Sister, After watching your video I want to ask 2 Questions.
1. Can you suggest better punishment for the rapist?
if you have made an answer to first question then
2. If somebody raped you or your SISTER, what punishment do you suggest for that person.
I believe that both answers are different that came into your mind. I don't know about the answer of first question that came in your mind, but i know the second answer that you will kill that person who raped you or your sister?
You make so many excellent points here. I have always had a real problem with the bibles stance on the treatment of women. It's a real problem for me now that I have three daughters because I do not want them to think that they are less than men or that they have to be subjected to any kind of inequality or abuse from men. Thanks so much for this.
@selenadelos What I'm asking you and the uploader, is what incentive did the man have to NOT give up that woman? Put yourself in his shoes before criticizing.
Nothing I said indicates that I think belief in a god is bad, but I do think that when that belief takes over one's life to the detriment of living a good life, however you define it, then it is bad. For some religion is good as it provides a social environment and confirms the good that is in them.
It amazes me that in this enlightened age that there are churches like the Wisc. Lutheran Synod that still do not allow women to vote or even talk at church meetings. Or religions like the FLDS that allow polygamy including minors over the woman's choice. How do Christians reconcile this with their claim of marriage being one man-one woman.
Even the Westboro Baptist cult. (OOPS, I meant church) allows its female members to talk.
@selenadelos I'm critiquing a flawed premise brought about by the uploader. You can go on thinking that the bible is evil and that men hate women, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
@selenadelos Whether someone is mentally deranged or not is typically assessed by a psychiatrist or other mental health professional upon extensive testing. Evidence from medical tests usually suggests whether someone is retarded or not.
Or, if you just want to say you're commenting on my opinion, in that case you haven't used any reason at all. You've just insulted me. You have not used sound reasoning to debunk my claims or to support your own claims, either.
@selenadelos The fact that you're using childish insults in an attempt to defame me without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning says a lot more about your mental state than it does about mine.
@selenadelos Actually, no you didn't say everyone defends each other. You said "you fight the mob to the death". I hate to point out your lack of proficiency in English, but when you're talking to one person, the word "you" is a pronoun that refers specifically and only to that one person to whom you are talking to.
@selenadelos Really? You call me mentally ill while simultaneously, you demonstrate your inability to grasp basic contractions in the English language. You consider people who know how to spell correctly mentally ill? Your argument is that the man should fight and die? Why shouldn't he send the woman out to fight to the death?
Was there a safer course of action for the priest? If he refused to give up anyone, would the mob have alternatively attacked him and all of his tennants? Perhaps he gave up one of his concubines to protect the safety of others.
If so, is it not reasonable to let one person suffer in order to prevent the suffering of numerous others?
@hhfleury Dude what are you on? If the mob could have kicked all of their asses giving her up wouldn't have changed it. Infact it would make it easier.
KIsama! (There is no way in english to translate that.)
You stupid (read above), masogonistic, weak fool.
If you're going to say something morally unexceptable at least think it through rationally.
At 3:23, you say: "You might take that action if you held the attitude that she was worth less than a male stranger in your home; as was the culture of the israelites given to them by God."
Can you justify the defilement of the male stranger by the mob? Or would you have to use the same type of "sterile" reasoning which suggests that the man is worth less the woman?
@hhfleury If your going to complain about quote minding you shouldn't go right ahead a do it yourself!
Listen to the whole video. Heck just read the part you quoted. She said if you wouldn't do this to a male stranger why would you do it to a women you actually know.
It's not exactly rational, unbiased discourse for one to present minute fragments of text and ask questions that have little to do with the text and are ignorant of the events that occured during or prior to them. In defense of the "believers", perhaps it would be fair to request from you a feasible alternative course of action for the man which would have resulted in less severe consequences. What would you have him do and why?
Lifting individual sentences or verses from the bible and intentionally using them to grossly misconstrue an entire religion's beliefs or standpoint about women would not garner a crowd of decent people. Wrapping up a spiteful attitude in elaborate vocabulary does not effectively hide the malice of your message from those who may disagree with it.
At 3:13 you ask "Who would give up their daughter to be raped?".
You're implying that the priest did. He didn't. The priest considered the male stranger in his home to be worth more because he could do manual labor for him. The concubine wasn't much of a loss because he already had several other wives -- he only had one man in his house.
You're welcome anytime. I have no problems with you accurately quoting the bible and analyzing its contents. What I have a problem with is your snarky use of biased rhetoric when doing so. Your own personal beliefs have caused you to ask your audience rhetorical questions about events that never happened.
@hhfleury That's messed up! Its still giving up a woman to be raped! That's like my dad throwing me to a strange man in my house just because he has three daughters and no sons. Are you serious?
This is completely one-sided and heavily biased. To be fair, you should be pulling more quotes about men and not just the verses that you find convenient for your cause.
I can prove that islam is a religion of pure violence if I pick and choose whatever verses I want from the qu'ran.
@snipessssss Picking and choosing. You can proof islam is insane by read the first 2 pages. God is merciful but he punishs people for things that our his fault.
I'm amazed I never thought of the most obvious thing shown by this video.
If God is the absolute source of morality, then the morals he handed down back then should be really nice for everyone - similar to what civilised people know today.
Why did he feel he had to work around the barbaric customs of his chosen people (why did he choose them anyway?)
when the bible say's anithyng, about anithyng it is juat sayng what the moron barbarians who writed it. for them. womens were just the reason they were mortals.
THAT'S BARBARIC, and so are every other cristian who says the bible is true!
if they can think for themselfs, and still agree with the bible, they are DISGUSTING BARBARIC PRIMITIVES!
A nontract from Freedom From Religion Foundation says many of the same things that you say about how the bible values women. BTW even though I am a male, I consider myself a feminist, i.e one who values women and thinks that they are equal to men. Or maybe as the pigs in Animal Farm say more equal
I have been banging around the thought of putting something together demonstrating the correlation between Old Testament treatment of women and current Muslim treatment of women within Islam and even Sharia law...but don't hold me to that ;)
I too am a feministic male. I think they are as valuable as men as well. However, I think this stems from my past in Witchcraft. There is much feminine empowerment to be found in that faith, and as such I fail to understand why more women don't turn to Wicca. However, it's silly just like every other religion so where's the help in that, right? But I digress - Women don't need freedom from religion, the entire world does.
i find it funny that with unjust treatment of women and the like christians invoke cultural context. but homosexuality is stilll a sin, no, that applies in every cultural context
A common misconception. Not believing in something doesn't make you closed minded. I'm assuming you're a Christian, in which case your closed minded against Ra, Buddha, Thor and Odin. I'm also going to assume you're closed minded against pixies and dragons. Open mindedness doesn't mean believing whatever drivel we're presented with, it means a willingness to reconsider ideas based on the available evidence. Not believing in God because the evidence is insufficient is not closed minded.
Lol nope not a christian. I believe there is a truth in every religion. Not just one religion is all right. Open Minded-adjective
1.having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2.unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.
There is plenty of evidence, but like I said, some get it some don't. Faith also plays a role, with out fate, in a sense they are close minded to NEW ideas. I
Yes, open-mindedness means being receptive to new ideas. But all that means is a willingness to consider them, it doesn't mean they have to be accepted. I am willing to consider new ideas if presented with valid evidence, of which there is none for any religion. The only 'eveidence; I have ever heard is subjective, i.e. personal experience. You yourself said impartiality is a part of being open minded, which means only objective evidence is valid.
I apologise for automatically assuming you're Christian, it was the username lol.
Faith is not an alternative to objective evidence. When we say we trust someone, we do base that on subjective experience, but we could never say trust is absolute. There is always the possibility they could betray us. But for statements of fact, the truth must by nature be absolute, and that means only objective evidence, not faith, can be considered. Faith is, after all, guesswork.
It's cool, I just made up this name real fast because I wanted an account lol. Well I guess maybe that open mindedness (if that is even a word) can be a different meaning to other people. So maybe open mindedness is not the word I am looking for...I can understand that you need evidence, I myself use to be a skeptic in the paranormal until I had an experience so I apologize for being rude.
Lol I'm the other way around! I used to count myself as a pagan, because it was a belief system I could tailor to what I 'felt' was right, and it was a better than
organised religion. Then I kind of woke up one day and said "I don't actually have to believe in anything, and what reasons do I have to believe this stuff anyway?" I basically dismissed my own personal experiences as delusions. It's funny how many people I've met on YouTube who've gone from sceptic to believer or vice-versa.
Yeah, it's all very confusing, I have experienced weird things as much I hate to admit it, so I really can't say nor prove what I saw to you or anything. You will have to go ghost hunting with me lol!
Thank you so much for these videos. I can't stop watching them. Compelling, well-done, and somewhat respectful, in the sense that they challenge one's intellect and true sense of morality - for which one obviously does not need a god. This is truly a better use for youtube than 90% of what's here.
