How do Saints Know About Our Prayers?

@AllieBethStuckey
Catholic vs. Protestant: Praying to Mary | Guest: Trent Horn | Ep 997
What do Catholics believe about Mary and the Saints?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w6Be6qoG9sg

Two observations:
1) It is a Catholic teaching that the way the saints know about prayers they have discretion on forwarding is, by God revealing it to them, since that is a thing pertaining to their glory;
2) I have a suspicion that "millions of prayers at once" is misjudging the case, that the time experience up there is much longer than contemporary time down here. A bit like Narnian time. Like, Earth has perhaps one million prayers directed to Mary in 1 second, but Mary experiences 1 year to assess them all the while spending even more time in worshipping God or in rejoicing with other saints already up there. Alternatively, God could be telling Her "so and so many are asking for a marriage, so and so many are asking for strength to combat a sin" and so on. But even that involves some dose of "Narnian time" so I prefer using it so the saints have the time to assess things.

A third thing. By prophecy, Jesus was every moment of His earthly life (yes, from Conception) aware of each person who is part of His mystical body. The saints and not least Mary could obviously also, and this is what Trent Horn seems to suggest, be sharing in that richness of prophetic knowledge.

Answering Two Protestants

Three Things Catholics need to stop saying
Gospel Simplicity | 11 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kexgWz7UgyI

3:18 Yes and the Anglo-Catholics of the Oxford movement were in fact denying themselves the descriptor Protestants.

An Evangelical "Protestant" cannot take credit for the honesty of an Anglo-Catholic "Protestant" ... it's like if a Commie took credit for the work of Jimmy Carter, because Jimmy Carter, as a Democrat, could also be labelled a "Leftist"

I happen to know the Oxford Movement because John Henry Newman described it with affection after leaving it for Catholicism. Apologia pro vita sua.

3:41 Not really, if what those "Protestants" who originally translated were finding Apostolic Succession, priests submitting to their bishop, Real Presence in the Eucharist in the Fathers.

Which the Oxford movement certainly did find in them.

Not exactly what Lizzy Reezay would have considered as Protestant back at Pepperdine!

9:14 I basically never say "that's your interpretation" without following up by giving a better one.

I think some Protestants have given me less courtesy, for instance when I state that

Genesis 3:15, Judges 5 (forgot the verse), Luke 1:28, 1:31, 1:42 between them prove Our Lady defeated Satan and prior to becoming Mother of God, while a verse in 1 John seems to prove She could not possibly have done so other than by being sinless.

11:28 I usually don't argue from infallibility for a Catholic claim against a Protestant.

I argue for infallibility a lot, but either the general thing, or that the Bible interpretation leaves a reasonable spectrum, and infallibility settles the exact point.

However, that there is an infallible Church is not disputable in reasonable Bible interpretation. Interpreting certain passages as not meaning that is about as candid as chosing the solution of an equation with imaginary numbers instead of a very simple one in natural integers.

12:48 "we cannot really know what it means this side of eternity"

Like God put it into the Bible so that no one could really understand it?

@AllieBethStuckey
Why am I not Catholic?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4lOCGSStgk4

"by grace alone, through faith alone"

Do you find that in the Bible?

That is IS a Gregorian Chant DOES Mean it Does Honour God

Catholic worship vs. Protestant worship. Is one better?
Allie Beth Stuckey | 3 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QGSSO9gTk

The Catholic made the mistake to use Mega-Church Evangelicals as the goto for Protestantism.

As ex-Lutheran, I take exception.

Now, worship music has two functions. The words need to edify, the melody needs to be compatible with the emotional palette appropriate for collective acts of worship.

I took a hear at Great is They Faithfulness.

Like Amazing Grace, like Han har öppnat perleporten, it is a melody not from a rock concert, but more from a pop convert ... in other words, the melody doesn't absolutely enhance worship, in the fullest sense, but doesn't make it impossible either. It does enhance some other related emotions.

Now, the words.

Amazing Grace, Han har öppnat perleporten and Great is thy Faithfulness are all totally appropriate sentiments for some (different) actual Catholic believers. If St. Augustine of Hippo would certainly say "I once was saved, but now I'm found", if St. Thérèse Martin would no problem say "genom blodet har han frelst mig, och bevarat mig som sin", I would say ALL I HAVE NEEDED THY HAND HATH PROVIDED GREAT IS THY FAITHFULNESS, LORD, UNTO ME totally reflects the situations of St. Theresa of Avila or of St Elizabeth Ann Seton (Venerable, the canonisation by an antipope isn't valid).

But for collective worship, all of these songs have a default. They speak of individual situations, and not of the common truth about God or about man. Telling Jesus in the sacrament "my eyesight, taste, touch, are all wrong about you, I can only trust my hearing, since nothing is more truthful than thou" (referring to His words in Matt 26:26) applies to every single believer on earth. Or telling Mary "you saw your son die, pray for me so that such a suffering be not in vain" applies to every believer who hath no final assurance of remaining saved, i e most on earth.

One can obviously meditate together on individual situations, that's arguably what we have the saints' days for, and why people are encouraged to relate to patron saints and favourite saints who relate to their situation (including but not limited to the name given or sanctified in baptism). I just saw Gavin Ortlund give the prooftext for this aspect of veneration of the saints.

Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever
[Hebrews 13:7-8]

Probably both refers to praying for them while they are alive, considering the upcoming end of "their conversation" and recalling their lives and the past end of their conversation once that they have died to earth and been born in Heaven (those who go to Heaven directly).

That would be the more appropriate context for sentiments referring to individual situations.

Now, to the melody. The Catholic music given in the clip has a, what one could call, hypnotic effect. To most, slightly hypnotic. Calvin had an allergy against this sort of thing, he hated Gregorian, he hated the Rosary and Litanies (and mistranslated Matthew 6:7 accordingly) ... the words "doesn't need to be" actually doesn't hit the mark. Catholic worship music is not all like this. The things sung when going out from Mass on a Marian feast, is clearly more modern, and also in French. Dito for the Christmas carol, Il est né le divin enfant (He is born the divine Infant = baby God).

So, if "doesn't need to be" is what you really mean, take Catholicism, you get both.

Calvin would never have said "doesn't need to be" but he said straight out "shouldn't be" ... I think there was as personal darkness in his life related to that.

The melody of Great is Thy Faithfulness is more the sentiment of a national anthem. Not that it's a bad sentiment, but it is not "lifting you up in God" in the way slight hypnosis / autohypnosis when used as prayer does.

I would say Be Thou My Vision, Be Thou My Inspiration is better on both accounts. The original Old Irish text was also by a Catholic.

1:53 "the wrath of God was satisfied"

Is that the same hymn that says "he bore the wrath for me"?

It need not be taken like that. Jesus satisfied His wrath on Sin by consenting to the pains of crucifixion on a flesh now bearing the sins of others. Think of it as a horse getting snake venom, and producing lots of antibodies, that's how snake bite serums are made. His wrath on the sin laid on Him really is salvific, and helps us to have a wrath on the sin more personally naturally in our members.

He was of course also angry on Satan for putting Him in such a discomfortable position. The cross is how excruciatingly bad sin is for mankind, Jesus had that taste of it, and took a stomp at a snake head ...

As for the reconciliation with God, that's something else. God the Father didn't need to "get the wrath out of the system" ... Jesus bore the Cross with total and unblemished submission to the Father, and gave up His life in doing so. This sacrifice was totally pleasing to the Father, who once again said what He had said over Jordan.

And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan 10 And forthwith coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a dove descending, and remaining on him 11 And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased 12 And immediately the Spirit drove him out into the desert
[Mark 1:9-12]

This is what happened when Jesus said "it is finished" and "in thy hands" ... the desert after the baptism represents Sheol after the hours on the Cross. Both are things "bad for" human life, and both are, prior to Calvary, in a sense Satan's domain. Jesus first defeated Satan in the desert, then 3 and 1/2 years later in Sheol.

Now, Victimæ paschali laudes is about the Resurrection, but looks back on Calvary:

Let Christians offer sacrificial
praises to the passover victim.
The lamb has redeemed the sheep:
The Innocent Christ has reconciled
the sinners to the Father.
Death and life contended
in a spectacular battle:
the dead / having-died leader of life
reigns alive.

Victimae paschali laudes - Sequentia in die Ressurectionis
Rorantysta | 9 April 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AneBNAmTyr8

That's what one would call a trap

Are you girl-bossing? Or are you just not ovulating?
Allie Beth Stuckey | 28 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsdOU0md5To

not 0:57 because it is preventing pregnancy but 1:00 because it is preventing the desire to 1:02 get [pregnant]

A Very Brief Comment

This 15-Year-Old is Exposing AI’s Horrifying Threat to Girls | Guest: Elliston Berry | Ep 1194
Allie Beth Stuckey | 22.V.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b9NCYB5ITY

Both for that boy, and for the girls, if they had lived in a state where:

• school hadn't been compulsory
• and marriage at that age had been possible

I think both sides would have been lots happier.

Gospel against Cannibalism and Accusation thereof.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Black Magic in Shimao and Ur · More Like the Same? · What About the Opposite? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gospel against Cannibalism and Accusation thereof. · A Video on St. Patrick, an Observation on the Demons he Drove out

They want to NORMALIZE Cannibalism?!
Allie Beth Stuckey | 16 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9cJkEYHxTg

I get the impression that the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 or a parallel were indeed euphemisms. "ate, drank, married and got married" (not the usual stuff for any of the verbs).

1:01 I have very studiously avoided being on government assistance.

I write. I consider the day when I get things into print as being when I can start to count income and when that's 3 times the rent per month or the rent for 24 months in advance ... I can have a place to live.

