A Serb is Anti-Austrian (Who's Surprised?)

Andy Ujku-Dardania

shared in status

A Central Powers victory would have been a much better outcome for Western Civilization.

They also would have been neither willing nor able to impose on the Allies they kind of crippling and humiliating terms that the latter did on Germany with the Versailles treaty.

The animosity would have faded away over the years and decades instead of being bottled up like it was in Germany which led to the second war.

The greater Kaiserreich would have brought political, economic and cultural stability to Central and Eastern Europe.

There wouldn’t have been the post War revolutionary chaos that we saw with an Allied victory.

Europe would be stable and America would return to isolationism even harder than it did with a victory.

There would be no League of Nations, no UN.

No globalism a we know it.

A Central Powers victory would have been a victory for the old world of nobility and chivalry against the new world of capital and opportunism.

Unfortunately Europe paid the price for an Allied “victory.” Twice.

I

Nikola Avramov

Also, Lenin worked for Germany.

Bolshevism was what Axis Powers brought to Eastern Euroep.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Protestant and basically Atheist Prussian Germany.

Austria was not his backer.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl I've said "Axis Powers".

He was just 100% aligned with the Austrian policy on Eastern Europe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Can you give any kind of documentation that Austria in 1914--18 was anything like for a Communist Revolution anywhere?

Or do you only mean, he allowed Poland freedom?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Lenin was caught with material evidence of working for German intelligence.

Germany is an Axis power.

Don't play dumb with me.

The Third Congress of the Communits Party of Yugoslavia was held in Vienna, Austria on 17th May, 1926.

Adolf Hitler "allowed Poland freedom"?

Are you seriously suggesting this or am I missing something?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not in the mood for anybody's nonchalant obfuscation and bartering over the existence of mountains of evidence and events of Biblical proportions.

This is the last time I'm going to say this.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Should you have any doubts about Axis destroying Yugoslavia, you would be well advised to consult the work of Matthias Küntzel called "Road to war, Germany, NATO, Kosovo" in which he cites Germany's state documentation and provides a decisive case on Germany destroying Yugoslavia during the 1990s.

While Germany's involvement was strong and undeniable, I only disagree with his conclusion on Germany being the ring-leader because I think the ring-leader was ultimately Great Britain in spite of Germany's enthusiasm and commitment to the agenda.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Adolf Hitler "allowed Poland freedom"?"

No, Charles I did.

"The Third Congress of the Communits Party of Yugoslavia was held in Vienna, Austria on 17th May, 1926."

OK ... not Ustashi anyway.

In 1926, they had no power. Also, in 1926, as later for any independent Austria, Austria cannot be considered an Axis power.

"anybody's nonchalant obfuscation"

Like you were taking Protestant "bishops" for Catholic clergy?

"Road to war"

Küntzel war Mitglied des Kommunistischen Bundes (KB) und gehörte nach dessen Spaltung 1991[2] der „antideutschen“ Redaktionsminderheit an, die sich fortan „Gruppe K“ nannte und die Zeitschrift Bahamas herausgab.

Either way, the Germany of Merkel was hardly the Austria of either Charles I or Dollfuss. Or Mons. Seipel.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'm noting that both Nicholas II and Charles I were "taken out of the way" ....

In a certain sense by each other, though indirectly. Karl Renner in Austria and Lenin in Russia would have had lots less power without WW-I.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Lenin worked for the Windsors.

Russia was pulled into the war because German reports were that "If Russia is left in peace by 2020 it will become unstoppable".

But ultimately, the war was instigated by Britain.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"for the Windsors"

Possible.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Plenty of indicators for it.

Among the blatant ones: Lenin drove a Rolls-Royce around.

When questioned about it, the official explanation was that it was confiscated from the Tsar's garage.

The thing is... it was a model built AFTER WW1.

And then there's this:

Wall Street and the Russian Revolution, Richard B. Spence
https://dn720005.ca.archive.org/0/items/nwo-book-collection/Richard%20B.%20Spence%20-%20Wall%20Street%20and%20the%20Russian%20Revolution_%201905-1925-Trine%20Day%20(2017).pdf

III

Nikola Avramov

"The greater Kaiserreich would have brought political, economic and cultural stability to Central and Eastern Europe."

Eastern Europe?

They went for full-blown genocide of all Serbs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Austrians genocidal against Serbs?

Er ... no.

Croats at a certain point (and without assistance from Alojzije Stepinac on that account), yes, Austro-Hungarian Empire, no.

At a certain point war gas was used, this ended as soon as Charles I came to the front and was able to stop it.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Stepinac was appointed by the Vatican, but he wouldn't have been without endorsement from Pavelić.

And Pavelić himself was put into the office by Adolf Hitler, a German Chancellor and an Austrian citizen.

The Vatican, Germany, and Austria qualify as Axis powers.

Delegating genocide is still committing it.

If the Vatican, Germany or Austria did NOT want it to happen in WW2, they would've simply appointed some insipid Croatian politician like Stjepan Radić instead of assassinating him and replacing him with carefully groomed local fascists for decades.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And ... Stepinac didn't suck up to Pavelic once Jasenovac got started.

"and Austria"

In 1941, Austria did not exist. Ostmark did. Schuschnugg, the last chancellor of the first republic referred to 1938 as "Ein Requiem in Rot-Weiss-Rot" ... 1945 was Resurrection.

"Delegating genocide is still committing it."

Sure. But you can neither blame Austria nor the Vatican for Jasenovac, because these very clearly did NOT delegate it.

"they would've simply appointed"

You mean Hitler's Germany. A Hitler who had been banned from Austria and was excommunicated by German bishops (the Catholic ones, since Protestant "bishops" aren't actually bishops).

Austria and the Vatican had no say between Radic and Pavelic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My bad, Stjepan Radić seems to have been killed in 1928.

Puniša Račić seems to have been a Montenegrine Serb, a Crnogorski. NRS was purely Serbian populism. No ties to Vatican, Austria or even Germany.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl "And ... Stepinac didn't suck up to Pavelic once Jasenovac got started."

That was thoroughly debunked years ago.

Stepinac was VERY enthusiastic about it.

Among other things, he's on record for complaining to some Germans that they've massacred HIS flock FOR A CHANGE.

Look up for a recent publication which halted Stepinac's sanctification.

The Vatican halted the sanctification because it was facing overwhelming evidence.

"Alojzije Stepinac - state, church, archbishop (1934-1941) by the Filip Višnjić publishing house, published in 2019 is, I think, a very important publication on this issue. If memory serves, it cites overwhelmingly incriminating events and records of Stepinac enthusiastically expressing fascist beliefs. I do believe that it was presented to the Vatican and that it influenced Pope Francis's decision to freeze Stepinac's sanctification.

"and Austria"
"In 1941, Austria did not exist. Ostmark did. Schuschnugg, the last chancellor of the first republic referred to 1938 as "Ein Requiem in Rot-Weiss-Rot" ... 1945 was Resurrection."

When did anyone say otherwise?

The only "and Austria" refereed to the 1980s when Austria took part in destroying Yugoslavia in a proxy war.

Which is pertinent because the subject is Axis Powers and Eastern Europe.

"Delegating genocide is still committing it."
"Sure. But you can neither blame Austria nor the Vatican for Jasenovac, because these very clearly did NOT delegate it."

The "Serbs must die" motto originates form Austria.

The "Croatian nation" is an Austrian intelligence project.

I'm aware of Germany taking the reins after WW1, but they just picked up where Austria stopped and an Austrian, indoctrinated in Austria, put Pavelić into office.

If Germany's policy in 1941 was ANY different than the Austro-Hungarian policy on this issue back in 1914 - nuances would be pertinent.

They're the same policy. It's the tactics that have changed.

Sure, there are other factors, like the Vatican, the British endorsement of it all, the indirect French support, and occasional Polish meddling, which represented France or the Vatican.

Sure, Croats now look up more under German influence than Austrian influence... but the policies are pretty much the same: rob everybody in Eastern Europe, scheme in Eastern Europe so everybody gets killed, and when able to - literally kill everyone in Eastern Europe.

There's a Drang Nach Osten going on right now.

"they would've simply appointed"
"You mean Hitler's Germany. A Hitler who had been banned from Austria and was excommunicated by German bishops (the Catholic ones, since Protestant "bishops" aren't actually bishops)."

There's still a consistency of policy. This is a policy which has lasted for at least two centuries just on the topic of Serbian people alone and clearly longer when it comes to Russian people and state.

Plenty of Roman Catholics who became Atheists still insist that Roman Catholicism is The Church and that it is the center of Christendom. People who claim that they REJECT Christianity claim so. From an Orthodox Christian perspective - they're culturally and politically Roman Catholics.

Mutatis mutandis for Protestant Atheists.

Concordantly: whatever Hitler's differences with the Austrian leadership/government/state and/or the Roman Catholic clergy were - they did not prevent a measure of coordination and partnership in practice.

I'm generally aware of them. It's the German Protestants who overwhelmingly voted for Hitler. Hitler's placations towards Roman Catholics are overshadowed by his brutal hatred for Christianity (quite normal for someone whose party was shaped by Thulean and Vrill Luciferian wizards and witches).

Generally speaking, political factions REGULARLY cooperate on certain issues in spite of being fierce adversaries on other issues.

This is exceedingly self-evident and we're talking about one such blatant case.

Like I've said: Axis Powers have an extremely hostile policy towards Eastern Europe and I would argue that this goes for Slavic peoples in Central Eurore as well.

If they won WW1 there'd be way more violence and destruction in half of the continent.

Yes, the same goes for Western Europeans and their countries. This is where the two ultimately agree. And this includes the British Commonwealth, USA, and their respective satellites.

Personally, I think that it ultimately comes down to remnants of Western Rome taking revenge upon the remnants of Eastern Rome for 1st-millennium grudges. Some of those grudges I do understand, but it's been too much violence, crime and destruction to justify even a chunk of the actions taken in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia.

"Austria and the Vatican had no say between Radic and Pavelic."

There is overwhelming evidence of the local Roman Catholic monk order being involved with both Radić's assassination in order to pave way for the local clero-fascists. I forgot its name, but it should be easy enough to find.

"My bad, Stjepan Radić seems to have been killed in 1928."

Yes.

"Puniša Račić seems to have been a Montenegrine Serb, a Crnogorski. NRS was purely Serbian populism. No ties to Vatican, Austria or even Germany."

Yes, that's the way it was made to seem to be. And that's how the British propaganda covers it up: "violent Serbs doing violent crap".

The Black Hand, Račić's organization, was famously Freemasonic and there are clear indicators of British and German control.

Račić was released on the grounds of good behavior in a mere few years. He directly walked in to the Minister of Justice's office to turn himself in. Someone fixed that multiple murder to destabilize the country and make way for the fascists to radicalize the Croats.

His political party isn't very pertinent because he carried himself as a loyalist to the king and generally insisted on preferential treatment.

The Slovenian representatives, who generally sat BEHIND the murdered Croatian politicians, chose NOT to come to the Parliament that day.

There are plenty of interesting nuances.

There very much seem to be overwhelming indicators that this was a steady preparation for the Ustasha movement to take root as a relevant and rising political current in Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Radić's assassination predates a rapid rise in the rise of fascist organizations.

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl And I can and should blame the Vatican for not defrocking these friars for saluting with a salute used by Neopagans and blessing crimes before they even happened.

They're on record for pre-absolving murderers before the murder in this very period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

None of the ones in this picture are friars.

They are Protestant "bishops". They and their flock couldn't care less about the Vatican. You know, it was c. 400 + years since Luther and then a bit later Calvin taught them not to mind.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"on record" ... does that mean on criminal records by Tito Yugoslavia's cangaroo courts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Stepinac was VERY enthusiastic about it."

Or a Commie court pretended so?

"Plenty of Roman Catholics who became Atheists still insist that Roman Catholicism is The Church and that it is the center of Christendom. People who claim that they REJECT Christianity claim so. From an Orthodox Christian perspective - they're culturally and politically Roman Catholics."
"Mutatis mutandis for Protestant Atheists."

Hitler wasn't exactly an Atheist, more like a Pantheist.

Spinoza, the Jewish take on Atheism.

But culturally and politically, Hitler was Protestant. He despised Habsburgs and admired Hohenzollerns.

IV

Nikola Avramov

Axis powers have for centuries and are at this very moment doing their best to murder everybody in Eastern Europe.

There are no crimes they haven't committed over Eastern Europeans.

The famous "Eastern European rivalries"?

Those have three authors: the Vatican, Great Britain, and the Habsburgs.

Europe is undergoing a catastrophe right now because the Axis powers REFUSE to STOP MURDERING EASTERN EUROPEANS EVEN IF IT CONTINUING TO DO SO WOULD COST THEM EVERYTHING.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nikola Avramov Beg your pardon?

Nikola Avramov

Hans-Georg Lundahl Are you claiming complete and innocent ignorance or are you implying outrage?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For the Habsburgs, I simply don't believe you.

For the Vatican, I also don't believe you.

For Great Britain, I'm on the edge.

However, you said the Yugo-Commu congress was in 1926 Vienna? Check this out:

1920–1934 befand sich die Sozialdemokratie in der Bundespolitik in Opposition zur konservativen Regierung und schuf im Roten Wien ihr politisches Gegenmodell.

So, the federation was ruled by Habsburg friendly conservatives, but Vienna by Social Democrats leaning to Communism.

Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools?

HGL's F.B. writings: Why Don't they Teach Gynaecology in These Schools? · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Predecessors of Jan III Sobieski and Austrians

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"?

Adam Komanecki

Hans-Georg Lundahl Women remain fertile up until their 40s, 10 years is more than enough to have multiple children provided there's enough resources to sustain both them and the mother. Perhaps Swedish education was influenced by its current migrant minority into believing that the task of maintaining the population should be left to teenage females?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You forget the ova lost in menstruations and also that the basin which up to 30 hasn't given birth will be very much more painful than if one starts earlier.

So, a woman who has not had children before 30 is likely to chose fewer childbirths once confronted with the pain.

Also, the risk for Downs is 1/10 000 for a woman age 20, 1/100 for one age 40.

Are you asking if, while a teacher, I proposed teen marriages? No, I waited to after not getting the temporary job renewed next term. Even if you want to call me a migrant from Austria.

However, as a teacher, I did find teens not marrying conducive to teens aborting. In other words, murder. Plus some other tragedies, like broken couples.

Btw, I'm not in Sweden's current migrant minority now, but in that of France.

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.

William Tarry

Hans-Georg Lundahl so you cannot find any examples of drag queens being unsafe for children.
Good to know.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

William Tarry No, but teachers, and some of these presumably very OK with drag queen hours.

Equally good to know.

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.