Why bother going into all this details to prove the bible is just a fiction? Seems like a waste of time because christians won't listen and athiest already know the truth.
We have received messages from believers on the fence thanking us for helping them on their journey of doubt. Some are individuals, some are parents who are asking how to deal with children who won't understand their parents' transition until they are much older.
The bottom line is we thought that if we can affect just one person, we would have considered this effort a success. Given the amount of these types of messages we have received, this series has been a resounding success.
Just in case you haven't already done so. Read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood. Loved that book.... It depicts a society where fundamentalist Christians would have taken over.... and women are stripped of their rights in a short period of time.
Thanks for the videos. I used to be a Jehovah's Witness and was indoctrinate to love this monster. And I actually did. After watching this, I have nothing but contempt for this thing and what it represents.
At the risk of sounding completely corny, deconverting is almost like breaking up with your partner.
You share intimacy with your purported creator. You bare your soul in thought, study, prayer, and devotion in your life. This creator is there in your greatest high and lowest low. You feel like you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
Then you find out it was a delusion.
Despite knowing it wasn't real, it doesn't make it any less heartwrenching when its over.
...and just like in relationships with real people that end because of deception, there is usually anger, regret, and contempt for the other party.
Realizing you are having all these emotions for something that doesn't exist is disturbing.
Consequently, while I agree with a lot of what Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett have to say, I think a little more understanding and compassion should be used when in discussions with believers. Not everyone is charlatan using religion for gain.
I'd say good for you but ronnie please be sensible. According to your statment and the one of atheists like myself, god is not evil for he does not exist. Do not say you were taught to love a monster. The only monsters in this situation were the men who wrote the bible at the time. And back then, it wasn't monstrous. The videos claim "does this mean morality is subjective"? yes, yes it is.
@LordHines420 I am not going to try to convince you that there is a god or anything like that because who am I to say what's the truth? But who are you to that also? The fact is though that its not religion that makes everything screwed up...its the people that manage to distort everything.
5:20 re: newborns: Males have "riskier" genes than females, so I don't see how this would not to them anymore in old age than at birth. The explanation for this difference is again found in differential reproduction.
just got linked to the series from the channel of freethinker , i think this video has mostly valid points (if any wrong) it points out to the fun cristians who think we have no ''values'' and they do. also quite a bit of the info in this video was unknown to me and i do enjoy well not enjoy but you most likely know what i mean.
Why would god give his own children suffering, when he knows this will happen? if he knew beforehand what our life, and destine would be, why, would a man of such power and knowledge give humans these choices?
if you are a god with miracles, and want peace and love, why would he create this for us? why couldnt he give us love and peace? why would he allow evil on this earth? just some curious questions from my point of view....love and peace to all!
Thank God Jesus came along since the Gentiles would have been left out in the cold with God.
Still the Jesus folowers, or Christians, respect the Jews and the 10 commandments, theres simply no other way. As far as I know, maby of those archaeic rules are no longer followed.
This is complete crap. Until a few decades ago, the official Catholic view was that Jews were to be reviled because their ancestors killed Jebus. Now it's just the unofficial view.
As for the 10 commandments, the ones actually incorporated into the Covenant are not the ones you think they are. The tenth commandment in the Covenant is to not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. Which is why orthodox Jews will not combine meat with dairy in the same meal - all 500+ rules are obeyed.
If hearing the word "magic" associated with speaking complex organisms into existence is offensive to you, then you are being unreasonable and this conversation will now end.
Thanks for your erstwhile contributions to this dialog.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Also, inecure, as usual you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along, insulting CHristians. You threw out that slur against Christianity ("magic") then get offended when I answer bck firmly. If you are going to be insulting, you had better be able to take as well as you give. I do not intend to allow you to get by with any more insults. You have not earned the right to be answered civilly even though I have been doing so for some time. Be polite or grow some thinck skin.
Sounds like mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, but please continue with the other contradictions as I haven't seen any reasonable explanations yet (though many believers have been asked).
The claim of the variation in accounts of the census of David is false. The text just in the English makes that clear though a look at the Hebrew does as well.
The "he" in question is not capitallized. satan moved or tempted David. The Bible states clearly that God tempts no man nor can he tempt any with sin. Only satan tempts men. The scripture proves this interpretation in the latter account which provides the name of the tempter. Any action on God's part was the allowance of the temptation
the bible is an eclectic work of the ages just because one aurthor writes something it doesn't mean another author whose work was bound with other works from other authors is responsible for those authors words
i can easily glue mien kampf with the speeches of ghandi, it doesn't mean Gandhi would approve
another thing even Caril Jung pointed this out the old testament accounts for two gods, Jehovah and Elohim one calls himself the "lord" the other "I am I am"
Reason, logic, and scrutiny scare most Christians. It makes them uncomfortable because it exposes the fallacies of their beliefs thereby intensifying their cognitive dissonance.
Less than 12 months ago, we were bible loving, we-are-the-only-ones-going-to-Heaven believers. No negative events occurred in our lives to precipitate our deconversion. Simply opening our eyes, reading what the bible says, and using our logic, reason, and reality exposed its errant nature.
They do not scare Christians at all. Our faith is based on the Logos not assumption or irrationality. The problem is that in dialoging with atheists, the atheists refuse to face the logical conclusions of their assumptions and the logical contradictions of their faith.
You have no beliefs founded on fact. You deny evidence to the contrary of your views. That is not comporting to reality, it is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "nanananana I can't hear you". That is not reason, it is intellectual fraud.
My beliefs comport with reality and what can be demonstrably proven, not personal revelation, emotion, or an elaborate framework of apologetics that support bronze age human wisdom.
On the contrary, it is the believer that has his or her fingers in their ears saying "nanananana I can't hear you" to the mountains of scientific evidence in support of evolution, the age of this planet, the age of this universe, and the origins of life which are all contradicted by your bronze age tome of wisdom.
1-You are lying or deluded as you are ignoring history and accepted facts as well as holding to a negative which CANNOT be proved. You deny fact and claim that because the facts are 2000 years old they are less relevant. Not science there, bub.
2-You are holding to blind faith in a theological doctrine that can NEVER be proven. That is NOT scientific or logical. That is cultic faith in the hopeless. Unlike us, you ignore logic, science and philosophy. That is intellectual suicide & blindness
Unforunately, your accepted facts only play well with other christians as they're the only ones that will overlook their implausibility, unfalsifiability, and ridiculousness.
I believe that science gives plausible, testable explanations for many important topics such as evolution, age of the earth, age of the universe and the origins of life with room for further improvement. The answers for which contradict your source document.
I'll take that over magic and imaginary friends any day.
No magic and clearly you are "running home to mommy" by your switching subjects when I clearly answered your false claims and bad rebuttal, inecure. No shame, it is the common practice of God deniers to use smoke and mirrors like in the Wizard of OZ, "ignore the man behind the curtain" the argument is really true. Just keep looking at the big facade and all the smoke and noise... LOL
Christians do NOT accept magic and have NOTHING in common with magic or even atheist logic, mere parlor tricks
You must be unaware of how god is said in the bible to have spoken everything (including complex organisms) into existence out of thin air which by definition is an incantation.
I am responding to your nonsense, if you want to jump from topic to topic I will follow, but don't do that and then accuse *me* of changing the subject.
If you continue to take this discussion into a non-civil tone, I will end it. Please stay on point and avoid offensive statements that do not contribute.
Again you reveal your lack of knowledge, inecure. Incantations are uttered either to a spirit (witchcraft) or in appeal to a spiritual law that would cause the desired effect at the utterance (Wicca/theosophy/spiritism). God spoke meant that He was creating by mere assent and proclamation NOT by magic. You are wrong again.
I do not suffer your sophmoric antics gladly. You attack side issues hoping to find an error in my claims & there aren't any. Stop making bogus claims and I'll shut up.
Watch AronRa's videos on Foundational Falsehoods on Creationism for an explanation on why speaking/willing/assenting objects into existence is magic by definition.
It is magic whether you care to admit to it or not.
If you can see why a genie making things appear out of thin air is magic, then you should understand why a purportedly divine being doing it is precisely the same thing.
Sam Harris said it well in "Letter to a Christian Nation":
"The choice before us is simple: we can either have a 21st century conversation about morality and human well-being - a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to a 1st century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible. Why would anyone want to take the latter approach?"
They must if they want any real meaning! Dialog is dialog. Equivocation and arbitrarily moving the lines in the sand is meaningless. Unless you have something carved in stone by an immutable unchanging source, you have nothing solid to base your world view on. If you want to play mental games and try and ease your conscience and justify your rebellion against God, DO IT. He gave you free will to choose. But, don't murder someone then try and justify it by writing changing rules...
Just because you require some special meaning in your life that extends beyond altruistic participation with humanity and this planet doesn't prove the existence or even the necessity of an authoritative supernatural deity.