If you've heard I wear dress, that's false. If you heard I wear a costume, that's iffy. I do wear historic male dress, and while kilt would not in itself be offlimits, that's not what I wear.

1:56 As I mentioned my interpretation about the times of Noah, the fact that one bunch of Neanderthals have been found to be veggies and one other cannibals argues, to me, two things:

• Neanderthals were pre-Flood, the just were veggies and the unjust added cannibalism (this was before Genesis 9:2)
• Neanderthal doesn't directly equal Nephelim, as some of them were in fact veggies.

The method archaeologists use to find how some were perpetrators or victims of cannibalism is not too mysterious.

Neanderthals in Belgium have human genome in their dental calculus. Not so those in El Sidrón, who seem to have liked pine nuts.

Homo erectus on Java has for instance had heads cut off so the upper part can serve as cups, and some bones in Atapuerca are per genome or proteins human bones, but per splitting, the marrow has been sucked out.

Vampyrism is obviously less easy to detect once the flesh and skin of the neck have been rotted away. But if Henoch in Nod is ever dug up, I imagine we might find pictorial evidence.

3:22 Both funerary cannibalism and cannibalism of enemies have occurred.

They are different insofar as a dwelling place of cannibals will ...

• contain victim split bones of divergent genomes if enemy cannibalism
• contain victim bones of a consistent genome of funerary cannibalism.

Now, to be clear, I do not agree that either practise should be destigmatised, but the latter is somewhat less evil (unless involving euthanasia, in that case it's more evil).

4:31 Indeed. But do you get a certain smell of the science community denying the human body that whiff of the sacred?

Euthanasia, cremation, donating bodies to science, abortion, contraception, eugenics (by the way, the downtrodden victim in Buck v. Bell had a daughter named Vivian Dobbs, I find Dobbs v. Jackson a very fitting poetic justice), lobotomy, psychiatric drugs that debilitate, I get a real feeling, those guys may actually at heart be Gnostics.

Probably inherited from Protestantism as it has historically been (I'm aware you are not that type in these contexts).

8:57 Emblems and seals?

He didn't believe in the real presence?

It so happens, even if you said "the Catholic position implies cannibalism, but the Protestant is just symbolic" you just said yourself that actual cannibalism is seen as accursed even when it's just symbolic. So, one would have to say the Flesh and Blood can indeed be literal, provided there is a clear difference from cannibalism. There is.

• The body is present where the substance of the bread was, i e under the accidents of bread, and the chewing or swallowing affects those accidents (starting with circumference) and do not hurt the actual body of Jesus, though it is there;
• cannibalism is an act against a dead or dying person, but both at the Last Supper and now, it is the living flesh and living blood of the living Christ we receive.

Hence, there is no cannibalism in it.*

11:35 I would not agree with "tribal" it sounds as if the social fact of living "in a tribe" would by itself lead to barbarism.

It's a view point of the 19th C.

Meanwhile, the practise is demonic. I don't think one can be too offensive to demons.

That and human sacrifice. Take a look at the places demons chose to mislead people on, geometrically correlated places around the earth (a cross through the axis is what I've looked at) shows there are themes that the people just committing those things couldn't know.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Black Magic in Shimao and Ur
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2025/03/black-magic-in-shimao-and-ur.html

11:54 Just in case you think Catholics have been lazy about going to those peoples, check wiki for "Catholic Church in Papua New Guinea" and "Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary"

Allie Beth Stuckey Revisited

What’s Behind Brett Cooper's & Candace Owens’ Reaction to Daily Wire's CEO Departure? | Ep 1158
Allie Beth Stuckey | 20.III.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEEQK1US7gY

13:39 The abuse was obviously unacceptable, but at 12 she was not a child.

At 12 (and some months) 50 % of young ladies can become pregnant. A person who can become pregnant is not a male, and equally not a child.

16:10 A child may not be able to consent, but at 12, when as said a woman is no longer a child, consent to marriage and therefore also consent to premarital sex has been considered valid consent all over Christian history.

In the 19th C. in response to lots of girls getting trapped in prostitution (as if that were more important than marriage) England raised the age of consent to 13.

In the early 20th C. the Progressive Era, the US involved several states raising the age for marriage to 21 or 18.

EmeryShae

@EmeryShae

Are you nuts? This didn’t happen in the 19th century. Laws were in place. She was absolutely a child and it’s concerning to me that you want to prove otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@EmeryShae You may not be nuts, but you are IGNORANT of history.

The Classic laws of marital age in England and colonies (including famous 13 ones) were saying for girls they had to wait to 12, or on other views just to 10. There were parallel and contradictory laws in England.

On the continent, prior to the French Revolution, and Reformations in some other countries, or even after Reformation, depending on country a girl could be married by 12 (France, Spain) or possibly only 14 (Savoy, I think, but could be wrong).

Check out Romeo and Juliet, and read it carefully. Romeo is an adult. He is able to kill in a duel (and that's what puts him into a feud with Juliet's family). The play starts when Juliet has 14 days left until she wwas going to be 14. Her mother tells her that at that age she was already married, I think even already a mother.

That was perfectly legal in Verona as elsewhere. Romeo's love was not forbidden because he was what you would consider a pedophile, but because he was in a feud with the family of his desired bride.

22:24 The Gates of Hell will not prevail against exactly what Church?

You know lots of Protestants (and lots of total non-Christians) have hoped that all of Catholicism comes tumbling down over certain things.

Were you one of them?

24:48 I am rather thankful for statutes of limitation being other than Oklahoma in several parts of Europe, including France.

27:26 There is exactly one justice that take up crimes however long ago.

It's (if I recall correctly) upcoming in the valley of Josaphath.

Romans 13 means that criminals currently unrepentant and continuing should certainly be liable to get charged, but it doesn't mean a man who is likely to have repented a long time ago should be dug up years after the crime, when the victim is at no danger and when there is no new victim.

I am no fan of the Wiesenthal Center, who seem to have been involved in getting Demjanjuk to court in Israel. In the 80's, like forty years after the alleged crime (his implication was disputed, and an Israeli court of appeal actually cleared him at one point) was over.

29:02 I certainly consider her point valid about coming forth.

41:41 Oh, your husband's name is Timothy ... if he reads appropriate epistles by St. Paul, he might end up Catholic.

50:17 Jews are not free from all faults, and if someone says "you dirty Jew" it's not my style, I happen to have Jewish relatives, but it's also not a thing I can write off as totally un-Christian.

In fact, there is spiritual uncleanness in rejecting Christ (like the Jews do), in fake accepting him, while rejecting His Church (which to various degrees Muslims, Protestants and Freemasons do).

If you wish someone to get clean of a spiritual uncleanness, perhaps stating "you dirty X" is preferrable over wishing someone minimum five years in prison decades after the crime.

51:03 When as a child I branded on a piece of wood I long kept "Jesus is Lord" I did not know the full implication of the words.

I wasn't Catholic yet.

I knew Jesus is Lord of the Universe, I knew Jesus is Lord over my life, whether I'm faithful or not.

I did not know Jesus is Lord over one specific Church, which He refuses to abandon.

I did not know that Jesus is Lord over human society.

These two dimensions are resumed in "Christ is King" since His Kingship over the Jews is not just exercised in Heaven, but for 2000 years has been exercised in the Christian population of Palestine, and for lots of these years has been exercised in Catholic States.

Now, lots of people who state "Christ is King" are in fact lamenting the loss of Catholic States and there are in fact Jewish contributions to this loss. I would say even to 19th C. Nationalisms. It's a safe bet that in 1864, Jews had a preference for Prussia over Austria. It's a very safe bet that in 1870 Jews had a preference for Savoy over Austria, Naples and the Papal States.

It's highly probable that in Mexico at a certain time they preferred Benito Juárez and US meddling over the Austrian Emperor of Mexico.

That's why I find it obliging on me to state "Christ is King" ...

59:15 You are aware that Hitler was a part time supporter of Zionism?

There are pictures of boats setting off to Palestine under double flag, Israeli flag (not yet official) and swastika.

Obviously, Protesting Jewish recitals is not the brightest thing to do, I'd prefer them supporting Palestinian ones (unless Trump bans those).

adding:

The 'Saint' Who was Excommunicated and Executed | Girolamo Savonarola
Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall | 20 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUXOUTjG9ZM

12:33 I seem to recall the contemporary version of Hail Mary is his.

In St. Thomas' time, the prayer ended with the name Jesus, as can be indirectly seen from St. Lewis of Montfort's Second method, when the mystery is inserted into the Hail Mary after that in a relative clause.

He added the final prayer, which already existed separately and is actually used separately by the Orthodox.

Sharing, About Evil in the Medical World

Doctor tries to FORCE abortion
Allie Beth Stuckey | 2 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJzpiEFgdn8

[In France, something very tonedeaf is happening. EVERY video with abortion mentioned is provided only with French Public Service announcements. Obviously about the evil legislation in France. Here it was especially tonedeaf, since the first words are: "Une femme enceinte, y compris mineure, qui ne souhaite pas poursuivre une grossesse peut en demander l'interruption" ... Abortion was translated as IVG, and that means voluntary interruption of pregnancy. In this case a doctor was pushing for an incorrect IMG, that is medical interruption of pregnancy, see screen shot below:]

Allie Beth Stuckey has a Point, But I'm Not Where Her Finger Points

@AllieBethStuckey
If you didn’t speak up before, don’t start now
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9o_DMgkF8E8

I am still very happy (with caution) that Trump won, rather than Kamala.

