I respect all efforts at further education. I am also a college graduate crw! And it was not theology. 122 videos suggest free time. The 35th verse of the 11th chapter of the book of judges. It makes the matter clear. When can I look for a reply? Please estimate!
@blueasblueis Oh, I know it was not in theology. No, 122 videos does not necessarily suggest "free time." Better time management, perhaps. But not necessarily free time. Now if you want to talk about video counts and "free time," let's talk about some atheists who have done more than double that amount of videos. I have answered your question from Scripture.
Still waiting for you to explain the 35th verse of the chapter. You know! Where jephthah tears his clothes. This clearly indicates he thought someone close to him was dead. Why are you scared to respond, crw?
@blueasblueis What you apparently did not take the time to research is that when people in ancient times tore their clothes, it did not necessarily mean someone had died. Please read 2 Kings 5:7 as a clear example. The ancient people tore their clothes for various reasons, but in the context of the passage in question, no one was dead, and there is no clear indication that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, especially in light of the fact that God forbid such an action years prior.
Good evening crw! Still too scared to answer my question about the 35th verse of 11th chap of judges I see. No courage at all. Par for the course. Keep serving massah's god.
@blueasblueis I clearly explain on my main channel why it takes time for me to answer comments. Now if you have a problem with reading, I suggest the nearest library or college prep department. As a grad student, my first priority is to my classes. There is no fear here.
Say crw! Tell me. Why do you embrace massah's religion? Kidnapped by fellow muslims, transported in ships owned by jews and tortured and worked to death by christians. Sad.
@blueasblueis What you call the "massah's" religion is a nonsense claim by people ignorant of the fact that the Bible is an eastern book, not western, and that most of the doctrines of Christianity were formulated or taught by Africans like Athanasius and St. Augustine. What's sad is that people still promote the "massah's religion" myth in ignorance.
You ignore the 35th verse-where jephthah rents his clothes. Jews do that to this day when someone close dies. ADDENDUM You are quite the coward CRW! The fact that you did not answer or post that comment last time speaks volumes. Like most thumpers you run when confronted with the actual text.
@blueasblueis No, you again do not understand the text you read. Learn this...people like myself who spend years studying the Bible, even to the original languages and historical context, do know the Bible better than those who just pick up an English Bible and read a passage out of context with little to no study at all.
@blueasblueis No. You need to study the Bible to understand what this indicates historically. I already pointed out in another post that this action does NOT always indicate someone's death in the Bible or Biblical times.
You ignore the 35th verse. Why would jephthah 'rent his clothes'? Jews still do this when someone has died. Do you ever wish your 'holy book' was less evil?
@blueasblueis No, what I wish is that people would learn the meaning of words like "context." Distorting literature to make it "evil" when it isn't is nonsense.
most jews see it as a he offered up his daughter. they are wrong too? even if it was "or" that brings more confusion b/c we don't know which one he did.
@reduciblycomplex Truth is not determined by majority vote or consensus. The TEXT does not overtly say a sacrifice took place. Instead, there is this emphasis on her sexual status.
@TRUTHERish No, what's clearly delusional is ignoring what the text says to make up what it does not say. The text does not say, "and he sacrificed her." If it did, there would be no argument, and there would have been no argument down through the centuries.
All those hoops to jump through to try to make the text say something it clearly does not. CRoadwarrior can you turn your skills to Leviticus 20:13 to show that God doesn't want us to kill Homosexuals? I would watch that video.
@TheTomtompiper LOL. I would like your definition of "clearly." The TEXT does NOT "clearly" say what you assume. Where are the words, "And he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to Yahweh"? Give me the verse on that one, because I know and you know it's NOT there. And even if it were there, that would not mean it was acceptable to God, since we know that Yahweh had forbidden such practices long before Jephthah's time. So there are no "hoops" here. Just hermeneutics.
Good video, my take on the and/or portion is that regardless whether it's truely translated as "and" or as "or" neither proves that a human burnt offering was performed. The verses clearly refer to her virginity not her life and that the giving to the Lord from the Bible refers to the Jepthath's giving her daughter as a virgin to serve the Lord in the tabernacle for her entire life, that she would devote herself as a virgin in the tabernacle worshipping God which was a common practice in OT.
The nonsense that is stupid is you can't see that it is inconsistent because it is a fable written by many men and not an omniscient deity. You would rather make stuff up, and or twist the bible because of how horrendous it is.
@FIRSTGLADI8R No, the nonesense is coming on my page with claims that have no scholarly support or understanding based on credible research into the literature. The true twisting is in your own mind, as I explained in detail and from the original Hebrew my view.
Oh please, you are trying to impose some sort of consistancy to the bible... there is none. You are assigning your morals to a being that is described killing millions by his own will. It all becomes far more simple when you realize the truth, these books were written by a bunch of bronze inbred idiots.
My problem here, is that EVERYONE can do exactly what you just did. Dissect every word, find a reference somewhere to it by a "scholar" of some kind to lend to it the meaning you need it to have, to say what YOU want it to say. I'm not saying either of you is right about what this story really says, and the bible has been "versionized" to fit many beliefs. What my problem is here, is the way it's picked apart to justify behavior and some of it bad , control & separate people and self promote.
@kellylundberg What you ignore is the fact that there is such a thing as "truth" and "error," and that there is objective truth and facts to be discerned. I bring out Biblical facts that most do not consider. And there are legitimate and illegitimate scholars, and there are people who make claims based on no scholarship. There is nothing wrong with going into details in order to understand a passage.
@CRoadwarrior Truth can be in many fictional texts, doesn't make em real. As for "legitimate and illegitimate scholars" that is a matter of opinion as well depending on where you were born, and what faith you were indoctrinated into. What a pickle we r in huh? Seems the only way it ever gets solved is spilling blood.
@kellylundberg But your invalid working assumption is that the texts are "ficitional." And truth being in a text doesn't make it fictional. That there are legitimate and illegitmate scholars is not a matter of opinion. That is as axiomatic as is the fact that there are real and fake doctors, and some more competant than others in just about every field of expertise there is. If you don't know basic facts like these, that does explain many things.
@kaox44 No, you're the one ignoring the facts that disprove your belief that it was even a sacrifice in the text. The text does not make that claim. If so, prove it from the text. Otherwise, YOU fail.
On a more positive and friendly note though, after reading the scriptures for myself and mulling over the story of Jephthah, I must concede that you have persuaded me that Jephthah's daughter was not literally a human sacrifice. Though, if I were in her position, I'd be more concerned with losing my virginity than bewailing it =P. Seriously though, I still must wonder why God requires sacrifices if everything in creation is already his to begin with. Why bother with the concept at all?
@Lehigh2011 Sorry for the delayed response, but things have been crazy on my end. I appreciate the concession. As for why God requires sacrifices, the Bible does not overtly give us that answer, but part of it has to do with how God deals with sin. The wages of sin is death. All humans are sinners by nature, inherited from Adam. Animal sacrifice was part of the forgiving process God instituted, pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Himself later in Jesus....
@Lehigh2011 ...Loving self-sacrifice is a wonderful concept that we can understand and appreciate even on a purely human level. What loving mother would not risk her life for her child? Indeed, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 say it best. I hope this helps.
To answer your previous reply regarding Romans 9, it does not matter how much you state that humans are ALL sinners that ALL deserve Hell. The fact remains that if your God is omniscient, he purposefully created a universe knowing beforehand that some of his creation would end up being damned to a cosmic torture chamber that he himself created. I must agree, my view is decidedly not Biblical because I do not unhealthily view humanity through the frankly self-deprecating lens of religion.
@Lehigh2011 Yes, it is true that God knew that some would end up in hell (the Bible does not use "torture" but torment, as there is a difference). God is not torturing people in hell. That is not a Biblical image. But if you are going to at least understand the Biblical view, you need to have an accurate understanding of what that view is. The Biblical view is not "unhealthy" but realistic. Turn on the news and you see sinners doing evil all over the place, from murder to rape and so on.
