Michael Lofton and Jim Papandrea Make a Bad Comparison About Rad Trads

Michael Lofton and Jim Papandrea Make a Bad Comparison About Rad Trads · Kennedy Hall on Liturgic Crackdowns

As a piece of biographic information about me. When I became a Trad, I did not break contact immediately with every Novus Ordo Catholic, I actually talked to some of them after this. How did they try to dissuade me around 1991 - 93? Well, they compared Traditionalism to Rigorism, for instance Jansenism. This kind of accusation maybe already should be dead, but Michael Lofton unfortunately shows it isn't.

Radical Traditionalism in the Early Church w/ Jim Papandrea
Reason & Theology, 25.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8nUwsXwXA

0:29 I went over the contents and timestamps.

I think already from here it is very clear, your point is basically "being too attached to tradition and unwilling to obey changing directives was the mark of early heretics" ...

I also happen to see kind of a confusion about the difference between "radical traditionalist" and "rigorist" ...

The rigorists certainly were involved in taking something out of the previous tradition and making it - more rigorist - but precisely for that reason, they were not traditional and not radical traditionalists.

A certain Anglican, formerly "Archbishop" (no such thing really), pretended Arius was a radical traditionalist. But his arguments would involve pretending Trinitarian theology is not traditional prior to Constantine ...

Tertullian, Novatians, Donatists were all of them very well described as rigorists.

But there is no chance that FSSPX or Conclavists are going to accept the equation.

5:20 Novatian and Tertullian were certainly not against the by them perceived living magisterium. Novatian was an Antipope and Tertullian followed a "prophetic" "magisterium" that "living" enough to introduce female priests.

Already one big failure to connect them to rad trads, even on your definition.

5:53 "against the way the Church has developed to this day"

Is this a coherent traditional definition of "magisterium"?

Trent doesn't define the papacy like that, as far as I can recall ... I know Newman wrote a book in 1845, which would indicate it, but he actually wrote another book after that, in which he renounced Anglican errors.

The former book from 1845 was meant to voice his motives for conversion, as they appeared to the up to then Anglican - not as they appeared in retrospect to the converted Catholic. That's why he wrote the book before receiving catechesis.

If I had written a diary in 1985, when I had already decided to convert, would you cite this for Real Presence and Transsubstantiation being the only difference against Protestantism when it comes to the Mass? Real Presence was obviously one of my motivations, but I hadn't received Catechesis yet, and so I was ignorant of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

An essay on the development of Christian doctrine actually had a new edition in 1878.* I'll quote it:

"Perhaps his confidence in the truth and availableness of this view has sometimes led the author to be careless and over-liberal in his concessions to Protestants of historical fact.
"If this be so anywhere, he begs the reader in such cases to understand him as speaking hypothetically, and in the sense of an argumentum ad hominem and à forti[o]ri. Nor is such hypothetical reasoning out of place in a publication which is addressed, not to theologians, but to those who as yet are not even Catholics, and who, as they read history, would scoff at any defence of Catholic doctrine which did not go the length of covering admissions in matters of fact as broad as those which are here ventured on."

This should be taken into account before you pretend that "Catholic magisterium develops" ... and pretend to have JHN on your side.

6:59 "The Protestant myth is that the Reformation was all about getting back to a more original version of Christianity"

Noteworthy added qualification : which had gone missing in the magisterium for centuries.

7:33 "We are the group within the Church that wants to go back to some version of more pristine Christianity"

Sounds fairly much like some parts of the liturgic movement that led up to the Liturgic reform. The exact thing that FSSPX was against.

They dug up certain expressions which were more than a millennium older, like a (probably incomplete version of) the canon of St. Hippolytus, like hand communion, and a few more.

And the traditional liturgic movement has in a high degree been involved (notably Klaus Gamber on the FSSP or EOF side) in saying "slow down, St. Hippolytus' canon is actually longer and way closer to the Roman canon, yes, some communed in hands, but they had cloths to avoid dropping even small particles when they used their hands in everyday ways again ..." ...

So, if anything I rebut the charge. On this account, as well as actual content, it's more Modernists who are like the Protestants.

8:32 "a form of extremism" ...

Am I supposed to here find an allusion to Aristotle's view of the Golden Mean?

I am reminded here, in rebuttal, to CSL's rebuttal on the golden mean. Yes, for the content of any virtue, it is normally the mean between excess and defect. But the pursuit of virtue as such is not one of the things that can have an excess.

Precisely so, Chesterton found in the Catholic Tradition the answer to extremisms like Gnostics who said no one should marry and Protestants who said everyone must marry (as they did say back then) and a few more extreme positions. But he didn't seem to say that one could be extremely attached to tradition. If anything, that could be in liturgy. One reason why I was somewhat wary of FSSPX in 1988.

On the other hand, the changes to the liturgy seem off, and some seem to forget that the Mass is a sacrifice, and that the sacrifice comes before the communal meal.

9:44 "they are not technically radical traditionalists"

Important admission, we'll see why ...

9:46 "they wouldn't consider themselves that, because"

I suppose you mean the Rigorists wouldn't ...

9:52 "they were not themselves calling on some supposedly earlier tradition, 'cause they are already in the early Church, there wasn't much earlier than them"

Tertullian, c. 155 AD – c. 220 AD If he became Montanist (debated) this happened in c. 207. 174 years of tradition before him. Novatian, c. 200 – c. 258, He is considered by the Catholic Church to have been an antipope between 251 and 258. 218 years of tradition before he became Antipope. In 311 Caecilian (a new bishop of Carthage) was consecrated by Felix of Aptungi, an alleged traditor. His opponents consecrated Majorinus, a short-lived rival who was succeeded by Donatus. 278 years of tradition before the consecration of Majorinus.

Suppose you want to compare Mgr Lefebvre's "final gesture of defiance" to this ... 1988

1988 - 174 = 1814
1988 - 218 = 1770
1988 - 278 = 1710

Mgr Lefebvre was not opposing any of what Pius VII said, who was Pope 1800 - 1823. If anything, he has a misguided too great adherence to the decision in the Settele case ... as have the Modernists.
Mgr Lefebvre was not opposing Clement XIV (elected in 1769) - except on the dissolution of Jesuits, where the opposition was already made by Pius VII.
Mgr Lefebvre was not opposing Unigenitus by Clement XI (elected in 1700, issued bull in 1713).

All that Mgr Lefebvre opposed was much more recent, and in the name of things he had obeyed, by obedience, in his youth.

You would be very hard set to find the "more recent thing to oppose" factor in the case of Montanus, Novatian or Majorinus.

Let's compare how Luther's Reformation of Wittenberg in 1522 falls on the "early rigorists" and not the "Lefebvre" side of the distinction:

1522 - 174 = 1348 Luther's new liturgy did not accord with the Roman Liturgy of 1348
1522 - 218 = 1304 Luther's new view of the sacraments had no approval in manuals from 1304
1522 - 278 = 1244 Luther's view of Transsubstantiation (denying it) would not have found approval by St. Thomas who entered the Dominicans this year.

11:33 Obviously, once you go to "no post-baptismal forgiveness of sin" - you have denied the powers given in John 20:21-23 by Our Lord to the Apostles.

This in and of itself means, such rigorists simply could not be traditionalists.

13:03 Clement of Alexandria saying sex is only for procreation can have meant simply : sex cannot be licitly had when procreation is either made impossible or is for other reasons impossible.

Sex cannot be licitly had when one makes procreation impossible is obviously the Catholic view.

Sex cannot be licitly had when it is for other reasons impossible - well, at least the Old Law forbade sex in the times of the monthly cycle when conception was least likely, and the CF St. Ambrose spoke of men not continuing sex when the prospect of children was stopping.

If it's simply about the motivation, I highly doubt that Clement would have denied the right and even duty to answer the request from the other, as per 1 Cor 7:3 - only being precise that this request to be valid must not exclude procreation.

15:24 In 207 or 208 or sth, it's certain that Tertullian wrote in an appreciating way of Montanism.

It is very much less clear that Tertullian actually joined them, according to wikipedia.

It is also abundantly clear that Montanism has more to do with Mormons and Palmarians than with Rad Trads ...

20:36 Not from video, but from chat feed.

TylerK
While the TLM was not "the early liturgy" it is still extraordinarily ancient. While many changes/developments happened, if you took a time machine to like 325 it'd still be pretty recognizable

George Ortiz
the tradition of the church is in the NT,the Apostles spoke in Greek,and the NT was written in greek.

