Materialism.

It also existed in Swedish and English schools when I was in high school. And some American ones. I spent one year on International Baccalaurate of Geneva, preparatory year.

Your bias is the one I have spent years to get socially away from, since I'm a Thomist.

13:35 You are very out of touch with Christian lingo if you take "influenced by demons" as literal demonic possession.

There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon" LOL! I don't know why I'm shocked but it amazes me how arrogant and blind people like you can be. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your "no true Scotsman" fallacy? If Christian lingo were consistent there wouldn't be so many different flavors of it out there. Your interpretation is not the "true" interpretation.

hedgehog3180

Apollo is a demon??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Well, certainly not a good angel.

And giving the calculating skill in ensnaring Laios and Oedipus or later on Croesus into self fulfilling prophecies, a bit like the witches of Macbeth, except those could be fictional, added after the actual story took place, I wouldn't say the Pythia just suffered unguided hallucinations either or deliriums or whatever. At least on occasion, some force guided her trances, and given the results, it did not come from God.

Also, St. John calls Apollon the king of the bottomless pit, since Apollyon is one of the names that Homer (in a non-Pythian context) gives Apollo. In other words, the same demon as Abaddon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I don't think there is a true Scotsman fallacy on my part, I think "Creation Myths" has seriously misunderstood what "influenced by demons" need imply.

Being possessed by Delphic or Cumean Apollo is literally being possessed by a demon.

Believing Apollo is our best available guide to the truth as being influenced by that demon in a much more indirect fashion, but it is still bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Take a look at Acts 16:16 too ... the more celebrated Pythias and Sibyls in Delphi or Cumae aren't different. My Latin assistant professor when reading Aeneid VI spoke of the description of the Sibyl of Cumae being exactly like believers but also exorcists see mediums in a voodoo seance.

13:40 No, we don't have to hide "these aspects" insofar as you got some of them right ....

13:55 For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people" By nonsense would that be evolution and the age of the Earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime As obligatory teaching in public schools while disfavouring private schools and homeschooling, that's part of it.

But on top of that, pro-abortion, gay marriage, things Mr. "Creation Myths" clearly believes, since he's calling out Trump policies.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You seem to think that the government should have a role in private education and home schooling? You're really not coherent anymore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I'm sorry, I didn't say the US government was under Obama just staying out, I said it was disfavouring.

You know, more restrictive conditions and all that.

And yes, some privat education in the US is publically sponsored under certain conditions, and disfavouring would have included making those more rstrictive as well. I think if there is any lack of coherence, it's on your own side.

Or your actual coherence is a desparate search for incoherences with me ... not very coherent as a mode of debate, though.

14:13 Abortion statistics show a danger to actual people posed by YOUR beliefs.

"Abortion should be rare, legal and safe" (some said) ... it inherently isn't safe, and when it was legal, it didn't stay rare very long.

14:13 Abortion statistics ....

NinjaMonkeyPrime

All medical procedures aren't safe. Complication exist for every procedure. You're actually trying to make this about safety when it's all about what you find socially acceptable?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime I certainly find murder socially inacceptable.

I also think, for a baby to die through abortion isn't a complication, but an intended result.

It's also demographically suicidal, as nation after nation with pension problems is finding out, and Putin nearly lost to Navalny due to this, what a boon for Vlad that Covid 19 and the Special Operation came around ...

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl And murder has nothing to do with genetics or evolution either. You're getting even more unhinged by trying to bring morality into a discussion about genetics.

It's pretty disgusting that in a discussion about genetics, you tried to twist it into his "beliefs". Do you think biology teachers are also pro gun control? How about same sex marriage? Do they also "believe" in discrimination?

This is borderline bigotry for zero reason except you're angry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You seem to have missed the video I'm answering ...?

The last five minutes are a political rant.

The video I commented on is simply NOT simply a science video, it's a full blown, many sided attack on Creationism and Creationists and I respond in kind.

Obviously there could be a biology teacher who is Atheist, Evolutionist and at the same time Anti-Abortion and National Rifle Association. But that guy is simply not the man who made the video.

OK, I may have exaggerated, it may have been just three minutes of a political rant, but still ...

"How about same sex marriage?"

Yeah, quantitively in itself less anti-natalist than abortion, but symbolically quite a lot more ...

In other words, a perfect recipe for depleting pension funds while augmenting the number of people dependent on them, because they have no children and most of them no fortune.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl So do you want to abolish the death penalty?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Unlike abortion, the death penalty typically isn't meant to target absolutely innocent people.

Also, most peoples on death row have already had a chance to allow their genes to contribute to future people working and future people keeping an older generation company.

I don't want to abolish it at all costs or in all contexts, but it has been abused.

14:52 No, the "basic things" you describe as disproving Creationism are ignoring the Founder Effect.

But thanks for the admission, what you believe about the science doesn't actually matter ... you are all politics.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You think he's ignoring a factor in population genetics, while talking about population genetics? That's like the climate denial argument that scientists never factor in the distance to the sun when projecting climate change. I'm guessing your other comments are going to be equally dishonest and childish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "while talking about population genetics?"

The founder effect and rapid outbreeding actually are factors that have to do with population genetics.

Sorry to burst your bubble about knowing that like everything else better than me, just because the guy I disagree with is an accredited expert.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You missed the point. You're trying to say that when discussing population genetics, he's ignoring a factor of population genetics, without any evidence or reason to make that claim. It's just like claiming climate change research doesn't factor in the distance to the sun. It's baseless, childish, insulting, and irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] My reason is, I'm familiar with the population genetics problems and I'm familiar with the Creationist response.

If he doesn't ignore outbreeding, I'd like him to prove it ...

He is misusing his own expertise in order to make a dishonest point against Creationism.

You are the one who missed a point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl No, you made the accusation, so you need to prove your claim. Obviously you can't because there's nothing to your accusation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] The proof is this.

When population genetics is alleged as reason why the several ethnic types or if you like race types couldn't all come after the Flood, Creationists answer Founder Effect.

When population genetics is alleged why a man like him pretends humanity couldn't have survived the inbreeding, Creationists answer rapid outbreeding.

Now, your objection isn't in fact all that coherent if you actually watched the video, since I was answering an accusation by "Creation Myths" (I think his name is Dan sth) and so simply saying he had to prove his accusation against Creationism.

But I'm somehow not surprised at you judging my comment as if you had no clue as to what was in the video ....