Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools?

Ana Abroad

I asked Russian women if they want to have kids

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Many children ... starting at 28—29.

Probably gynaecology is a bit undertaught in Russia.

Or, starting 29—30 as next woman said.

Has she never heard when Czarist Russian deliminated "Дѣвушка" from "Старая Дѣва"?

II

Audrūnas Gruslys

So why is the birth rate in Russia so appaling, averaging around 1.3 children per women despite including Causacus region into the statistics?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Audrūnas Gruslys Because they are totally gynaecologically naive.

---

Czarist Russian ... it had another alphabet. The letter ѣ was examplified by locative ending (o Царѣ = about the Tsar) and by Дѣва, with diminutives, which were explained. A Дѣвочка becomes a Дѣвушка at 12. A Дѣвушка, marries, becomes a nun, dies, or becomes a Старая Дѣва at 30. France in the Middle Ages actually counted a demoiselle as Catherinette if she was unmarried at 25.

Crossdressing or dressing with a Cross ... NOT the same

Peter Coulbanis

status

If you have a problem with a "drag queen" reading books to kids, I imagine you have no problem with one of these people reading books to kids?

Right?

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In fact I only have a problem with the guy to the right, who seems to be a Lutheran.

All the attire is male, it's just historic.

II

William Tarry

There is a statically significant difference between the number of clergy engaging in pedophilia and the number of drag queens engaging in pedophilia.

Children are demonstrably much safer from predators with drag queens than with members of the clergy.

Walter Purcell

William Tarry Did you make those statistics up in your head?

William Tarry

Walter Purcell here is a link to search a list of abusive Priests and Clergy Members.

Please, provide a similar list for drag queens.

We'll all be waiting.

List of Abusive Priests and Clergy Members
Home › Catholic Church Sex Abuse › Accused* Clergy Members
https://www.abuselawsuit.com/church-sex-abuse/accused-clergy/

* footnote:

the page actually involves a disclaimer:

Our Catholic priest database lists individuals facing clergy abuse allegations. AbuseLawsuit.com does not imply guilt for any accused individual on this list.

Even so, it would be great to have also a list of actually convicted sex abusing clergy. For "accused" California has 661. For actually convicted, it's probably lots fewer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

How about comparing not only the number of accused, but also the total of each category?

Either way, in Spain, a statistic over actual perpetrators found clergy safer than the public school system.

studio de Fundación ANAR
ABUSO SEXUAL EN LA INFANCIA Y LA ADOLESCENCIA SEGÚN LOS AFECTADOS Y SU EVOLUCIÓN EN ESPAÑA (2008-2019)
https://www.anar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Estudio-ANAR-abuso-sexual-infancia-adolescencia-240221-1.pdf

As I commented here:

Gráfico 136.- ¿Quién es el agresor?
Monday, January 19, 2026 | En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2026/01/grafico-136-quien-es-el-agresor.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And recently convicted male couple Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley may never have made an actual drag queen story hour, as the main "actress", but they were certainly in favour and not very safe for young Preston.

Yes, you meant what?

The-Why-Guy

God is a modern invention by man from the late Bronze age yet humans have existed for over 300,000 years. On top of that humans would eventually expand their territory across most of the world by 10k-15k years ago. A couple of questions...

Why was God silent for so long?

Why did God only show up in a very tiny part of the world when his created humans covered his created earth?

If he wasn't silent for 95% of human history then why doesn't any other cultures reference him from any other part of the world before the invention of the Hebrew Bible?

If your excuse is that God created the "new earth" just 7,000 years ago, which is equivalent to flat earth, then the problem is still in the regional isolation of God.

No matter how you splice it, it's clear that God was born out of religious evolution in a very tiny part of the world and doesn't even mention the rest of his human creation that had already populated the whole world.

The problem with God from the Bible is scale.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"yet humans have existed for over 300,000 years. On top of that humans would eventually expand their territory across most of the world by 10k-15k years ago."