It just makes you feel better, it gives you purpose, and helps your life make more sense.
But, those perceived emotional benefits do not make your assumptions true, or worthy of recognition, or worthy of adherence.
Not an argument, sinecure. At most an ad hominem. My argument in based in fact and logic not speculation or emotional appeals. Try again or cede the debate.
Wait, you say people should listen to 1st century discourse instead of availing ourselves of the entirety of human discourse *if* they want any "real meaning".
If what I say about you requiring some special meaning specifically isn't true, how do you justify that remark based on "facts and logic" (I'll add 'which comports with reality and meets the beyond reasonable doubt measure of truth')?
NOTHING after the eyewitness accounts can alter or change the accounts unless a contemporary could refute. None did. THerefore, there is no benefit from reinterpreting what is evidence when no new evidence from that account can be uncovered. I wasn't there. I have to accept the accounts of martyrs who were there and were willing to die rather than lie about what they saw. necure, you are appealing to the wrong authority, fallacy - ad verecudium
Bull, cure. If Jesus was a fraud, there would have been dozens of writings disproving him in his time. The fact that thousands of people accepted Him as God 40 days after His resurrection is clear that NO contemporary of His reported Him a fraud. Jesus was the talk of Jerusalem. Read a book. Give me an address and I'll send you some money to buy a clue.
Also, muslim martyrs are sincerely deceived. They ARE NOT witnesses of Mohammed. Get the facts straight and the definitions. Apples to apples
Your last statement reveals your lack of objectivity. Muslims are just as convinced as you are from their holy writings that they believe the *real* truth and you (the christian) are wrong & bound for destruction.
*The fact that thousands of people accepted Him as God 40 days after His resurrection is clear..*
Popular opinion does not prove merit or truth. Think antebellum slavery in early american history.
Notwithstanding the fact that you are justifying from the document in question.
1 Islam & the Kuran are false due to internal contradiction & plain error (1 sorah says God created in 6 days, the other in 8 days)
2 Over 500 witnesses of one appearance were contemporaries of the New Testament book describing the appearance. That is testimony not opinion, NOT CONCENSUS.
3 Slavery in America PROVES concensus can be totally wrong! Thank you for providing another good example for me.
1) The bible is wrong due to internal contradiction and plain error: illegal census errors between the 1 Chron 21 and 2 Sam 24 account. (Who moved david to take the census? Years of famine? Threshing floor owner? Cost of threshing floor? Census headcount?)
2) Paul makes that claim over 25 years after the event.
3) Precisely.
4) Tell me why it isn't? You are making claims from the bible, and then justiyfing it by saying the book says so.
1-False, that is an example of eisegesis, bad interpretation not Biblical contradiction. I exegete the passage in the next post above.
2-Which scholar are you quoting? Epistles were not all that long after Jesus and even if it was 25 years, the witnesses were mostly still alive as cited by Paul. Time doesn't change truth.
3-Thank you
4-36 different authors not a single source, unless, you are admitting that you know there is a GOd and that the Bible is His Holy Word drafted by His inspiration
You sir are deluded. Bad interpretation is a catch-all excuse most christians give in a tight spot while defending nonsense (feel free to exegete the illegal census contradictions, don't just say it is wrong). The claim of "misinterpretation" can be used as a defense for *any* bible contradiction or issue.
A theory that explains everything explains nothing (a theme repeated in the next vid).
You still havent articulated why it is you can use the bible to justify your claims from the bible.
Yeah that is because there are up to 4 authors of the Pentateuch. Different points of view, different agendas, different pressures, and different message. Biblical works are *not* divinely inspired.
'Man can govern himself?' LOL Repeat that in a few years (if we have that long) as we stand on the brink of Nuclear annihilation. Mankind has never developed a weapon they haven't used.
There is a God, and God is Love. All religons have been hijacked by man, which is more proof that we CAN'T govern ourselves. The only reason you're alive is because the men in power believe you to be a good slave. Noone is special to them. None.
Lupo, Time is not a human construct though its measurement is. God IS outside of time, yes. But, He did create time and He will suspend it at what He has call, the end of time.
If you are ominpotent, you can create time and still remain timeless. That is why Jesus identified Himself as God using the name, I AM, which tense meant, I ever was, I am and I ever will be.
Firstly, Jesus did not claim to be god. Cry of misinterpretation all you want, but there are plenty of christians who don't agree with you, and what you believe is no more valid than what they do.
Otherwise, this 'do anything' nature ascribed to your god is mostly just alot of rationalization.
If god exists outside of time, how will he "show his plan in the fullness of time"?
Surely, for a being that exists beyond time, his plan has already come to fruition... In fact, it would have come to fruition at the instant of it's inception.
Ever seen a two year old try to eat peas with a fork?
Lupo's claim is an absurdity based on a false claim. As God created time, He can work within time to reveal His plan in the fullness of time before He ends time. BZeing outside of time does not preclude the Creator fromk stepping into time as a man, Jesus. This is why I do not like responding to lupo's absurd claims. But, I do so to show that he offers NO support for his claims.
Epicurus is wrong as he demands or places an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement on God. His claim does not allow for God's right to work on His timetable. God has declared over 3000 years ago that in the fullness of time and His will, He is going to destroy evil and punish the wicked.
He is neither wicked nor impotent, just sovereign. You cannot demand your will of others. God is not you. God created everything. Ergo, he can take His time to have a greater good at His discretion.
God is whatever and whoever his believers want him to be. He can be as real and personal and intimately involved with your life as you believe.
Not believing for lack of evidence or not for simply avoiding punishment seems to have more substance that telling someone you believe because he spoke to you, or that you feel it in your heart or that you just *know* it.
Arguing from the man-written book that says he is all the things you think he is will not be accepted in any rational argument.
insecure, You must first prove that the Bible is NOT divinely inspired before you can argue from that claim that it is mere man written. Your whole argument fails as it is based on an assupmtion not proved.
Try proving your premises, then, you can make a valid claim. TRY AGAIN.
The Bible offers NO subjective God. Logic and reason demand certain universal requirements for God not some subjective experiential version of Him. TRY AGAIN.
" You must first prove that the Bible is NOT divinely inspired before you can argue from that claim that it is mere man written."
WRONG.
Burden of proof falls on YOU to show proof of the divine, much less that your bible is divinely inspired, much less that it is an accurate reflection of said inspiration.
" Logic and reason demand certain universal requirements for God "
This is failure at logic and reason, along with demonstrating an inability to see perspective.
The bible was written by men. No original piece of manuscript exists, what is left is copies, of copies, of copies, written by fallible men with both unintentional and intentional errors.
Man can govern himself without divine help. The code of hammurabi (written in stone) is evidence of this and can be viewed in the Louvre today.
Funny how that stone conveyance of governance exists, but the text you are telling me to prove is from god doesn't physically exist in original form *anywhere*.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest manuscripts, but, animal skin doesn't last forever. Funny how the copies all match...
The code of Hammurabi is considered an ideal and not necessarily a code that was EVER used in government. Your argument is a spin off of Pan-Babylonianism which was refuted more than 20 years ago.
Man CANNOT govern himself. I offer just the last 2500 years of history as CLEAR EVIDENCE, insecure.
The copies don't match, cursory research on your part will show that.
The code of Hammurabi was written by men to govern people. However you decide to dismiss it doesn't make it cease to exist or preclude it from being reviewed today, quite unlike the biblical manuscripts.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain a near complete copy of the Book of Enoch. Seeing that it discusses in detail the super race of half angels, half humans, I can't imagine why *that* book didn't make it into the canon.
Bologna, cure. List the variants. Copies of the testus receptus and Masoretic Hebrew agree to at least 90%. Variants are usually spelling errors in the TR. NO doctrinal variation or historical variation occur in the copies! Provide an example if you claim otherwise.
Provide a source on the Code of Ham. It was not proven to EVER have been enforced in any history I received & I studied ancient history in HS & college.
We are not discussing apocryphal books, just textual veracity.
Yeah those examples above seem *spot* on (facetious). Simply too many cooks in the kitchen. Hell, even the Pentateuch had at least 4 writers, not just Moses.
With regard to the the Code of Hammurabi, I'm sure it was only written in *stone* to view, but not heed (facetious). Why do you surmise it was written in stone?
You can stick your head in the sand all you want, it doesn't change such existing non-divine historical artifacts and how it can reasonably be assumed they were utilized.
cure, please, take a college level course in ancient history. I have not the time to argue for established positions of historians and against old theories like panBabylonianism that were refuted long ago by nonChristian historians.
I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am going by the available evidence.
You are comparing non-traditional texts to the Masoretic and TR. You are NOT demonstrating anything but your ignorance of textual criticism.
