Purgatory and Hell (Both Real, Not The Same, Not Equally Important)

I Tested Banned Church Teachings About Heaven or Hell
Off The Kirb Ministries | 18 Oct. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujOV0xjE_HM

1:18 The problem is a bit different than you painted it.

It's more like Universalists are saying God will convert even Satan in the end (and everyone else), so the actual problem is more like one of freewill. It's one form of Calvinism.

8:32 Salvation couldn't be bought. There are very cheap ways, available back then too, to gain a plenary indulgence.

1) A rosary (if you pray it every day, one rosary per month, I think);
2) A pilgrimage.

Oh, a journey, wasn't that expensive? Not if you didn't bring any luggage and if you were allowed to beg, as long as you were somewhere else next evening (begging was for certain friars, for pilgrims, for disabled, for not disabled but out of work).

Apart from shortening your own or a loved one's stay in Purgatory, you also got a nice vacation basically for free. Your employer had right to some time to make arrangements, but he had no right to stop you. (On the other hand, he didn't have to pay you). This is ONE of the things that angered Martin Luther. People, he thought, should work hard for their employers, unless they were employers or had some public office (he also made clergy a public office controlled by the state: fewer priests, more in the pew each Mass, and in 2020, a Pentecostal meeting gathering 5000 came to be one of the hotspots for Covid 19).

So no, you are gravely misrepresenting Purgatory. And especially Indulgences.

9:29 Biblical sufficiency in that sense is not in the Bible.

Now, there are Catholics who claim no important truths exist that are not found in the Bible. St. Augustine and whether William of Occam was one or not, he at least mentioned the position and as not banned. This doesn't mean "traditionibus non scriptis" isn't a thing, just that if so it would cover much the same ground at least in theory (some practises would not be directly in the Bible, like Sunday worship or Sign of the Cross).

But even they say we need to submit to the Church when teaching with severity from the Bible, and that one Church being visible, the Catholic Church. With severity = banning people who disagree.

There is a very different question if the truth is in the Bible in such a manner that an unprepared modern or just un-Christian reader can just open the book and on each item find it.

In that sense, it would be contrary to 2 Tim:

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work [2 Timothy 3:14-17]

1) All Scripture is useful to the "man of God"
2) who has known them for a long time (since childhood in St. Tim's case)
3) if he also learns from someone (in St. Tim's case probably St. Paul)
4) and adds sth not explicitly in the text (like faith in Christ Jesus as to the OT text).

9:56 There is no verse in the Bible saying 66 books.

Two verses between them would suggest an OT of 45~46 and an overall Bible of 72~73 (the wiggle room is about whether one of the books of the Jeremian corpus is just an extension of Jeremias or a separate book, I first heard Baruch).

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so [Acts Of Apostles 17:10-11]

And you became followers of us, and of the Lord; receiving the word in much tribulation, with joy of the Holy Ghost So that you were made a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia [1 Thessalonians 1:6-7]

The distance between Verria (Berea) and Saloniki (Thessalonica) is 45 miles (45 OT books) or 73 km (73 OT+NT). 45+27 is only 72, 73-27 = 46, but there is that wiggleroom that affects the counts.

10:38 Jesus never disagreed with the Jewish stance, arguably very popular, that's expressed in II Maccabees.

Canon or not canon is not all that over important. The story is history. Jews to this day believe in post-death purification. Calvin pretended this only came about after rabbi Akiba, but II Maccabees proves him wrong, even if it isn't canon.

Now, you could argue, this is the priest, so he could have been a Sadducee, but as you know Sadducees didn't believe in the afterlife. The author very clearly writes when Sadducees were starting to creep in into the temple, and uses this to suggest that Judas Maccabaeus doctrinally was a Pharisee (as St. Paul said he still was before Festus).

There are very many things Jesus didn't give specific instructions on. Is Hell fire or darkness or both? (The correct answer is both, but there is not one specific place where Jesus says so).

Is Heaven for men "like angels" or with resurrected bodies? (The correct answer is both ... and in fact, in this case the answer is directly given, it is Heaven as such that is missing from the blessed afterlife in that verse).

I would find it very safe to say Jesus agreed with a Jewish stance unless we are specifically told He or His disciples disagreed with it. He celebrated Hannukah, according to:

And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter.
[John 10:22]

But Hanukkah is found in a book you just called uncanonic, and in no OT book you call canonic. How do we know He cared about the feast? Well, it's a feast about the Temple:

And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch
[John 10:23]

So, unless a Jewish belief or practise is directly contradicted (like kashrut obliging even after Calvary, see Galatians, or like the temple being part of the correct worship after Calvary, see Hebrews, or about continuing to divorce and remarry, see Mark 10), we may presume Jesus was for it.

That goes for post-death purification too.

11:37 There is a saying about Purgatory and saints among Catholics.

"Already had Purgatory in this life" = hint someone went directly to Heaven, because on Earth he went through the narrow gate and didn't sqeeze to widen it a bit ....

However, there is a wording in St. Paul that says it's post-death:

Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is [1 Corinthians 3:13]

The "day of the Lord" = post-death or post-rapture judgement. It could be the general judgement, in the valley of Josaphat, or it could be the individual judgement, straight after death.

Here is a kicker that it really means sth after this life:

Every man's work shall be manifest

In this life we usually keep many secrets, and especially marginal or unimportant moral failures are usually easy to keep secret.

So, St. Paul is talking about sth after the normal mortal life.

11:54 He very much doesn't say final salvation on the day of death is by faith not works.

He says initial justification is by faith not works:

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God Not of works, that no man may glory For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them [Ephesians 2:8-10]

When the Bible uses "saved" about people who are here on earth, we understand it of justification, saved from sin, saved from a guarantee of going to Hell if one already died. When the Bible uses "saved" about the future ("he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.") we understand it of final salvation, dying in a state of grace, saved from any risk of ever going to Hell, guaranteed to be in Heaven either straight away or after Purgatory.

12:11 The good robber did good works in his final hour.

1) He repented. Both of his robberies and of the mockery he had just previously done (Mark 15:32, confer v. 27)
2) He opened his mouth to speak with effort for two good purposes.
3) He broke with and reprimanded his longstanding companion, probably, or at least a recognised colleague.
4) He made an appeal to Jesus' mercy.

12:22 It proves there was no purification left for the good thief.

With that crucifixion and a traumatic roundabout, he had his purgatory on earth.

12:57 I'm well placed to know students sometimes do ace exams without properly having done all of the homework.

My exam on Aeneid VI was brilliant. But if I wanted to use it to teach Latin, I think I'd very certainly need to read all of it. I basically just read the parts that we went over in class. Plus the passage gone over in the exam.

So, instead of teaching Latin, I "major" on Virgil proving possessed mediums are a thing ... if you want to know how St. Paul knew the girl in Lydda had a Pythonic spirit, read that scene in Aeneid VI.

Doing Classics (Aeneid VI and Greek tragedy, even Homer) changed my mind on what pagan mythologies are in cases like Greek myth. No, they aren't Mythopoeia, like Tolkien imagined. They are pretty well preserved accounts of how people encountered demons or demon possessed people.

Point is, yes, there are cases where the examinor is going easy on the final exam, but on condition the examinand is prepared to do some more work after it.

13:40 How about Sunday worship?

I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 1:10]

7DA would argue, are these hints sufficient to build a system that for centuries tells us to rest and worship on Sunday rather than Saturday?

Well, not if the Bible was meant as a manual. Was the OT meant as a manual about Jesus' life death and resurrection? Yet, they are there in hints.

Sunday worship and Purgatory aren't all that big deals in doctrine. After all, anyone who makes it to Purgatory is already saved and there are situation when one is excused from weekly worship, but still going to Heaven.

It's not as big a doctrine as give alms, or fear Hell (Matthew 25).

Praying for the souls in Purgatory, like burying the dead, is just one of the alms you can give. Neither of them is an excuse for not giving to the living (are not directly mentioned in Matth. 25).

14:17 "as many godly Christians and Theologians down the ages held this view"

Saying "many" relieves you of the irksome duty of mentioning even one of them. At least the duty would be irksome to a Catholic. We would not agree that Charles Taze Russell for one was a godly Christian or Theologian.

After looking up, we also don't agree that about Ellen Gould White.

17:30 I didn't know Arnobius was at least considering annihilationism.

His disciple Lactantius was condemned by the Gelasian decree.

19:50 or before ... even if one says, as I think the Catholic Church does, that after death, time for merit and demerit has ceased, one could still argue for eternal conscious Hell, because neither God nor the damned wants the damned annihilated and keeping in existence but getting out of Hell would take a repentance the damned cannot want.

The latter is because, after a time of testing, the will is confirmed in its finally chosen bent. The same firmness that prevents the damned from repenting also preserves the blessed from falling.

21:43 See what I mean with the Bible not spelling out the doctrine of Hell?

You mentioned flames. I look up Luke 16 and do not find them. I do find "torments" ... but Jesus doesn't say which ones.

Sola Scriptura doesn't as a method set anyone up for one error in particular.

Universalism and annihilationism are things which some Bible readers got from Scripture without taking full advantage of the guidance of the Church.

Because, Hell isn't described in full detail in any one place.

23:02 No, He absolutely didn't take Hell on Himself on the Cross.

Penal substitution may be OK on the side of the body, like we can Resurrect, because the Deathless Died, but we are NOT saved "because He was damned" because in fact He wasn't.

On Calvary He was the unblemished lamb, and the Father once again could say, as over Jordan:

Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased[Mark 1:11 b]

Why so?

1) With God, there is a difference between accepting and rejecting a sacrifice:

Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat: and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect: and Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell
[Genesis 4:4-5]

Christ's was fully accepted, therefore God was fully pleased with Christ on the Cross, not "fully angry" ...

2) If when dying He knew you and me and whoever is saved, this is impossible for man in this life, beyond man in this life as a prophet, irrelavant as to His being God, since we talk of His death, and so only explicable about Him as already enjoying Heaven, which He did all of His days, including conception, including birth, including death on Calvary, as much as anything after Resurrection. The Man Who promised Paradise was in Paradise, the Good Thief was going to be in Paradise, because He was going to be with Him.

Therefore, Christ was in Heaven, not in Hell, on Calvary.

3) Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
[Romans 6:3]

But we are baptised in the likeness of what happened at the Jordan, therefore His Death and His Baptism are one. Therefore Mark 1:11 also speaks of Calvary.

25:18 Jesus actually had a reason of His own not to send them to the company of Satan.

They, unlike Satan, knew He was God. Satan had concluded He wasn't after seeing Him not turn stones to bread. They weren't conferring with Satan at least prior to Calvary.

That's why Satan dared to plot Jesus' death.

29:49 I'm not sure why you are putting the file "Purgatory" along the files "Universalism, Annihilationism, the Doctrine of Hell" ...

The Doctrine of Hell doesn't contradict Purgatory any more than it contradicts Heaven. Because Purgatory is the antechamber of Heaven (that's why it's less important than Heaven) and all who are in Purgatory will be in Heaven.

---

Some Bridget of Sweden?

How to Avoid the Wrath of God and Be Caught Up With Jesus - A Divine Revelation by Saint Bridget
Penance Podcast | 23 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s38I_088dw

People Who Take Nimrod's Oppressive City for Noah's Altar, Have a Spiritual Problem

People Who Take Nimrod's Oppressive City for Noah's Altar, Have a Spiritual Problem · I think two sculpted things from the Taş Tepeler guarantee they are NOT Noah's work

"This is Way Worse Than I Thought"... | Göbekli Tepe Prophecy
Off The Kirb Ministries | 14 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEPtDZ9hIX4

9:13 Pounding stones were used to create a contemporary moa on Easter Island, before the eyes of Thor Heyerdahl

10:17 There was certainly ONE man who "began to be a giant" or "began to be mighty" at Göbekli Tepe.

For more details, see Genesis 10 and Genesis 11.

10:26 I most certainly DO deny they were ante-diluvians.