OK ... can you conclusively prove your timeline?

I

The-Why-Guy

Hans-Georg Lundahl it's not my time line, but yes it's fact that humans first appear 300,000+ years ago in Africa and we've dated human footprints in New Mexico at about 20,000-23,000 years ago. I recommend taking some college classes on anthropology and history for a better understanding of the human time line.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"300,000+ years ago in Africa" proven by?

"dated human footprints in New Mexico at about 20,000-23,000 years ago." dito?

The-Why-Guy

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes they've been proven by lots of people. In the academic world they call it peer reviewed and validated. They replicate the experiments, confirm accuracy of the data, along with having others pick apart their thesis before confirming it as factual. Creationist* have never been able to create any evidence of the contrary without just saying "it must be so because I said so because the Bible says so." Even Christian scholars disagree with the small sect of Christians who believe in a young earth. It's right up there with a flat earth theory.

Ironically enough this was my very first debate topic in seminary as a devout Christian and I destroyed my debate partner who was defending the new earth logic so unless you have some new evidence that's been peer reviewed and confirmed then it's hilarious that you would ask me to prove what's already been proven. I can't help you learn if you refuse to accept new information. Have you researched this topic outside of the pages of the Bible that was written only 3000 years ago? What university did you attend that disproved an old earth? I'm more than happy to engage intellectually with you on this subject, but you would need to be willing to research your own argument first.

* footnote

Why "Creationist have" and not "Creationists have"?

Is he a Slav who doesn't master English?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, let's be more precise.

BY what method, which works how?

Creationist have never been able to create any evidence of the contrary without just saying "it must be so because I said so because the Bible says so."

When it comes to carbon dating (possible for the date of the footprints if it is associated with oprganic material), I do come with evidence that the raw data of the dating method are compatible with a real date of 2738 BC to 2719 BC.

Creation vs. Evolution: Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2024/12/newer-tables-flood-to-joseph-in-egypt.html

Yes, I elaborated these tables.

"Even Christian scholars disagree with the small sect of Christians who believe in a young earth."

A small minority doesn't mean a small sect. CMI éare usually Protestants, I'm Catholic.

"you would need to be willing to research your own argument first."

I did in 2015, when challenged on rising carbon and diminishing apparent age, according to them, causing a severe radiation problem.*

* footnote

In case it isn't clear, one I think I have solved, if you look up the link and then click back to "B) Distances and speeds." in the previous post Newer Tables, Preliminaries.

II

Bill Lyon

Hans-Georg Lundahl sure, there were no dinosaurs on Noahs Ark. Adam and Eve populated the world but we wind up with so many different races. All in 6000 years. Why did adam and eve have belly buttons, seeing as they were created in gods image?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, we don't know they had belly buttons.

Second, racial differences (including to Neanderthal and Denisovan, pre-Flood races) don't take that long.

Third, there were dinos on Noah's Ark. They went extinct later.

Anything more?

What's Philanthropy?

Michael Nahass

status

Kristine Braaten-Lee

This comment is not easy to grab onto. Having the context for it may help.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Kristine Braaten-Lee How about people in the street?

How many efforts are directed by philanthropists to:

• give me food, perhaps articles of hygiene, not money
• give me the attention of people organised to care for me, not the people I'm trying to get interested in my blogs
• keep me among people similarily in the street or otherwise in very humbled (not just humble) positions, rather than allowing me the company that could help me get my things into print, my lice treated in the house of a friend or that of future inlaws and generally speaking my life into the kind of order that *I* rather than *they* want for me?

II

Michael Nahass

Kristine Braaten-Lee Put it in the context of what someone like Bill Gates is doing with his philanthropic efforts. What philosophy is he imposing at the moment? He thinks there’s too many people on the planet and aims his wealth at *remedying* this.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Michael Nahass That too.

b)

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass the antidote that GKC prefers is the democracy that rejects the tyranny of "the small and arrogant oligarchy!"

