141 thoughts on “Isn’t religion wonderful?

    1. I always find it amusing that to attack the Church you have to try to conflate the Church with heretics, mohammedans, or sodomites just to blame us for what we do not do.

      The source of your immorality is you feeling you have the right to rebel against God, and then you going insane from God giving you over to a reprobate mind.

      Like

      1. I always find it amusing that to attack the Church you have to try to conflate the Church with heretics, mohammedans, or sodomites just to blame us for what we do not do.

        Your reply is to my comment. However, my comment did not mention the Church. Nor did it mention heretics, mohammedans or sodomites.

        Maybe you just clicked the wrong “Reply”.

        Like

        1. you attacked “religion,” which is the attempt to conflate all religions to attack Christianity for what pagans do.

          Like

          1. Actually, all I did was point out the irony of religious people claiming that their religion is the source of morality.

            But if you want to see that as an attack — I guess that tells us something about your morality.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. There is no foundation in anything outside of God. What foundation do you have for “morality?”

            I see you pointing nothing out, just sneering from afar. The silliest thing is when you try to synthesize all religion just so you can claim Christianity is guilty of what pagans like yourself do.

            Like

      2. “…and then you going insane from God giving you over to a reprobate mind.”

        HAHAHAHAHA!

        “That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!”

        You should really get together with John Branyan. I hear he’s always looking for new material.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. As I told another reprobate that I think is on this blog here: “Quod Deus Vult perdere, Prius dementat”

          Like

          1. Reprobates don’t tend to speak Latin. We don’t speak ‘schizophrenic’, either. But “God wills it” blah blah blah is the refuge of fucked-in-the-head cranks who lack any power to persuade anyone of anything, but fondly imagine they speak for a god who — funnily enough — can’t actually speak for himself.

            Anyway, maybe you can help me out. I have this brother who’s possessed by a demon. Max von Sydow is unavailable, so I was wondering if you could perform an exorcism for me. You were the first crazy Catholic I thought of, you’ll be happy to know.

            All you need to do is show up and say, in your most authoritative voice: “THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!”

            I haven’t fed him for a while, so I guarantee no projectile vomiting. Can’t vouch for levitations and head-swiveling, though.

            Hope to hear from you, comrade.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. You mean to say Branyan actually has *material*? I tried to watch one video. It was so painfully un-funny I started skipping ahead at 3 minutes only to land at a toilet seat protector joke as his grand finale… a joke I think i heard in Grade 2.

          Like

          1. Personally, I think he’s one of the great comedic geniuses of our time. His humor is on a level that transcends all comedy that’s come before it. My side aches from laughter even now as I contemplate the utter brilliance of this man’s humor, wit, and intellect. Clearly, there MUST be a god because without one, such genius could never have come into being. 😀

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Yep. He’s THAT brilliant! Really, dishes drying on the counter are funnier than this guy. There isn’t a single funny thing about him. Nothing. He hasn’t even accidentally been funny. That he THINKS he’s not only funny, but funny enough to be a stand up comedian, shows the degree of self-illusion he lives under. Does he have no friends good enough to tell him, “Hey, bro, you are NOT funny. Please, for the love of the god you worship, STOP trying! PLEASE!!!”

            Liked by 1 person

      1. You’re right I think morality is subjective. My definition of morality might be different than yours as I look to the Bible for my foundational moral values. So to define morality or immorality is more than just looking up Miriam Webster’s definition.

        Like

          1. Name one case of slavery that is slavery? The Hebraic idea of this is indentured servitude meaning they agreed to be servants for a specific period of time never exceeding 7 years

            Like

          2. The Church has always rejected chattel slavery, as that is a pagan idea. It only came back with locke and voltaire who were full throated supporters of it.

            In fact, you claim children are “bodies” (aka property) of women, invoking old slavery laws of masters being free to kill slaves in order to justify modern slavery.

            Like

      1. Slavery in the Bible is actually a Hebraic idea of indentured servitude, not like slavery as we think of it today.

        Genocide. I’m not familiar with this happening In The Bible please elaborate so I can offer a proper response.

        Misogyny isn’t a Hebraic concept actually the opposite. There are actually women leaders in the Bible. Read the book of judges.