People who go to hell or jahananmm or whatever usually deserve it. That's not a selfish attitude. People who live good lives go to Heaven because they deserve to go to heaven. Hence why Jephthah went to hell for killing his daughter in a sacrificial way and also for murder. God knew he was going to do it. Simple. Jephthah was being selfish. If he had taken the loss in battle, he wouldn't have been tested and wouldn't have to go through what he went through.
@crabappleslikeme Did you not hear what I said at all? Jephthah did NOT kill his daughter. Nowhere does the text say that. The Bible does not say that anyone deserves to go to heaven. Romans 3:23 makes that clear.
@CRoadwarrior It clearly says in the bible that jeptha vowed to sacrifice the first thing out of his home. The first thing was his daughter. After that he sent his daughter away for 2 months (3 maybe? eh doesn't matter.) to the mountains. She returns, the bible specifically states, very clearly, he did as he had vowed.
@Delinexwow No, you did not pay attention to the points made in the video. He did not clearly vow to offer a burnt sacrifice. Human sacrifice was forbidden by God YEARS before this incident took place. Jephthah, or someone in that area, had to have known this. The TEXT does NOT say the woman was killed or sacrificed. That is an assumption not necessarily warranted from what the text actually says. There is an emphasis on her sexual status (virginity), NOT her life. So no, I disagree.
@CRoadwarrior I'm aware of the laws presented by god. It would hold bearing as well if god didn't ritually break his own laws when he commanded people to do things. God has no issues of his people breaking his laws once he commands them, why would he have an issue with that?
The text clearly states he vowed to kill her, then it clearly states he did as he vowed. Granted I understand we will disagree here, it's merely opinion. To read it as it is wrote though, he killed her, IMO.
@Delinexwow No, the text does no "clearly" state that he vowed to kill her. This is the point you miss. And even towards the end of the text, there is emphasis NOT on her alleged impending death, but on her sexual status, her virginity. Sorry, but your opinion lacks informed understanding of the text and cultural issues at the time. This was his only child, and it appears he was going to have her remain a perpetual virgin. That was looked on as bad in those days, almost like family death.
And let me ask you a personal question, something that has always bugged me as a former Christian turned atheist. This is one of the main reasons I lost faith somewhere in my adolescence. Could you really enjoy your eternal reward in heaven knowing there are billions of souls in eternal unimaginable agony writhing in Hell? For me, the answer is no, which is why even if Yahweh does exist, I would be able to live with myself better for eternity going to Hell than I would worshipping its creator.
@Lehigh2011 Let me answer you like this. We live out our lives every day and never worry about who's in hell. The Bible makes it clear that those who go to hell deserve it, just as people here who go to jail. I don't worry about people who pay for their sins. That's how it SHOULD be. If God did not make a distinction between the just and the unjust, He would not be just Himself. Your view is distorted.
CRoadWarrior, thank you for your reply. I have read Romans 9 as you mentioned; my general impression of the scripture was something along the lines of, "Who are you to question God? He made you; he can do what he wants with you." Whatever he wants presumably includes sending one to Hell for all eternity. However, one cannot simply claim that God is beyond criticism to explain away all the seemingly cruel and evil things he does, like creating a universe where *anyone* need go to Hell.
@Lehigh2011 You're welcome. That is but part of what Romans 9 reveals. It also says very clearly that God is sovereign and can do as He wills, yet He chose to save some out of a race of ALL sinners who ALL deserve hell. So in the end, God is granting mercy when none of us deserve it. As I said before, your view is distorted and not Biblical.
CRoadwarrior, first I'd like to say you made very good points in your arguments against Jephthah's supposed human sacrifice. However, I would like to raise a question. You apparently view God to be omiscient, as you talk about God co-signing an agreement knowing in advance what would happen. Let me ask you this: why would God create the Universe and humanity in the first place knowing full well beforehand that we would turn out to be a damned people, the majority of which are going to Hell?
@Lehigh2011 Thanks for your comments and question. While the situations are different between the Jephthah incident and what you're talking about, I can address your question. I believe Romans 9 answers it in part. We are not given all the answers, but we do have many. I don't know if the "majority" are going to Hell, but I'd say many.
I'm sorry dead Road Warrior, but if you want to interpret the old testament you have to use the talmud. The talmud /is/ the interpretation of the text done by actual jews from back in the days, the one's the new the context and language. The talmud is quite clear about children sacrifice if you read the Sanhedrin 64a and 64b.
But it's still interesting that there is so much confusion over this story, because supposedly god is not the author of confusion (Cor 14:33)
@nuckable No, I do not need the Talmud to interpret the OT. What I need is the ability to read Hebrew (which I have), and the ability to understand context. The context is clear, and what God ordered His people NOT to do prior to this incident (human sacrifice) is also clear. The confusion comes from humans who insist on a human sacrifice in the text when the text does NOT clearly say that one took place.
@CRoadwarrior Thanks for your reply, i did not mean to say that the passage was clear about human sacrifice taking place, i merely state that the Talmud is clear about child sacrifice to Idols being ok.
About the Talmud, do you not care about it at all? Or do you not care about it at all?
@nuckable Which Talmud are you referring to, and where exactly is it stated that "child sacrifice to idols" is "ok"? I have mixed feelings about the Talmud; it may contain some truth, but even orthodox Jews would not put it on the level of Torah, at least not in their right minds. Sorry for the long delay in response.
@CRoadwarrior ok i'm a christian that is in alot of pain, heart ache that is, when God say though shall not kill what does that mean in exodus, but yet still God allowed the death of 3000 isrealites in the wilderness isnt that going against his own law? just like the law of no human sacrifices? is the law of though shall not kill any different from no human sacrifices what the hell is going on, please tell me, i dont trust the bible anymore, but i do believe in God though
@zipitup75 Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather busy. When God tells humans not to murder, that is for us to obey. As the Author and Giver of life, only God has the right to give or take it. When God judges sin in humans who violate His law, He is not going against His own law. In fact, He is inforcing it, as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The Bible is completely worthy of trust.
@nuckable You mean the same talmud that allows for child rape boys or girls under the age of 3? The same one that condones the rape of women as long as it is anal sex? Maybe the one that says it is permissible to kill the non jew and outlawed helping in anyway a "Goem"? The talmud is full of depravity and satanic teachings!
I thank my god he doesn't want a bloody sacrifice. This is the evil warped idea that god thirsts for BLOOD. Christians say he does not want any blood anymore because the killing of Jesus satisfied him. Jesus was a HUMAN Sacrifice..All this bloody barbarism needs to be rejected.
@Innervoice100 Sorry, but you are in error, not know the Scriptures or the power of God or sound theology. Jesus was the God-man who was NOT given by humans to God for a human sacrifice.
@Innervoice100 No, you read the Bible and some good theology books to understand that what God did in Jesus was NOT the same as a human offering to Yahweh another human, when Yah forbid this. You are confused.
You are forgetting the jewish YAHEW loves to sacrafice humans. Look at the torture and butchery he did to his own son Jesus. Jesus cried and begged his evil daddy YAHEW not to murder and torture him. His God said no. Jesus was clearly a human sacrifice of course to please his bloodthirsty dad YEHEW Isiah 53 says it pleased him to crush him. The Evil jewish god loves blood . In the new testament Jeptha was praised. He was evil and wicked.
@Innervoice100 Again, you need to learn to discern the difference between things. You don't understand the Judges passage, and you certainly have no accurate understanding of the New Testament concept of loving, self-sacrifice. Go learn accurate truth, not the distortion you push here.
@Innervoice100 Their are so many things wrong with your comment, first off Jesus was fully God and man, secondly Jesus gave his life not out of any force, Jesus states that no man takes my life but I give it freely. Jesus was not forced by man nor God to give his life, he gave it freely. Thirdly, Jesus being fully God rose from the dead on the third day. Fourthly Jeptha committed his daughter to the Lord as a virgin to worship God in the tabernacle and he was praised for his faith.