In 325 AD, Rome celebrated a pretty recognisable TGM (Traditional Greek Mass). I think it was Pope St. Damasus who decided to translate it to Latin.

Last addition to the canon was by Pope St. Gregory I.

1962 - 604 = 1358 years of stability that "John XXIII" broke. Pope Michael did not approve the books of 1962. He has however approved of making it the TEM - Traditional Mass said in English ...

23:07 Pope Michael has actually reversed the Gregorian reform on this point.

Married men can be clergy in the Latin rite, without dispensation, as per Vatican in Exile.

This is one of the few areas where discipline and theology would actually clash between FSSPX and Pope Michael.

26:34 "in the Roman world, legal marriage was only for people with a lot of money"

The Romans, like the Hindus, certainly had different marriage types depending on "caste" ... the Church ignored this and had Her own marriage.

I highly doubt any news of the Church blocking people from marrying due to insufficient billionairship ...

26:55 Ah, as I thought, Mr. Papandrea agrees with me, for once.

Matrimony was not equated to Roman civil marriages.

33:17 First attempt at Christian but not Catholic ... what about Gnostics and Ebionites?

I do know some Protestants seek a kind of "jumping" continuity between themselves and Novatians, one way this breaks down is some of the other guys they count as stones to jump across, namely Paulicians and Albigensians, were very certainly no Christians.

34:40 The idea that Dimond Brothers might have been Donatists is one thing .... but stating this about FSSPX or Pope Michael is preposterous. Supposing obviously that Donatism really was condemned for being too rigorous on EENS.

As far as I know, there are other issues.

35:36 I don't know any Rad Trads who would consider an ordination or consecration invalid for the person having been in heresy or in opposition to the faith.

Whether Novus Ordo orders are valid is another question. If "Paul VI" was no pope, the new Pontificale romanum was not valid, there could be issues with the new forms of the sacrament - as there were with Lutheran and Anglican orders, judged to be invalid as per Leo XIII.

But even if Father Viganò was a very holy man and his consecrators apart from "John Paul II" were so, Father Franciszek Macharski and Father Angelo Sodano ... well, only Wojtyla was consecrated in the old rite ... if the rite of ordination is invalid, that's a very different thing from invalidity due to unworthiness. Which was the schmuck with Donatists.

37:14 If you want to reemphasise "just how serious that is" how about asking yourself whether some of your heros were guilty of it?

"John XXIII" and "Paul VI" and "John Paul II" - were they creating schisms by changing what was supposed to be Orthodox so much that actually faithful Catholics were driven out of Communion with them? Even supposing (which I do not grant) that they were not themselves the ones entering schism, were they schismatic by refusing the apt pastoral to people who still wanted it?

38:14 Strawman.

The ones who deny validity of Novus Ordo sacraments don't do so because of analysing them as "outside the Church" but because of analysing them as Protestant.

Luther was validly ordained. But in 1522 he did not validly celebrate Mass. Not because he had left the Church, but because he had redefined Mass.

38:44 Thank you.

That is the precise point in so many Trads who deny Novus Ordo Sacraments and Novus Ordo Sect belonging to the Church. It ceases to belong to the Church because in changing the liturgy, it deprives itself and its faithful of sacraments. Not all of them, not baptisms or marriages, but those concerned with clerical priesthood. This is why the Catholic Church obligatorily becomes the ones remaining with the older sacramentology and expressing it in the older liturgy.

* Preface to the 1878 Edition
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html#preface

I Take On Ken Miller Taking On Swamidass

Ken R. Miller responds to The Genealogical Adam and Eve
Peaceful Science, 3 Febr. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCXl6uTFGFk

2:05 No. It is not the basis of a claim that species in the Linnean sense are fixed and unchangeable.

Ask a Young Earth Creationist who descends from Adam and Eve, you will find it's not just the varieties labelled as Homo sapiens, but also, at least, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus soloensis and probably a few more, depending on where synonymity is presumed (as I presume between Denisovan and Antecessor, Antecessor and Heidelbergian) and depending what one thinks of Rudolfensis and a few cases like that.

For hedgehogs, they are seventeen species now, and they were arguably one couple on the ark.

4:42 The Swamidass scenario could be understood in two ways.

1) "people outside the garden" were not "God's image" in the sense of an arbitrarily tacked on honour, but were still like us - I don't see how a creature can be like us and not God's image;
2) "people outside the garden" were not what we Catholics would recognise as God's image either.

The two very different scenarios each have a problem.

1) On the first view, it's not just Adam and Eve becoming genetical ghosts, it's also their "image of God"-ness becoming a theological ghost - why would original sin arise from that couple's sin, it's so arbitrary?
2) And, on the other scenario, the "people outside the garden" really not being human, though of similar anatomy, their interbreeding with us would involve bestiality insofar as it is a kind of rape, even if not insofar as it is inherently unfruitful.

5:55 The other fault in Swamidass' solution is, no, evolution cannot produce man.

Evolution can turn a hedgehog on the ark into an Atelerix or into a Hemiechinus, an onager like creature into horses, donkeys and zebras, but it cannot turn apes into men.

There is simply no transition which could be functional, and it bypasses "reason" being a faculty at once necessary for language and linked to a metaphysical ontology, a type of being, that's other than that of brutes.

6:53 Oh, it's an attempt to rescue the Genesis narrative before an Evolution believing scientist, not an attempt to rescue the Evolution narrative to a Christian?

7:36 Yes, you have been even marginally involved with this Roman Catholic Biblical Creationist.

8:09 The "false scientific narrative" of Genesis is what you say as, not a science provider, but a Science believer.
But when it comes to theology, I'd go further, it's not just theologically unnecessary, it's theologically impossible.

11:18 Oh, so you are basically quoting Calvin - a heresiarch - for:

• Bible containing a scientific error
• and this being no big deal considering who the first audience was ...

Here is the exact wording of Calvin on verse 15, it's far from being as complacent to "science finding factual errors" as you pretend:

15.Let them be for lights It is well again to repeat what I have said before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much light comes to us from them. (71) For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness. For as it became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a lesser light by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendor of the sun.

So, no, he used a word which did not indicate self luminosity, not one which would have indicated that and been false about the moon.

I think you actually confused the issue.

Calvin mentioned that Saturn is proven to be greater than the Moon. Nevertheless, the Moon, not Saturn, is made the second light.

So, his point is, Moses went by what appears from earth.

That's in the comment on verse 16.

11:35 As having been Evolution believer before I was a Christian, I am aware of the contradiction in sequence.

As for creatures living on land giving rise to creatures that fly (pterosaurs, bats and birds), I deny that being demonstrated.

CMI's page for 404 error is, famously (to those on the debate) I hope, a dinosaur losing his "borrowed feathers" ...

12:21 You cited Lemaître ...

"In 1941, he was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Belgium.[36] In 1946, he published his book on L'Hypothèse de l'Atome Primitif (The Primeval Atom Hypothesis). It was translated into Spanish in the same year and into English in 1950."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

In a French report, 1940's are the decade in which sex abuse in clergy starts (among known cases, that is). I make a Romans 1 connexion.

I am not saying he was an abuser, I am not saying he had connexions to some infiltrators, I am just saying, he made more Catholic priests idolaters and therefore likely to go wrong in the flesh.

12:48 "On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation"

No, this is not Catholic theology about the Bible, it's Galileo's attempt to defend Copernicanism in the teeth of Scripture contradicting it, but it's not what the Church traditionally held.

Apart from the item being wrong, it suggests that Adam and Eve are only a question of Biblical narrative and its inerrancy, while in fact it is also a necessity for Catholic anthropology.

13:02 "especially if those errors were not directly observed by those who wrote about them"

Moses directly observed the six days in a vision. More importantly, Adam and Eve were observed by each other, and so was the snake. We have as much human witness for Genesis 2 as for Genesis 3. And without human witness for Genesis 3, the whole New Testament breaks down, including the Privileges of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

" Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H."

From the Haydock comment. Last sentences of his comment on Genesis 3. I favour the LXX based chronology of the Roman Martyrology over the Vulgate based chronology of Ussher, but my own view is not essentially any different. While the six days are with some regularity attributed to a vision by Moses, Tradition never says Moses wrote Genesis 3 (or any parts after the six days account) from a vision rather than from sources preserved from the times.

13:46 What Dobzhansky contrasted with "evolution propelled by natural selection" is not a rational special creation, not a "common designer" but "caprice" - which says sth about the theology of his biographical background, the Russian Empire.