        Incest is actually prohibited and if you’re talking about Lot, his daughters had his children not by his choice and this is looked down upon not accepted

        Like

          1. Tell me where to find it, or did you read it from some article someone against the Bible read or did you locate the primary source and read it to formulate your own opinion? If you had read it you would be more than willing to share this with me.

            I’m saying I never read about genocide but will if you direct me to thenoassage

            Like

          2. I have already told you I have read the bible – cover to cover, and continue to read parts of it from time to time so your asinine, smart Alec comments are wasted on me and merely demonstrate your own willful ignorance.
            You can start with the book of Joshua. 1-12

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I think the terminology you use isn’t appropriate. Conquering the land which they were going to possess is not genocide to me. It’s war and the spoils of war.

            We disagree. It does make for entertaining back and forth but not productive. Thank you for the insults as well. I wish you well

            Like

          4. Well, you obviously have no understanding of the word genocide.
            Anyway, it is all nonsense with no basis in fact so what ever semantic spin you wish to put on it, it remains nothing but a disgusting geopolitical work of fiction.

            Liked by 4 people

          5. I think that term is inappropriate in these instances.

            I like your stance even more as it presents me serious challenges of how you can reach someone who absolutely disagrees no matter what. I love it and hate it lol.

            Do I get a rise out of you as much as you do me? It’s fun, and crazy kinda lol. Thank you for the dialogue!

            Like

          6. Actually I could care less. As an adult you are entitled to believe whatever nonsense you like.
            As long as you do not indoctrinate vulnerable people , and especially kids, with this garbage than I’m generally okay with it.

            Liked by 3 people

        1. Misogyny not a Hebraic concept? There aren’t very enlightened attitudes in Leviticus towards menstruation. It’s reviled as an “unclean” bodily function, whose natural outcome sullies anything it comes into contact with.

          Strange attitude to take to God’s creative abilities, but unsurprising coming from superstitious peasants.

          Liked by 2 people

        1. @NorthWest Hebrew

          Leviticus is stigmatizing a natural bodily function, but I won’t argue semantics — whether it should be called “misogyny”, or not — with you. I’ll let the ladies handle this one, if they feel so inclined.

          Like

        1. To save us both, please don’t try and pull the indentured servitude line. Slavery was institutionalised in the bible. Jesus certainly never spoke out against it, and Paul encouraged it.

          Are you trying to claim human sacrifice was universal? That’s quite a claim. In China, Ximen Bao spoke out against it around 500 BCE. Are you suggesting he, as an example, was inspired by the Torah?

          The Zoroastrians never conducted human sacrifice, and Zoroaster himself riled against animal sacrifice.

          So, I am interested. Can you actually give me some real examples of this morality “birthed” in the bible.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. I’m not making any claims, he might have Spoke out but did he make it law and a way of life, actually condemning it as the Bible does, shaping humanity to what we think about it now. Birthed, originated, started with, began, whatever term you like, as it relates to societies. Since we as society as a whole don’t look to those sources we look to the Bible, it is the Bible that has birthed these ideas to us not Zoroastrian or Xiamen bao, I couldn’t know whether they were inspired by torah or not is a matter of dates I suppose. The ideas themselves, you may be right, maybe the Bible wasn’t the first time someone thought it up but definitely used practically within a society. I’d be happy to look into those sources if you would provide them for me. (Link or title of book) I’m probably not as learned as you.

            My point is the Bible brought about radical moral values different from those of the time period that it was written in, from this foundation we as humans have pulled our values as Americans and the like to shape our societies and views in social issues as a whole. It’s just true. History. Facts. Whether you agree with them or not it actually happened. Whether you like the strategies used by some catholic monarchs to implement these is of your concern, I don’t, but it did happen.

            As for Jesus and Paul, you probably know more about them than I do. But where did Paul encourage it so I can agree with you?

            This probably won’t suffice for you but it’s the best I could do.

            Like

          2. “slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5)

            “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9).

            It’s just true. History. Facts.