@Innervoice100 Fifthly Isaiah 53 needs to be understood in context, Jesus the spotless lamb took on all the sins of the world and because of that God punished Jesus with the penalty of sin which is death and damnation in hell, Jesus essentially took the bullet for us but being fully God he rose on the third day from death and hell and through him alone we are saved from our sins and from perishing for eternity. You have a blatant and inaccurate knowledge of the Bible and it shows.
Your belief that God must always be consistent is not supported by scripture. As you well know, God has changes of heart all the time. God created man and then later is sorry He did so. Why couldn't He have varying states of mind vis-a-vis human sacrifice?
@redscape Your understanding of Scripture is not complete. God does not truly "change" His mind or heart. God is the same from eternity. The language of change is used for OUR benefit, but God does not change. It's called anthropomorphic language. God forbid murder and other things, and never rescinded them, just as He did with human sacrifice. Any "changes" He made we are TOLD of them. We have no indication that God forbid human sacrifice and then later said it's "ok."
@dstr8boy Very simple. Most people make two assumptions. First, they assume there was no real offence, thus not understanding its nature. Second, they assume that the she-bears killed little children, ignoring the original Hebrew.
@CRoadwarrior Well lets say that they were not children and that that seemingly insignificant jeer was a real offence, even so why does this offence warrant a brutal mauling by bears??
@dstr8boy To disrespect the prophet was to disrespect God and his workings through that prophet. God is not mocked. While the jeering seemed harmless on the surface, it was indicative of a heart problem beneath the surface. The passage shows that God can and will use animals to execute judgment on those who speak presumptuously against His prophets. God could have done much worse.
@CRoadwarrior God could have done much worse??...there is hardly anything worse than such a gruesome death....and couldn't god just give them a 'slap on the wrist' and try to rehabilitate them instead of carrying out such a brutal and excessive act?...and imagine the grief experienced by the loved ones of the ''offenders''..
@dstr8boy Yes, God could have done much worse. Gruesome death? Where does the text say anyone was killed? The Hebrew word "baqa" does not mean to kill. It means the bears mauled, cut up, tore into, the youths. There are many things God could have done, but He has the right to determine how people are to be dealt with. How do you even know they could be "rehabilitated"? That is an assumption. The loved ones are not an issue in this context.
All you have done is point out the fact that there is a contradiction in the bible. His vow was "to offer it up for a burnt offering." This is quoting the scripture, and later in verse 39 it says "[he] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man." It says in black and white he carried out his vow. It is YOU who are distorting the scriptures.
@naejimba No, I have not pointed out a contradiction. Read the vow again or watch the video again. He said "shall surely be the Lord's" OR I will offer it up, according to the Hebrew conjunction's other function. Saying she "knew no man," as I pointed out, makes NO sense unless the vow involved her virginity, NOT her death by sacrifice. Ignoring the emphasis in the text on virginity IS distortion. I distort nothing.
This makes sense. The only way to defend the Bible is to lie about what is in it. I get it now. I don't care if you want to believe this crazy crap, but I had better not hear about you teaching any of this to children, or taking a child to church, or giving a child a Bible.
@trueleroix No, what you need to do is stop making up things about what you obviously don't understand and have not taken the time to study in any scholarly way. I will teach to children or anyone I want, and there's NOTHING you can or will do about it.
B4. Where are you getting your definitions from? It's not the Bible or a Bible dictionary. What babies were commanded to be killed? You need to provide evidence for your claims. Pagans were fond of doing human sacrifices of babies and children, not Yahweh. In God's eyes, sure there is none righteous, but from a human perspective there is such a thing as "innocent" and "guilty" in terms of specific crimes.
You make a valiant effort, Warrior, but surely you must realize that you are full of bullshit. As an atheist, I am not going to bother addressing your theological point--Yahweh contradicts himself all the time. As for the virginity business, what was the point of losing it (in Israelite thinking) unless you could carry offspring to term? Also, I'd love to see you try to interpret the rest of the Old Testament constantly trying to determine if "or" meant "and" and vice versa. Good luck with that.
donquickoats. First, I don't allow foul language on my pages, which is why your comment will not be approved. Second, any time an atheist even begins to talk about God he's addressing thelogy. Finally, no, Yahweh does not contradict Himself all the time. That is a claim mostly based on misinterpreted passages and ignorance. Hebrew is a very contextually based language, and the "and" "or" issue is not an issue, but at least I TRY to deal with the facts as opposed to making assumptions.
I generally find that those who employ censorship are on the wrong side of the issue, whatever the issue may be. We both know that the real reason you don't allow free speech on your channel is not "foul language," but that your arguments are substantively destroyed many times over.
Also, what do you suppose happened to Jephthah's daughter after the two months were up? You really think she just lived happily ever after? Was she allowed to get married afterward?
@donquickoats LOL. Now that's a laugh. So because I screen comments all of a sudden the speculation must be offered that I'm on the "wrong side" of the issue. LOLOL. No one yet has offered any substantive arguments, including you. The text indicates, as scholars have pointed out, that she was offered as a living sacrifice and remained a perpetual virgin in service to God, thus not giving her father any children because she was his only child.
@donquickoats No, my efforts are reasonable and scholarly. Yah does not contradict Himself because you misread Scripture to think so. The point is, if virginity was the issue, that's something easily lost, regardless of the offspring issue. So it is obvious that virginity was not the issue in the sense of dying one due to being sacrificed. As the the whole interpreting thing, those who don't know how Hebrew works should not talk about the language.
You have a point with your third argument, but that still doesn't resolve the issue that Jepthah is giving something which is not his to give. Whether she is offered as a burned offering, or offered in servitude, it is still Jepthah's will being forced on her. Now, this wouldn't be a problem except for Christianity's focus on free will, which Jepthah's daughter is clearly denied.
Gilmaris. In that culture and time, there was nothing wrong with Jephthah did regarding his daughter. They had arranged marriages back then as well. The point here is that there is no absolute human sacrifice in this text, as demonstrated by my points and the resources I provide in the "more info" section to the right.
Your first argument is valid if you postulate that the Bible cannot contain contradictions. Your second argument is your subjective interpretation, and no more valid than the interpretation that she was mourning that she would die not having known a man (and I really don't see how it is relevant to bring up how long it takes to lose one's virginity - she clearly didn't spend two months trying to lose it - why WOULD she spend two months bewailing her virginity, anyway, according to you?).
No, Gilmaris, my argument is valid because my basis is not whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible but if God truly contradictions Himself. My second argument is only "subjective" if you ignore context or don't know what the word means. The text does not focus on death by sacrifice. The issue of her virginity could not have been about her dying a virgin, as virginity can be lost in no time. So, we are left with something else which ultimately is not a human sacrifice to Yah.
It is true that the God of the bible admonished other nations for sacrificeing humans to pagen gods, what you are missing is the reason for God admonishing them. Human sacrifice is only a sin in the eyes of God when the human is sacrificed to OTHER gods! You have only seen what you wanted to see. Show me in the bible where God says "Do no sacrifice humans to me"
punyo4u. You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Try reading Deut. 12:31,32. There He clearly says not to worship HIM as the pagans do, who sacrifice their sons and daughters. There is your "do not sacrifice humans to me" but not in those exact words, which they don't have to be in, for the point to stand.
god sais not to kill period....yet he asked and command ppl to kill. it doent makes sense but it is what it is. you are making excuses. the only thing you have proven is that there are contradictions in the bible.
B4mytyme. Actually, God says not to MURDER, as the Hebrew indicates, which is taking innocent life. Those God commanded to be killed were guilty of violating His law. This is not making excuses but paying attention to the facts which it seems you ignore and make your own excuses.
Pardon, brother, but I beg to differ. I think this speaks directly to the topic.
Let me rephrase my question, since it's fairly safe to assume we both know the definition of terms.