Biblical Christians DO NOT accept the Alexandrian corrupt Nestle Alland text. The KJ Bible was translated from the "Recevied Text", TR in Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew OT text. The Septuigant was not proven to predate Jesus. It is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text.
AGAIN, THERE IS NO DISPARITY IN THE TR OR THE HEBREW TEXTS!
Anyone can show variations in interpretation and translation. But those are NOT over 2000 years old. Your examples do not answer my challenge. The copies of the text agree to better than 90% in the TR and nearly 100% in the Hebrew with variants being spelling errors in Greek or parts of speech not altering content or meaning. There are NO variant teachings in the copies of the TR or the Hebrew Masoretics text.
"Man CANNOT govern himself. I offer just the last 2500 years of history as CLEAR EVIDENCE, insecure."
Actually, the last 2500 years stands as clear evidence that, not only can man govern himself, but that attempts to squeeze your god specifically into the equation leads to very, very bad things.
No, math. Man has claimed to be at his zenith in the last 2500 years. Yet, MORE people have been slaughtered, mass killing is now industriallized. Societies get progressively evil en masse. NOTHING has changed. Dictators, mob rule, war, etc. I suggest you take ancient history and then modern history for comparison. You are absolutely wrong.
What are you, turning a blind eye to the other half of the world?
Given that anything not following your ridiculous moral standard, yeah, the world is getting progressively more 'evil' as the existance of your god is shown to be ever less and less likely. The world is better off for it.
Bad people will rise to power, it happens. Particularly when the people who could stop it are blinded by ignorant ideology or discouraged from acting in expecting it all to randomly end for some reason.
"Epicurus is wrong as he demands or places an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement on God. His claim does not allow for God's right to work on His timetable."
You realize that this is an extreme copout? Even still, this is admitting that god is unwilling to act. Even if you claim that he will in the future, the fact remains that he is unwilling in the present - and has been for the past few millenia.
NO, Math. God is willing to act, has acted and commands all men to act against evil! Just because you will not do what God has commanded and quit doing evil, I can't help it.But, don't blame God for your participation.
It is ludicrous to shake your fist at God for giving you the opportunity to shake your fist at Him.
You didn't even answer my argument.You just denied it. Denial isn't reasonable. It's an intellectual copout, Math!
God is willing to act, eh? Tell me, what has your god done, that other gods don't equally claim right to?
I also forgot that being a decent human being doesn't count for anything in christianity. It's all in belief, right? I'm 'evil' for simply being an Atheist, eh?
Also, how silly is it for me to 'shake my fist' as something that doesn't exist? It's like shaking my fist at santa claus?
Finally, arguments from fallacies don't warrant rebuttal. Make a sensible argument first, eh?
Again, God has stopped some evil, condemned it all and continues to demand that man stop sinning. But, until YOU stop sinning, you can hardly rebuke the rest of the world for its evil let alone God.
Further, God has capped evil and death saying that in the fulness of time when His greater good is complete, He will destroy sin and death in hell along with satan.
Your argument is false as it places an arbitrary time limit on God to act according to your limited and flawed reasoning, math.
That isn't a fallacy, as there is nothing aside from your god's own whim that would have him doing nothing until he feels like it. The only way that argument falters is if there is something preventing god from acting in the now...and you aren't willing to accept that possibility.
Secondly, the fact that I've committed the dire 'sin' of being human does not excuse your god of his own hypocrisy, or his own acts of outright 'evil'.
Unless you condone the killing of children on a whim.
Good video, but one point on the story in Judges 19:22-29. Reading it I don't think he offers a concubine in lieu of his virgin daughter, he offers the concubine AND his virgin daughter in lieu of his male host, whom the mob wants to rape, although only the concubine was given in the end. Either way, the story is vile beyond belief.
The video had me think about a funny trollish joke:
In our religion, we treat women like delicate flowers to take care of.
Now, remember, flowers grow much better when you spread shit on them.
Xgya2000 3 months ago in playlist Autres vidéos de holysinecure
Sister, After watching your video I want to ask 2 Questions.
1. Can you suggest better punishment for the rapist?
if you have made an answer to first question then
2. If somebody raped you or your SISTER, what punishment do you suggest for that person.
I believe that both answers are different that came into your mind. I don't know about the answer of first question that came in your mind, but i know the second answer that you will kill that person who raped you or your sister?
mubinnn 1 year ago
@mubinnn I have 2 more questions.
1. Can you think of a better punishment for a woman raped in a dark alley way than killing her?
2. If so, can you reconcile that difference of opinion with the biblical command to kill her anyway?
Actually, I'd add a thrid.
3. What the hell's your point? That perspective changes emotional response? So what?
IXPrometheusXI 11 months ago
You make so many excellent points here. I have always had a real problem with the bibles stance on the treatment of women. It's a real problem for me now that I have three daughters because I do not want them to think that they are less than men or that they have to be subjected to any kind of inequality or abuse from men. Thanks so much for this.
tazzer4000 1 year ago
@selenadelos What I'm asking you and the uploader, is what incentive did the man have to NOT give up that woman? Put yourself in his shoes before criticizing.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Read your comment back to yourself.
It shows you have a total disregard for human life.
Slavery is wrong, sexism is wrong and rape is wrong.
Sure he could do this it would just mean that he horrible excuse for a human being.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@selenadelos
Nothing I said indicates that I think belief in a god is bad, but I do think that when that belief takes over one's life to the detriment of living a good life, however you define it, then it is bad. For some religion is good as it provides a social environment and confirms the good that is in them.
TheKilgoretrout 1 year ago
It amazes me that in this enlightened age that there are churches like the Wisc. Lutheran Synod that still do not allow women to vote or even talk at church meetings. Or religions like the FLDS that allow polygamy including minors over the woman's choice. How do Christians reconcile this with their claim of marriage being one man-one woman.
Even the Westboro Baptist cult. (OOPS, I meant church) allows its female members to talk.
TheKilgoretrout 1 year ago
@selenadelos I'm critiquing a flawed premise brought about by the uploader. You can go on thinking that the bible is evil and that men hate women, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@selenadelos Ok, that's fine. That's actually a sound argument.
But, I never stated my opinion on the matter. I asked the uploader questions regarding what course of action is best under those circumstances.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@selenadelos Whether someone is mentally deranged or not is typically assessed by a psychiatrist or other mental health professional upon extensive testing. Evidence from medical tests usually suggests whether someone is retarded or not.
Or, if you just want to say you're commenting on my opinion, in that case you haven't used any reason at all. You've just insulted me. You have not used sound reasoning to debunk my claims or to support your own claims, either.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@selenadelos The fact that you're using childish insults in an attempt to defame me without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning says a lot more about your mental state than it does about mine.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@selenadelos Actually, no you didn't say everyone defends each other. You said "you fight the mob to the death". I hate to point out your lack of proficiency in English, but when you're talking to one person, the word "you" is a pronoun that refers specifically and only to that one person to whom you are talking to.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@selenadelos Really? You call me mentally ill while simultaneously, you demonstrate your inability to grasp basic contractions in the English language. You consider people who know how to spell correctly mentally ill? Your argument is that the man should fight and die? Why shouldn't he send the woman out to fight to the death?
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury This is easy. Fighting to defend someone is more moral then having someone else fight for you.
This is basic morality. Now the women could send herself in to fight. But it is her choice wheither to fight or not.
Poor grammer isn't a sign of insanity. The word you are look for is ignorance.
On the other hand, your lack of basic morality is a sign of psychopathy.
Or it could be that you are afraid to challenge your religion.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
Was there a safer course of action for the priest? If he refused to give up anyone, would the mob have alternatively attacked him and all of his tennants? Perhaps he gave up one of his concubines to protect the safety of others.
If so, is it not reasonable to let one person suffer in order to prevent the suffering of numerous others?
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Dude what are you on? If the mob could have kicked all of their asses giving her up wouldn't have changed it. Infact it would make it easier.
KIsama! (There is no way in english to translate that.)
You stupid (read above), masogonistic, weak fool.
If you're going to say something morally unexceptable at least think it through rationally.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
At 3:23, you say: "You might take that action if you held the attitude that she was worth less than a male stranger in your home; as was the culture of the israelites given to them by God."
Can you justify the defilement of the male stranger by the mob? Or would you have to use the same type of "sterile" reasoning which suggests that the man is worth less the woman?
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury If your going to complain about quote minding you shouldn't go right ahead a do it yourself!
Listen to the whole video. Heck just read the part you quoted. She said if you wouldn't do this to a male stranger why would you do it to a women you actually know.