Michael Nahass

Joe Wheeler With a healthy kick in the arse for the mad billionaire.

Joe Wheeler

Michael Nahass let's hope so!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Wheeler "that GKC prefers is" ... old fashioned individual alms giving.

Was Mary "a Child"? No. With Child.

Rebecca Hughes

status

How do you rationalize the Bible authors' lack of modern knowledge with the idea that an omniscient god guided them to write these things?

For example, God supposedly impregnated Mary. Mary was approximately 12-14 years old. Christians excuse this by saying "it was normal at the time," but will also claim that God knows everything that will ever happen, meaning he knew what pedophilia was and why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth. He knew that in modern times, the age of consent would average around 16-18 in first world countries. He knew that by impregnating her, he was putting her life in danger.

Other comparisons can be drawn, such as when life truly "begins" (the Bible can't seem to give a straight answer despite modern medical experts having a clear understanding of the brain development in utero, so God should've known this too), no mention of what would later be known as "transgender" (they basically just called it cross dressing) despite the mountains of scientific research that would come about for it, and more examples I'm sure other atheists in here could provide.

So how exactly do Christians reconcile the Bible authors' lack of modern understanding with the idea that a god with all foreknowledge guided them to write it?

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"meaning he knew what pedophilia was"

Yes, a catchword equivalent to lumping murder, arson and jaywalking together.

She was obviously no child, or she couldn't have been pregnant, duh!

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Are you claiming your god didn't understand pedophilia?

You do realize children can get pregnant, right? Some girls start puberty as early as 8 years old. They could get pregnant. That does NOT stop them from being a CHILD.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm claiming "paedophilia" isn't a thing to understand in the first place.

A girl pregnant at 8 is not herself a child, she's just statistically likely to be a child, and a statistically unlikely case.

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl
A pregnant child is still a child. Puberty does not equal adulthood. Some girls experience precocious puberty as young as 5 years old. A pregnant 5 year old would STILL BE A CHILD.

If you're claiming that pedophilia doesn't exist because impregnating a child magically makes her an adult, I have news for you, you freak.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In a five year old, puberty would indeed be precocious.

But in normal puberty at least of medium age (like 14 for males and 12 for females), one must presume normal maturity to assume puberty.

One cannot assume a generalised mismatch between puberty and maturity.

And you weren't saying Our Lady was 5 or 9, but between 12 and 14 some time.

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Puberty does not equal maturity. One can absolutely assume a mismatch between the two because we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward.

So, again, with that knowledge that your god supposedly had access to, why did he still purposefully choose a 12 year old CHILD instead of a more mature woman who could more safely carry and deliver the pregnancy?

Jimmy Perry

Rebecca Hughes by you calling her a child is disingenuous. Her age is unknown.

Rebecca Hughes

Jimmy Perry Children in that time were typically betrothed around 12-14 years old. If she were much older than that and unmarried, then she would've been considered a spinster and likely brought shame to her family.

There is not a single historian who estimates her age any greater than 16 at the MOST.

So, either way, she was definitely a child, and that means your god purposefully and intentionally chose a child over all others to impregnate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rebecca Hughes About your history lesson, thank you. Apart from the incorrect word child.

Betrothed children have certainly existed. The mother of St. Francis of Sales was betrothed at 8 and married at 14, giving birth to him, her eldest son, next year. The husband was significantly older.

She was a child when betrothed, but no longer when she got married.

"Puberty does not equal maturity."

Not in very seriously precocious puberty, like puberty in a five year old if that exists.

However, pretending medium age of puberty is NOT equal to the maturity needed to marry (which is not every maturity there is), is an accusation against God far beyond the instance of the Blessed Virgin's age.

You see, in Genesis 1, God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He also says "and it was very good" ... this would not be the case if people who got married and got children had over history been very often too young to take that decision.