I promoted you, I promoted abolitionists in Florida, I promoted Isabel Brown, I didn't too much bother to look up Peter Sonski (probably more pro-life, as well as less deportation than Trump), I became basically to my readers, whatever that may imply, a little locomotive for Trump, because pro-death and trans policies disgust me, I am also not even saying anything like Trump should deport no one at all, just he should moderate his ambitions. Orders to quit the territory don't work as swiftly as bar bouncers, he may have been naive, but once the rubber hits the road, if he wants to deport actual violent criminals, a goal I can sympathise with, it should take the time needed to make sure he doesn't deport a lot of other people as well.

Excerpt

from my statistics, last 6 months. First row are blogs where the US presence is fewer than 1000, but taken together they are 9656, which I round to 9,66 k in order to count it together comparably with the blogs where the US presence was more than 1000 views last 6 months. Then 3 last months. Then last month.

États-Unis

216 + 368 + 318 + 288 + 312 + 798 + 379 + 340 + 354 + 341 + 295 + 475 + 463 + 359 + 274 + 410 + 284 + 632 + 275 + 193 + 228 + 735 + 888 + 431 = 9656 = 9,66 k

9,66 k + 18,9 k + 17,6 k + 1,13 k + 1,03 k + 1,83 k + 10,4 k + 3,02 k + 2,38 k + 1,17 k + 1,91 k + 2,86 k + 2,16 k + 1,91 k + 19,4 k + 3,37 k + 1,29 k + 1,86 k + 1,54 k = 103,42 k

États-Unis

426 + 694 + 93 + 301 + 93 + 108 + 102 + 170 + 441 + 455 + 429 + 110 + 242 + 160 + 884 + 120 + 118 + 119 + 125 + 101 + 85 + 107 + 148 + 75 + 130 + 218 + 274 + 49 + 246 + 269 + 807 + 88 + 246 + 460 + 90 + 326 + 807 + 49 = 9765 = 9,77 k

9,77 k + 7,02 k + 7,02 k + 4,73 k + 6,89 k = 35,43 k

États-Unis

346 + 41 + 47 + 51 + 40 + 57 + 42 + 24 + 42 + 69 + 89 + 205 + 149 + 136 + 63 + 127 + 81 + 157 + 44 + 210 + 134 + 52 + 42 + 44 + 898 + 57 + 89 + 11 + 50 + 96 + 114 + 88 + 229 + 30 + 132 + 20 + 171 + 199 + 116 = 4592 = 4,59 k

4,59 k + 3,4 k + 1,51 k + 2,42 k = 11,92 k

First three months

103,42 k - 35,43 k = 67,99 k, 747 per day.

Next two months

35,43 k - 11,92 k = 23,51 k, 379 per day

Last month

11,92 k, 397 per day.

Forbidden to Say I Refuse to Deconstruct, Refuse LGBTQ?

@AllieBethStuckey
The truth about deconstruction
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_J5BlbW7t3s

I'm so thankful I'm not even tempted to change my views on sexual morality.

Act contrary to them (though heterosexually!) yes, I would sometimes be tempted. But change them? Nope and noper!

[saw it was deleted, when I tried to add]

If anyone claims I'm "deconstructing" it's their (probably very interested) analysis, not my actual words.

Three Takes on Morality

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Takes on Morality · Pro-Death: Misreporting the Kate Cox Case and Misjudging the Ohio Girl of Ten Case · Harris Spoke a Lie, Trump Spoke the Truth · New blog on the kid: Best wishes for your recovery, Mr. Trump! · Yearick or Crooks?

Is this the DUMBEST abortion opinion?
Allie Beth Stuckey | 11.VII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceqhyHh6MA4

When people say, "a lot of people shouldn't be parents" they are basically making parenting a kind of élite occupation. "Hark, hark, the majority of children here next generation should not come from most of the ones who are adult now, but only a minority of them!" ... "Plus lots of immigrants, of course, from countries where they haven't discovered this excellent idea yet"

I wonder if it can get dumber. First, on a global level, the system is not sustainable. If every country adopts it, apart from Armageddon even so it means mankind is old history soon. Second, if people in Nigeria or Guatemala City don't adopt this "excellent" idea, like ever, or foreseeably, this "excellent" idea will spark a lot of conflict and mutual bad blood with them if they come.

In case you missed it, the murder and the "selfishness" on the view of this lightheaded blonde would be "the responsible thing" ...

If you don't have an income, don't get one, abort instead ... one way or another she's saying it's responsible to have no children before one has an income.

I disagree. A baby born when you have no home will survive you having no home, until you get one or he or she gets foster parents, but a baby successfully aborted will not survive that successful abortion.

Obviously, a baby growing up would be more thankful not being aborted for "selfish" reasons than being aborted for "responsible" ones!

Should men date MUCH younger women?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FBbHSPrYHjc

There is a problem with this take.

Male fertility is longer than female fertility. If a man who's fifty = wants to marry and have children, he needs a younger lady.

For women who marry someone their age, well, Tolkien (JRR himself) was even a year or two younger than his wife Edith. To one of the sons he confessed that this after her meno-pause led him to temptations. "Male monogamy, at least after the fall is revealed morality" (i e, there were moments when he stayed faithful just because he was a Catholic).

A woman who marries an older man can one day be still attractive as a widow.

Independent thread:

Leah

@user-cx1rq9bg8d

We left our old church after we found out that a 65 year old man was secretly dating a 27 year old woman. They were both on the church board but they kept it secret because they knew it was wrong and if they told anyone people would leave..... And that's what we did.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

If neither of them was married, and they wanted to get married, they should leave the church and get one where they could get married.

Why I became pro-life ‪@LilaRosePodcast‬
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HhbEMbQCBBY

My mother was pro-life (and presumably still is in Heaven).

If you have ever heard things about me like "he's in retarded childhood" that partly comes from people who think that a normal upgrowth after a pro-life mother would have been to ditch her position.

She brought home a tract, while Austria was having a referendum about legalising (it was still illegal in Austria in 1979), called "the diary of a fetus" ... we get very cute pictures of a fetus and its love for the mother that surround it in the text, and the last comic panel was all black and the chilling words "today my ma aborted me" ...

She left me with a love or at least basic loyalty to Francisco Franco over his Spain having no legal abortions (or except the life of the mother was in danger, an extraction, if as much). This also translates to my rejection of Freemasonry (also forbidden under El Caudillo) even before I converted and realised it was incompatible with Catholicism.

Allie Beth Stuckey is Sometimes Wrong

Like in this short:

Did they add "homosexual" to the Bible?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XVX_s_Bq4h8

The lady quoted was in fact right in the part she was quoted in. She may have meant sth else in which she was not quoted, in which she could be wrong, but in the words quoted, she was right.

Heterosexual males could:

• go to male prostitutes in the absence of female ones available
• or be male prostitutes for money, usually in case of poverty.

They would certainly fall under the category written about by Moses or St. Paul, but they would not be homosexual in the psychological sense of the word.

Remember, the word is actually psychological jargon. Substituting "homosexual" in 1 Corinthians 6:10 is as bad as substituting "cleptomaniacs" for the very next item.

A lier with mankind is a man who has on some occasion lied down in a bed with another man to do certain things. A thief is someone who on some occasion has stolen. Both terms speak of acts.

The words "homosexual" and "cleptomaniac" speak of what are supposed to be innate and deep rooted psychological "identities" so that these could both exist and also be identified even if never getting to the act.

And the danger of that is, partly, as with AA, identifying oneself with a sin, partly, you can guess and make up someone is homosexual and cleptomaniac, when it comes to lying with mankind or stealing, you actually need somewhat harder evidence.

Cyrus Pym and Michael Moon in a very brilliant novel by Chesterton:

“Most murder,”[Cyrus] had said, “is a variation of homicidal mania, and in the same way most theft is a version of kleptomania. I cannot entertain any doubt that my learned friends opposite adequately con-ceive how this must involve a scheme of punishment more tol’rant and humane than the cruel methods of ancient codes. They will doubtless exhibit consciousness of a chasm so eminently yawning, so thought-arresting, so—” It was here that he paused and indulged in the delicate gesture to which allusion has been made; and Michael could bear it no longer.

“Yes, yes,” he said impatiently, “we admit the chasm. The old cruel codes accuse a man of theft and send him to prison for ten years. The tolerant and humane ticket accuses him of nothing and sends him to prison for ever. We pass the chasm.”

[She's sometimes very right too, like here:

How Christians should view politics
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PidSdpWqG9Y]

Trent Horn Answers Allie Beth Stuckey (and I Compete With Him)

Catholic vs. Protestant: Praying to Mary | Guest: Trent Horn | Ep 997
Allie Beth Stuckey | 6.V.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibYS0NF_ZRI

7:25 "Catholics and Protestants have been together for a long time"

When was the first time they met? Where did both come from? What were the circumstances?

Hmmm ...

7:58 An experience shared by ma, before I was even made.

She joined OM. George Verver, Operation Mobilisation (have to reread his Messiology btw), they sent her to Italy to tell the Catholics about Jesus.

Her conclusion was, they were Christians.

8:43 I think European Lutherans, Anglicans, except for both of them the High Church factions, and Calvinists and Zwinglians are more likely to call themselves Protestant.

They are direct "rebellious daughters" of the Catholic Church, the US Evangelical congregations are more usually sth like granddaughter or greatgranddaughters more usually starting out with a rebellion against their mothers, which was not the Catholic Church.

Exception for some like Mike Gendron who are overtly pretty anti-Catholic.

15:18 I think at least a faction of Jews has had such a conspiracy. Or had local conspiracies.

It boils down to:

• did Jews kill Simon of Trent or did a Christian do it in order to blame Jews and do it in a manner expertly imitating kosher slaughter?
• similar question for Xanten, where Jews could not be indicted collectively and no Jew was indicted individually, which was it?
• with St. William of Norwich, was it a Jewish murder of a Christian boy and a Jew who confessed knowing about it when converting, bona fide, or was he killed by Christians and if so, why did the converting Jew confess?

"Thomas of Monmouth's account is attributed to the testimony of a monk and former Jew named Theobald of Cambridge. Theobald alleged that the murder was a human sacrifice and that the "ancient writings of his fathers" required the yearly killing of a Christian. This was allegedly for two reasons: to one day return to the Holy Land during the Messianic Age and to punish Jesus Christ for the religious persecution that the Jewish people continued to experience at the hands of his followers.[7] While there is no such commandment for human sacrifice anywhere in Jewish theology or Rabbinic literature, Theobald further alleged that William's murderers were not practitioners of conventional Orthodox Judaism. The murder was allegedly ordered at Narbonne, by a cult leader who had declared himself to be the Jewish Messiah and who had cast lots to select where in Europe his followers were to commit the murder. The lots had allegedly fallen upon Norwich and the pseudo-messiah informed his followers among the French-speaking Jewish communities of England by both messengers and letters.[7]"

Well, if there was anything fishy with Theobald, it was arguably saying "it was ordered from Narbonne" so as to get the local community off the hook.

20:10 "He's come also to the chosen people"

Actually first to them.

20:38 This question boils down to what you call "Jewish" ... when it comes to who was "Jewish" in 33 AD, and when the Synoptics were written, no, some opposed and became faithful Christians, and they are part of the ancestry of Palestinians (so are Samaritans who became Christians in Acts 8).

When it comes to "Jewish" in 90--100 AD, it is clear from the Apocalypse that the descendants of Christ-killers or sympathisers with such who were persecuting Christians and arguably Christians of Jewish ethnicity were calling themselves Jews, and Jesus didn't ratify that from heaven, but then from the Gospel that as for usage on earth, "we can let those guys keep the ethnonym" ...

a) Christ said "woe ye, Pharisees, for ..."
b) Christ said to the Jews "woe ye, for ..."

The one formula (insert Pharisees plus or insert other specific group) = Synoptics. The other = Gospel of St. John.

(None of the Gospels ever has
Jesus said "woe ye Jews"
and specifically in John, Jesus did tell the Samaritan woman "Salvation is from the Jews")

21:51 Metatron, if you have seen him, pretended Jesus was arrested by Romans.

No. Roman soldiers would have made Peter regret cutting off the ear of Malchus, specifically mentioned as servant of the high priest, very quickly. (Malchus is probably Malachy, btw) The guys who stood by and thought "can't punish him, that was not what we were sent for" were Jewish temple guards.

23:26 Jesus remained in Galilee because some sect of Jews rejecting Him (perhaps Pharisees, perhaps Herodians, perhaps Sadducees) were seeking to kill him. Or an angry crowd.

Not all the people of Judaea, just some of the groups which held power. Which on occasion would include angry crowds.

St. John, in the narrator voice, systematically effaces those nuances and calls them Jews instead. Again, he probably wrote the Gospel for the same guys who had been told the King of the Jews didn't consider their persecutors as Jews, and in order for them to refrain calling themselves Jews and allow the term to those who chose the Antichristian stance, those in whom Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and angry mobs were subsumed, as they were now persecuting Christians.

24:43 Gamaliel was an older generation.

One generation of Pharisees involve Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, as far as I can see they (perhaps not the last of these) were the people who had been adult admirers of Jesus age 12 in the temple (the original Yanuka), the next generation, their sons and disciples (notably St. Paul before his conversion) are the ones who were out to get him.

Imagine your dad or rabbi telling you, you were nearly as talented in the memorisation and comprehension of the law as that boy Yehoshua bar Yoseph they had seen in the temple ten years earlier.

25:14 There is arguably some right for the Popes (or at least one) who did speak of the perpetual servitude of Jews.

One could state that the servitude consists in being a museum of the OT, so as to make clear how the prophecies are not vaticinia post eventu, since those rejecting the fulfilment still share the prophecy. Or one could state, that Jews have now escaped that is one of the signs of the end times.

27:56 Other argument that St. John in his gospel is mechanically replacing groups of enemies of Christ with the term Jews, because of the situation around c. 100 AD.

Btw, he didn't deprive himself of a word with which to term people of Jewish ethnicity.

Damien Mackey has argued that Essenians split into Herodians and another group who often became Christians, and in Essenian usage, "Jew" refers to corrupt collaborators with Romans, while same ethnicity, different personal righteousness, as in actually righteous, they would say "Israelite" instead.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him: and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.
[John 1:47]

However, otherwise Jesus in the Gospel says "Jew" and means his own ethnicity. Except before Pilate in 18:36.

But yes, searching through the NT mentions of "Jews" in concentrating on John, it is used in a quirky way, as if code for some other word.

33:07 Was the Ark of the covenant venerated, and did Elisabeth replicate that veneration in relation to Mary?

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
[Luke 1:43]
And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 6:9]

Credits to Fr. Kevin Drew. I was searching DRBO for "whence is this to me" when the correct text of the OT parallel has "how"

33:57 Even on sola scriptura terms, if you include the right to use clear allusions, lots of Marian doctrine come from the OT.

The Ark coming to King David. Already mentioned.

"Blessed among women" is used twice about women who killed enemies of Israel, specifically in ways that could be described as crushing their heads (Sisera, Holophernes, and taking away the book of Judith still leaves Sisera).

So, my guess is, when the angel repeats that, what the Blessed Virgin was most puzzled about was ... what enemy of Israel had She killed? Ever? She was a delicate teen girl.

The next usage of the words come from Elisabeth, now that Our Lady is pregnant, Elisabeth can add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ...

That very obviously rang a bell. Genesis 3:15. She and Her Son were killers of the serpent. Plus ... She had already been so before being pregnant. The angel uses the word in verse 28, and in verse 31 speaks of Her pregnancy as still upcoming.

So, this means, even before being mother of God, She was slayer of the serpent. How? Well, an exorcist said that fighting the demon is not the kind of superhero stuff you see in movies about exorcism. What is the exact one thing Satan cannot survive in his relation to any human being? Freedom from sin.

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[1 John 3:8]

So, Mary having already killed the devil before She was Mother of His killer could only mean, She was sinless. That's the exact moment She bursts out calling God Her Saviour.

Now look at Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

In other words, She had valued Her sinlessness more than the privilege of being Mother of God, and raised Her Son to share this exact priority. Would the plural here go against my interpretation?

Two answers.

a) She valued Her community with all who overcome sin. She's the Mother of the Church.
b) In another context, He actually uses the singular.

And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
[Matthew 12:49]

In other words, He did not hold His Mother blameworthy for the family intrigue She had been forced to externally participate in, He considered Her as part of His disciples.

And if you think of it, She had been His disciple before being His Mother, from the first moment She had ever prayed or opened a Torah or had it read to Her.

39:08 That very passage is very definitely a special honour given to His Mother.

In context, He's not able to openly complement Her faithfulness, He would expose Her to Her stepchildren, older than Himself, children of Joseph from a previous marriage, but if you analyse his response ...

"my brother" = any male disciple
"my sister" = any female disciple
"and my mother" = and by the way, Mary belongs here too!

39:24 Apocalypse 12.

41:42 Women apart from Mary would include Clare, Terese, Terese and Clare (of Assisi, of Avila, Thérèse Martin, Crockett).

Some have prayed to Sr. Clare Crockett for a drunk man's conversion, and he converted.

44:07 I think that you are overreaching when you say "every Christian's prayer" — here is from James 5 in context:

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. 17 Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again: and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.

Cesar Garcia

@cesargarcia7074

Bro, my mind straight up went to Elijah/(Elias) also.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@cesargarcia7074 will share

44:26 King Josaphat disagreed:

And Josaphat said: Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may beseech the Lord by him? And one of the servants of the king of Israel answered: Here is Eliseus the son of Saphat, who poured water on the hands of Elias
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 3:11]

James has just mentioned Elias in the context, and Elisaeus is here singled out as someone through whom to beseech the Lord.

44:33 Abraham could hear the prayers of the rich man.

He refused them, but for other reasons than not being able to hear them.

45:01 If you had the choice between a respected pastor and a drunk teen (who was still a believer, so, on your view a man justified by Christ?) would you prefer the respected pastor?

One choses intercessors from two closenesses. Closeness to oneself, closeness to God. Both are valid criteria, but St. James is talking about the latter.

45:23 Critical mass ... holiness of one person, Elias is directly mentioned.

Number of righteous people, remember God's promises to Abraham about where his nephew Lot was.

The "critical mass" is always shrinking, but it is there.

Lot himself was saved with family for his righteousness in rejecting a chalcolithic or early Bronze Age version of LGBT agendas, but even more for the righteousness of his uncle Abraham.

46:06 Jacob was clearly predestined. Now, do prayers of saints help to bring about, not God's eternal act of predestining someone, but how this predestination comes to fruition in time? Check this:

And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive
[Genesis 25:21]

Minimum for Jacob to come to eternal glory was to be conceived, and this happened because Isaac prayed. (Classical prooftext for prayers of the saints)

46:54 I am greeting the Blessed Virgin in the words used by the angel and by Elisabeth.

And in doing so, I am fulfilling Her prophecy of all generations (i e of the justified) calling Her blessed.

49:16 "to the dead" ...

Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live
[John 11:25]

PLUS, Abraham never told the rich man, "you shouldn't make requests from me, I have died" ...

PLUS, you arguably base the rule on a ban on necromancy, which has a much narrower definition, summoning (or trying to summon) souls from Hades so they can speak what you are curious about.

49:44 You just contradicted Luke 16, where Abraham never said "I can't pray for anyone", but rather "no one can pray for you any more" and "no one should make that request for your brothers" ...

PLUS some passages in the Apocalypse. Angels, 24 elders, souls of the martyrs.

50:55 Narnian time.

While 1 minute passes on earth, the time experience of those in heaven is stretched to whatever they need to attend to in that manner.

51:15 She has omnipotence of prayer, like God of own powers.

Omniscience? No, just awareness given by God what pertains to Her glory.

52:30 God achieves the transformation of our capacities.

Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is.
[1 John 3:2]

53:28 That He has granted every person in heaven the ability to bring forth prayers on behalf of those on earth?

Apocalypse. Angels. 24 elders. Souls of martyrs.

Mary is just the most prime example.

1:00:08 Trent and I would definitely disagree on whether direct condemnation of pre-Adamites or indirectly of millions of years before Adam still are valid as official statements of Catholic doctrine.

1:00:47 That metric would be very typically US.

It's also true of some Catholic countries, where liberalism is prevalent, the liberals are not changing denomination, if already in majority and welcome in theirs, while some Protestants in France would feel, if they were liberal, they could just as well be Catholic.

However, in other Catholic countries, Poland and Croatia, this is not so. And in Protestant countries, Catholics are the more conservative ones.

1:03:56 The Reformers didn't hold that, and High Church Anglicans and Lutherans don't hold that.

1:06:51 John 14:6 certainly teaches that Christ is our righteousness, we have no righteousness outside Him.

It is less apparent that it should mean Christ is the thing we mean when referring to someone as righteous, as in no actions of goodwill or omissions of sins in the person himself.

And that misinterpretation is indeed condemned. Along with denial of John 14:6. Mike Gendron stated the Council of Trent issued 130 excommunications.

I'm ploughing through them, and Session VI on justification has:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

So, the correct teaching is, if I am currently justified, my righteousness is a result of Christ's justice, it could not exist without it, but it is still distinct and involves acts and omissions on my part.

"she is living In Perpetual sin 1:08:18 and we do believe that you die to your old self you become a new creation and even though we won't fully stop sinning 1:08:26 that's our belief until until heaven we do believe in Progressive sanctification"

Ah, sounds more Catholic to me than some Protestant doctrine I was myself into, back when a Lutheran!

Lordship salvation. A k a "works salvation" to the real direct heirs of the Reformation!

1:10:43 Using a rubber is basically a physically slightly different method of the exact same result that Onan was going for.

Genesis 38:9. No, the detestable thing was not refusing his brother heirs, that was his motive for the detestable thing.

1:12:17 "we don't have one institution"

The first Christians had that. The Church.

1:12:22 "that the Church or the Pope is not the authority"

Contrary to 1 Tim 3:15.

1:15:04 P of the TULIP, heresy, like the rest of that black tulip.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Now, the result of this [of TULIP P] would be, given that some who take steps to be justified, like get baptised and so on, and then fall away, that some people would simply be wasting their time totally by any act they try to do to obey God, even with faith in Christ. God would have been leading them on. Hence, the idea is, those who fall away were never justified in the first place = God predestined them for evil, which is heresy.

1:19:16 It certainly has had a positive effect on this Catholic who became Catholic precisely bc of that.

More seriously, the idea laymen shouldn't read the Bible was locally enforced regulations in some areas that had had heresies.

There were always exceptions if the priest thought one should study the Bible and so on.

I Did Not Evade Swedish Prison, Nor Get an Unusually Early Release, and Trent Horn is just not as Catholic as I (First Half on a Video by Allie Beth Stuckey)

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I Did Not Evade Swedish Prison, Nor Get an Unusually Early Release, and Trent Horn is just not as Catholic as I (First Half on a Video by Allie Beth Stuckey) · New blog on the kid: Quoting Allie Beth Stuckey

“Our Rights Come From God” Is Apparently Christian Nationalism | Ep 958
Allie Beth Stuckey | 28 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZgbma7Kbw

2:37 bis, in case you wonder, I was recently corrected by Father Fulcran Vigouroux on Biblical inspiration. Note, I disagree on how he applied this, he was a day ager and believed in a huge regional, but not global Flood (he knows better now, he died in 1915), but he corrected me on the nature of Biblical inspiration.

I had thought that God worked with Hagiographers basically as with Popes.

• the man decides to write on a topic or to pronounce judgement on a topic
• God protects the Pope from doctrinal and moral error, but the Hagiographer from any even just factual error.

Uh, uh ...

• God decides that the Hagiographer writes
• God decides what he brings into his book (one of the 73 of the Bible)
• God either directly decides or at least protects the wording of each truth.

And this does not preclude human initiatives, it says that any human initiative was totally subordinate to God's intention. But any way, there is a definite divine plan for Genesis bringing up this and not that about pre-Abrahamic ages. Or for Jesus filling in about them. Some evils seem to be very obvious to us that live now, "oh, that's how the impious men were harrassing Noah, up to when he started building the Ark" or "this has to have been Nimrod's tactic of tyranny, and it's leaving traces even to the Andes" ... but if they had been stated directly, the Bible would have needed Stephen King as hagiographer, and the ambitious tyrants of centuries past would have had a source for evil creativity.

Unfortunately, this kind of inspiration as making God the literal (though not exclusive) author of a book is not what some guys considering themselves as "Catholic" learn in the RCIA class. Best wishes for Trent Horn working out his salvation, but as a Catholic Apologist he is deeply flawed. And note, I and Fulcran Vigouroux have just been fleshing out a definition from Aeterni Patris or Pastor Aeternus ... a council Trent Horn professess to believe in.

17:21 This happened before Jesus had opened the Pearly Gates.

The soul of Lazarus (and of Abraham too) was detained in the netherworld for the sin of Adam.

But there is more to it, death came through sin. Jesus hates death, and will destroy it as the last enemy. A compound of body and soul had been ripped asunder.

Vicarious atonement is not correct about salvation, but it is spot on about resurrection. Death got one victim, of infinite worth, Who had not sinned. Death obviously had to give back within three days, and will also hand back the other guys on the last judgement.

B u t, temporarily, death lost Lazarus too. Jesus had him back on the feet. "In no time" would be exaggerated, it obviously took time to roll away the stone.

17:36 If you ever do an interview with Trent Horn, or Jimmy Akin, ask them about how they feel about human death.

• Before Adam sinned?
• Was there no single Adam?
• Was immortality an option given a pre-existent mankind through Adam as representative, and he missed it?
• Was Genesis 3 as far back as William Lane Craig says, and if so, how did Moses know about it?

Quiz them. They may be Catholic souls, but as to their Apologetics, they are not fully Catholic.

18:09 Whether you consider I committed a crime in 1998 or not, it was preventable.

If police had not sided, systematically, with shrinks, and ignored, as systematically, my pleas to get my freedoms back, I would not have shot one in the hip with his own pistol.

26 years later, people are still provoking me to prove a point I'm a dangerous criminal who needs supervision 24 / 24, 365 / 365, the rest of my life, even if I was only sentenced to 3 and a half years, and came out perfectly legally in 2000, and have never been sentenced since.

19:34 Speaking of productive citizens ... I have 11 000 + blog posts, most of which boil down to forms that are immediately marketable, i e poems, sheet music, recipes, but above all essays and dialogues (the latter to be marketed would need the other participants to be OK, but that's not all of my posts). My output on a typical day, when there are no textile or social issues that take precedence over writing, varies between 2000 and 4000 words.

I have a Swedish passport, and both Sweden and France are in the Schengen space, so I am by no means an illegal immigrant in France.

Some of the guys on your side (yes, it exists here) seem hellbent on treating me as an illegal immigrant and on top of that a lazy slob who would need to be treated for years if not life as an invalid before getting back to a work force consisting of normal employment.

Such guys are actually pushing for a repeat of 5.II.1998.

20:00 Speaking of "mooch", whenever I do panhandle, I nearly always have a cardboard with a URL, so I'm offering reading. When not, I try to make a cardboard with a URL while seated.

As Parisians and Paris dwellers are typically not fluent in German or Swedish, and myself I am not really all that fluent in Spanish, the URL's I offer are in French or English, or bilingual in both.

Swedish is on a separate blog. German is on a separate blog. Spanish is on a separate blog.

I have people considering me as a moocher and trying very hard to pretend I am, coming to me and complaining that a URL does not legibly spell out "I'm hungry" or "give me work" or "some cash, please" ... what I'm offering is not my necessity, it's my writing. And it's usually not about my necessity, and I'd love for even less of it to be about my necessity. B U T, I have enemies who disagree with that.

Thanks for teaching me a new word, by the way!

23:59 One can be in a real refugee situation and not able to go through the legal process.

I try to avoid Sweden. What happened in 1998 was the fullblown confrontation of a talking past each other which I had been involved in with Swedish society since I was basically 12--14.

I know Sweden is not good for me. But none of the measures can be pinpointed to a specific official persecuting me for my Catholic faith or for my will to get married with a younger girl. It's just that they are very out of tune with Swedish society. Even if the next Swedish official on a hypothetic return were fully supportive, it's a question of time before the next attempt to change my mind, and therefore before the next violent confrontation.

I really and truly did go to a Catholic country with a refugee motivation. But I have no means to prove it, and so I am happy to be legally residing here anyway.