And then there are the rules conserning rape.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@holysinecure
It's not exactly rational, unbiased discourse for one to present minute fragments of text and ask questions that have little to do with the text and are ignorant of the events that occured during or prior to them. In defense of the "believers", perhaps it would be fair to request from you a feasible alternative course of action for the man which would have resulted in less severe consequences. What would you have him do and why?
hhfleury 1 year ago
@holysinecure
Lifting individual sentences or verses from the bible and intentionally using them to grossly misconstrue an entire religion's beliefs or standpoint about women would not garner a crowd of decent people. Wrapping up a spiteful attitude in elaborate vocabulary does not effectively hide the malice of your message from those who may disagree with it.
hhfleury 1 year ago
At 3:13 you ask "Who would give up their daughter to be raped?".
You're implying that the priest did. He didn't. The priest considered the male stranger in his home to be worth more because he could do manual labor for him. The concubine wasn't much of a loss because he already had several other wives -- he only had one man in his house.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Thanks for demonstrating the believer's sterility of reason while justifying a man throwing a female to a rape mob.
holysinecure 1 year ago 13
@holysinecure
You're welcome anytime. I have no problems with you accurately quoting the bible and analyzing its contents. What I have a problem with is your snarky use of biased rhetoric when doing so. Your own personal beliefs have caused you to ask your audience rhetorical questions about events that never happened.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@holysinecure Thanks for demonstrating the (whatever you call yourself)'s denial of evidence while justifying the inquiry of absent events.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury Oh so he is value people by what they can do for him.
So it isn't sexism the priest just has a total lack of regard for human life.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@SuperMerlin100 I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who chooses to attack my character rather than refute what I say.
hhfleury 1 year ago
@hhfleury That's messed up! Its still giving up a woman to be raped! That's like my dad throwing me to a strange man in my house just because he has three daughters and no sons. Are you serious?
PixieSpells 1 year ago
This is completely one-sided and heavily biased. To be fair, you should be pulling more quotes about men and not just the verses that you find convenient for your cause.
I can prove that islam is a religion of pure violence if I pick and choose whatever verses I want from the qu'ran.
snipessssss 1 year ago
@snipessssss Picking and choosing. You can proof islam is insane by read the first 2 pages. God is merciful but he punishs people for things that our his fault.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
@SuperMerlin100 Shut the fuck up and learn to speak english, you stupid fucking terrorist.
snipessssss 1 year ago
@snipessssss What the hell? Argue the point.
All you have to do is read 2 pages and explain how they don't contradict eachother.
Now I'll admit that my spelling wasn't good in my last comment, but how in Earth's name does that make me a "terrorist?
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
Good video. Christians should be ashamed of themselves for endorcing that old idiotic Bible.
Wake up people...it's time...you all agree that the Quran is ancient fiction, right? The Bible is exactly no better.
Harry Potter would have been our religion today if it was written 2000 years ago in the time where people believed anything they were told.
And it would have been a much better religion...
Shame on the human brain's inability to free itself from religious idiocy.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago 4
What is happening at 6:01? Are they burying her alive?
moonprincess3331 2 years ago
That is an excellent video - thanks for posting it.
ramette99 2 years ago
I'm amazed I never thought of the most obvious thing shown by this video.
If God is the absolute source of morality, then the morals he handed down back then should be really nice for everyone - similar to what civilised people know today.
Why did he feel he had to work around the barbaric customs of his chosen people (why did he choose them anyway?)
jazzx251 2 years ago 6
Exactly!
Thanks for the comment.
holysinecure 2 years ago 2
Very good video!
The Bible is total nonsense.
It should be thrown in the trash!
oldfartrants 2 years ago 2
when the bible say's anithyng, about anithyng it is juat sayng what the moron barbarians who writed it. for them. womens were just the reason they were mortals.
THAT'S BARBARIC, and so are every other cristian who says the bible is true!
if they can think for themselfs, and still agree with the bible, they are DISGUSTING BARBARIC PRIMITIVES!
Ryagful 2 years ago 4
Why Women Need Freedom From Religion
A nontract from Freedom From Religion Foundation says many of the same things that you say about how the bible values women. BTW even though I am a male, I consider myself a feminist, i.e one who values women and thinks that they are equal to men. Or maybe as the pigs in Animal Farm say more equal
TheKilgoretrout 2 years ago
I have been banging around the thought of putting something together demonstrating the correlation between Old Testament treatment of women and current Muslim treatment of women within Islam and even Sharia law...but don't hold me to that ;)
holysinecure 2 years ago
Well that's definatly something I'd like to see.
Disthron 2 years ago 3
nice to see im not the only male feminist good of you say so
rob5190 2 years ago 3
I too am a feministic male. I think they are as valuable as men as well. However, I think this stems from my past in Witchcraft. There is much feminine empowerment to be found in that faith, and as such I fail to understand why more women don't turn to Wicca. However, it's silly just like every other religion so where's the help in that, right? But I digress - Women don't need freedom from religion, the entire world does.
Xeletoph 2 years ago 8
i find it funny that with unjust treatment of women and the like christians invoke cultural context. but homosexuality is stilll a sin, no, that applies in every cultural context
arachnophile01 2 years ago 5
perfect!
blaquelotus80 2 years ago
this is absolutely brilliant.
Imorphien 2 years ago
I love Judges 19!!!
I quote it to Christians all the time and I watch their heads spin.
CarpeOmne 2 years ago
Where is it they useally stop?
Yohanthemaster 2 years ago
Sounds like a bunch of Sh*t!!! haha keep trying though it's quite hilarious.
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
If you have something subtantive to add or a specific idea or thought from the video you would like to refute, please do.
I am glad you liked it.
holysinecure 2 years ago
Hah! I love it when people can't formulate a real argument so they just spout profanities and abuse. Well done.
monkeymox 2 years ago
I don't need to because all of the close minded would stick with their story. So why would I even try? You can't fix stupid.
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
A common misconception. Not believing in something doesn't make you closed minded. I'm assuming you're a Christian, in which case your closed minded against Ra, Buddha, Thor and Odin. I'm also going to assume you're closed minded against pixies and dragons. Open mindedness doesn't mean believing whatever drivel we're presented with, it means a willingness to reconsider ideas based on the available evidence. Not believing in God because the evidence is insufficient is not closed minded.
monkeymox 2 years ago 3
Lol nope not a christian. I believe there is a truth in every religion. Not just one religion is all right. Open Minded-adjective
1.having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2.unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.
There is plenty of evidence, but like I said, some get it some don't. Faith also plays a role, with out fate, in a sense they are close minded to NEW ideas. I
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
f you can't rely on faith as an alternative this is like not putting in you're faith to trust you're g/f or b/f to not cheat on you.
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
Yes, open-mindedness means being receptive to new ideas. But all that means is a willingness to consider them, it doesn't mean they have to be accepted. I am willing to consider new ideas if presented with valid evidence, of which there is none for any religion. The only 'eveidence; I have ever heard is subjective, i.e. personal experience. You yourself said impartiality is a part of being open minded, which means only objective evidence is valid.
monkeymox 2 years ago
I apologise for automatically assuming you're Christian, it was the username lol.
Faith is not an alternative to objective evidence. When we say we trust someone, we do base that on subjective experience, but we could never say trust is absolute. There is always the possibility they could betray us. But for statements of fact, the truth must by nature be absolute, and that means only objective evidence, not faith, can be considered. Faith is, after all, guesswork.
monkeymox 2 years ago
It's cool, I just made up this name real fast because I wanted an account lol. Well I guess maybe that open mindedness (if that is even a word) can be a different meaning to other people. So maybe open mindedness is not the word I am looking for...I can understand that you need evidence, I myself use to be a skeptic in the paranormal until I had an experience so I apologize for being rude.
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
Lol I'm the other way around! I used to count myself as a pagan, because it was a belief system I could tailor to what I 'felt' was right, and it was a better than
organised religion. Then I kind of woke up one day and said "I don't actually have to believe in anything, and what reasons do I have to believe this stuff anyway?" I basically dismissed my own personal experiences as delusions. It's funny how many people I've met on YouTube who've gone from sceptic to believer or vice-versa.
monkeymox 2 years ago
Yeah, it's all very confusing, I have experienced weird things as much I hate to admit it, so I really can't say nor prove what I saw to you or anything. You will have to go ghost hunting with me lol!
JJJJJESUS 2 years ago
Excellent, superb video. Maybe this will get the faithful to rethink their position. An excellent series that is definitely needed.
ingodidoubt 2 years ago 5
You are doing a good job!
jtslcjtslc 2 years ago
Thank you so much for these videos. I can't stop watching them. Compelling, well-done, and somewhat respectful, in the sense that they challenge one's intellect and true sense of morality - for which one obviously does not need a god. This is truly a better use for youtube than 90% of what's here.
olnoseven 2 years ago
Why bother going into all this details to prove the bible is just a fiction? Seems like a waste of time because christians won't listen and athiest already know the truth.
RDJim 2 years ago
We have received messages from believers on the fence thanking us for helping them on their journey of doubt. Some are individuals, some are parents who are asking how to deal with children who won't understand their parents' transition until they are much older.