            Yes, I’m waiting for you to provide this history/fact. Please, detail for me what you’re talking about. Give me actual examples. Regarding slavery, the first formal abolition of slavery was enacted in India, by Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who abolished slavery in the 3rd Century BCE.. In China, the Qin Dynasty eliminated slaves in the late 200’s BCE. Neither have any reference to your religion. In Europe, the first abolition of slavery occurred in Venice, 960 CE, when the Magistrate (Doge) of Venice, Pietro IV Candiano, banned it. Doge’s were men of the Law, not of religion. Venice was, of course, antagonistic to the Vatican. It was not until 1102 when we see the church in London condemn slavery during the Council of London. Slavery, however, was not banned in the UK until the legal case, Somerset v Stewart (1772).

            Liked by 2 people

          3. I wasn’t referring to the New Testament at all rather the moral values instituted in the Torah and Tanakh. I never reference the New Testament. It is a fact that western civilization is influenced by Christian values and its is a fact that Christian values come from the Bible ( Torah) fact. As far as slavery it is not something that I find in the Bible I only see indentured servitude, that’s in the Hebrew. And the moral radical idea that you can not serve for more than 7 years. That’s not slavery how you’re trying to describe it, we’re talking two different things and your slavery isn’t condoned in my Bible.

            New Testament was written in Greek and to discuss the Bible you should only look to Hebrew Scriptures. I have a study I wrote on my blog about this. You should see it if your interested, it’s the first thing I ever posted.

            And the instances of abolition of slavery you’ve mentioned seem to be after the Torah was written yes or am I wrong?

            Like

          4. You asked for where Paul encourages slavery.

            Again, please do not try the indentured servitude line. It will not work on me, or anyone with half a brain.

            And the instances of abolition of slavery you’ve mentioned seem to be after the Torah was written yes or am I wrong?

            Yes. The Torah condones slavery. It is not the source of any abolitionist thought. That was my point.

            Now, can you actually give me real examples or unique morality stemming from the Torah?

            Like

          5. It doesn’t condone slavery. We disagree on that. I gave you the line of what it’s really about you must understand this concept from a Hebrew perspective to fully grasp the idea but you see it from a western mindset.

            I did give you examples of how the Torah uniquely set in place moral values into society like no other people had previously. You just keep clinging to slavery which the Bible doesn’t condone your views of slavery.

            Paul’s writing are controversial which is why I have never looked to the New Testament for theological views see my study on that http://northwesthebrew.com/2018/12/19/hebrew-the-voice-of-truth/, if he wrote those books and it is properly translated, that’s not good and I don’t agree with it. You have a point about slavery in that instance.

            Like

          6. I did give you examples of how the Torah uniquely set in place moral values into society like no other people had previously.

            You mentioned human sacrifice. You have not established it was a universal cultural phenomenon (hint, it wasn’t, not by a long shot), and you have not addressed the fact that older religions and cultures never participated in it. You mentioned slavery. Your position is patently absurd and I’m not going to even bother entertaining that level of wilful ignorance.

            So, sorry, but you’ve yet to support your claim. You claim: the Bible brought about radical moral values different from those of the time period that it was written in, so, if you can, do please provide *actual* examples.

            Like

          7. As far as how societies of the time behaved as a whole it was a phenomenon especially practicing religious beliefs. I gave actual examples you just don’t agree with them. If you disagree just say that but don’t say I didnt give examples. I gave them. It’s not willful ignorance it’s a disagreement.

            Like

          8. I don’t think they were fails, your responses are wrong. What I said is correct. The Bible is a foundation of good moral values from which our societies have pulled from and benefitted from since it was created. Regardless or who else also said it or agreed with it. The Bible is where we get it from. (United States)

            Like

          9. I do, but you refuse to see it because of your confirmation bias. What you responded with is irrelevant in proving the Bible is not the foundation of good moral values for American society

            Like

          10. the foundation of good moral values for American society

            And we can include the attempted genocide of the Native Americans and Slavery as two perfect examples of Biblical morality and its impact on American society.
            On these points I wholeheartedly agree with you.

            ,

            Liked by 2 people

          11. And the glaring hypocrisy as it was because of the bible it was justified in the first place – much as Apartheid was biblically justified in South Africa.

            It matters not how you try to wriggle and squirm out of this one -as so many believers have tried and still try – the bible was the reference book used by those Europeans, and Americans who were in favour of slavery.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. Remember, the Jews (following the Torah) never abolished slavery. Secular societies banished it, and they had to obey.

            So the followers of the Torah were not only still defending slavery, but participating in the slave trade right up until the American Civil War (see Friedman, Jews and the American Slave Trade, 1998). The Talmud goes into great detail concerning the ownership of human beings, elaborating and refining on the laws laid out in the Tanakh. For example, they threw out the old law that a Hebrew slave (males only, not women) could be freed after seven years. In its stead, an open-ended, perpetual state of slavery was enacted.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. If an atheist kills someone was it because of atheism? No. Your position on that is not a strong one.

            If anyone referred to it as proof of why they should do it they are/were mistaken and wrong, the Bible does not support this.

            Like

          14. This comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

            The bible supports slavery and whether you personally agree with the interpretation the bible was cited as justification for it, as it was cited as justification for Apartheid.

            There really is nowhere to hide from this.
            We are dealing with historical facts.

            You might as well try to deny that Luther was not really antisemitic and he was simply misunderstood.

            The evidence is there for all to see.
            The more people (such as you) try to defend it the more you look disingenuous.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. When I say bible I refer to tanakh, this is torah, prophets, and writings. Not New Testament. And no it doesn’t. Indentured servitude is not the slavery you are speaking of. But if you mean slavery as indentured servitude then yes it does

            Like

          16. John has already identified that it is slavery.
            I have been watching soccer so I may have missed a pertinent comment of yours, This is your opportunity to list the verse and the biblical commentary(if you have it) that expressly refutes any idea of slavery and identifies indentured servitude as you claim.
            (Bible) Book, chapter, and verse please.

            Like

          17. In exodus 21 it talks about the freedom of the “slave” (servant) after seven years, and if harm were to come to them they were to be set free. More like a labor contract rather than how it is characterized in Modern times and how you view it.

            What translation do you even use? Mine says servant not slave. Are you inferring this or actually finding this word?

            Like

          18. Exodus 21:16 only concerns Hebrews abducting Hebrews. Female Hebrews, however, could be sold by their fathers and enslaved for life with some restrictions (Exodus 21:7-11). Abducting and selling non-Hebrews was not a problem (Deuteronomy 24:7), and slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). Indeed, the children of slaves were born into slavery (Exodus 21:4). And Deuteronomy 20:10-15 details how captives of war can be thrown into slavery, including all the women and children of the conquered. Kidnapping Hebrew women for forced marriage (slavery in all but name) was also allowed (Judges 21:20-23).

            So, are you lying because you’re ignorant, or is this deliberate?

            Liked by 3 people

          19. The stranger refers to anyone not an Israelite. What translation are you using? Sometimes they say different things because they are all from the Hebrew language. I’m going to have to reward each verse you cited as j don’t have them memorized but I’m glad you listed them!

            Like

          20. We’re all ignorant about a great many things. It’s a reference to a lack of knowledge and not a personal attack in JZ’s context. The question is whether or not you can recognize your own ignorance. This is virtue when honest. But you really seem determined to assume the intentions of others is to sleight you personally. You need not be that brittle unless you are determined to maintain convictions that do not comport with reality, in which case a garrison mentality will be produced. This is a clue…

            Like

          21. I’ve talked to many like you who have this belief that Bible is some sort of source of western morality. Not an ounce of proof is ever presented. There is not one value or moral nugget in the bible that is original to the bible. It existed before. Translating existing morals and values into a book in your own language and distributing it to others doesn’t make your book original. It’s just passing on an existing message through a different medium. I mean without the Bible how would humanity ever figured out that being nice to each other was a good idea? I am sure it had never been tried before in any society! Your bias oozes out of you. You should patch that up with some actual world history.

            Liked by 3 people

          1. Yeah about sharia law? I actually liked it. Islam is not the Bible I agree with you on that. I thought you meant me haha. Yeah he said there is no yes or no answer that was classic. Shut him down real quick. Haha

            Like

  1. Most of the values and morals were birthed by religion?!

    Wow. Just… wow.