"we have the scientific understanding that children's brains and bodies are still underdeveloped during puberty and even for a few years afterward."

Underdeveloped for exactly what?

In bodies, we can take hip bones. Now, at 13 a girl's hip bones are too narrow, at 30, if she hasn't given birth, somewhat too narrow but less so, but on the other hand too stiff. The suppleness at 13 compensates for the narrowness, when you get to 30, you need earlier child births to have easy deliveries. Inapplicable in males, and being tall enough to drive a car is historically not an issue for most people. By the way, in Europe it is not an issue in cities, because you have shops within walking distance, you don't need to drive to a supermarket. Same observation Middle East 2000 years ago, in case you forgot.

Brains. St. Thomas Aquinas certainly acknowledges that you have more maturity at 25 than at 14/12. However, he says 14/12 is the proper maturity for marriage, you basically need emotional intelligence and knowing what taste you have in the opposite sex (and yes, taste changes do come with puberty, even on a culinary level, I couldn't eat blue cheese or drink beer with hops before puberty, and I wasn't keen on black coffee either).

25 by contrast, is the maturity you need to take charge of other people, not meaning wife and small children, but people big enough to have decided wills of their own. Hence, taking your inheritance, running a business, being ordained a priest, starting to rule in your own name instead of others doing so for you, if you were heir to the throne, all these are for 25.

The explanation of St. Thomas was about experience, but that applies to the brain development too. At 12 the brain is at its largest, but it takes a shrink, gets rid of superfluous neurons, gets more stable around 18. You can argue it's not a fully developed brain, but it is developed enough to know your taste in the opposite sex, for instance if I like girls chubby or lean (fact: somewhat chubby).

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"he knew ... why we eventually make it illegal to sleep with children and why it's incredibly dangerous for young girls to get pregnant and give birth."

As She could get pregnant, She was not a child.

And "incredibly dangerous", apart from skewed outcome statistics by the one mostly happening in first world and the other mostly in the third world, a first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30.

From memory of my ma's words, and she had a gynaecology professor she respected.

Now, if giving a first birth at 13 in Ethiopia is more dangerous than at 30 in NYC, there are other factors than inherent dangerosity that contribute.

And yes, He knew.

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth
[1 Timothy 4:1-3]

Rebecca Hughes

She was 12 years old. She was a child. Children can get pregnant. That doesn't excuse it.

"A first birth at 13 is not ideal, but less dangerous than a first birth at 30."

Were there no women between the ages of 20-30?? Literally anyone other than a child?

"He knew" what? He knew that he was participating in pedophilia? Yeah, that's my whole point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Children can get pregnant."

A person who can get pregnant is not a child.

A person is NOT a child up to 20.

Your blasphemies make me shudder for the hearts and lives of young women you would call "children" ...

Rebecca Hughes

Hans-Georg Lundahl A person may not be a child all the way up to 20 years old, but historians haven't estimated Mary's age to be ANY higher than 16 at the most, and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically. Their bodies are physically not matured to adulthood.

If you think a child 16 and under isn't a child because they are capable of becoming pregnant, you are sick in the head. I'm genuinely surprised you put that on the internet under your own name. Would you show your boss that comment?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Rebecca Hughes "and anyone 16 and under IS a child biologically."

No.

That's a false definition of childhood.

Omne animal quod potest facere sibi simile perfectum est.

The basic biological perfection, as defined by Aristotle and accepted by the Scholastics excludes the immaturity one should call childhood.

Rebecca Hughes "Would you show your boss that comment?"

I don't have one. I don't intend to get one I couldn't show it, nor one who would want to make it a secret.

Righteous Indignation

Related, through or by Michael Nahass as below:

Michael Nahass

status

Jayson Leary

How could a man who makes insightful statements elsewhere, make a bullshit statement like that: one dripping with namby pamby ambivalence and weak-willed flexibility?