The bottom line is we thought that if we can affect just one person, we would have considered this effort a success. Given the amount of these types of messages we have received, this series has been a resounding success.
holysinecure 2 years ago
Just in case you haven't already done so. Read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood. Loved that book.... It depicts a society where fundamentalist Christians would have taken over.... and women are stripped of their rights in a short period of time.
jawtheshark 2 years ago
Thanks for the videos. I used to be a Jehovah's Witness and was indoctrinate to love this monster. And I actually did. After watching this, I have nothing but contempt for this thing and what it represents.
ronnieboy3 2 years ago 2
At the risk of sounding completely corny, deconverting is almost like breaking up with your partner.
You share intimacy with your purported creator. You bare your soul in thought, study, prayer, and devotion in your life. This creator is there in your greatest high and lowest low. You feel like you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.
Then you find out it was a delusion.
Despite knowing it wasn't real, it doesn't make it any less heartwrenching when its over.
holysinecure 2 years ago
...and just like in relationships with real people that end because of deception, there is usually anger, regret, and contempt for the other party.
Realizing you are having all these emotions for something that doesn't exist is disturbing.
Consequently, while I agree with a lot of what Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett have to say, I think a little more understanding and compassion should be used when in discussions with believers. Not everyone is charlatan using religion for gain.
holysinecure 2 years ago
I'd say good for you but ronnie please be sensible. According to your statment and the one of atheists like myself, god is not evil for he does not exist. Do not say you were taught to love a monster. The only monsters in this situation were the men who wrote the bible at the time. And back then, it wasn't monstrous. The videos claim "does this mean morality is subjective"? yes, yes it is.
Judgey33 2 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago 2
once u realize there is no god, everything just makes so much sense!
who's with me??
LordHines420 2 years ago 18
I'm definitely with you, except I would say there are no gods rather than there is no god.
PluralOfEverything 2 years ago
Absolutely!
There is less to hinder your intellectual and/or moral processes.
KARIN094 2 years ago
@LordHines420 I am not going to try to convince you that there is a god or anything like that because who am I to say what's the truth? But who are you to that also? The fact is though that its not religion that makes everything screwed up...its the people that manage to distort everything.
PixieSpells 1 year ago
all this has one explication:
all ancient and Dark Age civilizations were
patriarchal!
it's that simple!
the bible was made by arogant humans!
in that times, males were dominant!
Ryagful 2 years ago 2
7:12 At least killing the guy that raped your wife makes sense lol.
anthonzi 2 years ago
5:20 re: newborns: Males have "riskier" genes than females, so I don't see how this would not to them anymore in old age than at birth. The explanation for this difference is again found in differential reproduction.
anthonzi 2 years ago
An all-powerful God would never have made women weaker than a man. The dominance of Men in human society is in fact evidence for evolution.
anthonzi 2 years ago 3
just got linked to the series from the channel of freethinker , i think this video has mostly valid points (if any wrong) it points out to the fun cristians who think we have no ''values'' and they do. also quite a bit of the info in this video was unknown to me and i do enjoy well not enjoy but you most likely know what i mean.
roflschofel 2 years ago
BIBLE FAIL
deabrat 2 years ago 3
Why would god give his own children suffering, when he knows this will happen? if he knew beforehand what our life, and destine would be, why, would a man of such power and knowledge give humans these choices?
if you are a god with miracles, and want peace and love, why would he create this for us? why couldnt he give us love and peace? why would he allow evil on this earth? just some curious questions from my point of view....love and peace to all!
tyrahk 2 years ago 2
This is because the BIBLE is not the word of GOD.
JudgeD007 2 years ago 5
Wonderful series! Please keep up this work! I hope some other fundamentalists actually watch this and start to think. 5* and subscribed
Valvallaria 3 years ago 2
great video. It's not the most pleasant subject matter, but it needs to be discussed, and not ignored.
ndjarnag 3 years ago
Thank God Jesus came along since the Gentiles would have been left out in the cold with God.
Still the Jesus folowers, or Christians, respect the Jews and the 10 commandments, theres simply no other way. As far as I know, maby of those archaeic rules are no longer followed.
nugfingr 3 years ago
This is complete crap. Until a few decades ago, the official Catholic view was that Jews were to be reviled because their ancestors killed Jebus. Now it's just the unofficial view.
As for the 10 commandments, the ones actually incorporated into the Covenant are not the ones you think they are. The tenth commandment in the Covenant is to not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. Which is why orthodox Jews will not combine meat with dairy in the same meal - all 500+ rules are obeyed.
bdf2718 3 years ago
If hearing the word "magic" associated with speaking complex organisms into existence is offensive to you, then you are being unreasonable and this conversation will now end.
Thanks for your erstwhile contributions to this dialog.
holysinecure 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Also, inecure, as usual you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along, insulting CHristians. You threw out that slur against Christianity ("magic") then get offended when I answer bck firmly. If you are going to be insulting, you had better be able to take as well as you give. I do not intend to allow you to get by with any more insults. You have not earned the right to be answered civilly even though I have been doing so for some time. Be polite or grow some thinck skin.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Sounds like mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious, but please continue with the other contradictions as I haven't seen any reasonable explanations yet (though many believers have been asked).
holysinecure 3 years ago
The claim of the variation in accounts of the census of David is false. The text just in the English makes that clear though a look at the Hebrew does as well.
The "he" in question is not capitallized. satan moved or tempted David. The Bible states clearly that God tempts no man nor can he tempt any with sin. Only satan tempts men. The scripture proves this interpretation in the latter account which provides the name of the tempter. Any action on God's part was the allowance of the temptation
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
the bible is an eclectic work of the ages just because one aurthor writes something it doesn't mean another author whose work was bound with other works from other authors is responsible for those authors words
i can easily glue mien kampf with the speeches of ghandi, it doesn't mean Gandhi would approve
another thing even Caril Jung pointed this out the old testament accounts for two gods, Jehovah and Elohim one calls himself the "lord" the other "I am I am"
godscuttingyoudown 3 years ago
even in the book of Amos acounts for god telling the Hebrew people because they worshipped the other god he will not longer protect them.
this is not a search for truth but more atheist just looking for an excuse to nurture their anger.
godscuttingyoudown 3 years ago
Reason, logic, and scrutiny scare most Christians. It makes them uncomfortable because it exposes the fallacies of their beliefs thereby intensifying their cognitive dissonance.
Less than 12 months ago, we were bible loving, we-are-the-only-ones-going-to-Heaven believers. No negative events occurred in our lives to precipitate our deconversion. Simply opening our eyes, reading what the bible says, and using our logic, reason, and reality exposed its errant nature.
No anger here.
holysinecure 3 years ago
They do not scare Christians at all. Our faith is based on the Logos not assumption or irrationality. The problem is that in dialoging with atheists, the atheists refuse to face the logical conclusions of their assumptions and the logical contradictions of their faith.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
The difference between believers and non-believers is that our beliefs comport with reality and meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard of truth.
Believers rely on wishful thinking and logical gymnastics with regard to bronze age writings they consider divine and worthy of adherence.
holysinecure 3 years ago
You have no beliefs founded on fact. You deny evidence to the contrary of your views. That is not comporting to reality, it is sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "nanananana I can't hear you". That is not reason, it is intellectual fraud.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
My beliefs comport with reality and what can be demonstrably proven, not personal revelation, emotion, or an elaborate framework of apologetics that support bronze age human wisdom.
On the contrary, it is the believer that has his or her fingers in their ears saying "nanananana I can't hear you" to the mountains of scientific evidence in support of evolution, the age of this planet, the age of this universe, and the origins of life which are all contradicted by your bronze age tome of wisdom.
holysinecure 3 years ago
1-You are lying or deluded as you are ignoring history and accepted facts as well as holding to a negative which CANNOT be proved. You deny fact and claim that because the facts are 2000 years old they are less relevant. Not science there, bub.
2-You are holding to blind faith in a theological doctrine that can NEVER be proven. That is NOT scientific or logical. That is cultic faith in the hopeless. Unlike us, you ignore logic, science and philosophy. That is intellectual suicide & blindness
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Unforunately, your accepted facts only play well with other christians as they're the only ones that will overlook their implausibility, unfalsifiability, and ridiculousness.
I believe that science gives plausible, testable explanations for many important topics such as evolution, age of the earth, age of the universe and the origins of life with room for further improvement. The answers for which contradict your source document.
I'll take that over magic and imaginary friends any day.
holysinecure 3 years ago
No magic and clearly you are "running home to mommy" by your switching subjects when I clearly answered your false claims and bad rebuttal, inecure. No shame, it is the common practice of God deniers to use smoke and mirrors like in the Wizard of OZ, "ignore the man behind the curtain" the argument is really true. Just keep looking at the big facade and all the smoke and noise... LOL
Christians do NOT accept magic and have NOTHING in common with magic or even atheist logic, mere parlor tricks
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
You must be unaware of how god is said in the bible to have spoken everything (including complex organisms) into existence out of thin air which by definition is an incantation.
