"Hat off" for Emeal ("E.Z.") Zwayne!

Jew Loses It When Christian Mentions Jesus!
17th Sept. 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdpe-oqAxBk

1:42 It so happens, and this is not "my truth" it is truth, if you are of specifically Palestinian descent, you are as much an Israelite as Ray Comfort.

Not true of all and any Arabs, for instance not Peninsula, Egyptian, Maghrebine, Lebanese, Iraqi, but it is true of Palestinians.

The main ingredient in the Palestinian population are those who lived in Roman Province Palestine when the Arabs arrived. And as a majority, they didn't so much live in cities and speak Greek as they lived like Beduins and spoke Aramaic - the main spoken language in the area 2000 years ago.

Muslim Palestinians exchanged Aramaic for Arabic within a few centuries from the Arabic or Muslim Conquest. Those who remained Christians continued speaking Christian Palestinian Aramaic to the time of the Countercrusade - that is the times of Saladin and Baybars.

4:36 Same with Catholicism : you have to study. At least in modern society.

The usual minimum for someone with a normal education level otherwise but no background in Catholicism is 1 year (perhaps 6 months some places).

In my case, it took 85 to 86 just to get started, 86 was a false start that was rebooted in early 87, I quit the boarding school and began university in september 87 and that final reboot took much of a year to May 22:nd 88 before I was a Catholic. And I had been thinking of conversion seriously since last week of 84, when I read the Christmas present written by Umberto Eco : Name of the Rose. Why then? Bc I got rid of a prejudice against the Inquisition. I had thought of Albigensians as Christians. Oh, no.

The typical fate of an Albigensian caught by the Inquisition was converting to Catholicism, which was his, or his parents' or grandparents' childhood religion. But even for those who burned, they didn't die for belief in the Bible, they didn't even believe all of Genesis 1:1 (the single first verse!).

5:42 Congratulations, belated, for your gramp's eleventy-first birthday!

Did he make a speech to friends with the surname Proudfoot?

7:07 So that they don't end up spending an eternity in Hell.

THE great concern for a certain Domingo de Guzmán (he's only one of five St. Dominic) who was a canon, that is a kind of "junior pastor" with his bishop as "main pastor" and asked his bishop, Diego of Osma, to get leave and start preaching to the poor Albigensians.

Spent hours every night praying and weeping in Church with the question "what will happen to the sinners?!"

Presumably meaning the one's he was going to meet that day : was he converting them to a life with Christ, or were they in for a hugely long and never ending torment?

8:23 It may be noted that Jews don't date Anno Domini. They are in the late 5000's after Creation, which is actually somewhat too short as a Biblical chronology, 2007 was their 5777.

So, a Jew would arguably and predictably respond that Our dear Lord split time for the Gentiles and add (what I don't agree with) "not for us!"

Let's see if that is the response ...

It wasn't.

11:20 "bore the wrath"

A view on Substitutional Atonement which I think is wrong. When Our dear Lord was baptised, there was a dove above His head, to signify or "make visible" the Holy Ghost and there was a voice "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased" - that did not change on Calvary.

Isaias 53, verses 4 to 6 and 10 say this: Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

Not a single mention of "wrath" here. Wounds and bruises, yes. Chastisement of our peace, yes. Our iniquity, yes. But it does not say the Father "was pouring out his wrath" on Him but that He was pleased with Him.

On a Catholic Calvary painting, we see the same three persons : the Holy Spirit, like a Dove, just over the Cross, and the Father, like an "older twin" holding His arms down to the cross beam where the Son is holding them up. And no angry expression on any of the faces.

One reason some pretend He "bore His wrath for us" is He said "why hast thou forsaken me?" - but He quoted a psalm which clearly signifies the Eucharist as fulfilment of and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. He was too tired to recite all of it, but those words are there too.

12:25 Oh, a Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament!

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith.
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:4]

And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord.
[Osee (Hosea) 2:20]

Just two out of 19 verses in the OT. One says, a just man is not just without faith, and another says Israel is not the bride of Adonai without faith. Which makes the Catholic Church, the bride with Faith, the New and True Israel.

13:53 A Jew who doesn't know the Old Testament! Mah Nishtana?!

I found 86 verses for "hell" in the OT, but that's arguably somewhat irrelevant, as that refers to Sheol, where even the good went before Jesus opened the pearly gates.

So, I changed the search. Everlasting fire definitely is about Hell in the usual Christian sense.

The sinners in Sion are afraid, trembling hath seized upon the hypocrites. Which of you can dwell with devouring fire? which of you shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
[Isaias (Isaiah) 33:14]

17:35 I disagree with both.

In the OT, if you said "na, I don't really like the ways of Adonai, I think Astoreth is more fun" - and it wasn't a joke or (as here) a citation - you were fit for stoning penalty.

The juridic code of Israel is not identic to the juridic code of a Catholic Christian nation, but the difference is not one of sheer opposition on principles. It's a difference of degrees of application (for instance, marital infidelity is no longer punished with stoning, see John 8 - though it took up to Justinian for Romans to realise this, but divorce and remarriage also counts as marital infidelity and such marriages are not recognised - Matthew 5:31, f), and not of opposed principles.

And yes, when the successors of the Apostles were supposed (Matthew 28:16-20) to make disciples out of all nations, it means making the governments disciples as well. So, there really are Christian states - btw, this is an issue where Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterian Calvinists traditionally agree with Orthodox and Catholics. The Thirty Years War was fought because people like Frederick V of the Palatinate - called The Winter King - and people like Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor, had different ideas about what "a Christian nation" means.

See also:

The Woman I Love | Bishop Fulton Sheen
1st Sept. 2022 | Catholic 365
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTbVPVUs24

13:28 Other reason, noted by someone else before me, the first mention Our Lord made of His Mother ti Her at Cana, the last on Calvary ("woman, see thy son"), He is using the same noun that God used when threatening the serpent.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Even the first half is enough to know, Mary is the enemy of Satan. And since there is a difference between slave and enemy, this means, She was not a slave of Satan. This means, She was sinless from the start.

However, the adress by the angel, echoing an adress to the women Jael and Judith who had killed their enemies and crushed their heads, show that the Catholic translation of the second half is not overdoing it.

See also : Wikipedia : Élisabeth Leseur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lisabeth_Leseur

Monica Cline and Allie Beth Stuckey - Right on Much, Wrong on Some : First Half Plus a Video with Fulton J. Sheen on Related Topic

Monica Cline and Allie Beth Stuckey - Right on Much, Wrong on Some : First Half Plus a Video with Fulton J. Sheen on Related Topic · Abortions Out - Marriageable Age Down

How Sex Ed Convinces Kids to Have Sex | Guest: Monica Cline | Ep 663
18.VIII.2022 | Allie Beth Stuckey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-jFw7g4n4

12:35 Now, here is a bait and switch.

When Monica Cline wants me to condemn men having sex with ten year old girls (I presume she means knowing they are that age), I agree.

Now she is into "minors" which is an issue of federal law. A federal law saying a man can marry a man doesn't make "gay marriage" a marriage. And a federal law saying a twelve year old girl is victim of "statutory rape" doesn't make her a rape victim. She may be a victim of something else, like, seduction, by a man not intending to marry her, and that is offensive to any virgin, even 20's - but is not a federal offense.

Read The Alcalde of Zalamea*, in 16th C. Spain seduction was a capital offense, unless one married the virgin one had made no longer such - and in the same Spain, the limit for marriage was, in 1910 still, 14 for the husband and 12 for the wife. By now, it's 18, but case by case derogations can be given down to 14, with the younger person writing the letter to the judge.

Was a pretty good system until Spain introduced gay marriage in 2004.

*There are actually two plays of that title, same story from recent news, one by Lope de Vega, one by Calderón de la Barca. I think the one I read was a Swedish translation from Calderón.

15:21 Here Planned Parenthood was obviously grooming for non-marital and non-fertile relations, i e for perversion.

Like sex education in Swedish schools.

However, condom practise would not have been available to nine or ten year olds.

More like 14-15.

It may have changed since then.

23:07 Saying to 13 year olds they don't have to have sex at all, may be somewhat indirectly grooming for the solitary vice.

Unless the 13 year olds could:

• use fasting and abstinence (more old style than present RC practise) as a means to reduce testosterone levels;
• avoid school discos;
• go to different classes, boys and girls;
• and avoid the next class of sex education, by someone else and also any references to sex in the literature they read in English class.

And some who really are into the no-risk option could already at 13 quite school to join a monastery or at least get homeschooling while waiting for the monastery.

23:54 Boy and girl see each other at community centre over:

• cinema;
• snacks;
• sodas.

Yeah, in the immediate beginning, they are being abstinent. I am not sure they will remain so and also abstain from the solitary vice. It may not involve a risk for STD's (morbus Kobolt is not transmitted), but it does involve a risk of eternal damnation. My guess is, such a relation may take a few months up to pregnancy ...

26:18 "our laws, based on our morality is : children cannot consent to sex"

Let's check a wiki about the US:

"In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

16 is two years after medium puberty age for a boy and four years of medium puberty age for a girl (actually a few months less).

Such laws (insofar as not simply pushing to disobedience) actually push teens into seeking relations with teens, meaning no economic prospect of marriage, meaning a kind of grooming.

Cuter grooming than the one involving abusive non-marital relations with 30 year old men, but still grooming.

In Sweden, the age of consent is 15. In Spain, 14.

I Cor. 7, 1b, 2, 8, 9: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ... But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

If you point to lots of teens who didn't in 1930, don't forget, they quit school earlier, had better chances of avoiding the other sex in classrooms (except teachers), weren't so overfed, weren't listening to as sexualised music, were often in works with fairly few and socially rewarding contacts, like already at a workplace as apprentices or preparing for a future marriage by doing housework for married people as housemaids. And many even then did get pregnant and many pregnant actually did marry - early.

Note for the mentions of "10" as age of consent in some states (CA and GA) in mid 19th C - this was an English speciality.

While Catholic countries had 12 as minimal age for girls either marrying or consenting to sex outside marriage, England had, actually, parallel legislations for both 10 and 12.

I'm obviously on the side of the Catholic 12 limit.

"until they are adults"

Well, when is one an adult in the sexually and maritally relevant sense? At puberty.

26:56 It's like asking "why are some teaching Mexicans to cross the Sonora desert safely, if the US law says they are not allowed to cross it?"

The law is clearly courting disobedience, and in Illinois, there is a "close in age" type of exception, the courting of disobedience to secular law is less grave, but, as my mother realised when she heard about the Swedish law, the law of God is likelier to be disobeyed that way, because it is likelier to provoke affairs that don't end in marriage and some of them in abortion, than if they had been allowed to marry already stable men.

27:08 Make a bad law and it's sure to normalise disobedience to itself, and especially as soon as factors making the already irksome obedience less hard back in 1918 crumble down.

27:19 If CA reduces the not only age of consent, but age of marriage to 14, that would be great.

29:08 It would not favour predators (defined as men not intending marriage) if the age of marriage was equally lowered and did not comprehend any "gay marriage" any more.

33:34 [was removed] To a person above puberty, sex education is not just suggestion, it's a kind of porn - unless certain themes are touched only very lightly.

|34:00 "even more tantalising subjects"

If the subject is already tantalising, this means, they would be better off if able to marry.

Thousands of economic and other obstacles to that, no need to add legal ones.|

33:42 I was watching a video about Youth and Sex by Mgr Fulton Sheen.

He was making the point, games are happy because there are limits. Very correct.

However, the Progressive era changed age limits upward.

That is a bit like changing the square of the baseball field from a side of 90 feet to a side of 90 yards - tell me what baseball player could make a homerun after that?

He also made the point that the then US (he died 1979) limit of juvenility to manhood was unusually long ... among Jews it was 13.

Here is Fulton Sheen's video:

Youth & Sex | Bishop Fulton Sheen
15th Aug. 2022 | Catholic 365
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugAG_WR207M

Here are my comments on that one:

0:46 I don't know what people he was adressing, but I do know that such days of peace have been seen in at least smaller places even after his death.

If he adressed youths in Chicago or LA or NYC, I guess he had a point, could be the case with Detroit too.

The story of the union seems to involve a hotel large enough to have its workers syndicated - again, large places.

3:31 I'd agree US displaced a boundary.

"[8] He that diggeth a pit, shall fall into it: and he that breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him."
[Ecclesiastes 10:8]

11:30 Detail - not sure the horse would hear the same sounds as we.

An ape would not be able to hear the consonants. It has a rather thick ear. Longer auditory duct, bigger malleus, bigger incus and stapes too. An ear not made to hear human speech. A very good argument against our evolving from apes.

Now, I do not know where on the human to ape scale of ears a horse ear is ...

12:02 Now, that statement* seems to have gained the ring of stark paradox, like not locking your house at night!

What was the Enola Gay for this change, since his time?

* For those not watching the video : "everyone is either male or female, it's that simple" ...