It was extreme righteous indignation that put an end to the brutal child labor practices in the factories of yore --where peoples' children came home with fingers missing because the venal factory tycoons were *not* so keen on the safety of employees.

It is extreme righteous indignation that is working to try to protect the children and underage teenagers from those who would downplay the evil of sexual molestation, as they do when they bandy about those silly terms "judgmental" and "finger pointing", so to solicit a lukewarm approach *not* denouncing such evil .

What people often call "judgmental" and "finger pointing" are often GOOD tendencies (consistent thinking that is outspoken) .

After all, to respect opinions that are inherently bad is to be mentally *disloyal* to the people who have been victims of those bad opinions being practiced!

To verbally denounce bad opinions to someone with such vehemence that the person totally recants those bad opinions is NOT torture ; it is an act of benevolence; constructive criticism !

I

Michael Nahass

Jayson Leary Meh, Most of what passes for righteous indignation (faux outrage) today is merely sentimentality in an angry state.

Moral indignation is, of course, one of the most pleasant emotions known to mankind, and unlike most other pleasant emotions it can endure almost indefinitely, no doubt with a little renewal from time to time by the finding of something else to be indignant about, a kind of top-up as to a glass of wine. Moral indignation is very reassuring. If you are indignant, you can't really be wrong and must be generous-spirited. Moral indignation is therefore both intoxicating and addictive.
-Theodore Dalrymple

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jayson Leary "It was extreme righteous indignation that put an end to the brutal child labor practices in the factories of yore"

Problem is, a) those brutal child labour practises in factories of yore were the fruit of other righteous indignation against corporations dictating practises and b) they overdid it by banning child labour at home in idyllic conditions and by using school compulsion to do so.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jayson Leary "It is extreme righteous indignation that is working to try to protect the children and underage teenagers from those who would downplay the evil of sexual molestation,"

Yeah, and unfortunately, in the process, also make reparation by marriage impossible and make prevention by marriage of "underage" teens impossible.

AND are prepared to use psychology about "pedophilia" instead of criminal records to do so. In other words, they go to superstition, like reading cards or tea leaves.

Geocentrism

Gonzalo Martinez

status, June 2nd 2026

I’m pretty open to geocentrism however one thing that I haven’t heard Sungenis or any one explain is how such a massive body as the sun can be revolving at such an incredible speed as to go around the earth in just 24 hrs. Comments?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My option is this.

The aether (which is also one of my options, the favoured one for the raqia / firmament) is moving around Earth in 23 h 56 min and 4 sec, full circle, from the Oceans where that's basically Earth's circumference up to the fix stars, where that's 2 pi to 20 pi times a light day (one to ten light days being the radius).

As the aether is the substance of space, this means, the Sun is basically just in for a ride. Its angelic mover is meanwhile slowing it down to precisely 24 h by adding a motion 365 times slower in the opposite direction.

Neither God's moving the aether nor the angel moving the Sun (backward) through the aether require any physical effort, since spiritual agents, uncreated or created, act on matter by act of will.

Related:

Audie Abel

status

Do you think Thomas Aquinas was a highly inspired church father? 🧐😆👇

[two more with unrelated diagrams, suggesting a flat earth, which neither Aquinas nor Josephus believed.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Church Fathers don't need to be inspired. They just need to be faithful to Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium up to their time.

Chrystalline spheres was what he got wrong.

He would NOT have considered Flat Earth a correct interpretation, and rightly so.

Since Tycho Brahe (some centuries after Aquinas) proved the crystalline spheres don't exist, I've updated "actual solid" to "quasi solid" (like an aether holding and bringing with itself the coordinates of space OR, other possibility, the magnetic field).

Todd Jacob

Hans-Georg Lundahl there’s no quasi solid in space. Care to elaborate or revise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I actually didn't say there was a quasi solid IN space.

I said space is a quasi solid.

This means, if space is turned around Earth, parts that are 90° apart remain 90° apart, they don't float into each other.