I am responding to your nonsense, if you want to jump from topic to topic I will follow, but don't do that and then accuse *me* of changing the subject.
If you continue to take this discussion into a non-civil tone, I will end it. Please stay on point and avoid offensive statements that do not contribute.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Again you reveal your lack of knowledge, inecure. Incantations are uttered either to a spirit (witchcraft) or in appeal to a spiritual law that would cause the desired effect at the utterance (Wicca/theosophy/spiritism). God spoke meant that He was creating by mere assent and proclamation NOT by magic. You are wrong again.
I do not suffer your sophmoric antics gladly. You attack side issues hoping to find an error in my claims & there aren't any. Stop making bogus claims and I'll shut up.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Watch AronRa's videos on Foundational Falsehoods on Creationism for an explanation on why speaking/willing/assenting objects into existence is magic by definition.
It is magic whether you care to admit to it or not.
If you can see why a genie making things appear out of thin air is magic, then you should understand why a purportedly divine being doing it is precisely the same thing.
holysinecure 3 years ago
There's not a penny's worth of difference between "abradacabra" or "let there be light".
The fact that you don't understand that speaks volumes as to your capacity to grow and mature.
middlekk 3 years ago 4
Thanks for your comments middlekk.
Unfortunately, ChristianVoice08 won't be continuing this conversation.
holysinecure 3 years ago
"'He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.
Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you'"
Proverbs 9:7-8
I just felt like blaubling that out there. Although I do agree with you.
bluago 3 years ago
Sam Harris said it well in "Letter to a Christian Nation":
"The choice before us is simple: we can either have a 21st century conversation about morality and human well-being - a conversation in which we avail ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to a 1st century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible. Why would anyone want to take the latter approach?"
holysinecure 3 years ago
They must if they want any real meaning! Dialog is dialog. Equivocation and arbitrarily moving the lines in the sand is meaningless. Unless you have something carved in stone by an immutable unchanging source, you have nothing solid to base your world view on. If you want to play mental games and try and ease your conscience and justify your rebellion against God, DO IT. He gave you free will to choose. But, don't murder someone then try and justify it by writing changing rules...
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Just because you require some special meaning in your life that extends beyond altruistic participation with humanity and this planet doesn't prove the existence or even the necessity of an authoritative supernatural deity.
It just makes you feel better, it gives you purpose, and helps your life make more sense.
But, those perceived emotional benefits do not make your assumptions true, or worthy of recognition, or worthy of adherence.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Not an argument, sinecure. At most an ad hominem. My argument in based in fact and logic not speculation or emotional appeals. Try again or cede the debate.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
(Don't give up, you have shown such stamina!)
Wait, you say people should listen to 1st century discourse instead of availing ourselves of the entirety of human discourse *if* they want any "real meaning".
If what I say about you requiring some special meaning specifically isn't true, how do you justify that remark based on "facts and logic" (I'll add 'which comports with reality and meets the beyond reasonable doubt measure of truth')?
holysinecure 3 years ago
NOTHING after the eyewitness accounts can alter or change the accounts unless a contemporary could refute. None did. THerefore, there is no benefit from reinterpreting what is evidence when no new evidence from that account can be uncovered. I wasn't there. I have to accept the accounts of martyrs who were there and were willing to die rather than lie about what they saw. necure, you are appealing to the wrong authority, fallacy - ad verecudium
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Quite a difficult task for events that occured decades or longer after the purported events.
That being said, what you describe as "evidence" is simply insufficient, flawed, imperfect, and unworthy of adherence in my opinion.
What you personally are willing to accept as "evidence" and the standards I employ are clearly not the same.
For what its worth, martyrs are made daily in the middle east. Does their willingess to die for their religious beliefs make what they believe true?
holysinecure 3 years ago
Bull, cure. If Jesus was a fraud, there would have been dozens of writings disproving him in his time. The fact that thousands of people accepted Him as God 40 days after His resurrection is clear that NO contemporary of His reported Him a fraud. Jesus was the talk of Jerusalem. Read a book. Give me an address and I'll send you some money to buy a clue.
Also, muslim martyrs are sincerely deceived. They ARE NOT witnesses of Mohammed. Get the facts straight and the definitions. Apples to apples
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Your last statement reveals your lack of objectivity. Muslims are just as convinced as you are from their holy writings that they believe the *real* truth and you (the christian) are wrong & bound for destruction.
*The fact that thousands of people accepted Him as God 40 days after His resurrection is clear..*
Popular opinion does not prove merit or truth. Think antebellum slavery in early american history.
Notwithstanding the fact that you are justifying from the document in question.
holysinecure 3 years ago
You make my point for me, inecure.
1 Islam & the Kuran are false due to internal contradiction & plain error (1 sorah says God created in 6 days, the other in 8 days)
2 Over 500 witnesses of one appearance were contemporaries of the New Testament book describing the appearance. That is testimony not opinion, NOT CONCENSUS.
3 Slavery in America PROVES concensus can be totally wrong! Thank you for providing another good example for me.
4 Quoting the Bible IS NOT circular reasoning!
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Thanks for making this an easy discussion.
1) The bible is wrong due to internal contradiction and plain error: illegal census errors between the 1 Chron 21 and 2 Sam 24 account. (Who moved david to take the census? Years of famine? Threshing floor owner? Cost of threshing floor? Census headcount?)
2) Paul makes that claim over 25 years after the event.
3) Precisely.
4) Tell me why it isn't? You are making claims from the bible, and then justiyfing it by saying the book says so.
holysinecure 3 years ago
1-False, that is an example of eisegesis, bad interpretation not Biblical contradiction. I exegete the passage in the next post above.
2-Which scholar are you quoting? Epistles were not all that long after Jesus and even if it was 25 years, the witnesses were mostly still alive as cited by Paul. Time doesn't change truth.
3-Thank you
4-36 different authors not a single source, unless, you are admitting that you know there is a GOd and that the Bible is His Holy Word drafted by His inspiration
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
You sir are deluded. Bad interpretation is a catch-all excuse most christians give in a tight spot while defending nonsense (feel free to exegete the illegal census contradictions, don't just say it is wrong). The claim of "misinterpretation" can be used as a defense for *any* bible contradiction or issue.
A theory that explains everything explains nothing (a theme repeated in the next vid).
You still havent articulated why it is you can use the bible to justify your claims from the bible.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Yeah that is because there are up to 4 authors of the Pentateuch. Different points of view, different agendas, different pressures, and different message. Biblical works are *not* divinely inspired.
holysinecure 3 years ago
What if the woman is dumb? It sickens me to the core how dumb these bible rules are..
schinth 3 years ago
Mute, you mean?
Unable to speak?
Huh... well... I guess she goes to hell.
Serves her right for being born differently, the whore.
(Warning the above contains sarcasm. For external use only.)
lupocephalic 3 years ago
'Man can govern himself?' LOL Repeat that in a few years (if we have that long) as we stand on the brink of Nuclear annihilation. Mankind has never developed a weapon they haven't used.
There is a God, and God is Love. All religons have been hijacked by man, which is more proof that we CAN'T govern ourselves. The only reason you're alive is because the men in power believe you to be a good slave. Noone is special to them. None.
poochz1 3 years ago
Lupo, Time is not a human construct though its measurement is. God IS outside of time, yes. But, He did create time and He will suspend it at what He has call, the end of time.
If you are ominpotent, you can create time and still remain timeless. That is why Jesus identified Himself as God using the name, I AM, which tense meant, I ever was, I am and I ever will be.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
I am who I am =/= I am god
Firstly, Jesus did not claim to be god. Cry of misinterpretation all you want, but there are plenty of christians who don't agree with you, and what you believe is no more valid than what they do.
Otherwise, this 'do anything' nature ascribed to your god is mostly just alot of rationalization.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Time requires an observer.
lupocephalic 3 years ago
If god exists outside of time, how will he "show his plan in the fullness of time"?
Surely, for a being that exists beyond time, his plan has already come to fruition... In fact, it would have come to fruition at the instant of it's inception.
Ever seen a two year old try to eat peas with a fork?
That'd be you stabbing at 'proof of god'.
Amusing for a while... eventually annoying.
Get a spoon, for the love of fuck.
lupocephalic 3 years ago
Lupo's claim is an absurdity based on a false claim. As God created time, He can work within time to reveal His plan in the fullness of time before He ends time. BZeing outside of time does not preclude the Creator fromk stepping into time as a man, Jesus. This is why I do not like responding to lupo's absurd claims. But, I do so to show that he offers NO support for his claims.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
LOL!!!
No support for MY claims?
Ok then... captain claim... Show the supporting evidence that shows God created time.
Fuck off you lack-wit.