Russian Orthodox theology on creation is not the equivalent on scholastic, either Thomasic or Protestant Neo-Scholastic thought.

What you reject is what Dobzhansky never knew.

14:10 "Creation is not an event that happened 4004 BC, it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."

While the created universe remaining now is due to the same creative power of God as when He first called it into being, there is a distinction from the side of creatures in so far as the event of creation and the process of preservation are different.

Neither time scale is correct, but 4004 BC at least could have been. That he didn't cite 5500 BC (Byzantine Anno Mundi, also LXX based) suggests that his environment in Kyiv was very little imbued with the traditional teachings of Russian Orthodoxy.

Was it his parish and hence his bishop? Or was it his scientific environment either in Kyiv, Ivan Schmalhausen, or in St. Petersburg, Yuri Filipchenko, who were at fault? I think the latter.

"Filipchenko is also known for his work in Soviet eugenics, though his work in the subject would later result in his public denunciation due to the rise of Stalinism[2] and increased criticisms that eugenics represented bourgeois science."

"During these events in 1948 Schmalhausen was removed from the heading positions in Moscow institutions, Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Department of Darwinism of Moscow University. Until the end of his life he worked in the Zoological Institute in Leningrad as a common senior researcher."

It stands to reason that this threat to Orthodoxy comes, from St. Petersburg / Leningrad at least as plausibly as from Kyiv.

14:42 "between scientific reason and my own faith"

Between scientific unreason and your very own faith ...

But apart from that, you cannot extrapolate gradual humanisation is plausible just because you consider gradual diversification into animal kinds is plausible.

Dialogues under an AiG Video

Look Out Christians: This Will Change Your Mind on the Age of the Earth
Answers in Genesis, 9 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoUT6IOrK4o

I

Nikola E

What about Gobekli Tepe in Turkey? The ruins seem to be from pre flood people from around 11,000-12,000 years ago. Perhaps there are more years between the time of Adam to the days of Noah than we originally estimated. Any thoughts? 🙂

Kevin Kelly

Yeah, a lot of the civilisations from that time seem to have missedd the flood.........

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin Kelly To both : solution to the problem is in carbon dating.

Göbekli Tepe was Babel, enduring c. 40 (max 51 years) between death of Noah 350 years after the Flood and 401 years after the Flood Peleg was born.

2607 - 2556 BC.

7000 extra years as per 43 pmC in the atmosphere when it started, 6000 extra years as per 48 - 49 pmC in the atmosphere when it ended.

This takes care of civilisations later than Göbekli Tepe too.

CD Lahm

Obviously faked

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CD Lahm Do you mean GT is faked?

Why not simply allow the scientists the benefit of the doubt of having used the wrong calibration for C14?

IF they assume the C14 content was c. 100 pmC back when the organic material (in this case layers of charcoal, both below the lowest buildings and above the highest rubble) back when this organic material was from, they conclude from remaining pmC values around 25 that the age is abut two halflives. With 1000 years between start and finish - but ... If instead it was just below 50 pmC and rapidly rising, it is just a bit less than one halflife old, and the timespan much shorter.

Which corroborates the Bible. More specifically Genesis 11, first passage, the one verses 1 to 9.

CD Lahm

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, I mean that you took my comment as literally as these guys take the book of Genesis.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CD Lahm You hadn't made one when you commented under mine with "obviously faked" and I do take Genesis more literally than I might take your next comment after the reply you just gave.

Adam Golden

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Laughably wrong. You're altering facts just to support your faith. Gobekli Tepe's last known use before being filled in is definitive. Your version is a single Book with no proof except how you do mental gymnastics to try to make it true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Adam Golden « Laughably wrong. »

Whether I am wrong or not, enjoy the chuckle.

« You're altering facts just to support your faith. »

While the facts as I present them do support my faith, what exact uncontrovertible facts am I « altering » ?

« Gobekli Tepe's last known use before being filled in is definitive. »

We have not seen anyone actually use Göbekli Tepe before it was filled in.

We have just seen the filled in ruins being dug out.

« Your version is a single Book »

That's the case for very many facts of things even less ancient.

« with no proof »

Except a narrative taken as historical.

« except how you do mental gymnastics to try to make it true. »

You haven't shown any absurd mental gymnastics so far, if it's really funny, why hide the joke from me ?

Flouserschird

One interesting thing I’ve noticed. Young Earth creationists base their understanding of history from the exact same institutions that teach evolution. They create their narrative solely around their understanding of history which is clearly a lie, as well as evolution. But when there is clear evidence of a global empire across the globe building the same architecture, pyramids, symbols they have no explanation. It would have to have been made before the flood. But of course in a 6000 year narrative it would be impossible to create a global empire from Adam to Noah. In my belief there is a missing historical narrative that the Bible purposely left out. I believe the garden of Eden was simply a garden. Not the entire planet. Why would the Bible refer to it as a garden? How could the be they kicked out of this garden? Why was an angel sent to guard it? This implies it’s still exist somewhere. It’s almost as if young earth creationist narrative is based around the idea that the garden of Eden was the entire planet but the Bible never specifies that. If you are going to take Genesis literal, then literally the garden of Eden is literally just a garden!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Flouserschird "Young Earth creationists base their understanding of history from the exact same institutions that teach evolution."

No, not really ...

"They create their narrative solely around their understanding of history which is clearly a lie,"

Is history, or is our understanding of it? Or the understanding of the institutions?

"as well as evolution."

Also a lie?

"But when there is clear evidence of a global empire across the globe building the same architecture, pyramids, symbols they have no explanation. It would have to have been made before the flood."

I don't think the pyramids are from a global empire, but from vain attempts to create one. Stone circles are usually older, and Göbekli Tepe was the centre of a really global one. Stray connections to New Zealand and to Australia, which you don't find later in the Near East.

I also think all of this is after the Flood.

"But of course in a 6000 year narrative it would be impossible to create a global empire from Adam to Noah."

In the pre-Flood world, it was 2242 years from Adam's creation to Noah's stepping into the Ark.

Not sure why 2242 years would be too little for a global empire.

Not sure why the 350 years from Flood to Noah's death would be too little to try to renew it.

The Earth is 40 000 km around, so from any point (like out of Eden or on a mountain in the Armenian range) to any other point, the distance would be in the range below 20 000 km.

How much would it take to walk 20 000 km on foot, leaving out sea travels?

I walked to Santiago in a medium of 15 km / day from Pamplona to Santiago, 50 days, so, let's say 15 km / day:

20 000 / 15 = 1333 days.
1333 / 365.2425 = 3.65 years.

Add that at a first time journey, the landscape can be rougher to get through ... I'll go with an explorer's account I read about which gave 6 km / day. Yes, Lewis and Clark expedition.

20 000 / 6 = 3333 days
3333 / 365.2425 = 9.125 years.

As to population, calculate exponential growth and it works.

"I believe the garden of Eden was simply a garden. Not the entire planet."

Well, while I think Edenic conditions would, without sin, have prevailed on the globe, I agree it was a garden.

"This implies it’s still exist somewhere."

Except it was either wiped out by the global Flood, or it was lifted off the underlying plates and into heaven. I subscribe to the latter theory.

As to location, I think it was possibly Holy Land or Jordan (if Jordan, which isn't very lush, it means the garden itself was lifted up - or washed away).

"It’s almost as if young earth creationist narrative is based around the idea that the garden of Eden was the entire planet but the Bible never specifies that."

I don't know who is implying what you say or how. I can believe it was as big as a land, but not as big as earth.

Nod was "East of Eden" meaning Eden was West of Nod.

II

Flouserschird

As a Bible believing Christian who also has a keen interest in archeological, anthropology, and geology… it’s incredibly hard to understand a young earths mindset. They seem to line up their views based solely on “anti-evolution” but fail to acknowledge the absolute evidence of the antiquity of the earth and its history.
Göbekli Tepe is at least 8000-9000 years old. The Great Pyramids of Giza is now thought to be even older! How can you explain the greatness of megalithic structures? Who built them? How can it possibly fit into a 6000 year old narrative? It’s quite impossible! They would have had to be built before the flood, but young creationists only believe in a few hundred years between creation and the flood which would make it impossible for a global empire to emerge to have the knowledge, man power, and will to build such incredible structures that are impossible today? How can you explain the ancient Samaritan tablets that are older than Genesis? How can you say there was no recorded or written record before Moses wrote genesis which was thousands of years after the flood! There is clearly a missing narrative and piece of history that we are not accounting for!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Göbekli Tepe is at least 8000-9000 years old."