I'm simply curious as to what your thoughts are, given that the topic here seems to be "controversial interpretation of a theology",in that this could be said of any previous mythology during it's historical practice.
By which I mean to ask, what do you think about the relationship between theology and mythology?
undisputedgreatest. Glad you like the persona. But to disagree without a valid basis is not good. I have provided context, sound Biblical reasoning and original Hebrew to support my view here. If you disagree and have a BASIS for it, then bring it.
I can't believe it... This is awesome... I just read the comments and must say you completely OWENED every comment on this video that you replied to. Nice job!
Anyway,this is pointless,trying to prove the bible with the bible.
You need outside corroborative sources and there are none and besides,evolution makes mincemeat of adam and eve,it didn't happen so if that's wrong it's ALL wrong.
And hey guess what,it's all wrong.
Besides,who would want to bow down to such a nasty malevolent character?
So man made it would be funny but for the fact religion is the biggest problem in the world.
Rockster969. Yes, He did command Abraham to offer his son. But, that was the only instance and it was prior to the orders not to. There is evidence outside the Bible, but the Bible does not necessarily need "outside" corroborative sources, since that assumes the Bible to be wrong a priori. Evolution has done no such thing. You can claim it's "all wrong," but that clam has no validity. Religion is not the biggest problem in the world. Sin is.
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
The skeptics would love to see the evidence that your god in not imaginary.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker
LOL. The reality is, skeptics love to dismiss evidence they see that proves God is not imaginary. Truth does not demand belief? LOL. That is a nonsense claim. You can believe what is true. You have a misunderstanding about what faith is, and so does Dan Barker.
Using the words theological reasoning together in a sentence is an oxymoron. Any theological point can be disputed by skeptics because all theology is nonsense.
Human sacrifice doesn't make sense yet your god killed millions with Noah's flood & Sodom & Gomorrah including children and pregnant women. And oh yes, his own son. You sound like someone who has never read the old testament or maybe just another deluded christian apologist who finds a way to justify despicable murderous acts.
cosmos11. Nice bit of circular reasoning there. Yes, God destroyed sinful humans in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah. We today have a death penalty for criminals. But oh yes, we get off the hook but God has to stay on it. You clearly do not understand Christian doctrine. Never read the Old Testament? LOL. I can read it in the original Hebrew. Who is deluded? Not the warrior.
ThatGypsyBoy. No, Jesus was not an example of humans offering to God another human as a human sacrifice. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic doctrine which has little basis, if any, in Scripture, and I am not Roman Catholic.
erm, in scripture it does refer to Jesus as a sacrifice. Im currently doing human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism in my Theology course, and Jesus is one of the examples.
Although he is half human, half divine its still an example of a sacrifice to a God to clear sins - in the same vein Mayans would sacrifice people.
and although Protestant ideology doesnt have transubstantiation the bread and wine still symbolises blood and flesh.
ThatGypsyBoy. I don't know what "theology course" you're taking, but if that course is saying Jesus is a "human sacrifice," it is not a credible accurate course. And orthodox Christianity does not teach that Jesus was "half" human and "half" divine. You need to do your homework.
ThatGypsyBoy. No, it does not make him "half/half." The Bible argues for Him being fully God and fully human, a unique union that is beyond our comprehension. Human sacrifice means humans offering humans. Jesus by definition cannot be a "human sacrifice" in the sense condemned in the Bible.
Is it possible, That maybe your the one who should do your homework? If said god does exist he's the only one who knows everything right? You, are not him. Therefore there is always room for error. You can't just say people are wrong because you don't agree with them. I don't care how many classes you took, I dont care what you studied. You can always be just as wrong as you think he is. You are not the smartest person on this subject.
MissDisastrous. No, it is not possible that I did not do my homework when I know I did...and I have the grades and credentials to back that up. I don't just "say" people are wrong. I demonstrate it with facts and evidence. I never claimed to be the smartest person on the subject. If I am wrong, I am waiting for someone to PROVE that.
How can anyone prove you wrong when you wont admit that you are incorrect? Grades, Credentials, They mean nothing. You could very well be learning from a flawed system that has been passed down generation to generation. The only tangible thing you can truly grasp is faith, and with that you are in no place to call someone else "wrong"
MissDisastrous. You have me mixed up with some of the atheists here. I can admit being incorrect when I am proved so. Grades and credentials mean nothing? ROFL. What "could" be is not the issue. What "is" is. You also assume that there is no "wrong" when it comes to what you call "faith." Nonsense. The most basic principle of logic says that there cannot be two true contradictory claims.
Just because you demonstrate it doesn't make it right. (Your demonstrations are questionable) I could sit and very discriptively demonstrate how sniffing permanent markers is healthy, that doesn't make it right now does it? You lack the honorable qualifty of admitting when your wrong, it's pathetic really. It's your religion, you can believe in whatever you want, but dont write someone off as wrong just because it isn't what "you" researched and got a big fat A and a smiley face on.
LOL.. You are simply too immature and uneducated in these things to even argue over this. My demonstrations are not questionable because you say so. The issue is, can you PROVE they are? I doubt it. You are even wrong on the issue of my being able to admit being wrong. I've done it several times already, on minor things. I know my Bible and my "religion" well, and that some of my detractors even respect me for. You could learn from them.
That's just what I was willing to spend a minute or two on locating, there is plenty more. This is enough however to show your assertion as false. The correct statement is god condemned human sacrifice to any god but him.
No, that is not true. I can DEMONSTRATE in detail, and go into the original Hebrew and/or Greek (since I can translate both languages now) to show you how wrong you are. I've already shown you that "natan" does NOT mean sacrifice. So you can claim anything you want with no scholarly support, but you have no valid arguments based on solid evidence.
21:6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibe-ah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose.
21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibe-on-ites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
Iredtree. I don't know what "21:6" is, but regardless your misreadings will not help you. The passages do NOT claim that humans are being offered as human sacrifices.
Iredtree. I would suggest that before you try to post any more passages you THINK proves me wrong, that you study more thorough passage context overall Biblical context. You also might want to look up the meaning of some Hebrew words.
Your arguments of "context" and the meaning of Hebrew words is pointless.
The main concern here is what the bible says in it's current translation, not what the Torah says. The Hebrew version may be all flowers and hugs, but there aren't any christians in this country reading it.
Now that is about the silliest argument I've every heard. In other words, I don't know the original, and so I will go by my ignorance and trust the translation which ALSO doesn't say that "give" means "burnt sacrifice" LOL. Good bye, Iredtree.
Iredtree. Yes, God condemned it, and I gave the passages for that as well. Exodus 22:29 is NOT God saying give the firstborn in sacrifice. You are misreading the passage. That passage is speaking of consecration, not human sacrifice. The Hebrew word for give (Natan) used in Ex. 22:29 is the same Hebrew word used in 1 Sam. 1:11. This indicates dedication and consecration, NOT burnt offering sacrifice.
Weak argument? Please. And when and where did YOU learn any Hebrew to even begin to understand the issues here? I suggest you do some serious study and reflect on the contextual emphasis, which is NOT what you think it is but what the TEXT says it is.
rgzdev. I have explained in times past the very valid reason why I screen posts, since people like to name-call and run, make racial comments and run, and so forth. So I'm not going to go through all that again. They're my video pages and I can screen comments if I like. You don't like it, watch something else. The real disgrace is that you have no other argument but to talk about ratings when the video topic has nothing to do with them. THAT is the disgrace.
@CRoadwarrior You keep repeating I have no arguments as if that made them vanish away.
Mattew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Your god threatens to eternal torture for petty misdemeanors, this is morally abhorrent and unfit as a moral guide.
@CRoadwarrior Ok I'll amuse you, I googled it and Calvin's argument is that "Fool" == Anger and Anger is punishable. Sorry, I don't condone the though police, Brother.
See, this is why I didn't heard of John Calvin, he's rubbish.
Now amuse me, first get a PhD in Biology, Geology and Archeology, *then* you can start talking about whether evolution is science or not.
rgzdev. That is NOT Calvin's argument. You need to go to a library or be more honest about what you read because I know exactly what he said about the passage, and that ain't it.
If my arguments are based on those who do have doctorates in biology, geology and archeology, and their arguments are valid and hold up, I don't have to get one to argue whether evolution is pure science or not. So no matter how you slice it, you lose the game because you have no clue about the rules.
@CRoadwarrior That is John Calvin, if you havea different argument speak up your mind instead of being always evasive. What are these Biologists you speak of? What are their arguments? Why are you always so evasive?
And there is no arguing virtually all Biology Doctorates disagree with you so you need to justify your position.
@rgzdev You oversimplify Calvin and are dishonest. Thus, you cannot post here any longer. Look up Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. A.E. Wider-Smith, and Dr. Gary Parker. Talking about how virtually "all" biology doctorates disagree with me is not an argument. Truth is not determined by numbers. That's a consensus gentium fallacy.
CRW. ALL these arguments have been addressed YEARS ago. I LOVE these atheist YouTubers who come onto Christian videos and make comments as if THEY are coming up with some NEW argument against scripture. I especially like the ones who have obviously just come from the SKAB website.
I respect all efforts at further education. I am also a college graduate crw! And it was not theology. 122 videos suggest free time. The 35th verse of the 11th chapter of the book of judges. It makes the matter clear. When can I look for a reply? Please estimate!
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis Oh, I know it was not in theology. No, 122 videos does not necessarily suggest "free time." Better time management, perhaps. But not necessarily free time. Now if you want to talk about video counts and "free time," let's talk about some atheists who have done more than double that amount of videos. I have answered your question from Scripture.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Still waiting for you to explain the 35th verse of the chapter. You know! Where jephthah tears his clothes. This clearly indicates he thought someone close to him was dead. Why are you scared to respond, crw?
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis What you apparently did not take the time to research is that when people in ancient times tore their clothes, it did not necessarily mean someone had died. Please read 2 Kings 5:7 as a clear example. The ancient people tore their clothes for various reasons, but in the context of the passage in question, no one was dead, and there is no clear indication that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, especially in light of the fact that God forbid such an action years prior.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Good evening crw! Still too scared to answer my question about the 35th verse of 11th chap of judges I see. No courage at all. Par for the course. Keep serving massah's god.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis I clearly explain on my main channel why it takes time for me to answer comments. Now if you have a problem with reading, I suggest the nearest library or college prep department. As a grad student, my first priority is to my classes. There is no fear here.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Say crw! Tell me. Why do you embrace massah's religion? Kidnapped by fellow muslims, transported in ships owned by jews and tortured and worked to death by christians. Sad.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis What you call the "massah's" religion is a nonsense claim by people ignorant of the fact that the Bible is an eastern book, not western, and that most of the doctrines of Christianity were formulated or taught by Africans like Athanasius and St. Augustine. What's sad is that people still promote the "massah's religion" myth in ignorance.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
You ignore the 35th verse-where jephthah rents his clothes. Jews do that to this day when someone close dies. ADDENDUM You are quite the coward CRW! The fact that you did not answer or post that comment last time speaks volumes. Like most thumpers you run when confronted with the actual text.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis No, you again do not understand the text you read. Learn this...people like myself who spend years studying the Bible, even to the original languages and historical context, do know the Bible better than those who just pick up an English Bible and read a passage out of context with little to no study at all.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
good job!
ncbookz 1 year ago
You ignore the 35th verse. Why would jephthah 'rent his clothes'? To this day jews do this to indicate that someone close to them is dead.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis No. You need to study the Bible to understand what this indicates historically.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@blueasblueis No. You need to study the Bible to understand what this indicates historically. I already pointed out in another post that this action does NOT always indicate someone's death in the Bible or Biblical times.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
You ignore the 35th verse. Why would jephthah 'rent his clothes'? Jews still do this when someone has died. Do you ever wish your 'holy book' was less evil?
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis No, what I wish is that people would learn the meaning of words like "context." Distorting literature to make it "evil" when it isn't is nonsense.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Good study.
YESHUAISMERCIFUL 1 year ago
most jews see it as a he offered up his daughter. they are wrong too? even if it was "or" that brings more confusion b/c we don't know which one he did.
reduciblycomplex 1 year ago
@reduciblycomplex Truth is not determined by majority vote or consensus. The TEXT does not overtly say a sacrifice took place. Instead, there is this emphasis on her sexual status.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Wow!! Talk about rationalization. This brother is clearly delusional!!
TRUTHERish 1 year ago
@TRUTHERish No, what's clearly delusional is ignoring what the text says to make up what it does not say. The text does not say, "and he sacrificed her." If it did, there would be no argument, and there would have been no argument down through the centuries.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
All those hoops to jump through to try to make the text say something it clearly does not. CRoadwarrior can you turn your skills to Leviticus 20:13 to show that God doesn't want us to kill Homosexuals? I would watch that video.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@TheTomtompiper LOL. I would like your definition of "clearly." The TEXT does NOT "clearly" say what you assume. Where are the words, "And he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering to Yahweh"? Give me the verse on that one, because I know and you know it's NOT there. And even if it were there, that would not mean it was acceptable to God, since we know that Yahweh had forbidden such practices long before Jephthah's time. So there are no "hoops" here. Just hermeneutics.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Good video, my take on the and/or portion is that regardless whether it's truely translated as "and" or as "or" neither proves that a human burnt offering was performed. The verses clearly refer to her virginity not her life and that the giving to the Lord from the Bible refers to the Jepthath's giving her daughter as a virgin to serve the Lord in the tabernacle for her entire life, that she would devote herself as a virgin in the tabernacle worshipping God which was a common practice in OT.
cubed07 1 year ago
The nonsense that is stupid is you can't see that it is inconsistent because it is a fable written by many men and not an omniscient deity. You would rather make stuff up, and or twist the bible because of how horrendous it is.
FIRSTGLADI8R 1 year ago
@FIRSTGLADI8R No, the nonesense is coming on my page with claims that have no scholarly support or understanding based on credible research into the literature. The true twisting is in your own mind, as I explained in detail and from the original Hebrew my view.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Oh please, you are trying to impose some sort of consistancy to the bible... there is none. You are assigning your morals to a being that is described killing millions by his own will. It all becomes far more simple when you realize the truth, these books were written by a bunch of bronze inbred idiots.
Ammdar 1 year ago
@Ammdar You have no proof of your claims. All you are doing is speculating based on your ignorance or misconceptions.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
My problem here, is that EVERYONE can do exactly what you just did. Dissect every word, find a reference somewhere to it by a "scholar" of some kind to lend to it the meaning you need it to have, to say what YOU want it to say. I'm not saying either of you is right about what this story really says, and the bible has been "versionized" to fit many beliefs. What my problem is here, is the way it's picked apart to justify behavior and some of it bad , control & separate people and self promote.
kellylundberg 1 year ago
@kellylundberg What you ignore is the fact that there is such a thing as "truth" and "error," and that there is objective truth and facts to be discerned. I bring out Biblical facts that most do not consider. And there are legitimate and illegitimate scholars, and there are people who make claims based on no scholarship. There is nothing wrong with going into details in order to understand a passage.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior Truth can be in many fictional texts, doesn't make em real. As for "legitimate and illegitimate scholars" that is a matter of opinion as well depending on where you were born, and what faith you were indoctrinated into. What a pickle we r in huh? Seems the only way it ever gets solved is spilling blood.
kellylundberg 1 year ago
@kellylundberg But your invalid working assumption is that the texts are "ficitional." And truth being in a text doesn't make it fictional. That there are legitimate and illegitmate scholars is not a matter of opinion. That is as axiomatic as is the fact that there are real and fake doctors, and some more competant than others in just about every field of expertise there is. If you don't know basic facts like these, that does explain many things.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but you failed...nuff said.
kaox44 1 year ago
@kaox44 No, I did not simply because you say it.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
...you're the one who's trying to rationalize your God's thirst for human sacrifice. I didn't say a thing. Again, you failed.
kaox44 1 year ago
@kaox44 No, you're the one ignoring the facts that disprove your belief that it was even a sacrifice in the text. The text does not make that claim. If so, prove it from the text. Otherwise, YOU fail.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
i fundamentally disagree with you, but i approve of your reasoning and shoulderpads. have a great day!
surewhynotqqq 1 year ago
@surewhynotqqq You fundamentally disagree? On what basis? Just to say you disagree doesn't prove anything.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
None of this changes the fact that god stood idly by while Jeph murdered and burnt his daughter. He then went on to be celebrated as a great man.
Context shmontext
TheEsko 1 year ago
@TheEsko Actually, it seems you don't get the point. My view says Jephthah did NOT murder his daughter, as the text itself says no such thing.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
On a more positive and friendly note though, after reading the scriptures for myself and mulling over the story of Jephthah, I must concede that you have persuaded me that Jephthah's daughter was not literally a human sacrifice. Though, if I were in her position, I'd be more concerned with losing my virginity than bewailing it =P. Seriously though, I still must wonder why God requires sacrifices if everything in creation is already his to begin with. Why bother with the concept at all?
Lehigh2011 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 Sorry for the delayed response, but things have been crazy on my end. I appreciate the concession. As for why God requires sacrifices, the Bible does not overtly give us that answer, but part of it has to do with how God deals with sin. The wages of sin is death. All humans are sinners by nature, inherited from Adam. Animal sacrifice was part of the forgiving process God instituted, pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Himself later in Jesus....
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 ...Loving self-sacrifice is a wonderful concept that we can understand and appreciate even on a purely human level. What loving mother would not risk her life for her child? Indeed, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8 say it best. I hope this helps.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
To answer your previous reply regarding Romans 9, it does not matter how much you state that humans are ALL sinners that ALL deserve Hell. The fact remains that if your God is omniscient, he purposefully created a universe knowing beforehand that some of his creation would end up being damned to a cosmic torture chamber that he himself created. I must agree, my view is decidedly not Biblical because I do not unhealthily view humanity through the frankly self-deprecating lens of religion.
Lehigh2011 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 Yes, it is true that God knew that some would end up in hell (the Bible does not use "torture" but torment, as there is a difference). God is not torturing people in hell. That is not a Biblical image. But if you are going to at least understand the Biblical view, you need to have an accurate understanding of what that view is. The Biblical view is not "unhealthy" but realistic. Turn on the news and you see sinners doing evil all over the place, from murder to rape and so on.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
People who go to hell or jahananmm or whatever usually deserve it. That's not a selfish attitude. People who live good lives go to Heaven because they deserve to go to heaven. Hence why Jephthah went to hell for killing his daughter in a sacrificial way and also for murder. God knew he was going to do it. Simple. Jephthah was being selfish. If he had taken the loss in battle, he wouldn't have been tested and wouldn't have to go through what he went through.
crabappleslikeme 1 year ago
@crabappleslikeme Did you not hear what I said at all? Jephthah did NOT kill his daughter. Nowhere does the text say that. The Bible does not say that anyone deserves to go to heaven. Romans 3:23 makes that clear.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior It clearly says in the bible that jeptha vowed to sacrifice the first thing out of his home. The first thing was his daughter. After that he sent his daughter away for 2 months (3 maybe? eh doesn't matter.) to the mountains. She returns, the bible specifically states, very clearly, he did as he had vowed.
Recap?
Jeptha vowed a human sacrifice
That human sacrifice ended up to be his daughter.
Daughter left for a few months.
Jeptha went through with his vow.
You are wrong.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow No, you did not pay attention to the points made in the video. He did not clearly vow to offer a burnt sacrifice. Human sacrifice was forbidden by God YEARS before this incident took place. Jephthah, or someone in that area, had to have known this. The TEXT does NOT say the woman was killed or sacrificed. That is an assumption not necessarily warranted from what the text actually says. There is an emphasis on her sexual status (virginity), NOT her life. So no, I disagree.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior I'm aware of the laws presented by god. It would hold bearing as well if god didn't ritually break his own laws when he commanded people to do things. God has no issues of his people breaking his laws once he commands them, why would he have an issue with that?
The text clearly states he vowed to kill her, then it clearly states he did as he vowed. Granted I understand we will disagree here, it's merely opinion. To read it as it is wrote though, he killed her, IMO.
Delinexwow 1 year ago
@Delinexwow No, the text does no "clearly" state that he vowed to kill her. This is the point you miss. And even towards the end of the text, there is emphasis NOT on her alleged impending death, but on her sexual status, her virginity. Sorry, but your opinion lacks informed understanding of the text and cultural issues at the time. This was his only child, and it appears he was going to have her remain a perpetual virgin. That was looked on as bad in those days, almost like family death.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
And let me ask you a personal question, something that has always bugged me as a former Christian turned atheist. This is one of the main reasons I lost faith somewhere in my adolescence. Could you really enjoy your eternal reward in heaven knowing there are billions of souls in eternal unimaginable agony writhing in Hell? For me, the answer is no, which is why even if Yahweh does exist, I would be able to live with myself better for eternity going to Hell than I would worshipping its creator.
Lehigh2011 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 Let me answer you like this. We live out our lives every day and never worry about who's in hell. The Bible makes it clear that those who go to hell deserve it, just as people here who go to jail. I don't worry about people who pay for their sins. That's how it SHOULD be. If God did not make a distinction between the just and the unjust, He would not be just Himself. Your view is distorted.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
CRoadWarrior, thank you for your reply. I have read Romans 9 as you mentioned; my general impression of the scripture was something along the lines of, "Who are you to question God? He made you; he can do what he wants with you." Whatever he wants presumably includes sending one to Hell for all eternity. However, one cannot simply claim that God is beyond criticism to explain away all the seemingly cruel and evil things he does, like creating a universe where *anyone* need go to Hell.
Lehigh2011 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 You're welcome. That is but part of what Romans 9 reveals. It also says very clearly that God is sovereign and can do as He wills, yet He chose to save some out of a race of ALL sinners who ALL deserve hell. So in the end, God is granting mercy when none of us deserve it. As I said before, your view is distorted and not Biblical.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
CRoadwarrior, first I'd like to say you made very good points in your arguments against Jephthah's supposed human sacrifice. However, I would like to raise a question. You apparently view God to be omiscient, as you talk about God co-signing an agreement knowing in advance what would happen. Let me ask you this: why would God create the Universe and humanity in the first place knowing full well beforehand that we would turn out to be a damned people, the majority of which are going to Hell?
Lehigh2011 1 year ago
@Lehigh2011 Thanks for your comments and question. While the situations are different between the Jephthah incident and what you're talking about, I can address your question. I believe Romans 9 answers it in part. We are not given all the answers, but we do have many. I don't know if the "majority" are going to Hell, but I'd say many.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
I'm sorry dead Road Warrior, but if you want to interpret the old testament you have to use the talmud. The talmud /is/ the interpretation of the text done by actual jews from back in the days, the one's the new the context and language. The talmud is quite clear about children sacrifice if you read the Sanhedrin 64a and 64b.
But it's still interesting that there is so much confusion over this story, because supposedly god is not the author of confusion (Cor 14:33)
Have a good day
nuckable 1 year ago
@nuckable No, I do not need the Talmud to interpret the OT. What I need is the ability to read Hebrew (which I have), and the ability to understand context. The context is clear, and what God ordered His people NOT to do prior to this incident (human sacrifice) is also clear. The confusion comes from humans who insist on a human sacrifice in the text when the text does NOT clearly say that one took place.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior Thanks for your reply, i did not mean to say that the passage was clear about human sacrifice taking place, i merely state that the Talmud is clear about child sacrifice to Idols being ok.
About the Talmud, do you not care about it at all? Or do you not care about it at all?
nuckable 1 year ago
@nuckable Which Talmud are you referring to, and where exactly is it stated that "child sacrifice to idols" is "ok"? I have mixed feelings about the Talmud; it may contain some truth, but even orthodox Jews would not put it on the level of Torah, at least not in their right minds. Sorry for the long delay in response.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior ok i'm a christian that is in alot of pain, heart ache that is, when God say though shall not kill what does that mean in exodus, but yet still God allowed the death of 3000 isrealites in the wilderness isnt that going against his own law? just like the law of no human sacrifices? is the law of though shall not kill any different from no human sacrifices what the hell is going on, please tell me, i dont trust the bible anymore, but i do believe in God though
zipitup75 1 year ago
@zipitup75 Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather busy. When God tells humans not to murder, that is for us to obey. As the Author and Giver of life, only God has the right to give or take it. When God judges sin in humans who violate His law, He is not going against His own law. In fact, He is inforcing it, as the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The Bible is completely worthy of trust.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@nuckable You mean the same talmud that allows for child rape boys or girls under the age of 3? The same one that condones the rape of women as long as it is anal sex? Maybe the one that says it is permissible to kill the non jew and outlawed helping in anyway a "Goem"? The talmud is full of depravity and satanic teachings!
yahshuah29 1 year ago
I thank my god he doesn't want a bloody sacrifice. This is the evil warped idea that god thirsts for BLOOD. Christians say he does not want any blood anymore because the killing of Jesus satisfied him. Jesus was a HUMAN Sacrifice..All this bloody barbarism needs to be rejected.
Innervoice100 1 year ago
@Innervoice100 Sorry, but you are in error, not know the Scriptures or the power of God or sound theology. Jesus was the God-man who was NOT given by humans to God for a human sacrifice.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Please read you Bible. God killed and butcered his only son Jesus. He was as evil as Jeptha.
Innervoice100 1 year ago
@Innervoice100 No, you read the Bible and some good theology books to understand that what God did in Jesus was NOT the same as a human offering to Yahweh another human, when Yah forbid this. You are confused.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
You are forgetting the jewish YAHEW loves to sacrafice humans. Look at the torture and butchery he did to his own son Jesus. Jesus cried and begged his evil daddy YAHEW not to murder and torture him. His God said no. Jesus was clearly a human sacrifice of course to please his bloodthirsty dad YEHEW Isiah 53 says it pleased him to crush him. The Evil jewish god loves blood . In the new testament Jeptha was praised. He was evil and wicked.
Innervoice100 1 year ago
@Innervoice100 Again, you need to learn to discern the difference between things. You don't understand the Judges passage, and you certainly have no accurate understanding of the New Testament concept of loving, self-sacrifice. Go learn accurate truth, not the distortion you push here.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@Innervoice100 Their are so many things wrong with your comment, first off Jesus was fully God and man, secondly Jesus gave his life not out of any force, Jesus states that no man takes my life but I give it freely. Jesus was not forced by man nor God to give his life, he gave it freely. Thirdly, Jesus being fully God rose from the dead on the third day. Fourthly Jeptha committed his daughter to the Lord as a virgin to worship God in the tabernacle and he was praised for his faith.
cubed07 1 year ago
@Innervoice100 Fifthly Isaiah 53 needs to be understood in context, Jesus the spotless lamb took on all the sins of the world and because of that God punished Jesus with the penalty of sin which is death and damnation in hell, Jesus essentially took the bullet for us but being fully God he rose on the third day from death and hell and through him alone we are saved from our sins and from perishing for eternity. You have a blatant and inaccurate knowledge of the Bible and it shows.
cubed07 1 year ago
silly
billygundum 1 year ago
@billygundum What's silly? Your text? LOL.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Thron guy+ venomfang+MC Hammer= You.
Cuythulu 1 year ago
@Cuythulu No substance + ignorance + silly response = block zone.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Good job!
MyLordYahushua 1 year ago
@MyLordYahushua Thanks!
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Your belief that God must always be consistent is not supported by scripture. As you well know, God has changes of heart all the time. God created man and then later is sorry He did so. Why couldn't He have varying states of mind vis-a-vis human sacrifice?
redscape 1 year ago
@redscape Your understanding of Scripture is not complete. God does not truly "change" His mind or heart. God is the same from eternity. The language of change is used for OUR benefit, but God does not change. It's called anthropomorphic language. God forbid murder and other things, and never rescinded them, just as He did with human sacrifice. Any "changes" He made we are TOLD of them. We have no indication that God forbid human sacrifice and then later said it's "ok."
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
hmmm...i would like to see how u handle the story of Elisha and the she-bears ( 2 Kings 2:23-24)
dstr8boy 1 year ago
@dstr8boy Very simple. Most people make two assumptions. First, they assume there was no real offence, thus not understanding its nature. Second, they assume that the she-bears killed little children, ignoring the original Hebrew.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior Well lets say that they were not children and that that seemingly insignificant jeer was a real offence, even so why does this offence warrant a brutal mauling by bears??
dstr8boy 1 year ago
@dstr8boy To disrespect the prophet was to disrespect God and his workings through that prophet. God is not mocked. While the jeering seemed harmless on the surface, it was indicative of a heart problem beneath the surface. The passage shows that God can and will use animals to execute judgment on those who speak presumptuously against His prophets. God could have done much worse.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior God could have done much worse??...there is hardly anything worse than such a gruesome death....and couldn't god just give them a 'slap on the wrist' and try to rehabilitate them instead of carrying out such a brutal and excessive act?...and imagine the grief experienced by the loved ones of the ''offenders''..
dstr8boy 1 year ago
@dstr8boy Yes, God could have done much worse. Gruesome death? Where does the text say anyone was killed? The Hebrew word "baqa" does not mean to kill. It means the bears mauled, cut up, tore into, the youths. There are many things God could have done, but He has the right to determine how people are to be dealt with. How do you even know they could be "rehabilitated"? That is an assumption. The loved ones are not an issue in this context.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
All you have done is point out the fact that there is a contradiction in the bible. His vow was "to offer it up for a burnt offering." This is quoting the scripture, and later in verse 39 it says "[he] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man." It says in black and white he carried out his vow. It is YOU who are distorting the scriptures.
naejimba 1 year ago
@naejimba No, I have not pointed out a contradiction. Read the vow again or watch the video again. He said "shall surely be the Lord's" OR I will offer it up, according to the Hebrew conjunction's other function. Saying she "knew no man," as I pointed out, makes NO sense unless the vow involved her virginity, NOT her death by sacrifice. Ignoring the emphasis in the text on virginity IS distortion. I distort nothing.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
This makes sense. The only way to defend the Bible is to lie about what is in it. I get it now. I don't care if you want to believe this crazy crap, but I had better not hear about you teaching any of this to children, or taking a child to church, or giving a child a Bible.
trueleroix 1 year ago
@trueleroix No, what you need to do is stop making up things about what you obviously don't understand and have not taken the time to study in any scholarly way. I will teach to children or anyone I want, and there's NOTHING you can or will do about it.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
B4. Where are you getting your definitions from? It's not the Bible or a Bible dictionary. What babies were commanded to be killed? You need to provide evidence for your claims. Pagans were fond of doing human sacrifices of babies and children, not Yahweh. In God's eyes, sure there is none righteous, but from a human perspective there is such a thing as "innocent" and "guilty" in terms of specific crimes.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
You make a valiant effort, Warrior, but surely you must realize that you are full of bullshit. As an atheist, I am not going to bother addressing your theological point--Yahweh contradicts himself all the time. As for the virginity business, what was the point of losing it (in Israelite thinking) unless you could carry offspring to term? Also, I'd love to see you try to interpret the rest of the Old Testament constantly trying to determine if "or" meant "and" and vice versa. Good luck with that.
donquickoats 1 year ago
donquickoats. First, I don't allow foul language on my pages, which is why your comment will not be approved. Second, any time an atheist even begins to talk about God he's addressing thelogy. Finally, no, Yahweh does not contradict Himself all the time. That is a claim mostly based on misinterpreted passages and ignorance. Hebrew is a very contextually based language, and the "and" "or" issue is not an issue, but at least I TRY to deal with the facts as opposed to making assumptions.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
I generally find that those who employ censorship are on the wrong side of the issue, whatever the issue may be. We both know that the real reason you don't allow free speech on your channel is not "foul language," but that your arguments are substantively destroyed many times over.
