These Mysterious Figures REWROTE History in the West. I Can Prove It.
Answers in Genesis Canada | 13 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlHEMK7Mn4Y
4:50 Case in point.
When a slave revolt in Louisiana was quenched very cruelly, with leaders tied to cannons and killed by the outgoing cannon balls, it was during La Régence. The son of a faggot (yes, homosexual men can marry and have children, and he was protected against legal consequences of his misdeeds) tried to make up for it by being ultra-macho and multiplying mistresses, and neglecting religion ... at least, that's the analyses that Warren H. Lewis, brother of a more famous author, made of his case.
In doing so, he flirted, very heavily, with freemasonry and enlightenment (misnomer, really) and that involved boosting racism.
Similar case in point, a few decades later. A real or purported descendant of Tupac Amaru, sometimes styled Tupac Amaru II, becomes the leader of a rising, "by the grace of God Inca" ... why was the rising necessary? I looked up the year, 1780. Yes, exactly, Carlos III was king of Spain, a lecher and adulterer who, when wounded by shrapnel by a male victim of cuckoldry took revenge on the Jesuits that he had confessed to.
Two royal governments totally opposed to Clovis' Baptism in Rheims and to the Reconquest of Spain.
Prior to these misrules, French had been fairly decent to Black Slaves, the Code des Noirs being meant as a protection against abuse, and Spain to the conquered peoples of the Americas.
Obviously, if you've seen Mission, you know the role of Pombal in making Portuguese colonies worse for the Guaraní. He had served as executing a whole family reacting against cuckoldry imposed by Joseph I of Portugal.
It may be noted, some feudal lords were pretty bad at respecting the chastity of peasant women, in Spain a revolt against this abuse had been successful, so the traditional norm wasn't to put up with it and then get a paycheck for it, it was that the culprit could be executed if put on trial. Similar point involved in El Alcalde de Zalamea.
The West’s Moral Collapse Isn’t Caused by What You Think
Answers in Genesis Canada | 19 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N6efJiZ9Y
Ideologically driven from its very conception.
True of Heliocentrism too.
They Planned the Destruction of Our Christian Values Hundreds of Years Ago
Answers in Genesis Canada | 26 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwKzXCaUTd4
15:10 "Victorian" England?
Ew .... 20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901 = rule of Queen Victoria. 12 December 1731 – 18 April 1802 are the lifedates of Erasmus Darwin.
No, and in Victorian England, Atheism would not remain a totally distasteful accusation. I wonder how much you know of the last prince of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha. The dynastic origin of the Windsors, but not an actual possession of their monarchy as such since at least 1870. He was taking up the role, as he was pushed to, and despite growing up at Victoria's court, fought on the other side in WW-I. He's the grandpa of my King, as I'm a Swede.
What his childhood taught him is a bit the game that a recent Windsor dropout painted in "heir and spare" or sth like that. That court, where he grew up, had no fear of God. He was the first German noble to shake hands with Hitler. He did so over Hitler promoting things like Euthanasia. So, do you think the court where he spent the first fifteen years of his life was anything like Christian?
If anything, an Atheist in Victorian England would have been thought of as too blunt. But Darwin's Bulldog Huxley went close, preferring to be labelled as Agnostic. Now, that was the time of the grandson, Huxley dying in 1895. In the times of the grandfather, Erasmus, I think it may have depended on region and city. The first organised atheists had already appeared.
In Great Britain, William Hammon and physician Mathew Turner authored a pamphlet in response to Joseph Priestley's Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever. Theirs was the first work in English to openly defend atheism, and implied that established sentiment of Christianity made speaking up in defense of atheism an act with a reasonable expectation of public punishment.
I look up the link in the wikipedian footnote and find: 1782.
So, in this era, the accusation was not distasteful, it was a criminal charge. Let's not conflate the two periods. By 1800, Atheism exists, and legally has to hide itself. By 1900, Atheism need not actually hide itself. But tries to camouflage itself as "agnostic" ... Huxley was vehemently anti-Catholic.
Erasmus was not just a member of Lunar Society, but also of freemasonry:
Darwin had been a Freemason throughout his life, in the Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Later on, Sir Francis Darwin, one of his sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald [wd] was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804.
15:33 "general laws were quite enough to roll this planet around the sun" (Erasmus)
Oh, wait, reminds me of a thing I said somewhere ... while Heliocentrism and Theism can technically both be true, you cannot reason from one to the other (at least not on the level of precision called "Heliocentrism").
You can only reason in two directions: from Geocentrism to God, or from Atheism to Heliocentrism.
Because general laws are not quite enough to roll the visible universe around us each day.
What is God working with every Sabbath (John 5:17)? How are things visible from creation to all men (except the blind, meaning physically disabled by lack of eyesight) showing God's power inexhaustible or eternal (Romans 1)?
What did Riccioli analyse St. Thomas' Prima Via as saying?
Something other than general laws has to roll the universe around us, then the Sun on a yearly tour around the Zodiac, then Jupiter or Venus on quirky hypotrochoid tours around it, because they have the Sun as a moving epicentre ... God and angels will do. General laws won't.
17:04 "of the creator God" ... St. Paul didn't say Pagans could know God as having created at a single moment (or week) in the past. And Erasmus didn't deny God had created in the past. If Erasmus believed in some kind of God, he would have called him a watchmaker ... and not a blind one, but exactly the same watchmaker as Paley's. Or Voltaire's.
Here’s What Historians Will NEVER Tell You About Charles Darwin
Answers in Genesis Canada | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MllWp0VXC9M
1:14 One could argue, the options do not require "origin" ...
Two options that don't:
- eternal steady state universe (what Epicure basically believed in)
- illusionism (if a diversity is illosory, it requires no origin prior to the mind prey to it).
Now, illusionism is an excellent explanation for a painless hole in my right hand when I hold it before one eye and a paper tube before the other eye. It's less useful to explain things that really affect us.
Most people outside Hinduism and Buddhism set it aside.
As to eternal steady state universe, that is by now ruled out bc H + H > D, D + D > He in stellar fusion. There is no reverse or indirect reverse or roundabout reversal of the process.
- Jock Young
- @jockyoung4491
- We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, so it is somewhat pointless to argue about. And it certainly doesn't matter to the study of astrophysics or evolution.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @jockyoung4491 We do know fusion had a start, because H is limited amount and it is still not replaced by He.
Add to this that evolution is on some pretty clear issues, like abiogenesis and origin of the human language, totally out, you need a Creator.
12:04 Unlike Erasmus Darwin, Chambers actually did write and publish in Victorian England.
12:53 "took the public by storm"
If you had read Selected Literary Essays by one C. S. Lewis, you would have known Atheism was somewhat popular as early as Byron and Shelley. CSL retained a taste for Shelley even after becoming a Christian, but this very popular Atheist was pre-Victorian:
4 August 1792 – 8 July 1822
So, under George III and IV. Like Lord Byron:
22 January 1788 – 19 April 1824
14:58 The guys who really want to lionise Darwin could have started out with a certain Marx. No, not Groucho or Harpo. Also not Adolf Bernhard. Karl.
One whose first work was pretending that Colossians 2:8 didn't (more or less) target Epicureanism, but Aristotelianism.
I think that was his dissertation in philosophy.
Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, who, however declined.
No comments:
Post a Comment