    Without question, morality precedes any and all religious belief. That’s why human infants demonstrate this behaviour. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. If one associates values with morality (and this is the association being assumed here), then it is an unassailable fact that morality comes from biology. Morality can be demonstrated by all kinds of critters (save the supernatural kind) who have no clue about any ‘religious’ teachings but who share similar biology. Birds. Rats. Apes.Whales. I mean, come on. Morality can be also impeded directly by chemical and physical alterations of the brain.

    So we’re talking biology when we talk about birthing morality… and religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer us in this inquiry, no insight, no knowledge, no positive contribution whatsoever. It just tries to claim ownership because religion has to steal such things if it is not to be what it actually is: a subject without an object. Religion is a thief.

    So it is rather astounding to me in this day and age where knowledge is so readily available to the honest seeker of it that some people continue to actually believe, contrary to reality, that religion births morality. That’s just factually and demonstrably wrong from every angle.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. Instituted values? Such as, what… mixing fabrics? Staying away from shellfish? Killing the men and women and ‘beasts’ but taking the virgins? What values specifically do you claim derive from religion and then ‘instituted’? I can’t think of any that aren’t silly (like the injunction against planting different seeds), based on ignorance, or are contrary to Enlightenment values… or straight up borrowed/stolen.

        The values that define Western civilization are not religious. In fact, these fundamental and revolutionary values are purely unadulterated secular values contrary to (and incompatible with) their religious precedents. A good way to understand these values are as a response to their religious opposites.

        So the idiotic claim that Western values (you know, the fundamental rights and freedoms we share that defines membership) derive from religious values is based on wishful thinking and is in direct opposition to reality. Religious belief is totalitarian in nature and we see this push by religious organizations whenever and wherever they begin to gain political power.

        Liked by 4 people

          1. I have not called you names. I don’t do ad hominem. But I describe all kinds of poor quality ideas and beliefs with a very wide and I think amusing variety of names. If you take issue with any of them, then defend the ideas successfully. That’s entirely up to you. But the tedious tactic of diverting responsibility to me for describing bad ideas as I do – but taking them personally as if I am attacking you when I am not – demonstrates a level of willingness on your part to use dishonesty (in this case using a false accusation) as a means to protect the bad ideas you may hold from further inquiry. Maybe it’s just me, but I find this tactic rather cowardly. Smearing it with piousness as many believers like CS do and then forgiving their trespasses against me is usually the next step. As I said… tedious. But claiming the US in particular has instituted religious values is a blatant lie.

            Just out of curiosity (and not that I have said as much), NWHebrew, what term do you use to describe the practice by people who tell blatant lies? Maybe I should just call them ‘pious’. Is that a good synonym?

            Like

          2. You responded to my comment and said my claim was idiotic. I thought that was name calling. You don’t have to agree but you also don’t have to insult just because you don’t agree. Everyone is allowed their view no matter how it comes off to others.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Again, you seem determined to assign malignant intentions to others rather than deal with the content of the questions and comments that challenge your claims. This is a bait and switch tactic and not an indication of honest dialogue. Sometimes, NWH, claims really are idiotic. But you – like I – are not our claims. Our claims are based on an assumption that we have sufficient cause to grant more confidence to our beliefs than doubt. A very low level of knowledge will produce very low quality claims and some are so lacking in this necessary component that they can be idiotic if granted an unjustified level of confidence. That’s why I talk about recognition, oif realizing one’s beleifs are not deserving of a high level of confidence. The solution is to increase one’s knowledge, which you will notice does not change the person holding these unjustified beliefs. That’s how you know the descriptor is about the quality of the claim made (and the lack of knowledge that is revealed) and not a personal attack on the person making it… although a strong argument can be made that choosing to remain ignorant in order to maintain an unjustified belief is an act of denialism and this says something negative about the intellectual integrity of the person who chooses this tactic rather than alter a poorly informed claim. But hey, isn’t that really what piety means in action, the choice to use a faith-based rather than evidence-adduced method of justification… because the claim is unjustified by reality and so must be empowered by an act of will alone (and often in conflict with reality)? Something to ponder, anyway.

            Liked by 3 people

          4. I read some of your other comments and it seems a pattern for you to insult in this way. so maybe it’s just in your nature to not be able to control what you say to people when you’re really excited. Increase your own knowledge on the proper respectable way to address someone you don’t agree with or don’t talk to them. Recognize and realize what you’re doing and how it’s coming off. Don’t justify it. I’m not bait and switch but just address me with respect if you wish to continue dialogue.