Nimrod made a relatively clumsy attempt at regaining pre-Flood technology. He was decent in astronomy and trigonometry, though.

Carbon date 9500 BC = real date 2607 BC, death of Noah
Carbon date 8500 or 8000 BC = real date 2556 BC, birth of Peleg

Carbon date of 2957 BC (year of the Flood)? 39 000 BP / 37 000 BC.

10:31 Stone henge is, most parts, younger than Genesis 14.

There was some ground laying of a circle in "8000 BC" (after Babel) and next level is "3200 BC" in carbon dates, while Genesis 14 goes back all the way to "3500 BC" in carbon dates.

11:53 "and then it was buried"

= and they ceased to build the city (Genesis 11).

Leaders, like but not limited to Nimrod, didn't want to even see the place where communication broke down between the work teams.

17:31 Against his theory:

1) you find unclean animals and unclean birds priorised in GT
2) and you find depictions of decapitated people with vultures on the shoulders that look like Polynesian birdmen.

It's an insult to Noah.

In Göbekli Tepe you have also found perforated skulls, that were probably stringed on top of each other. Nimrod boasting his capacity for "punishment" ....

18:18 If Nimrod had roamed the earth as the mightiest of Palaeolithic hunters prior to GT, he certainly knew animals.

18:48 There is not much "South", there is SW by W from Ararat to GT.

"Removing from the East" as the correct translation says ....

19:35 What if Nimrod was trying to preserve his excuse for not trusting the promise of God?

If my carbon tables are correct, the Younger Dryas is a certainly post-Flood layer, and it involves a comet strike.

THE excuse Nimrod took to telling people "we can't trust the promise of God, we must make sure 'never again' that Flood" ...

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!

Josephus, Antiquities, Book I, Chapter 4, § 2
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link2HCH0004

20:32 Nimrod would have had a motive to look back at the Flood to drive home the point (if Josephus is correct) that God had already sent destruction and they needed to get higher up, by their own efforts.

The "handbags" are probably buckets. This is known from later Assyrian art and texts.

21:56 The one assumption I do change is a stable carbon 14 level of c. 100 pmC.

A carbon date two halflives ago would be 9435 BC, but the samples only go back that far if the sample started out with 100 pmC. Mainstream scientists would agree with me, that a thing dated to (better match) 8295 BC would have been, in 2565 BC, down to 50 pmC. And the difference is, I also think it was at 50 pmC in 2565 BC, I just think it was then that the sample started, i e the atmosphere was 50 pmC back then.

A relative stability of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is to be expected, since the atmosphere functions as a very big sample, and a century of constant flux between very high and very low carbon 14 levels would be more costly in radioactive origins of carbon 14 plus other events, than simply a few centuries of a fairly steady rise would be.

22:01 We do know that what was in the sample to begin with is likely to reflect what was in the atmosphere previously, with some delays.

For instance, grass will reflect what was in the atmosphere the last year. A tree what was in the atmosphere for c. 50 or 100 years. An animal living mainly on grass or cereals (including man) would reflect the atmosphere the last 7 years. By living on meat, one would increase that delay. By eating fish and shellfish, one would get some pretty old carbon, getting the carbon age to a few centuries before one lived.

So, it's not as if the original carbon content was "just anyone's guess" prior to decay starting, if one holds to Young Earth Creationism, as I do, one has to admit that the carbon 14 content rose relatively slowly in the armosphere, and this started after the Flood.

Hence, a carbon rise from 1.6 pmC to 100 pmC over 1778 years, from Flood to Fall of Troy, definitely is feasible. A constant wobble up and down isn't. Having a shorter time between Flood and Fall of Troy, like Ussher chronology instead of Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day ... just maybe. Or maybe not.

23:10 "4000 BC" for Ur is definitely NOT lining up with the Biblical timeline, unless you admit it's a carbon date that's off.

I have Abraham born in 2015 BC, as per Roman Martyrology saying so.