Bad dating methods.

"The Great Pyramids of Giza is now thought to be even older!"

Not even that, but simply a bad guess by Hancock.

"How can you explain the greatness of megalithic structures? Who built them?"

For Göbekli Tepe:
Mankind between Noah's death and Peleg's birth. Genesis 11:1-9.

"How can it possibly fit into a 6000 year old narrative? It’s quite impossible!"

Not the least ...

"They would have had to be built before the flood, but young creationists only believe in a few hundred years between creation and the flood"

2242 for LXX and 1658 for Vulgate (Masoretic, King James) versions of the Genesis 5 genealogy.

"which would make it impossible for a global empire to emerge to have the knowledge, man power, and will to build such incredible structures that are impossible today?"

I don't think they are all that impossible today, just uninteresting to replicate.

Adam was the greatest natural scientist after Jesus.

"How can you explain the ancient Samaritan tablets that are older than Genesis?"

I don't know what you are talking about. I do know Samarian version of Genesis 11 agrees with one or two manuscripts of the LXX version - and the Roman martyrology.

"How can you say there was no recorded or written record before Moses wrote genesis"

I'm not saying that's the case.

"which was thousands of years after the flood!"

More like 1500 years after the Flood or halfway between Flood and Jesus.

"There is clearly a missing narrative and piece of history that we are not accounting for!"

Before we reach the specifically Hebrew parts of Genesis, with Abraham and his line, the prior parts are short and schematic and probably learned by heart at some point for oral transmission. Whoever transmitted that the way the Hebrews went, priorised fidelity to source over plentyful material.

I think Mahabharata and Ramayana can be traced to opposite priority - lots of material, and then both harmonising it and introducing idolatry led to misrepresentations of what happened.

III

Judson Baker

I only go by the Bible on the earths age. It irks me when they say it’s millions or billions of yrs old. God made the light from all the stars visible to us on earth visible as soon as he created them. Also Noah’s flood is what killed the dinosaurs not a asteroid.

J A

Except we have proof of the asteroid.

Judson Baker

@J A just because there is a hole in the ground off in the Gulf of Mexico by the Yucatán that could have been during or the start of the flood I do not believe scientific theory. Theory’s are only a so called educated guess. So I suppose you believe in evolution too. Sorry but there is no way we are here by a fluke. God created everything including dinosaurs and man approximately 6000 yrs ago period.

J A

@Judson Baker You do realize that the term theory in science is NOT the same as theory in everyday life, right? Do you question cell theory? molecular theory? germ theory? Gravity? Relativity?
I believe in evolution, as we have evidence to support it. Not one scientist would say that the creation of the earth or the systems within it are a fluke. Improbable odds, sure, but people win the lottery every week with improbable odds. As a geologist, I cannot fathom how anyone could believe the earth is only 6000 years old, nor that the flood created the strata of the world. That is NOT how the laws of superposition and original horizontality work, and those are provable. The simple fact is that you could not get the strata that is evident in places such as the Grand Canyon if you have turbid waters.

The Eternal's Believer

The Bible mentions nothing about the dinosaurs being killed by the Flood. That is a story YECs make up to explain away the fact that this planet is older than 6000 years old. The only non-human creatures mentioned in the Flood account are the animals and insects that we know of today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"God made the light from all the stars visible to us on earth visible as soon as he created them."

No. He created them on day 4, and it was only on day 5 they needed to be seen by fish and birds that some still orient migrations after stars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@The Eternal's Believer You are last adressed in this resumé of the thread.

"Noah’s flood is what killed the dinosaurs not a asteroid."
"Except we have proof of the asteroid."
"a hole in the ground off in the Gulf of Mexico by the Yucatán that could have been during or the start of the flood"

I was going to mention connecting asteroid to Flood.

"nor that the flood created the strata of the world."

Have you heard of Guy Berthault?

"in places such as the Grand Canyon if you have turbid waters."

Yes, you can if the waters are oversaturated with sediment and consequently depose all the time (also provides for automatic sorting after different grain sizes, think it's called "hydrostatic" sorting ...

"The only non-human creatures mentioned in the Flood account are the animals and insects that we know of today."

The text is too unspecific for that. That said, there were dinosaurs on the Ark and they remained alive for some time after the Flood, probably into or close to historical times even.

IV

JACK HAGGERTY

I hold to Judeo-Christianity for its moral and spiritual truth but this video will drag the church back into the medieval age like the worst of Islam.
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old as every geologist in every university in the world knows. Genesis is poetry written around 1450-1400 B.C.
Isotopic analysis of meteorites along with rock samples from the Moon have given us an accurate estimate of the age of our God-created planet.

Sulpicius

So you're fully supportive of god's endorsement of slavery, genocide, and sex trafficking...and you're worried about earth-dating slipping us back into the dark ages?

Jeffery Goldthorpe

Back when I was going to school (I am 53 now) the Earth was 2.5 billion years old and everyone knew that. The radioactive dating system has a number of substantial flaws in it. The geological column exists nowhere except textbooks. The sedimentary layers of the rocks of the worldwide flood cover almost entire continents and match up with other continents.

Susan McIntyre

Genesis is written in historical, not poetic language. History makes statements, which is what Genesis does. It’s not poetic nor prophetic. If you take it literally, you will have no trouble understanding it. Go ahead, read it with no preconceived ideas. Ask God to help you understand. Or remain mired in your ignorance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"but this video will drag the church back into the medieval age like the worst of Islam."

Why are you against the "medieval age"?

It was less like Islam, for instance, had less police corps.

"The Earth is 4.6 billion years old as every geologist in every university in the world knows."

Tas Walker? I don't think he agrees to that ...

"Isotopic analysis of meteorites along with rock samples from the Moon have given us an accurate estimate of the age of our God-created planet."

Supposing you know the initial parent daughter ratio ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Sulpicius "god's endorsement of slavery, genocide, and sex trafficking"

Servitude is a more correct translation than chattel slavery ... and the conditions when God gave Joshua power over Canaanites were exceptional, God took drastic measures about certain specific peoples of a certain specific area in a certain specific time, and Amalecites a bit beyond, not saying it's valid for all times.

V

Sean Martin

I would strongly disagree on any teaching from John Calvin. He is definitely not any kind of leader in the church that anyone needs to follow. He peaches a heretic claiming TULIP as his guideline. He believes man is totally depraved and cannot come to faith in God. He teaches that God sentences some to hell and some to Heaven prior to any kind of choice they can make here. Not somebody you're going to gain any kind of intellectual wisdom or truth from God's Word! Be careful of wolves in sheeps clothing

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Did the video mention John Calvin?

Here is his comment on Matthew 28:1, only quoting first paragraph:

"We now come to the closing scene of our redemption. For the lively assurance of our reconciliation with God arises from Christ having come from hell as the conqueror of death, in order to show that he had the power of a new life at his disposal. Justly, therefore, does Paul say that there will be no gospel, and that the hope of salvation will be vain and fruitless, unless we believe that Christ is risen from the dead, (1 Corinthians 15:14.) For then did Christ obtain righteousness for us, and open up our entrance into heaven; and, in short, then was our adoption ratified, when Christ, by rising from the dead, exerted the power of his Spirit, and proved himself to be the Son of God. No though he manifested his resurrection in a different manner from what the sense of our flesh would have desired, still the method of which he approved ought to be regarded by us also as the best. he went out of the grave without a witness, that the emptiness of the place might be the earliest indication; next, he chose to have it announced to the women by the angels that he was alive; and shortly afterwards he appeared to the women, and, finally, to the apostles, and on various occasions."

Is this heretical?

Now, St. Thomas would agree to this, except the inexactitude of "unless we believe that Christ is risen from the dead" while St. Paul spoke of unless it actually happened. Now, what would St. Thomas Aquinas have said about Genesis?

You are free to consult his Postilla in libros Geneseos, if you agree it is probably a youth work of his, while he was staying with Benedictines in Naples region, and if not, you are also free to consult the Historia scholastica, which he swore an oath to uphold, along with Decretum Gratiani and Sentences of Peter Lombard.

VI

Joseph Nebeker

If all men and women before the Flood didn't eat meat, why was Able a shepherd?
We know Adam and Eve wore skins of animals that God prepared for them when they were kicked out of the garden. The book of Jasher talks about their children also wearing skins. It talks about the sons of men offering sacrifices to god, and that Abel sacrificed a lamb, which is consistent with the Mosaic law.
Did all the lambs they killed for their skins get sacrificed to God? Or did the people kill the animals for their skins, then throw away the meat? Maybe they used it for fertilizer.