            I do agree with you when you say social justice warriors are not in the right frame of mind though.

            Like

          5. You failed to deal with a single point that Tildeb raised.
            And by not providing even one example of what you consider are biblically inspired values and morals and simply focused on the perceived personal sleight
            you come across as one who is indoctrinated and prepared to defend the bible (Torah) at all costs – even to the point of not addressing criticism.

            This tactic was illustrated perfectly in the video – the primary reason I posted it – and here you are, a practicing member of an Abrahamic faith behaving in a similar manner.

            If you don’t like (Tildeb’s) the delivery style then stop being obtuse and answer the questions.
            It really is that simple.

            To reiterate.
            List examples of what you believe are biblically inspired values and morals.

            Thanks.

            Like

          6. Then I must have missed these examples. Please, solely for my benefit, would you list them again?
            Or, to make it easier for you, simply cut and paste from your replies and put them in the next comment.
            This would be greatly appreciated.
            Thanks .

            Like

          7. I have.
            You mentioned human sacrifice.
            Is this the ”value and morals” you are referring or are you suggesting other examples?
            This is why I asked to to simply cut and paste.
            Surely this can’t be that difficult for you?
            If you have some other examples you wish to add then please, list them.

            Like

          8. I think we don’t agree and either one of us won’t give any ground. It was fun while it lasted but I don’t think you’re right. I don’t think you’re an ignorant or that your ideas and approaches are idiotic, I just don’t agree with them but I can see how someone who doesn’t believe in God (of the Bible) can. France is about to play Germany though are you gonna watch?

            Like

          9. The dialogue is not about establishing who is right and who is wrong but about what is the correct understanding of the text.

            If you read more of the comments on these and other threads you will note that many of my visitors were former believers who were once of the same/similar mindset as you currently find yourself in.

            You have also rejected the notion of genocide in the Torah. – yet the passage in Joshua 10 vs 40 is clearly describing genocide: the complete annihilation of everything: ” …but utterly destroyed everything that breathed.” To suggest this is simply winning a war is blatantly disingenuous.
            I could also have used the example of Noah and the Flood. This too is genocide.

            The term you are using – indentured servitude – even in context, is most definitely slavery.
            I had hoped you would have listened to some of the videos I posted, especially the last of the three , as Tracie offers an excellent and accurate explanation of what this actually meant, not least the ”right” of the master to beat his ”servant” and have sex with the ”servant”.
            Certainly the conditions described would not be considered anything BUT slavery by today’s standards.
            Therefore, how can we consider it anything but slavery? To treat it as otherwise would be disingenuous.

            Furthermore, the Hebrews were not so ignorant that they would have been unable to understand how unethical and immoral this practice was had they been alerted of it by their god.
            If this god was capable of issuing laws regarding homosexuality it was quite capable of ensuring these ”masters/owners” were made aware that beating their indentured ”servants” almost to death was not acceptable.

            So in light of the above, your assertion about values and morals turns out to be incorrect.

            The match doesn’t seem to be featured on my satellite feed.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. This started out with you not being able to show me what the HGP had to do with the narrative of original sin and me asking you to provide sources so I may inform myself (which you didn’t). It’s morphed into you changing the subject and I went along but your tactics prove you’re not willing to see the truth.

            The Hebrew does not present the text in this light or with the same understanding it is received in the English language. This is why you could never understand. And I don’t mean a quick google search On what this word means or that word, I mean learning it with all its hebraisms and proper context of culture. You can’t do it, or won’t do it. Either way thank you for the back and forth it was…. interesting.

            Like

          11. I posted a link on Hayden’s blog to an article by Jerry Coyne a day ago regarding the HGP.

            Go back and read it.

            In what other light but genocide could one call a global flood that destroyed all life bar one soon to be incestuous family?

            The same with regard the passage in Joshua.
            ”…everything that breathed ”
            That also is nothing but genocide.

            If the KJV ( or any other English translation) is blatantly wrong then copy and paste the KJV version and directly underneath the Hebrew text (translated into English of course) in the correct light.