I have the carbon date "4000 BC" in the actual date 2020 BC, as per intercalations between end of Babel (birth of Peleg at youngest layer of Göbekli Tepe) and Genesis 14 (archaeology of En Geddi carbon dates, at the end, to "3500 BC"). For 2020 BC to carbon date as "4000 BC" we need to have had then a carbon 14 level in the atmosphere risen as high as 78.688 pmC, which is feasible, if you accept 51.766 pmC at the end of Babel and 82.763 pmC when Abraham was 80 years old, in Genesis 14 (actually, between 75 and 85, Ishmael born when he was 86, but 80 is a round medium value of his age in Genesis 14).

24:50 I would rather say that the vultures in Apocalypse 19 are God's REVENGE for the vultures that Nimrod, at Göbekli Tepe, used as terror like punishments.

Göbekli Tepe, vultures are used by a slave hunter to punish shirkers.

Apocalypse 19, God is reversing the set-up, punishing slave hunters.

26:05 Yes, exactly, and the Flood narrative like pictures on some pillars, as per the impression you shared, would fit the propaganda narrative of Nimrod.

Like Nimrod, some people are now reducing God's motive for the Flood to being a "genocidal maniac" (but with superhuman powers).

You may have noticed, some enemies of God have also spoken about the Flood.

And if you ask me to answer them, before the Flood, slavery was even more complete than at Göbekli Tepe.

26:19 And you may want to know where we see Noah's emphasis on animals?

On much more beautiful art, like Lascaux or Altamira. Where, along horses, along mammoths, the animals are often clean animals (an Aurochs has fully cloven hoofs and is a real ruminant).

27:14 Another nail in the coffin for Göbekli Tepe as God's altar, the stones at Göbekli Tepe are hewn stones. Quarried stones.

The stones for patriarchal altars were of un-hewn stones. Stones you simply pick up from the ground and make a roughly regular pile of, with a roughly flat top.

27:36 sqrt(1600) = 40.

28:09 God. I checked if "built" was an appropriate verb, Genesis 2:22 says it is.*

30:08 "not through being religious, not through doing rituals"

Sorry, but your individual soteriology is off. The sacraments would fall under what you call "rituals" and the way we approach them would fall under what you call "being religious" ...

And the Church preserves that, because Jesus gave that (Mt 26:26)

30:32 If you double-check John 3 as a chapter, Jesus is actually requiring us** to believe what He has chosen is good. He is requiring us to act it.

If that involves what you would call rituals, see verse 5, btw, why would I bother with your characterisation over Jesus' words?

* Ps. 138:5 prefers "formed" ... a few verses lower "made" ...
** Meaning, go to a Catholic Catechism and not to Joe Kirb's words, about how to get saved!

Not Really Antediluvian Items, But He Has a Point About Those Guys

"We Were Never Supposed to See The Antediluvians"
Off The Kirb Ministries | 23 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeqnh-KUL0k

11:14 Flood, according to Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, was in 2958 BC.

Jesus is born 2957 after the Flood, and He's also born in 1 BC (there is no "year zero" and the year 1 AD starts with His circumcision).

Note, this is based on a LXX reading of Genesis 11, more particularly an early LXX readering without the Second Cainan.

13:27 "Imagine being mentored by another person who had been mentored by God."

Like Sts. Mark and Linus being mentored by St. Peter? Like Sts.Luke, Tim and Tite mentored by St. Paul? Like St. Polycarp being mentored by St. John the Beloved?

What if that kind of thing were still accessible, wouldn't it do wonders for Bible comprehension .... let's see, have you heard of a thing called Apostolic Tradition?

But as to the things you so far showcased, not only are they all post-Flood, they are even post-Babel.

If you ever get to see a city from pre-Flood Nod, it will probably be a horror, some things, but it will probably also be if there is a rupture in one of the Higher Mountains of Persia or Himalaya.

14:19 No, that's not how the ages go in the Bible.

All mentioned in Genesis 5 had the capacity to live for 900+ years and only two didn't, Henoch was taken up and Lamech died short of 800. However, his son Noah again lived 950 years.

I said "all mentioned in Genesis 5" but I should have excluded Shem, Ham and Japheth. Shem only lived to 600, and his posterity up to Abraham even shorter and shorter. This, Genesis 11, is where life spans get shorter.