Kevin Kelly

Who told Abel God wanted him to kill a sheep? I mean, it is a pretty weird idea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If all men and women before the Flood didn't eat meat, why was Able a shepherd?"

Wool? Avoiding the need of skins.

Joseph Nebeker

@Kevin Kelly
God did, and possibly also Adam. That's a pretty weird question.

Joseph Nebeker

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Then why are we told they wore skins? Not only Adam and Eve, but their children?
Of course man eventually started spinning and making clothing out of fibers, but how long did it take them to figure that out?

Kevin Kelly

@Joseph Nebeker That is not what it says in the Bible. You might find the question weird but the situation was pretty weird too. I mean, God was just dropping in from time to time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Joseph Nebeker We are told Adam and Eve got skin clothes from God. Genesis 3:21 says:

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

It does not say that their children also had such, what I have read.

However, it is highly possible that spinning actually wasn't done up to Noema, the sister of Tubal-Cain. Even so, shorn wool could be useful as isolation material and to make beds by placing skins or reed mats above this.

But you have a point. It is possible that on occasions of making someone a skin garment a beast was slaughtered and then eaten. This does not equate to generalised eating of meat. New food items are needed much more often than new garments.

I do not know the actual status of milk before the Flood.

Obviously sinners - among them Neanderthals in what is now Belgium - ate both woolly rhino and human flesh. Not saying all Neanderthals were such sinners, those in Spain preferred pine nuts. Their food habits can be deduced from remains found in their dental calculus.

VII

Kuno Egger

Before you start, don't you think you should provide the HUGE missing piece? Why do you think the bible is the real word of a god? Because the bible itself said so?

Kevin Kelly

Not to mention a coherent internally consistent explanation as to what one means by 'god'.

Drew Drake

@Kevin Kelly
A definition which would differentiate what they're talking about from the imaginary, would also be incredibly helpful.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why do I believe the Old Testament is the real word of God?

Because Jesus said so.

Why would I believe the assessment of Jesus?

Because His saying He's God and His resurrecting from the dead show He is God.

Why do I believe this about Jesus?

Because the Church He founded testified it.

Why is this not a fraud?

Because She got persecuted.

Why is this not a mistake, an honest but a real one?

Because what She testifies in the Gospels rules out that possibility.

Kuno Egger

@Hans-Georg Lundahl All of these are bible stories, another name for Iron Age mythology. You believe the bible is the true word of god because you believe its stories? Can your powers of reasoning really be that primitive?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kuno Egger Let's take the last first.

"Can your powers of reasoning really be that primitive?"

1) Power of reasoning is not developed over the centuries.
2) Agreeing with adults in another century is not having childishly underdeveloped powers of reasoning.

"You believe the bible is the true word of god because you believe its stories?"

Yes. And I do not believe the stories only because they are the true word of God, but also because the stories have been taken as historic. I take Spiderman as fiction because its first known audience (which we are still part of or near immediate heirs of) take it as fiction. I take Arrian as history, because his first known audience took his work about Alexander as history.

The Gospels were taken as history by the Church, and not taken as fiction, possibly as fraud (which is a different thing) by people around Her.

"All of these are bible stories, another name for Iron Age mythology."

Arrian is as much "Iron age" as the Gospels.

Mythology is a very ill defined concept these days. If we go back to what it means, back then, it does not mean "fiction" ....

To return to the last. Are your powers of reasoning that much conditioned by the former DDR?

Franciscan Casey is Half-Right and Half-Wrong in Explaining the Bible

Franciscan Casey is Half-Right and Half-Wrong in Explaining the Bible · Debating the Take of Casey Cole

The Two Ways to Read the Bible
Breaking In The Habit, 22 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm9ugJjpbnY

1:20 "the fallible human author" / "the infallible divine author"

When I explain to Protestants how Papal infallibility works, I tell them "as we agree, Luke and Mark and the other guys" (all the way from Moses to John) "were habitually fallible, could be in error, as humans, and even so God preserved them from error when writing those books - so, why not the Pope in interpreting them?"

It seems, to you I have to turn this around.

As we agree, Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement up to Pius XI and probably Pius XII, and again (on my part) possibly in a secret Siri papacy and then the late Pope Michael, or (on your part) "John XXIII through Francis" are personally fallible men. Nevertheless, God grants them identifiable infallibility, for instance in signing Nicaea I or II or in partly confirming Constantinople II about Honorius or in writing and signing Ineffabilis Deus, so - why not grant the Biblical authors even more, also on limited occasions, namely inerrancy as to every fact in the original manuscript.

Speaking of inerrancy and infallibility, Ineffabilis Deus seems to have as infallible, quite a lot with Genesis 3 as inerrant. The most basic definition of Mary's complete sinlessness is Genesis 3:15 along with Luke 1:28 and 1:42. Given, obviously, that the Blessed Virgin is the third person called in some form "blessed among women" (though the two former with some restriction as to locality), and the two previous ones had killed, that is utterly destroyed and "crushed" the heads of Sisera and Holophernes. Credits to Patrick Madrid for pointing out this Jael / Judith connexion, I have used it more than once.

1:38 "at face value without the use of reason"

I'm sorry, but Ken Ham was not on the index librorum prohibitorum, and his view of Genesis most certainly was not condemned in Trent Session IV.

Besides, "without the use of reason" is not a good paraphrase of "at face value" ... it is even reminiscent of a straw man.

It could also be seen as an expression of detecting a certain naiveté.

But taking things you otherwise trust at face value (Bible, senses, traditions about authorships, original genres or other events) is the default. Not doing so is the exception which needs a motivation.

2:56 What you have outlined is properly speaking called the "philological" method. The "historical critical" is later. It involves idiotic statements like "the pentateuch had several different authors" (apart from last chapter~s of Deuteronomy being written by Joshua and apart from Genesis being based on earlier accounts to which Moses had access, apart from the six day account which was granted himself on Mt Sinai).

3:10 Yes, Antipope Ratzinger when speaking of "historical critical" is indeed speaking of "such reconstructions" - i e like Jahwist and Elohist and Priestly Codex and like Isaiah with Deutero-Isaiah - and it is bad of him to ascribe to them even "relative certainty" - they more properly have no certainty at all, or even they do have a certainty of being wrong when conflicting with tradition.

From your part, it is very unwary to conflate this with taking figures of speech like figures of speech. Or things of that nature.

6:22 For the three spiritual senses, you were basically right.

I don't agree with changing the literal for the anagogic sense in Joshua's conquest, just because the modern reader can feel uneasy. And the twist you put on it, some cynics (I have a particular one in mind) might feel "great, instead of a past genocide, we get the promise of a future one - hooray!"

But, you now say the human author cannot have comprehended everything that's in the text at the time.

The Bible is great, but to my knowledge not infinite.

Finite number of passages, each has a finite number of senses, and each author is responsible for only a finite number of the texts - a Protestant who believes in 66 books would claim 40 authors, and we claim that's 7 books short of the Bible, so, perhaps 47?

Hence, any particular passage can have been fully understood, both literal and all three spiritual senses when the human author was writing. St. Thomas says they were given the gift of prophecy - so, Moses, and before him even Abraham and Isaac, would have known the Via Dolorosa was implied in Isaac carrying the firewood for the holocaust.

Also, that another parent would consent to the sacrifice in which a Son died. The Mater Dolorosa is part of what Abraham signifies typologically.

The serpent's head was crushed by both the woman and her seed.

7:05 Why would St. Luke not have understood what St. Augustine did?

Forums Need Not be Bad Suicide Prevention - That Forum Is (if meant to be one at all)

Forums Need Not be Bad Suicide Prevention - That Forum Is (if meant to be one at all) · Dialogue under Same Video

Encouraging the Young to Die - The Most Toxic Site I've Ever Seen
Tantacrul, 20 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3y6SsGAWks

11:05 How many psych wards have contributed to this ...?

I read of a story in which a man who had had depressions locked himself in for a few days. No more than that, and one other item. Not one directly related to suicide, though I forget what it was. Wait, perhaps skipping medications.

Police get him out of his house and into a psych ward. A few days or weeks later, he killed himself.

Obviously, the man had concluded that he would never be a free man, he would always be under some kind of compulsion, "for his own good" ... a situation which our God given nature has a real wish to end. The powers of psychiatry around where he was were arguably so excessive that he found no other means to end this horrible situation.

20:26 When an argument against sound mind, due to "psychosis" can regularly be used to override refusals of "medical" treatment, as in psychiatric such, this means some peoples lives are reduced to nightmares by those trying to "help them" ...

The site you denounce is not my thing, but people like you have asked for it.

Regularly, I get my reasons to hope for a good life dashed by what looks like a psychiatric intrigue to "help me" even if I do not want that help.

I have no appartment, due to people who think I need looking over rather than being able to get an apartment that I could actually pay for, for about a year or a little less.

Yes, I could get it if I got a social assistant too, if I got a therapist too, and God knows what more.

And the poor guys who feel this is too much for them wouldn't care for teen marriages reducing the number of teen depressions, people getting homeschooled and unschooled avoiding the intense stress that brough Klebold and his pal to what they did, nor would they like plastic production to cease after Ohio, or industrialism to get down in favour of reruralisation. And quite a lot would not be cool with my saying Lefebvre was better than Bergoglio or that Mgr Williamson is right to support what Scientology does against the excessive mental health powers.

I publish. I have not encuraged anyone to suicide. But you recall the end of "Dead Poets' Society" ... for me, that suicide was not on the Robbie William's character, but on the oppressive dad.

If you had a teen who read me and talked to you and committed suicide, my bets are, the suicide could be due to the talk with you. But in fact, I don't think this happened ... or if it did, with a teen who was absolutely not listening to what I said. And, unlike the case with psych wards, I was not forcing that teen to read me.

23:00 When people around where I am start to ask "how are you" in a very suggestive way, whenever I express one of my convictions that I can predict they don't like ... I am prone to conclude some mental health professional is abusing the concept of mental health crisis, so as to deflect from my open initiative, like to get my work printed, like to get people to respect I am Catholic, like promoting (online, and if possible in print) Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism.

In doing so, they can permanently over years damage my freedom, every time I make a statement, it's deflected from, and every time they pretend I am "no longer" in a mental health crisis, they conclude from that that I didn't really mean it and no longer mean it.

It's a kind of slave hunt.

23:21 "when they can see no end to their pain, when they feel trapped by it and that there is no way out"

Well, why does psychiatry so regularly impose that kind of life perspectives on people, then?

23:46 "the feelings pass, things can get better"

Any better for me, is psychiatry out of my life, and - preferrably - into prison.

Any interpretation by people like that, that what I stated about my intentions (which are not suicidal ones) is a feeling that passed is an interpretation in their interest of keeping up their abusive power, and any real hope I can have felt is really a hope to get those people OFF my back.

25:59 The point that makes me confident that psychiatry belongs into prison, much like the people heading that suicide site is, they can't know they haven't made life so much worse for someone that they haven't pushed someone over the brink, and they could know the opposite if they weren't obsessed with their own hero status before relatives and surroundings, their own master status over and above the patient - whose actual patience they often abuse.

25:40 As I am not on "SS" it is clearly impossible for me to direct any anger at moderators at that site.

But I can at least state what makes me even angrier - shrinks destroying lives they pretend to save. School compulsion and delayed marriage (but not in an environment making the delay bearable) making the lives of so many teens and twenty odd's a black tunnel. Politicians funding these with both money and powers that are all too easy to abuse - or in some cases cannot be abdicated even if they are realised as to someone abusive.

28:20 Hear, hear.

There is black goth stuff that will ease the pain of some to discuss. But methods of suicide should not be among those. If that service closes down, I'm all the happier for it.

32:06 I'd love for "cake123" if she is what she pretends to get out of there.

But not into years and years of psychiatric mistreatment.

32:21 While I share (with that site) a hatred of psychiatry, and I note, Ted Bundy was into talking to people who were considering suicide, and into keeping them busy while people arrived to shut them up, I also hate suicide. I'm 54. When back in late teens I considered suicide, what got me out of it was the hatred of damnation, to which those committing this sin are prone, and of the dishonour not to have trusted in my Creator, as He deserves, or for that matter appreciated His gifts, as they deserve.

If you don't trust me on that one, I am also not able to set up a forum. I lack the computer skills. I provide content - but not fora. Microsoft made it easy to make one, I attracted 30 people, some of whom were probably opposed to me and hoping to watch out for me. This ease ended in 2009. If it was due to some abuse - which MSN didn't state it was - it was not on my part. Unless Bill Gates considered it abusive on my part not to assist and even to oppose the depopulation agenda. But anyway, you might not believe me, but I am also incapable of setting up a forum if it's more complicated than MSN Groups. Like the thing that ceased to exist 14 years ago in these days.

33:02 Thank you for not attacking section 230.

I think there could be ways to get the site down even without a law change. If section 230 were removed, it would arguably lead to woke admins doing what twitter was doing before Elon Musk bought it.

33:49 1) Between 15 and 19 - I'm not surprised.
2) Sharp increase - given lockdowns and masks and things - I'm not surprised.
3) Apart from these, there have been more and more attacks on homeschooling too, and this leads to public school being more and more inescapable. That's involved too. As are abusive powers of shrinks.

Here is an example on how school compulsion is doing the same thing as that forum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7-dyTL9YII

For those who think anti-bullying programs are the solution, see how these are abused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OlZixXtrKM

42:03 I am for the removal of the "legal but harmful" clause.

However, helping to commit suicide should not be legal.

42:21 How is the "encouragement to self-harm" clause worded?

43:12 You mentioned what happened to Bobby C as involving, on he brighter side, he enjoyed composing.

Apart from that evil site, are there other things related to that which could have made him low?

For instance, a ban on his trying to get public or make money from his compositions? Have you looked into that?

The singling out of this kind of site, while encouraging other things that push people's hearts down their shoes to just go on because they are for a good purpose, reminds me of a prophecy.

And in those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it: and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 9:6]

45:02 Why limit it to mental health specialists?

Why not give links to Dianetics c / o Scientology along that?

If you mention Kaja Ballo, please note, she was not a member, she took a personality test "Oxford Capacity Analysis" the same day she committed suicide.

But mental health specialists do evaluations with depressive results too ....

I don't think Arnie Lerma can be seen as manipulated by Scientologists while he committed suicide and tried to take his wife with him ...

Not stating this as a scientologist, but because you happened to mention them as a cult dissuading from mental health specialists.

I think family, friends, churches and even cults are better places to seek out help than mental health specialists. Do you know why? Because you have another relation to them than one being concerned with the other due to a problem and that's it. Something else is more basic.

With scientology, you have dianetics, which I haven't tried but which seems like a form of light hypnotherapy - midway between Catholic Confession and Hypnotherapy regular.

Less likely to do harm than certain drugs given by mental health specialists. They sometimes go very wrong, and that specialty has more blood on its hands than either Scientology or even that evil forum you are talking of.

45:07 As the reading geek I was, I didn't go alone.

C. S. Lewis on one side giving the gruesome details of what damnation involves (Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce), and G. K. Chesterton on the other side, giving the burial at crossroads and the infamy of suicide, as well as an alternative, a duty to be thankful for the good we have.

But that's years behind.

45:41 A little nicer?

One thing that's nicer for a lot of people, including me, is not having people who are completely detached from all the rest I do suddenly "care" when it comes to my potential pain.

45:55 Not being aggressive is a very good idea.

But some won't carry it through, they prefer "tough love" ...

Others:

Crystal Ratclffe

If this is a funnel, they are using a payment portal, do what people going after porn do, go after payment processors.

...

Sanctus Bacchus

Cake123 will burn in Hell for all eternity. Disgusting psychopathic creature, what an utterly pathetic and loathsome lifeform. We should bring back cruel and unusual punishments for scum like this.

Reminds me of the episode in Dexter where there was a serial killer therapist who convinced women to kill themselves. Bet this sick worm also gets his kicks off like that. His reckoning is coming, in this world or the next.

X

I hope he steps on a D4,then falls and catches himself on molten magma.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Cake123"

Already committed suicide?

Could still be saved. Otherwise, that is.

Dialogue under Same Video

Forums Need Not be Bad Suicide Prevention - That Forum Is (if meant to be one at all) · Dialogue under Same Video

Misses Witch

"why would you say THAT here?" What the hell..? They're encouraging people to die? For what purpose? What do they gain from such a thing..?

I spent all my life fixing people's problems and getting them out of this situation so.. so it's really horrific to see such an opposing force but, I understand now why the rate of people seeking to do this has gone much higher.