            Unless you can categorically demonstrate that my KJV is wrong then I stand by the understanding on this issue and the others as presented by me, those in the videos and all those who have engaged you on this topic.

            Like

    1. WTF~?

      At first I thought this a variant of the old question asked of Catholic priests: “Answer Yes or No, have you stopped sodomising choirboys yet?”

      I’d get stoned with the woman, maybe … boom boom~!

      Liked by 1 person

    2. There is no “yes or no” answer

      Is that not such a ”wonderful” response, from such an arsehole?

      It’s nice to imagine all the women here are Muslim and Mathias ( the Stonee ) is the disgusting, obnoxious Nob in the video!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That ‘Python’ sketch was brilliant! Sadly makes no difference though—it will take more than sense, or humour, to get through to the suckers or change the fleecers.

        Like

        1. Well, we have some fine examples right here that demonstrate change is possible.
          If you read testimonies by blokes such as Jim and Ben it’s obvious they were once – and I’m sure they’ll forgive me – dumb as soup in this regard.
          But not any more, all praise to Jesus.
          Now they are wonderful little atheist sunbeams merrily preaching evolution etc all the live long day, flipping Jesus the bird and being completely immoral and hedonistic as we know all atheists are.

          Like

  2. I made it as far as one minute and seventeen seconds. Possibly a new record for this old dog.

    The answers lie in a common language and the one simple basic Law of Contradiction. But if chopping off hands and feet and stoning and whipping and such good holy stuff are recommended in their Good Book … then we must achieve a lasting redefinition of the word ‘good’.

    How can one achieve a common language with such people?
    It can’t be done.
    I’m very much open to suggestion—otherwise the alternative will end up as either a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ or a moslem Britain.

    Any takers this time?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. At 20:47

    “so he smote everyone and took the land that was originally their inheritance that’s not genocide. It’s war and he won.”

    I can’t be bothered either, but this … person’s blind cheerful acceptance of war and conquest as a lawful/moral tool rankles with me. He’d have made a damn’ good Nazi in another incarnation.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. NW Hebrew is going to take refuge in semantic masturbation, quibbling over definitions of “misogyny” and “genocide.”

      He doesn’t believe the mythologized Canaanite invasion/conquest amounts to genocide, because the Israelites were just taking back what was rightfully theirs — “spoils of war”, and all that crap — sanctioned by YHWH, who also gave the green light — in Joshua — to sex slavery, a la present-day Isis.

      The fact that today, extremist Jewish settlers in Israel can use those very same ancients myths about a supposed covenant with their god to support Israeli incursions into Palestinian land, and which amounts to — at least — a form of “ethnic cleansing”, is something which NW Hebrew should be embarrassed to endorse.

      This is the whole problem with taking myths at face value. People can justify anything, if it’s in their holy book.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I’ve often stated (never been challenged) that—

        “You only OWN that which you can hold by force against all comers”

        —the comers referred to being nice folks who claim that some spook somewhere gave ’em free reign to take anything they want from someone they perceive as weaker.

        It seems that the nice Jews Hebrew is referring to did exactly that … yet God deserted them when Adolf’s merry men rounded up the same Jews for his ovens. Methinks their ‘God’ is a fickle bastard …

        Might makes right, huh, Hebrew? Certainly appears that way …

        Liked by 4 people

  4. NorthWest Hebrew
    FEBRUARY 27, 2019 AT 20:47

    I gave this a ‘Like’ because I like any idiot that serves my cause by illustrating the fallacies and immoralities in his own. Mr Hebrew: well done, Sir!

    And now, how do you feel about rape?

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I don’t feel that those live debate formats are the best way of clarifying issues. Apologists are like politicians: they’re trained not to give straightforward yes or no replies to awkward questions. And no-one knows how to shut up and listen when someone else is speaking. It just becomes a bunch of people all gabbling at once, talking over each other.

    What they need is the conch from Lord of the Flies. It might be amusing to see participants physically wrestling one another over who gets to brandish the conch and have the “right” to speak.

    Like

  6. One thing that always bothered me, both as a believer and even more now as an unbeliever, is the loyalty to a god from believers regardless of whether the command coming from that god is moral or not. It doesn’t matter what the command is or if you agree with it personally. God has the final say, right? You might personally want to condemn slavery, the stoning of women or the amputation of hands as a penalty for theft, but if you are a “true believer” then you will say that these things are moral because God said they are okay and God cannot be wrong.