I'd say the exact same extra radioactivity that shortened lifespans, the exact same extra radioactivity which helped to speed up the post-Flood Ice Age also helped to increase carbon 14, we now have c. 64 times as much as back at the Flood, and that's why carbon dates from the Flood, actually 5000 years ago, date to c. 39 000 ~ 40 000 BP.

14:54 Indeed. Penal substitution is false about damnation, but true about death.

The sinless Man died. Those who sinned can rise whenever He wants to raise us from the graves.

17:04 Trusting in the Lord usually means also trusting in His promises.

The Church is the Ark, and neither Ocean Waves nor the Gates of Hell will sink Her. He's captain Noah, once more.

Did Jesus Debate ? (Spoiler alert : yes, at age 12)

My final comment:

In one of the comments, I said:

"you are spreading (if you agree with him) some misinformation on what Jesus did to save us"

on this one, you didn't. Best wishes moving towards Catholicism before your lifetime naturally runs up or you are asked to take a mark!

It's Already Started, They Are Everywhere and They Can't Stand God
Off The Kirb Ministries | 17 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3ZUw7kWJs

Notice this woman:

"I think that
3:37
you and I are probably believe the same
3:38
thing but what you need to do is go out
3:40
into the world and live your message and
3:42
people will come to Jesus"

Witnessing by life, but not by words, except if asked to by the one one's witnessing to:

• St. Paul tells Christian wives to do this for unbelieving husbands
• KGB has put Orthodox, and from them on Lutherans and Anglicans and as of lately Anti-Pope Bergoglio up to pretending or actually incorrectly believing that this is what God wants for all Christians, in all situations.

In fact, I don't think Todd Friel is doing an excellent job, you are spreading (if you agree with him) some misinformation on what Jesus did to save us (I had to clean up under a video of Tovia Singer) and how we are individually saved. But at least, he and you don't have this horrible false shame about actually verbally arguing sth, even if you don't fully live up to it.

4:18 "He didn't debate"
"You are right"

No ... He certainly offered Pharisees more than one debate, by giving the first reply to their first argument.

They had known since He was 12, a debate against Him is a lost cause .... the generation of Gamaliel and Nicodemus admired Him. The generation of Paul were the ones crucifying him, or perhaps more typically, people ten years older than Paul.

We time after time see Pharisees cancelling debates ...

4:40 Yeah, Todd. And how will someone preach, unless he be sent?

The exact verse that swayed my confirmation god-father's confirmation god-father to join the Catholic Church. Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, yourself, Kirb, you are not sent.

My catechesis teacher, the chaplain Wilhelm Imach, Oblate of Mary Immaculate, received his sending the day in 1958 when a bishop layed his hands on his head and ordained him.

That said, I do debate. You do not need to be a preacher to debate, and there are so many:

• Atheists
• Protestants
• Jews
  and very occasionally also
• some Muslims

eager to preach to me, that I do get debating occasions.

4:55 Todd Friel is not commanded to go anywhere. B u t he has a very valid point that when someone is sent to preach, he is meant to preach "opportune, importune" (a Latin phrase that helps me find the verse it's found in), as St. Paul told St. Tim:

Praedica verbum, insta opportune, importune: argue, obsecra, increpa in omni patientia, et doctrina.
[2 Timothy 4:2]

9:25 Yes, Pints with Aquinas (Matt Fradd) was hosting Dale Ahlquist, and they were having a conversation of Chesterton. There is a clip I just watched about CSL, who, famously, didn't convert to Catholicism. I have been having a few debates about why under that clip. Some Feeneyites take the stance, "it's not enough even if he was moving towards Catholicism, if he didn't enter, it's too late after 22 Nov 1963" and some Protestants were making the argument "he was perfectly right" and then some Neo-Catholics were making the argument, due to his ultra-anti-catholic upbringing in Belfast, he psychologically couldn't, and that exonerates him.

I am sorry, there are some reasons to be worried about his eternal salvation or lack of it.

Some things I could bring about to the Feeneyites, but also some things which are really worrying.

12:18 Time might be running out in another way too.