Proving it to France, to French officials, who are also not the best friends of Catholic family values, would be like for a Jew in 1938 going from Austria to Mussolini or Horthy to prove he risked persecution after the Anschluss. They were part of the Anti-Comintern pact, and as such they were not demonising each other.

24:42 It can be noted, I have not looked for French welfare either.

Part time I had CMU, "couverture médicale universelle" due to panhandling not giving me sufficient to pay for a hospital visit. Or a dentist one.

Then I started to see doctors presuming off my situation to present me as an ignorant person. When asked to fill in the issue why I did not already have CMU (after I had not had it for a while), they filled in for me, "méconnaissance des droits" = "ignorance of my rights" ... which was not exactly true, and which I did not exactly want to subscribe under.

This way, I have by honesty and dignity been barred from re-applying for it.

25:25 I think you have a point about obesity.

But I don't think it's a point against Ibarra. If he gets prison, he may be saving his life from obesity and diabetes imposed by people told by the "most responsible ones" that a man in the street should not be given money, he should be given food so he can't spend any on drugs and alcohol.

I need to consume lots of coffee and more alcohol than before (though far from drunkenness) in order to pee out extra calories, because of the people who take that attitude.

Sorry, I don't think he's a saint, but on that level, he is kind of a victim. Not on all levels, but on that one.

The alternatives are not either everyone in the street is taken into custody, as Trump dreams of doing, or the anarchy demoralises the ones in the street so much they overeat out of depression. No. Some people really and truly are pushing people on the street to overeat. Give food. Make it a hard negotiation to say "no thanks". Add irritations. If someone has food at hand, even if it's not very healthy, and has just undergone some stress, he definitely will at least 1 time out of 2, perhaps 1 time out of 10, consent to eat food he would otherwise not have eaten and did not really need.

25:38, no, a man on the street who's getting fat is not "taking the resources" he's taking what some people give him, while actually barring him from healthier resources.

25:44 A man on the street who gets fat is not taking the spoils, he's taking the crumbs.

He's not pillaging, he's pillaged. I literally was that, I need to change sleeping bag often, to clean each of the possibly still extant lice, and I just found out this morning one of the sleeping bags was stolen. But even when that doesn't happen, a man on the street can get pillaged of sleep and of time.

And yes, sleep privation is a way of pushing someone to overeating. EVERY hour lost sleep can be short term compensated by calories. Some people genuinely like to bully the homeless by sleep privations, the German language has a derogatory term for them, "Penner" = sleepyhead. Some people seem to believe the problem of homeless people is, they get too much sleep, they get used to being lazy. No, the homeless get too little sleep, get irritable, and unconcentrated.

Next guy who dislikes my writing is too likely to actually pretend my lack of concentration is due to overconsumption of internet, well, blocking me from the internet is blocking me from writing, and blocking me from sleep is making sure I have less concentration.

27:42 About ten years ago, or some more, when I was new in Paris, there was a debate about Putin and generally Eastern Europe doing the same, sending lowlife to, for instance, France.

I was obviously targetted, while Sweden is not one of those countries, and one of the lines was putting doubt on my being really a Swede.

29:21 Just noting, I have some Swedish pride, I will for instance defend Swedish positions about Ukraine and about Putin.

I will defend the right to wear breeches, both as folk costume and as reenactment (sewed things to keep the knitted sashes I tie them in better to the pant leg below the knee), that's not big in Paris, though not unknown in France.

But I really and truly believe French Right Wing Catholicism as per 1990 was a saner thing than Lutheran Conservatism the same year. I really do take pride in being in France, rather than for instance Sweden or England.

32:04 Unfortunately, in the Progressive Era, the US was producing a lot of negation of the image of God, a lot of prejudice.

A Heterosexual May December? Stamping that as paedophilia and therefore wrong, well, Progressive Era US, and state on state implementing the 18 / 18 rule for marriage, or even 21. That was just decades before Kinsey Report and Roe.

Stating certain people are improductive and should be sterilised? Wendell Holmes was ahead of both Hitler and our own Per Albin Hansson.

If you want a uniquely Christian country, well, a few decades ago, Spain was a better example than the US. I think there was a good reason why the Kelly family went from the US to Spain. And ancient border states along the now Mexican border, formerly having a border to the North instead of to the South, are generally better than New England. Or Dixie apart from Florida / Texas.

34:00 I think there are lots of Western and White countries, which are in the same position as the US.

I discovered you back when it was about Kyle Rittenhouse, I think, and some immigrants in Paris, many of whom are well integrated, were not happy with my sharing your story and some others on Rittenhouse.

In the US, some are attacking you because parts of the country had a slave owning past. In Europe, the schtick is, some countries had a more recent Fascist past. I don't think that's a thing to be ashamed for for all Fascisms (except those that imitated Wendell Holmes), but even if the Fascism was in any way shameful, that's not a reason to deny each country its honour and dignity decades later.

34:13 In the time of Nimrod, God not just gave us "the idea of" languages, He gave us languages.

The first 400 years after the Flood (or 530 for those using a full LXX chronology, or 100 for those using Masoretic chronology), everyone spoke the same language as Noah and his family had spoken on the Ark. After some time of compelled working on a hair brained object, like rocketry for a useless purpose and 4500 years before we had sufficient technology, or if some prefer, a skyscraper for the same purpose, drafting people around the globe, I would say to Göbekli Tepe, God released that compelled work force.

It's work compulsion has not been equalled until 19th C. Capitalism, if even then.

The means of doing so was imposing languages in a world without [insert your favourite language learning facility], so international cooperation suddenly became impossible.

34:31 How much of the disorder for the area was about making 70's style hippie existence impossible by "responsible people" making up for the lack of homeless being rounded up and put into "facilities" (for their bullies)?

To what degree was the victim involved in this?

37:56 How much is a ticket on a GreyHound bus? Are there cheaper ones?

Does one need a helping hand from an NGO to buy such a ticket?

40:07 As you just mentioned, Ibarra was not originally in Athens. He was some other place.

Do you think every illegal immigrant in Athens is the kind of type that the people who know them would want to suffer for what a stranger did?

How do we know that this was not arranged by some right winger who wanted disturbance of the good cheer between volunteers and illegals already in that place?

I think there is more than one who has wanted to disturb my existence as a homeless man, by bringing on other homeless.

As he was new to Athens, he can not have been long term targetted by Laken Riley in the way I just suggested, thanks for exonerating her. But what's not exonerated is people disapproving of her and other peoples' generosity and deliberately asking for someone to be brought along from somewhere else, who might disturb the idyll. You know, people who hated Woodstock took at secret glee in Altamont and the death of Meredith Hunter.

42:55 If you think enforcing borders could have saved Mollie Tibbetts, sorry, you are deluded, unless you want a Berlin wall.

Cristhian Bahena Rivera, aged 24 at the time of the crime, lived and worked in the rural Poweshiek County area where Tibbetts vanished.[22][23] Originally from El Guayabillo, Guerrero, Mexico,[24] he arrived illegally in the United States at age 17 and had lived in the area for several years.[25] He had worked at another farm before coming to Yarrabee Farms near Brooklyn, Iowa, in August 2014.[25] Rivera self-identified and received his paychecks under the name John Budd.[26][27]

So, he was a hardworking man, he had a US identity, though it was a fake one, he had picked her up in a car he had been able to buy, he was everything you ask from an immigrant, except having his papers in order. He was productive. He had had paychecks and probably paid taxes for 7 years. To imagine ICE would have deported him is like asking them to employ mediums to track illegal immigrants they can't get at by normal human means.

Here is Mollie Tibbetts' father.

Tibbetts's father said, "The Hispanic community are Iowans. They have the same values as Iowans. As far as I'm concerned, they're Iowans with better food".

42:58

On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn "Kate" Steinle was shot and killed while walking with her father and a friend along Pier 14 in the Embarcadero district of San Francisco. She was hit in the back by a single bullet. The man who fired the gun, José Inez García Zárate, said he had found it moments before, wrapped in cloth beneath a bench on which he was sitting, and that when he picked it up the weapon went off. The shot ricocheted off the concrete deck of the pier and struck the victim, who was about 90 feet (27m) away.[1] Steinle died two hours later in a hospital as a result of her injuries.

He had never been in jail for violent crime.

The gun was unsecured when it disappeared from the owner.

Members of Steinle's family did not want her to be in the middle of a political controversy, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "I don’t know who coined 'Kate’s Law,'" Kate's father Jim Steinle told the paper. "It certainly wasn't us."[86]

Given his absolutely horrid approach to gun security, a crack down (pun intended!) on heroin dealers might be mor fruitful than one on illegal immigrants.

43:47 While "the great replacement" is preferrable to "the great aging" ... it's main way to get avoided is actually starting to make babies.

Like, Dobbs was an excellent move, how about getting rid of contraceptives as well?

Meanwhile, José Ibarra was arguably not an angel, considering his record in NYC, but what he had done was not sufficient to put him in prison. Someone stressed him out about ICE, while NYC was back in 2023 still a sanctuary city. However, his act seems to have changed the mind of the mayor.

Atheist Provides Some Comic Interlude, When I Argue Against Josh McDowell That Age of the Earth is by Now an Essential, or At Least Close to Them

Does the Age of the Earth Matter? | Guest: Dr. Sean McDowell (Part Two) | Ep 901
Allie Beth Stuckey | 2 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah0pMKSGLP8

2:26 "but they are areas in which Christians can disagree"

I'd say that might have been that about 100 years ago.

Given what we know about language and humanity, we cannot accept that Adam had non-human parents.

Given what we know about humanity, we cannot say he had parents somewhere between human and non-human.

Given what Adam is we cannot accept he had human parents.

Therefore, Adam having no ancestry except his Creator is an essential.

Given that Genesis is history, we cannot accept Adam lived 750 000 years ago, as William Lane Craig suggested (credits to him for admitting Adam had no ancestry and is himself ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and I'd obviously add Denisovans and Erectus -- as to Heidelbergians and Antecessor, I think they are synonyms for Denisovans).

Given what we know of carbon dates, we cannot have a recent Adam in an old universe. Especially not on an old earth. Adam (and his Neanderthal and Denisovan descendants) can well have lived not all that long ago, if the carbon 14 level was still very much lower than today (like I'd say Neanderthals and Denisovans, except mix race samples on the mainly "Sapiens" Ark population, died out in the Flood, and carbon 14 was 1.625 pmC back then, giving us 34000 extra years and add that to a Flood that was really 5000 years ago, gives 39 000 BP).

But it cannot have been much lower than today if C14 had been forming in the upper atmosphere for 100 000s or millions of years before that. Therefore a pre-Adam prolongation of the Biblical timeline has to go too.

Rob Langsdorf

@roblangsdorf8758

When I became a Christian, Campus Crusade for Christ was using the Scofield Reference Bible. Between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 it had a footnote that inserted billions of years.

Later I learned that verse 2 was connected with an "and" term that didn't allow any time between these verses.

It probably took me 15 years to begin to discover how young our earth is.

Now it is very clear that old earthers are leading people astray by misrepresent what God has said in his Word.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Hi, @roblangsdorf8758 !

Haydock comment is like Scofield in design, but two differences.

Overarching, it's Catholic. In this context, no insert of extra time!

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

@HarryNicholas

it's bollocks stories mate, why you bang on about this crap beats me, even if god were real the bible is still crap as a source of information.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'll skip a few of your favourite vocabulary, @HarryNicholas, but the core issue is, you are no good as a source of judgement about sources of information.

In more elaborate gobbledigook, a k a academese, "you don't have a proper epistemology" ...

3:13 Young Earth proper : Earth is 7222 years old this year, was 5199 years old when Christ was born.

Chris

@Chris.uk.

How ill educatated

Hans Georg Lundahl

How so, @Chris.uk. ?

Bc you prefer Ussher or Syncellus? Or Jewish calendar?

OK, I can respect that.

But if you consider YOUNG Earth to mean "10 000 -- 12 000 years" I am sorry to say you are ill educated about the Bible and chronological issues in it.

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

it was brought into existence last thursday actually.

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

@hglundahl we atheists love to see you argue over what god really said, every time you do an angel turns queer.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think Engels already was, @HarryNicholas -- if not in orientation, at least in ideas.

Comparing Young Earth Creationism to "last thursdayism" is so disingenious.

I have personal memories from this summer or from years ago before this.

No man has a record, written in a year known from a common chronology of historic record to be 8000 years old. Let alone millions or billions.

3:57 Earth 3.7 or 4.5 billion years old = atmosphere is old = carbon 14 can't have been still at 1.625 pmC when the Flood is Biblically speaking = Neanderthals and Denisovans are 40 000 years old as per carbon dates.

This leads to either Neanderthals and Denisovans and some Sapiens living along them were not human, or Adam lived way more than 40 000 years ago, and Genesis 3 is not recorded history, or Adam was not the first man, either way, Christianity is in worn out tatters.

4:08 "days = extended periods BUT Adam lived 7222 years ago, and no humans lived before him"

WAS an option in 1909.
IS NOT an option now.

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

adam and eve are myth and if you had half a brain you'd see the story is evidence of why there is no god, cos the god who created adam and eve was an incompetent idiot who couldn;t even protect an apple.

Hans Georg Lundahl

if you had anything like a heart @HarryNicholas , you might have seen that God ended up protecting the apple He really cared about.

4:19 "It's not even trying to give us a specific scientific account"

It is definitely trying to give us a historic account, though.

Young Earth is about as much about Genesis 5 and 11 as it is about days of Genesis 1.

If you add up ages at birth of relevant son in those chapters, Abraham was born between 1600 and over 3000, but not over 3500, years after Adam was created.

Abraham visited Egypt.

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

lol. it's STORIES ffs.

Hans Georg Lundahl

do you mean fiction, @HarryNicholas ?

what is your criterium for distinguishing fictional accounts from historical ones?

5:07 "We don't have time ... to divide over issues like this"

Hence, those who do take a strong position get marginalised for not taking the mark of Sean McDowell ... either on hand or forehead.

John G

@myjesusisall3192

It's not a gospel issue. It's not salvation by grace, sola Scriptura, or the deity of Christ for instance. It's important sure but it's a secondary issue and we shouldn't be dividing brothers and sisters over it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, @myjesusisall3192 ... the question is when one can be considered as divisive.

Salvation is by grace, and not from works, but as certainly into works. Sola Scriptura is an error to a heresy, depending on what kind of authority the Council of Trent intended in defining the alternative.

The Deity of Christ actually is indirectly involved.

A) bc of how Jesus did His miracles
B) bc of what He said in Mark 10:6 about the relation between age of the world and of mankind
C) bc of a Church He founded which all the time up to 1830's was Young Earth, whatever position it had on the days in Genesis 1.

Jimmy

@Jimmy-iy9pl

I don't mind marginalizing certain perspectives if those perspectives themselves are corrosive to the larger project of avoiding marginalization. There's nothing wrong or contradictory about that.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Unless, @Jimmy-iy9pl, it precisely is wrong in your choice of what you marginalise.

I think some Jews didn't want to get marginalised in their own country by the Romans, and found Jesus a liability.

Now, they were not considering Him as God anyway, even if they should have, so, to them, that was "marginalising a mere man" ... who for tactical reasons, they thought, should be marginalised.

They ended up crucifying God (through the Romans), calling Caesar their only king (to the exclusion of God), and getting their city sacked.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Btw, @Jimmy-iy9pl, check the issues I enumerated in the comment previous to yours.

5:53 Answering for the unbeliever I could have been (if I had matured without becoming a Christian at 9) and am not.

• 1) You state that Jesus is God. God is all knowing. In Mark 10:6, your God said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Adam and Eve are closer to nearly just when Jesus spoke than at the beginning of Earth's timeline.
  
  
• 2) You state that Adam did sth very important and ominous, in Genesis 3. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you cannot deny there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens around 40 000 years ago:
  
  
  • a) if they descend from Adam, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history
  • b) if you say Genesis 3 was revealed to God, that's not in either Bible or tradition, only Genesis 1 is by tradition held to have been a vision Moses had on Sinai
  • c) also on "very old Adam" hypothesis, Genesis 5 and 11, by being stated as basically complete history and being grossly incomplete become lies within the book you call God's word
  • d) on the hypothesis of a very much more recent Adam:
    • i) all men being Adamites is indefensible (Amerindians and Aborigines would only partly and thanks to Europeans descend from him)
    • ij) him being the first man is indefensible (Neanderthals in Shanidar were human, well before him)
    • iij) original sin coming from him to all of mankind is therefore also indefensible.
  
  
  
• 3) If you think Adam had evolutionary origins, and uphold that only man can properly speaking speak, that's part of what makes us God's image, then it would follow Adam was a feral child, and God was cruel to him before he sinned. If you hold he only became human as an adult, this would change the thing, but involve him having a trauma from previous animal life into human life, unless God gave him amnesia, which in and of itself is a bad thing, which again makes Adam suffer evil before he sinned.
  
  
• 4) Not to mention animal suffering over millions of years before there were men and before the Earth was cursed for Adam's sin. Some Church Fathers held animals could have died, as food for carnivores, none that they would have been exposed to harsh prolonged suffering, before he sinned.

And actually, this also answers for why as a believer I find Old Earth either inconsistent by pretty big inattentions, or showing a lack of faith in the Christian revelation.

6:38 "Very much smart scientists and Biblical scholars who make a case for the old earth"

I have seen a few of them, none that I cannot refute pretty soundly.

Or, there were very many smart Pharisees who made a case against Jesus being the Christ .... smartness is actually not barred from apostates.

SIGMA NO COPYRIGHT MUSIC

@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737

Why do Christians want to obsess over this topic. Not that important. I keep changing my positions and was obsessed with it but now I am neutral

Hans Georg Lundahl

Neutral, @sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 ?

La Ferrassie 1, a Neanderthal woman, is dated to c. 40 000 BP.

Are you neutral to whether Neanderthals were people descending from Adam?

Are you neutral on whether Adam transmitted the Genesis 3 story over a credible number of intermediates up to Abraham and then Moses?

I'm not.

nicole pettit

@nicolepettit5120

Moses could literally talk to God though. He wouldn't necessarily have to get the account from Adam down through Abraham. He could have asked God what happened or what to write.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Could does not equal did, @nicolepettit5120 .

We know from the Bible he talked with God about the commandments on the stone tablets, and also about arranging the Exodus and lots of smaller laws.

We know from tradition, he had a vision of the six days (Book of Jubilees says it was more detailed about the spirit world than the account in Genesis 1).

We have neither tradition nor Bible for his talking to God about what happened at the fall, and, if he actually had done so, where did he get such flimsy data for Genesis 5 and 11 from? Hardly from God, right?

Cross Over Culture

@Applegatestops

You think you can refute Hugh Ross “Pretty Soundly”? Best of luck with that.

Hans Georg Lundahl

It's he who needs your best luck, @Applegatestops, not I.

I have invited him for debate, over the internet, and I have had no response.

It's possible I once years ago saw him at the campus of Nanterre University, at a picknick, he'd have offered me a chat and a meal, but never a response on the debate over internet.