    There’s a reason why people (believers or not) find these things reprehensible. It’s because they are. The fact that people cower to words in a book and submit to their idiocy is quite telling of how far people are willing to go to further their faith, mostly based on fear of being wrong and angering a god that might be up there watching. People are so afraid of eternal punishment that they are willing to commit atrocities in the here and now.

    If a god (any god) says that immoral things are moral, that god is not to be followed. That god should be dismissed as being not real as it contradicts the consensus that God is love. If you really believe that kind of god is real, for whatever reason, then that god should be defied. That god is an imperfect god who clearly needs help determining right from wrong. Stand up and say no more. A deity can’t just say “I am God so anything I say or do is moral and just.” That’s like a parent saying to a child, “I created you so if I want to stone you to death, cut off your hands or sell you into slavery then it’s morally acceptable because I make the rules.” Being a creator and making the rules doesn’t make you moral. It just shows where the power lies. So if a god does exist, that god is not inherently good and just. That god is just powerful and has its own ideas. We all have bad ideas.

    Realistically though, we should just admit that the reason we disagree with the written word of “God” (no matter which book it’s written in) is because we know that there is no god that could be considered good and still promote hateful, misogynistic and bigoted messages. There is no god that could both care about us deeply, yet command us to do despicable things. That god does not exist. And if you agree with those terrible commands from “on high”, shame on you.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Ben±

      methinks ’tain’t God saying them unsavoury things, it’s the opportunistic bastards (who cheerily milk the dupes) who are saying them; in order to garner power, prestige, and pelf.

      The formula is a world-wide historical universal: create a God out of nowhere, sell him to the gullible, milk the gullible because He says so … and you are quids in.

      Even better once you get the gullibles killing off all the non-gullibles in His Holy name …

      Liked by 1 person

  7. It appears the Hebrew language can be as divisive as the Bible itself.

    The Bible was interpreted over hundreds of years by whoever the publisher happened to be, and it was translated into hundreds of languages and dialects. Most of the English Bibles refer to the act of “slavery” not “indentured servitude” as this appears to be the wording quoted from a watered down Bible made for apologetics and those with weak disposition and blind faith.

    Indentured servitude has also been made illegal in most countries and is a voluntary contracted agreement, therefore it would not be used for captured prisoners of war and unlikely any such contract in this primitive time of existence would prevent beatings, abuse or death.

    If the translations of words, the overall interpretations and context of passages including the credibility of the stories and the historic content in the Bible cannot be supported by evidence as observed so far or agreed on by anybody, maybe the Bible should be regarded as what it obviously is ….. a slab of thin toilet paper.

    Like

  8. The lies, blindness, and utter lack of sensible reason so many people express in regards to religion and faith never cease to amaze me. There is only ONE Holy Book and only ONE Truth about the ONE God.

    “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” Quran 3:19

    “This Book is not to be doubted…. As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I love that “God set a seal upon their hearts and ears …”

      So God Himself made them ‘sealed’? (Bit of a mean bugger, wasn’t He?)

      In effect, condemned to everlasting fires by God Himself even before The Creation; with no time off for good behaviour and no possibility of parole. That hardly seems fair. Definitely not nice, but there ya go—that’s Gods for you …

      Liked by 2 people

  9. I wish to remind all of the lying infidels here of the truth from God’s ONLY Holy Book, The Koran:

    2:120: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, Islâmic Guidance is the only Guidance. And if you were to follow their desires after what you have received of Knowledge, then you would have against Allâh neither any protector nor helper.”

    I am deeply offended, as a Muslim and one who worships THE real God, Allah, of the barbaric and imbecilic gibberish I see written here about the blasphemous book known as “the bible”. THAT book is EVIL!!!! Anyone who has common sense can see this. This site, this post, and the comments on it are EVIL lies filled with blasphemy and sin. I truly pity the man here defending the lies of the bible as truth. He, and all others like him, will burn forever in hell for their sin against Allah. Shame on him. Shame on this site. And shame on ALL who question God and His TRUE word in the Koran. Allahu Akbar

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s