It's more than ten fold what it used to be in the past.

All of the young people I have met have thought about it, Many have tried to do it. The vast majority in fact. And when I find them they still have such thoughts until I change my mind about it all.

Many of them lack basic parenting and guidance, And they're in great need of that.

It's like the parents habe given them too much freedom, And in doing so, Habe failed to properly take care of them. They have not guided them or educated them in the way they should be.

So I have to teach them everything from scratch.

Most young people just feel the moment they're in pain that the only answer is suicide.

I then teach them pain is a normal part of life.

Others are just very much bored with their lives and again, I teach them to go do stuff.

It's really basic needs, Most of them.

You would be surprised how fast they go to the suicide solution. Like it's the only way to fix things.

Last person I met was a girl who says her Dad yells at her so she wants to end her life.

So I ask about her mum and the relationship is fantastic with her mum, The same with her friends and she has many of them too, The same with her partner and auntie.

It's like they don't think about all these things when it comes to do it.

It seems like society has taught them to be overly-sensitive and overly-snowflakly, And that if you're not then you're a bad person.

It's not a bad thing to have empathy but it's a not a bad thing to be strong either.

I don't have friends or family or anyone in my life to talk to. But I am fine. And if I am fine I am sure as hell going to make sure they are fine, And appreciate what they have!

That's how you keep on living!

Bone Man - Calcium Enjoyer

I too would like to know where this unreasonable desire to not exist comes from.
I've talked to a lot of people from many different backgrounds about this.
3 of the more interesting ideas:

One point that kinda stuck out to me was lack of "god" in their life.
I had this conversation with a follower of a Russian orthodox faith.
The mans point boiled down to "you usually don't want to die by your own hand, if that means eternal torment in the afterlife."
He implied that the decline of relegion in the modern world is partially to blame for the increase an people stopping to stay alive.

Another good point came from a middle-aged lady I met in a hospital.
She claimed that the youngsters nowadays overload their brains with dopamine from all the stimuli they can get at the push of a button via social media and such.
This dulls their brains dopamine receptors, which leads to them struggling to feel joy from "normal pleasures", which leaves them in a hopeless black hole.

Another interesting perspective came from an acquaintance of mine, an active political activist, who claimed that the world as a whole is dysfunctional as is. The planet gets destroyed by humans, inequality is everywhere, overpopulation will destroy us in a few decades anyways and evil billionaires drain all the poor people of their last dime, this has always been the case he said, but via the internet it is now way easier to spot all the messed up stuff that's going on on the earth. I should probably mention, that he was the only one of the 3 people I listed that was actually in favour of assisted self deletion for all who desires to do so, since "we need to reduce the amount of humans on the earth by a lot". (His words not mine)

These are the best reasons I've heard for why self destruction has become this prevalent nowadays, I can't tell if any of em came close to the bullseye.
And in the end it doesn't matter what drives people to the edge of the abyss, it's just important that these people don't take the plunge.
Keep on fighting, always. You can not surrender, I believe in you.

Misses Witch

@Bone Man - Calcium Enjoyer Thank you very much! <3

No matter how much suffering or pain I have endured, I will not surrender! I will keep on fighting!

For myself, My solutions came to myself through self-reflection and understanding!

I use that now to try to help people!

Certainly with the girl I mentioned before I completely changed her mind and perspective on life and then, She stopped seeing a therapist and ran off and went to enjoy her life! (Leaving me behind completely in the process, Friendless and lonely yet again!)

But well that's the life isn't it? ^ ^

I experienced that all my life so it'd be most unwise for me not to expect it!

Ofcourse, I allow myself to be upset about that, As I always am. I am aware that as the person I am, Who was neglected and left behind by their family, And friends so long ago, It's very easy for me to be attached to someone and have very strong feelings for someone.

I know the cause and I also know I cannot change that about me, So I just live and love honestly and accept it, As is right to do.

People are all moulded by the past and their experiences, And it's very important they recognise the shape of that mould!

Essentially, That's what I always do for others. To allow others to see their true selves.

That's what I can do as someone who has always lived honestly, Regardless of all the pain it's put me through, It is that very honesty which gives me strength and keeps me going.

In all of my relationships I have been cheated and lied to, Several hundred lies and several cheatings too. I have always been so very patient. It's a shame when people don't put trust on others. In my case, Someone always has my trust until they lose it.

I believe, If you are someone who chooses not to trust others, You are part of the problem. Because then, When someone trustworthy like me comes along, You end up destroying me. Many people say they do not trust others because it ended up destroying them, But in doing so, They become the very thing which destroyed them in the first place, Their very enemy which made them that way.. They become a part.

That is something you must never become!

But enough about me, There was something here you mentioned which is very important that I found to be very common in the people I help and have helped.

The lack of religious belief is certainly one of them!

It is very rare someone practicing a religion actually comes to me or needs help. I would say it's about an 80% to 20% ratio, Meaning 80% are atheists and 20% are religious. The religious ones also need alot less encouragement to find their way in my experience too.

I find alot of people they need guidance as I said before. Religion offers alot of that guidance.

A great many years ago I used to think religion was unnecessary, But, When it came to helping more and more people, I would say most of them need religion in their lives to be complete.

Within myself I have a special strength, Like a moral guidance. I follow my heart with all that I do, And it leads the way always to good things.

I thought others were capable of this too, But I realise that is not the case.

So far, Everyone else I have met does not have a natural moral guidance in their hearts, So these people I believe, Need religion.

I am unreligious myself, But when it comes to helping people which is what I live my life doing, I realise that religion helps these people find a purpose in their lives, And gives them balance and guidance.

Discipline is extremely important, And underrated. I have been disciplined by my sufferings, But in religion, You will find discipline too.

Always having to go to a church or go to a mosque or to meditate, They are all disciplines.

And discipline is very important to avoid things in excess. To find balance.

A good example of this, Is an atheist person who I was helping, He decided to bash a Christian lady. Bashing which means saying blasphemous things deliberately in attempt to hurt this person. He said to her religion is a "mental illness".

So I turn to him and I say, If religion is a mental illness, Why is it you who are the alcoholic and not her? Why do you have a drug addiction? Why do you have bouts of depression on a daily and why are you severely bi-polar?

He could not answer this question.

For this person's life, Not once did they consider drinking in excess or doing drugs as an action that will condemn them to hellfire.

Now people will say that religions are extreme for saying this, And maybe that is true, But the positive outweighs the negatives.

It is better for someone to fear going to hell than to have an addiction.

In my view is it better just to give a child a strict upbringing knowing what is right from wrong, Rewarding rights greatly and punishing wrongs greatly too. That's how I would do things, anyway ^ ^

All things must be consumed in balance. And it is the breakage of that balance that causes depression and mental health issues.

People they consume things in excess at all times, And that is extremely unhealthy.

Most of human history we work alot, Eat a little, Talk alot, Sleep.

That's what our bodies still expect us to do, And since we don't do that, ofcourse stress is present.

It is my duty to bring that into the modern world in a way that is suitable for modern needs.

About the topic of addiction, Is your second point.

The fact that many of the young kids today are very much socially connected through the internet, And get all of their recognition and perceived happiness online.

What you had mentioned about continuous dopamine shots from online post likes and all of these very superficial things, Is very true.

Your brain gets used to a very high level of stimulation which is exceedingly unnatural.

As I mentioned before about the history of humanity in general, We always worked alot for a little reward, Talked alot within our small communities and slept.

What I see young people doing today is never even leaving their beds. Just laying in bed all day on tiktok going through one video after another without having accomplished anything.

My little sister even does the same.
It's sad and such a waste.

As with many things, It becomes an addiction.

People do not realise, Drugs and products of oral consumption are not the only things you can be addicted to. You can also be addicted to things which are mentally stimulating.

I would say the short-form videos that give you just that tiny little bit of joy are particularly dangerous.

You're always left wanting more and more, And before you know it, You've thrown hours of your life away.

I have done it once with YouTube shorts, And I ended up with an extreme stress headache, And very much hating myself for it.

Why? Because I was doing something so meaningless and not spending my time on the truly meaningful things in my life.

Don't be lazy is the best advice for someone who lives their lives online.

For me even if my life is all online, I make sure to take good care of my health and hygiene, Otherwise I would fall into depression, Because there's no balance between doing and rewarding.

In my life I realise it's always best to do do do, And only eat when I really have to, And reward a little too.

It's much better to live life in this way, Where you reward yourself for your own work near the end of the day rather than rewarding yourself from the start.

Our brains work in such a way that being rewarded makes you lose motivation.
So being rewarded too early is very unhealthy.

That's why it's best to eat and reward yourself at the end of the day so it's fine if you relax.

Keeping all this in mind, The young kids get up in the morning, Pick up their phones and watch tiktok.

So from the moment they woke up they are being rewarded.

They didn't shower, They didn't brush their teeth, They didn't have a little snack or go out to work, Or do something that's truly meaningful for them, They just tiktok for hours.

And so the brain becomes lazy and unmotivated, Which eventually leads to depression.

"I am being rewarded. Why do I need to work? Why do I need to shower? Why do I need to make a healthy meal? Why do I need to progress in my life or mentally challenge myself? Why do I need to earn? I am already being rewarded" - Your Brain.

Understanding oneself and the organs and every need and part of your body is extremely important for your health, And what many people fail to understand are their own brains.

I understand many more things like the thing I mentioned above, Even how to overcome addiction (I used to have it for energy drinks) and I used it for myself and it has worked.

On your third point I will say there's always been corruption, There's always been the very rich and powerful wanting and having more riches and power while stepping all over the poor.

It is nothing new.

However the first two points are a very new thing, So I believe this is what is driving young people to choose death over life.

It greatly reminds me of a religious prophecy, From the old (Ancient Eygptian Religion).

"People will prefer death over life, And only evil angels will remain" .

Not for as long as I am alive, Only evil angels won't remain!

The evil angels in this prophecy I believe, Are the very people being discussed in this video, And many in that form itself.

I have dealt with and been in relationships with people like that many times myself.. It is hard to comprehend how twisted, manipulating and evil some human beings can be, But no matter what, We must not lose faith in humanity.

Thank you for speaking to me and replying to me <3

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are now on my blog, kind of a guest post - hope you don't mind.

Maiorianus took on : if Rome never fell, would we be industrialised earlier? Even if his title was more general

How would the world look if Rome never fell?
Maiorianus, 23.II.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZKgMBZR65k

If Rome never fell?

Like Europe would have had lots lesser states, if the Czarist and Austrian avatars of Rome hadn't fallen in 1918 ... (Prussian semi-avatar would not change much in terms of European states in their number) ... and the Orient would have had less states if the Turkish semi-avatar of Rome hadn't fallen then too.

0:55 "stuck in a pre-industrial world"

Sounds like you consider that kind of sth bad ...?

1:42 "the thousand years of Middle Ages, which was, technologically speaking basically lost time"

You sound sober while speaking, but did you redact this with friends on a party with maybe just a little too much Schnaps?

Or are you really this ignorant of the Middle Ages?

Since I presume you are fluent in German, as I am too, may I recommend Geschichtsfenster to get a correction or two on your misconceptions?

Here is this marvellous channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@Geschichtsfenster

Zeno

Yeah this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He just knows about the ancient world* and nothing else (and even there he's not that well informed). Also he's really based against christianity for some reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zeno It would seem so.

@Zeno He is however pretty knowledgeable about Rome as such.

Silly Puppy

Agreed, there's lots of medieval technology that was needed as a precursor to the industrial revolution. I would say that the "shock" of the Roman empire might cause a delay of 2-3 generations at most. The bigger problem might have been the plague of Justinian. But after that, Europe started assembling nation-states and off we go.

1:52 Travelling to stars multiple light years away, supposing the cosmos really looks like that, isn't a question of technology.

Voyager 1 and 2 are less than 1 light day away. And they were launched in the 70's ... the reason they were feasible is that they are unmanned. People on them would have died pretty quickly otherwise.

45.5 years.

45.5 * 365 * 4 = 66,430 years, IF Voyager 1 had already been 24 lighthours up. I fact, Voyager 1 is 22 light hours 5 light minutes and 10 light seconds up. And I even shortened the year by 0.2425 days ...

If the cosmos looks like that, travelling to other stars is a question of simply not feasible.**

PaulZyCZ

Nobody sane would consider chemical propulsion to get even a mere probe to nearby stars. Any serious proposal mentions nuclear or laser (sail) propulsion. The problem is we (humanity) either don't have the technology yet, even if it's around the corner (fusion torch) or we don't have the sheer space infrastructure required (Enzmann Starships).

We may need the latter anyway to send a human crew anywhere further than Jupiter. It may not be feasible sending anything less than repurposed O'Neill cylinder, which could take a thousand years to happen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@PaulZyCZ Even for nuke propulsion, it's not feasible.

@PaulZyCZ Plus, nuke propulsion is an added danger, like for people on earth.

PaulZyCZ

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Nuclear, not nuke propulsion. Enzmann Starship would use deuterium to create 2 kt blasts, but it wouldn't come anywhere close to Earth.

Besides NASA wants to use nuclear propulsion to reach Mars with human crew in 45 days. No nukes, just reactor heating the propelant. There's already a company claiming they are close to having fusion propulsion based on a linear fusion reactor. I'm not sure how that turns out, but working fusion torch can send a probe to Alfa Centauri in 20 years of a travel time.

It's like talking about going to the Moon while building Stonehenge. I think it will be feasible for Humans to collonize (some) exoplanets one day far in the future, but currently it's not even clear if getting electricity from GEO is worth it yet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@PaulZyCZ "Sources conflict about the projected speed, perhaps 30% of the speed of light, c, but 9% may be more likely."

From the wiki on Enzmann starship.

If alpha Centauri is 4 light years away, that means over 40 years.

"It's like talking about going to the Moon while building Stonehenge."

How do you know they didn't?

I think they talked of going past the Moon when building Göbekli Tepe (see Genesis 11:1 - 9).

10:35 There was a very inherent problem in the Roman Republic, the cursus honorum. Or perhaps more properly speaking the honour culture involved in it.

Along with widespread proletarisation and prevalence of ultra-rich, this was the reason why Caesar defied and defeated the senate.

Only Christianity could change that. And that's how Christianity preserved Rome in some form up to 1918. Rome fell due to de-Christianisation.

11:38 "The English science historian James Burke examines Roman watermill technology such as that of the Barbegal aqueduct and mill, concluding that it influenced the Cistercians and their waterpower, which in turn influenced the Industrial Revolution, in the fourth of his ten-part Connections, called "Faith in Numbers"."

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

That said, Barbegal is an archaeological find. I'd like to know how the property was, from some written source. There are some from other places. The Cistercian water mills were obviously common property of the monasteries. I don't know if the ancient water mills were so of cities. In private hands, Barbegal would have enunciated a great inequality of property ...

12:55 We do not know that it is feasible to build a colony on Moon or Mars in the first place.

14:15 "not quite as brutal as in our timeline"

Where do you get your info about the Middle Ages from? Terra-X?

14:25 "since some form of the old technology was better preserved"

Roman technology didn't go away.

Doing away with aquaeducts was not technology loss (except for the particular technology of aquaeducts), it was safety for cities against invaders, and also a question of wells giving better water. When St. Isidore of Seville discusses concrete, he notes a certain other technology (rubble held in place by outer walls of presumably brick or normal stonework) was even better than concrete. Plus Pozzolana was too rare to generalise the use of concrete.

15:51 The states that trace the line back to the Western Roman Empire are Britain and Carolingian Empire. There was not all that much of a break there.

Dialogue - among the lines of my first comment:

Vitor Pereira 🇺🇦

It is a fact that all empires will eventually fall but can we say that Rome really did fall? Roman institutions like the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church preserved the culture of the Romans. In fact, these institutions would also be responsible for preserving the knowledge of the Romans though the cathedral schools and monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes; evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century.

Alex Zero

Are you [...] kidding? Christians destroyed old Roman temples and statues, banned old beliefs, etc. They replaced Roman culture with Christianity.

Atherdain

Every credible historian has rejected the narrativ of the fall of empires/ civilisations, it's rather a form of continuity. After the Byzantine Empire fell f.e. the imperial legacy lived on in many forms that are the Greek orthodox church, the ottoman palace/ empire, the Russian empire and so on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Alex Zero We banned one level of the old culture.

Not most of it.

Yes, we did ban sacrificing to Venus. But we didn't ban the peristyle. My most direct experience of how the peristyle functioned is from a monastery, in Le Barroux.

Notes:

* I think this is a change suggested by my second response.

** A spin off of this research is on my main blog:

New blog on the kid : If the Fix Stars are 1 Light Day Up, Will Voyager Be Able to Verify?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/02/if-fix-stars-are-1-light-day-up-will.html