12:42 Mark being the first Gospel:

• contradicts tradition
• got a big boost during the Kulturkampf, because Roman Catholics in Germany were pretty successfully arguing papacy from Matthew, so one had an interest to see Matthew as containing "later accretions" ...

Harry "Nic" Nicholas

any idea who wrote mark? cos it wasn't anyone called mark.

Hans Georg Lundahl

any idea where you have your stuff from, @HarryNicholas ?

cos it very well may have been a guy called Marx. I don't mean Groucho or Adolph Bernhard.

Sean McDowell Wrongly Stamps Age of the Earth as Inessential

Please note, apart from that (in the following) and apart from wrongly taking Mark as first Gospel (my comment is not yet answered), he does a good job.

Does the Age of the Earth Matter? | Guest: Dr. Sean McDowell (Part Two) | Ep 901
Allie Beth Stuckey, 2.XI.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah0pMKSGLP8

2:26 "but they are areas in which Christians can disagree"

I'd say that might have been that about 100 years ago.

Given what we know about language and humanity, we cannot accept that Adam had non-human parents.

Given what we know about humanity, we cannot say he had parents somewhere between human and non-human.

Given what Adam is we cannot accept he had human parents.

Therefore, Adam having no ancestry except his Creator is an essential.

Given that Genesis is history, we cannot accept Adam lived 750 000 years ago, as William Lane Craig suggested (credits to him for admitting Adam had no ancestry and is himself ancestor to both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, and I'd obviously add Denisovans and Erectus -- as to Heidelbergians and Antecessor, I think they are synonyms for Denisovans).

Given what we know of carbon dates, we cannot have a recent Adam in an old universe. Especially not on an old earth. Adam (and his Neanderthal and Denisovan descendants) can well have lived not all that long ago, if the carbon 14 level was still very much lower than today (like I'd say Neanderthals and Denisovans, except mix race samples on the mainly "Sapiens" Ark population, died out in the Flood, and carbon 14 was 1.625 pmC back then, giving us 34000 extra years and add that to a Flood that was really 5000 years ago, gives 39 000 BP).

But it cannot have been much lower than today if C14 had been forming in the upper atmosphere for 100 000s or millions of years before that. Therefore a pre-Adam prolongation of the Biblical timeline has to go too.

Rob Langsdorf

@roblangsdorf8758

When I became a Christian, Campus Crusade for Christ was using the Scofield Reference Bible. Between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2 it had a footnote that inserted billions of years.

Later I learned that verse 2 was connected with an "and" term that didn't allow any time between these verses.

It probably took me 15 years to begin to discover how young our earth is.

Now it is very clear that old earthers are leading people astray by misrepresent what God has said in his Word.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Hi, @roblangsdorf8758 !

Haydock comment is like Scofield in design, but two differences.

Overarching, it's Catholic. In this context, no insert of extra time!

3:13 Young Earth proper : Earth is 7222 years old this year, was 5199 years old when Christ was born.

sasquatch UK 🇬🇧

@sasquatch341

How ill educatated

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

How so, @sasquatch341?

Bc you prefer Ussher or Syncellus? Or Jewish calendar?

OK, I can respect that.

But if you consider YOUNG Earth to mean "10 000 -- 12 000 years" I am sorry to say you are ill educated about the Bible and chronological issues in it.

3:57 Earth 3.7 or 4.5 billion years old = atmosphere is old = carbon 14 can't have been still at 1.625 pmC when the Flood is Biblically speaking = Neanderthals and Denisovans are 40 000 years old as per carbon dates.

This leads to either Neanderthals and Denisovans and some Sapiens living along them were not human, or Adam lived way more than 40 000 years ago, and Genesis 3 is not recorded history, or Adam was not the first man, either way, Christianity is in worn out tatters.

4:08 "days = extended periods BUT Adam lived 7222 years ago, and no humans lived before him"

WAS an option in 1909.
IS NOT an option now.

4:19 "It's not even trying to give us a specific scientific account"

It is definitely trying to give us a historic account, though.

Young Earth is about as much about Genesis 5 and 11 as it is about days of Genesis 1.

If you add up ages at birth of relevant son in those chapters, Abraham was born between 1600 and over 3000, but not over 3500, years after Adam was created.

Abraham visited Egypt.

5:07 "We don't have time ... to divide over issues like this"

Hence, those who do take a strong position get marginalised for not taking the mark of Sean McDowell ... either on hand or forehead.

John G

@myjesusisall3192

It's not a gospel issue. It's not salvation by grace, sola Scriptura, or the deity of Christ for instance. It's important sure but it's a secondary issue and we shouldn't be dividing brothers and sisters over it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'm sorry, @myjesusisall3192 ... the question is when one can be considered as divisive.

Salvation is by grace, and not from works, but as certainly into works. Sola Scriptura is an error to a heresy, depending on what kind of authority the Council of Trent intended in defining the alternative.

The Deity of Christ actually is indirectly involved.

A) bc of how Jesus did His miracles
B) bc of what He said in Mark 10:6 about the relation between age of the world and of mankind
C) bc of a Church He founded which all the time up to 1830's was Young Earth, whatever position it had on the days in Genesis 1.

Jimmy

@Jimmy-iy9pl

I don't mind marginalizing certain perspectives if those perspectives themselves are corrosive to the larger project of avoiding marginalization. There's nothing wrong or contradictory about that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unless, @Jimmy-iy9pl, it precisely is wrong in your choice of what you marginalise.

I think some Jews didn't want to get marginalised in their own country by the Romans, and found Jesus a liability.

Now, they were not considering Him as God anyway, even if they should have, so, to them, that was "marginalising a mere man" ... who for tactical reasons, they thought, should be marginalised.

They ended up crucifying God (through the Romans), calling Caesar their only king (to the exclusion of God), and getting their city sacked.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Btw, @Jimmy-iy9pl, check the issues I enumerated in the comment previous to yours.

5:53 Answering for the unbeliever I could have been (if I had matured without becoming a Christian at 9) and am not.

• 1) You state that Jesus is God. God is all knowing. In Mark 10:6, your God said that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning of creation. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Adam and Eve are closer to nearly just when Jesus spoke than at the beginning of Earth's timeline.
  
  
• 2) You state that Adam did sth very important and ominous, in Genesis 3. If Earth is 4.5 billion years old, you cannot deny there were Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens around 40 000 years ago:
  
  
  • a) if they descend from Adam, Genesis 3 is not recorded and transmitted history
  • b) if you say Genesis 3 was revealed to God, that's not in either Bible or tradition, only Genesis 1 is by tradition held to have been a vision Moses had on Sinai
  • c) also on "very old Adam" hypothesis, Genesis 5 and 11, by being stated as basically complete history and being grossly incomplete become lies within the book you call God's word
  • d) on the hypothesis of a very much more recent Adam:
    • i) all men being Adamites is indefensible (Amerindians and Aborigines would only partly and thanks to Europeans descend from him)
    • ij) him being the first man is indefensible (Neanderthals in Shanidar were human, well before him)
    • iij) original sin coming from him to all of mankind is therefore also indefensible.
  
  
  
• 3) If you think Adam had evolutionary origins, and uphold that only man can properly speaking speak, that's part of what makes us God's image, then it would follow Adam was a feral child, and God was cruel to him before he sinned. If you hold he only became human as an adult, this would change the thing, but involve him having a trauma from previous animal life into human life, unless God gave him amnesia, which in and of itself is a bad thing, which again makes Adam suffer evil before he sinned.
  
  
• 4) Not to mention animal suffering over millions of years before there were men and before the Earth was cursed for Adam's sin. Some Church Fathers held animals could have died, as food for carnivores, none that they would have been exposed to harsh prolonged suffering, before he sinned.

And actually, this also answers for why as a believer I find Old Earth either inconsistent by pretty big inattentions, or showing a lack of faith in the Christian revelation.

6:38 "Very much smart scientists and Biblical scholars who make a case for the old earth"

I have seen a few of them, none that I cannot refute pretty soundly.

Or, there were very many smart Pharisees who made a case against Jesus being the Christ .... smartness is actually not barred from apostates.

SIGMA NO COPYRIGHT MUSIC

@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737

Why do Christians want to obsess over this topic. Not that important. I keep changing my positions and was obsessed with it but now I am neutral

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Neutral, @sigmanocopyrightmusic8737?

La Ferrassie 1, a Neanderthal woman, is dated to c. 40 000 BP.

Are you neutral to whether Neanderthals were people descending from Adam?

Are you neutral on whether Adam transmitted the Genesis 3 story over a credible number of intermediates up to Abraham and then Moses?

I'm not.

nicole pettit

@nicolepettit5120

Moses could literally talk to God though. He wouldn't necessarily have to get the account from Adam down through Abraham. He could have asked God what happened or what to write.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Could does not equal did, @nicolepettit5120 .

We know from the Bible he talked with God about the commandments on the stone tablets, and also about arranging the Exodus and lots of smaller laws.

We know from tradition, he had a vision of the six days (Book of Jubilees says it was more detailed about the spirit world than the account in Genesis 1).

We have neither tradition nor Bible for his talking to God about what happened at the fall, and, if he actually had done so, where did he get such flimsy data for Genesis 5 and 11 from? Hardly from God, right?

Cross Over Culture

@Applegatestops

You think you can refute Hugh Ross “Pretty Soundly”? Best of luck with that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's he who needs your best luck, @Applegatestops , not I.

I have invited him for debate, over the internet, and I have had no response.

It's possible I once years ago saw him at the campus of Nanterre University, at a picknick, he'd have offered me a chat and a meal, but never a response on the debate over internet.