I own you.
lupocephalic 3 years ago
Epicurus is wrong as he demands or places an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement on God. His claim does not allow for God's right to work on His timetable. God has declared over 3000 years ago that in the fullness of time and His will, He is going to destroy evil and punish the wicked.
He is neither wicked nor impotent, just sovereign. You cannot demand your will of others. God is not you. God created everything. Ergo, he can take His time to have a greater good at His discretion.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
As can Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Get thee hence, Dawkinite, if you cannot offer a real argument. lol
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
God is whatever and whoever his believers want him to be. He can be as real and personal and intimately involved with your life as you believe.
Not believing for lack of evidence or not for simply avoiding punishment seems to have more substance that telling someone you believe because he spoke to you, or that you feel it in your heart or that you just *know* it.
Arguing from the man-written book that says he is all the things you think he is will not be accepted in any rational argument.
holysinecure 3 years ago
insecure, You must first prove that the Bible is NOT divinely inspired before you can argue from that claim that it is mere man written. Your whole argument fails as it is based on an assupmtion not proved.
Try proving your premises, then, you can make a valid claim. TRY AGAIN.
The Bible offers NO subjective God. Logic and reason demand certain universal requirements for God not some subjective experiential version of Him. TRY AGAIN.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
" You must first prove that the Bible is NOT divinely inspired before you can argue from that claim that it is mere man written."
WRONG.
Burden of proof falls on YOU to show proof of the divine, much less that your bible is divinely inspired, much less that it is an accurate reflection of said inspiration.
" Logic and reason demand certain universal requirements for God "
This is failure at logic and reason, along with demonstrating an inability to see perspective.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
The bible was written by men. No original piece of manuscript exists, what is left is copies, of copies, of copies, written by fallible men with both unintentional and intentional errors.
Man can govern himself without divine help. The code of hammurabi (written in stone) is evidence of this and can be viewed in the Louvre today.
Funny how that stone conveyance of governance exists, but the text you are telling me to prove is from god doesn't physically exist in original form *anywhere*.
holysinecure 3 years ago
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest manuscripts, but, animal skin doesn't last forever. Funny how the copies all match...
The code of Hammurabi is considered an ideal and not necessarily a code that was EVER used in government. Your argument is a spin off of Pan-Babylonianism which was refuted more than 20 years ago.
Man CANNOT govern himself. I offer just the last 2500 years of history as CLEAR EVIDENCE, insecure.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
The copies don't match, cursory research on your part will show that.
The code of Hammurabi was written by men to govern people. However you decide to dismiss it doesn't make it cease to exist or preclude it from being reviewed today, quite unlike the biblical manuscripts.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain a near complete copy of the Book of Enoch. Seeing that it discusses in detail the super race of half angels, half humans, I can't imagine why *that* book didn't make it into the canon.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Bologna, cure. List the variants. Copies of the testus receptus and Masoretic Hebrew agree to at least 90%. Variants are usually spelling errors in the TR. NO doctrinal variation or historical variation occur in the copies! Provide an example if you claim otherwise.
Provide a source on the Code of Ham. It was not proven to EVER have been enforced in any history I received & I studied ancient history in HS & college.
We are not discussing apocryphal books, just textual veracity.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Gen 4:13
LXX:And Cain said to the Lord God, My crime is too great for me to be forgiven
MT:And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear
Psalm 39/40:6
LXX:Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for me
MT:Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears has thou opened
Mark 10:24
Alex:How hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
Byz:How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!
holysinecure 3 years ago
Yeah those examples above seem *spot* on (facetious). Simply too many cooks in the kitchen. Hell, even the Pentateuch had at least 4 writers, not just Moses.
With regard to the the Code of Hammurabi, I'm sure it was only written in *stone* to view, but not heed (facetious). Why do you surmise it was written in stone?
You can stick your head in the sand all you want, it doesn't change such existing non-divine historical artifacts and how it can reasonably be assumed they were utilized.
holysinecure 3 years ago
cure, please, take a college level course in ancient history. I have not the time to argue for established positions of historians and against old theories like panBabylonianism that were refuted long ago by nonChristian historians.
I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am going by the available evidence.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
You are comparing non-traditional texts to the Masoretic and TR. You are NOT demonstrating anything but your ignorance of textual criticism.
Biblical Christians DO NOT accept the Alexandrian corrupt Nestle Alland text. The KJ Bible was translated from the "Recevied Text", TR in Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew OT text. The Septuigant was not proven to predate Jesus. It is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text.
AGAIN, THERE IS NO DISPARITY IN THE TR OR THE HEBREW TEXTS!
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
Anyone can show variations in interpretation and translation. But those are NOT over 2000 years old. Your examples do not answer my challenge. The copies of the text agree to better than 90% in the TR and nearly 100% in the Hebrew with variants being spelling errors in Greek or parts of speech not altering content or meaning. There are NO variant teachings in the copies of the TR or the Hebrew Masoretics text.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
"Man CANNOT govern himself. I offer just the last 2500 years of history as CLEAR EVIDENCE, insecure."
Actually, the last 2500 years stands as clear evidence that, not only can man govern himself, but that attempts to squeeze your god specifically into the equation leads to very, very bad things.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
No, math. Man has claimed to be at his zenith in the last 2500 years. Yet, MORE people have been slaughtered, mass killing is now industriallized. Societies get progressively evil en masse. NOTHING has changed. Dictators, mob rule, war, etc. I suggest you take ancient history and then modern history for comparison. You are absolutely wrong.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
What are you, turning a blind eye to the other half of the world?
Given that anything not following your ridiculous moral standard, yeah, the world is getting progressively more 'evil' as the existance of your god is shown to be ever less and less likely. The world is better off for it.
Bad people will rise to power, it happens. Particularly when the people who could stop it are blinded by ignorant ideology or discouraged from acting in expecting it all to randomly end for some reason.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
"Epicurus is wrong as he demands or places an unreasonable and arbitrary requirement on God. His claim does not allow for God's right to work on His timetable."
You realize that this is an extreme copout? Even still, this is admitting that god is unwilling to act. Even if you claim that he will in the future, the fact remains that he is unwilling in the present - and has been for the past few millenia.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
NO, Math. God is willing to act, has acted and commands all men to act against evil! Just because you will not do what God has commanded and quit doing evil, I can't help it.But, don't blame God for your participation.
It is ludicrous to shake your fist at God for giving you the opportunity to shake your fist at Him.
You didn't even answer my argument.You just denied it. Denial isn't reasonable. It's an intellectual copout, Math!
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
God is willing to act, eh? Tell me, what has your god done, that other gods don't equally claim right to?
I also forgot that being a decent human being doesn't count for anything in christianity. It's all in belief, right? I'm 'evil' for simply being an Atheist, eh?
Also, how silly is it for me to 'shake my fist' as something that doesn't exist? It's like shaking my fist at santa claus?
Finally, arguments from fallacies don't warrant rebuttal. Make a sensible argument first, eh?
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Again, God has stopped some evil, condemned it all and continues to demand that man stop sinning. But, until YOU stop sinning, you can hardly rebuke the rest of the world for its evil let alone God.
Further, God has capped evil and death saying that in the fulness of time when His greater good is complete, He will destroy sin and death in hell along with satan.
Your argument is false as it places an arbitrary time limit on God to act according to your limited and flawed reasoning, math.
ChristianVoice08 3 years ago
That isn't a fallacy, as there is nothing aside from your god's own whim that would have him doing nothing until he feels like it. The only way that argument falters is if there is something preventing god from acting in the now...and you aren't willing to accept that possibility.
Secondly, the fact that I've committed the dire 'sin' of being human does not excuse your god of his own hypocrisy, or his own acts of outright 'evil'.
Unless you condone the killing of children on a whim.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Time does not exist for omniscient omnipotent omnipresent beings.
Time is a human construct.
lupocephalic 3 years ago
Good video, but one point on the story in Judges 19:22-29. Reading it I don't think he offers a concubine in lieu of his virgin daughter, he offers the concubine AND his virgin daughter in lieu of his male host, whom the mob wants to rape, although only the concubine was given in the end. Either way, the story is vile beyond belief.
Nuckpang 3 years ago
You are correct. We ran out of time on our 10 minute recap and flubbed that line up on the rewrite.
Thanks, I'll add an annotation.
holysinecure 3 years ago
Wow, such a speedy reply I didn't even have time to rebutt myself, I'm impressed ;)
Nuckpang 3 years ago
Oh, my apologies, later on you talk about him offering his daughter as well, I must have misheard. My bad.
Nuckpang 3 years ago
We did say it later because the original script was more thorough in the description. Editing for size got us there :(
Thanks again ;)
holysinecure 3 years ago
Excellent job!
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
Thanks ToddAllenGates. Having three girls, we were very much inspired to do our best with this part of the series.
holysinecure 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes