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.

What is Acceptable as Bad but still Valid Pope?

Gigantian Apologetics

status

Unlike the Progressives, the RadTrads openly entertain schism and conspiracies as legitimate. The problem is that RadTrads do a far better job of pretending to be Catholic, whilst Progressives can be shrugged off with a roll of the eyes. We should still condemn both, of course.

Joshua Bobo

We had medieval popes that literally had sex concubines and were among the most morally corrupt in society, but that’s ok for radtrads, they were valid popes.

But God forbid we’ve had a couple of popes who are pastoral to the marginalized and who aren’t super rigid about traditional liturgy. Nooooo, these popes are the Antichrist and true heretics who prove that the Church is compromised and only the Almighty Saint Marcel Lefebvre has maintained the real Catholic faith.

Preferring tradition and wanting to Church to be careful with prudence and discernment is fine. But I wonder if these radtrads even understand how prideful and pretentious they sound sometimes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "that literally had sex concubines and were among the most morally corrupt in society, but that’s ok for radtrads, they were valid popes."

As long as they didn't teach verbally that having sex concubines was a good thing ...

"But God forbid we’ve had a couple of popes who are pastoral to the marginalized"

Exactly WHAT pastoral and exactly WHICH marginalised ones?

I am no fan of Roncalli, but his visit to a prison is NOT among my griefs.

Telling a couple "God bless you" when they are not trying to get out of a sinful situation is not pastoral and has nothing to do with merely social marginalisation.

Joshua Bobo

Hans-Georg Lundahl “As long as they didn’t teach verbally that having sex concubines was a good thing”

Even if they did, you’re missing the point. Neither the Church nor the papacy is built on exclusively moral and holy people. If immorality and sin and improper judgment/discernment disqualified the Church, Christianity would have died out long before it ever even got started.

No, the terrible medieval popes didn’t actively try to dogmatize or declare doctrine that suited their sins and they didn’t try to influence the church to their lifestyle. The authority they obtained from the seat of Peter was valid in spite of their grave sins. But that’s exactly my point: even when we had popes who would have made an Italian mafia boss blush, the Church still survived and people stayed loyal and faithful to the Church.

Tell me something: can you even begin to imagine how insane the media would go and how much the secular world would lunge at the Church and Christianity in general like ravenous vultures if it was ever found out that Pope Leo had mistresses, or if it was found out that he conspired to have rivals or adversaries killed? The secular media would immediately say the Church has lost all credibility and would say that Catholicism and Christianity is not a moral or upstanding religion. They already do that with the sexual abuse allegations.

And yet, radtrads would be so quick to de-escalate and rationalize Leo’s sin and evil in that hypothetical, so long as he was hyper conservative in church tradition and opposed Vatican II, and it’s all because radtrads are only concerned with being Catholic elitists who think only the TLM mass is valid and that any progressive ideals from a pope means automatic church heresy.

Just like his predecessors post Vatican II, Leo has not taught formal heresy and he has not tried to change doctrine or dogma. There is no calling away and no heresy because if there was, then Christ’s promises would be meaningless and of course no radtrad is going to dare argue that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "Even if they did, you’re missing the point."

No.

"Neither the Church nor the papacy is built on exclusively moral and holy people."

However, exclusively on orthodox, on rightbelieving, people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joshua Bobo "Just like his predecessors post Vatican II, Leo has not taught formal heresy and he has not tried to change doctrine or dogma."

Wojtyla, the Galileo speech of 1992 and the CCC § 283, authorised by him.

FB censure contre la vérité / pardons, censurait

J'ai voulu partager ce contenu avec un ami nordique :

På Svenska og på Dansk på Antimodernism : Tyska National-Socialister intet alltid de värsta
https://danskantimodernism.blogspot.com/2026/06/tyska-national-socialister-intet-alltid.html

Le lien a été supprimé, voici la règle appliquée :

Personnes et organisations dangereuses

Nous n’autorisons pas les personnes à partager ou à envoyer des symboles, des signes de glorification ou du soutien à des personnes et des organisations que nous définissons comme dangereuses.

Exemples d’interdictions

Glorification d’une attaque terroriste

Encourager la violence envers un groupe spécifique de personnes

Soutenir ou faire la promotion d’activités criminelles comme la traite d’êtres humains

La seule glorification dans l'article est à Paulina Forslund, une national-socialiste assumée, et, surtout, une mère de neuf. J'ai porté dans les PS un regard bienveillant mais critique sur ses constats de la réalité suédoise, l'interview étant par des nationalistes tchèques.

Elle a notamment dit que des couples de blanches avec immigrés racisés sont dûs à la propagande de mélange de races. J'ai répliqué qu'ils sont surtout dûs au fait que les immigrés reçoivent et les Suédois de souche se voient presque interdit une éducation assumée masculine.

Le bloc de l'article était sur un acte terroriste commis contre des Allemands des Sudètes, et comment le National-Socialisme Tchèque a, dans ce cas, commis une pire chose que les National-Socialistes Allemands dans le moment et l'endroit. Je pense que le massacre de Postelberg était, effectivement, un acte terroriste.

Je n'ai ni encouragé des attaques contre des Tchèques, ni contre des Allemands./HGL

PS, restauré sept minutes après ma demande d'examen. C'est plus vite qu'avant.

Merci!/HGL