You know what kind of time runs out c. 3 and a 1/2 years before Christ returns? Yeah, precisely. Don't take the mark!

SciManDan on some ID Arguments

In context:

3 Academic Professors Debunk Evolution With Ease
Off The Kirb Ministries | 5.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EXFySDWq9I

As "debunked" by SciManDan:

Three Academic Professors Get Evolution Completely Wrong!
SciManDan | 9.IV.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLdlsyXkGM

Whom I now procede to debunk:

I

4:26 Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot.

While a baby bird won't have a ready feather, he already has the DNA to produce them.

Since it is anyway adults who procreate (each animal is adult when able to produce offspring), and DNA which gives most aspects if not all of adult morphology (via, to be sure, foetal and youth morphology), we do really have a question on why something developed which could give the advantages we see in feathers.

Minor adjustments?

Gimme a break.

The problem is how minor adjustments produce such a thing as a feather.

5:21 - 5:31 "see, it's now not a massive stretch to go from hollow tube to feathers with barbs on them : barbs were needed so that birds could withstand the high air pressure on their wings during flight"

Without "developing" barbs, birds would not have "developed" flight, problem solved.

No, a need for a desireable outcome is not going to produce the needed input by random mutations.

That is the point, and that is what he didn't and you did miss.

As you mentioned feathers without barbs, ostriches and kiwis can't fly.

II

7:38 Homology points to a common ...

ancestor/designer?

In the case of knee joints, you have not effectively refuted a designer.

Changes in evolution don't have to occur simultaneously?

Well, some don't - insofar as evolution is anything like the word for it.

Mutation for blue eyes (as opposed to brown ones) and mutation for white skin (as opposed to brown skin) certainly did not have to occur simultaneously.

However, they leave eyes as eyes, with same functions, and skin as skin, with mainly same functions, a bit less good at protecting against skin cancer and a bit better at synthesising vitamin D than otherwise.

You don't really observe any functions building up over time, and the point of Stuart Burgess is, for knee joints, you can't.

And while knee joints could possibly evolve to human ones from quadrupedal ancestors, you chose not to comment on the arched foot, which obviously couldn't evolve either from four handed or four footed ancestry.

That God gave us powers that some misuse is not an argument against God being the Creator.

Nice showing off, again, your real beef with creationism is actually your anti-theology.

Oh, while I was researching your own academic credentials (you were harping on neither of the three being an evolutionary biologist, I thought perhaps you were, perhaps you thought only those who went through evolutionist brainwashing in the process of becoming evolutionary biologists have a right to speak on the subject), I actually found this:

"If you want to see an atheist using Science, reason and logical thinking to promote the proven natural history of Life, the Earth and Universe then the subscribe button is up and to the right."

"Pseudoscience, religion, flat Earthers....they are all fair game!"

Academic field - rabid atheism?

III

10:38 Oh, you "discovered" that irreducible complexity has less weight as an argument than a flat earth one.

How clever ... and just a bit self serving on part of an atheist evolution believer.

11:12 "If everything is intelligently designed, why do I need these for driving" (eye-glasses shown).

Well, the discovery of eye-glasses by one Fr Roger Bacon OFM came before the discovery of the combustion engine ... I think somehow the history of discoveries was intelligently designed as well.

You have still not adressed the point that ATP motors in cells show more intelligence of design than combustion motors and more precision than you gain by adding eye-glasses to your eyes.

The point was your anti-theology, not a good evolutionary explanation for ATP motors.

And the point in your anti-theology can be adressed by stating, both your need to drive and your need to have glasses while doing so have something to do with the sin of Adam.

I note that one of your fans has the Swedish surname Alm (even if his first name is more an English version of the Christian name than a Swedish version of it), and another has clearly Danish names, bith given name and surname. Mads Nexø.

I feel I sense why I had to leave Sweden.

IV

12:07 "that the fossil record is fantastic evidence for evolution"

...... supposing an Eocene and a Miocene layer can independently of fossils be proven to have been laid down at times some millions of years separate from each other.

In fact, the things that fossil record can even so reveal (!) are inadequate as responses to the intelligent design argument.