Also, what do you suppose happened to Jephthah's daughter after the two months were up? You really think she just lived happily ever after? Was she allowed to get married afterward?
donquickoats 1 year ago
@donquickoats LOL. Now that's a laugh. So because I screen comments all of a sudden the speculation must be offered that I'm on the "wrong side" of the issue. LOLOL. No one yet has offered any substantive arguments, including you. The text indicates, as scholars have pointed out, that she was offered as a living sacrifice and remained a perpetual virgin in service to God, thus not giving her father any children because she was his only child.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@donquickoats No, my efforts are reasonable and scholarly. Yah does not contradict Himself because you misread Scripture to think so. The point is, if virginity was the issue, that's something easily lost, regardless of the offspring issue. So it is obvious that virginity was not the issue in the sense of dying one due to being sacrificed. As the the whole interpreting thing, those who don't know how Hebrew works should not talk about the language.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
You have a point with your third argument, but that still doesn't resolve the issue that Jepthah is giving something which is not his to give. Whether she is offered as a burned offering, or offered in servitude, it is still Jepthah's will being forced on her. Now, this wouldn't be a problem except for Christianity's focus on free will, which Jepthah's daughter is clearly denied.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Gilmaris. In that culture and time, there was nothing wrong with Jephthah did regarding his daughter. They had arranged marriages back then as well. The point here is that there is no absolute human sacrifice in this text, as demonstrated by my points and the resources I provide in the "more info" section to the right.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
Your first argument is valid if you postulate that the Bible cannot contain contradictions. Your second argument is your subjective interpretation, and no more valid than the interpretation that she was mourning that she would die not having known a man (and I really don't see how it is relevant to bring up how long it takes to lose one's virginity - she clearly didn't spend two months trying to lose it - why WOULD she spend two months bewailing her virginity, anyway, according to you?).
Gilmaris 1 year ago
No, Gilmaris, my argument is valid because my basis is not whether or not there are contradictions in the Bible but if God truly contradictions Himself. My second argument is only "subjective" if you ignore context or don't know what the word means. The text does not focus on death by sacrifice. The issue of her virginity could not have been about her dying a virgin, as virginity can be lost in no time. So, we are left with something else which ultimately is not a human sacrifice to Yah.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
It is true that the God of the bible admonished other nations for sacrificeing humans to pagen gods, what you are missing is the reason for God admonishing them. Human sacrifice is only a sin in the eyes of God when the human is sacrificed to OTHER gods! You have only seen what you wanted to see. Show me in the bible where God says "Do no sacrifice humans to me"
punyo4u 2 years ago
punyo4u. You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Try reading Deut. 12:31,32. There He clearly says not to worship HIM as the pagans do, who sacrifice their sons and daughters. There is your "do not sacrifice humans to me" but not in those exact words, which they don't have to be in, for the point to stand.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
@CRoadwarrior
That wouldn't be the first contradiction in the Bible. What about Numbers 31?
Gilmaris 1 year ago
Gilmaris. LOL. You miss the entire point and argue something you can't hope to prove. What about Numbers 31?
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
god sais not to kill period....yet he asked and command ppl to kill. it doent makes sense but it is what it is. you are making excuses. the only thing you have proven is that there are contradictions in the bible.
B4mytyme 2 years ago
B4mytyme. Actually, God says not to MURDER, as the Hebrew indicates, which is taking innocent life. Those God commanded to be killed were guilty of violating His law. This is not making excuses but paying attention to the facts which it seems you ignore and make your own excuses.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
What is the definiiotn of mythology and how is theology any different?
EntinludeX 2 years ago
? You can get that answer from a Google search. This has nothing to do with the topic.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Pardon, brother, but I beg to differ. I think this speaks directly to the topic.
Let me rephrase my question, since it's fairly safe to assume we both know the definition of terms.
I'm simply curious as to what your thoughts are, given that the topic here seems to be "controversial interpretation of a theology",in that this could be said of any previous mythology during it's historical practice.
By which I mean to ask, what do you think about the relationship between theology and mythology?
EntinludeX 2 years ago
There is no real relationship.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Religion is myth/legends that have reverence going back to antiquity.
brianpadraic 2 years ago
Nice unsupported claim. But I don't buy it.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Well, I totally disagree with you, on likely everything.
However, this is still a pretty cool idea. The Road Warriors? Awesome. So, good persona.
undisputedgreatest 2 years ago
undisputedgreatest. Glad you like the persona. But to disagree without a valid basis is not good. I have provided context, sound Biblical reasoning and original Hebrew to support my view here. If you disagree and have a BASIS for it, then bring it.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
I can't believe it... This is awesome... I just read the comments and must say you completely OWENED every comment on this video that you replied to. Nice job!
CommonmanVideos 2 years ago
Thanks CommonmanVideos. The warrior fights on...
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Thanks for the links!
CommonmanVideos 2 years ago
Hmm, don't see my comment appearing so I'll post it again. Sorry if it shows up twice.
You make some very good points. Keep posting videos. :)
SarigHD 2 years ago
You make very good points. Keep posting videos. :)
SarigHD 2 years ago
Didn't he command Abraham to kill his son?
Anyway,this is pointless,trying to prove the bible with the bible.
You need outside corroborative sources and there are none and besides,evolution makes mincemeat of adam and eve,it didn't happen so if that's wrong it's ALL wrong.
And hey guess what,it's all wrong.
Besides,who would want to bow down to such a nasty malevolent character?
So man made it would be funny but for the fact religion is the biggest problem in the world.
Rockster969 2 years ago
Rockster969. Yes, He did command Abraham to offer his son. But, that was the only instance and it was prior to the orders not to. There is evidence outside the Bible, but the Bible does not necessarily need "outside" corroborative sources, since that assumes the Bible to be wrong a priori. Evolution has done no such thing. You can claim it's "all wrong," but that clam has no validity. Religion is not the biggest problem in the world. Sin is.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
cosmos11 2 years ago
LOL..cosmos11. Blindly copying Dawkins' nonsensical caricature of God is a joke. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Forgive me for not giving Richard Dawkins credit for one of his brilliant quotes.
cosmos11 2 years ago
LOL...Brilliantly ignorant and stupid. I'll give that to him.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Like I said, enjoy your delusional belief in an imaginary god who fits all the criteria of the Dawkins quote.
cosmos11 2 years ago
Like I said, enjoy your delusional and unfounded opinion that I believe in an imaginary god and the caricature of Dawkins and his grand ignorance.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
The skeptics would love to see the evidence that your god in not imaginary.
Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it. Dan Barker
cosmos11 2 years ago
LOL. The reality is, skeptics love to dismiss evidence they see that proves God is not imaginary. Truth does not demand belief? LOL. That is a nonsense claim. You can believe what is true. You have a misunderstanding about what faith is, and so does Dan Barker.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Using the words theological reasoning together in a sentence is an oxymoron. Any theological point can be disputed by skeptics because all theology is nonsense.
Human sacrifice doesn't make sense yet your god killed millions with Noah's flood & Sodom & Gomorrah including children and pregnant women. And oh yes, his own son. You sound like someone who has never read the old testament or maybe just another deluded christian apologist who finds a way to justify despicable murderous acts.
cosmos11 2 years ago
cosmos11. Nice bit of circular reasoning there. Yes, God destroyed sinful humans in the flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah. We today have a death penalty for criminals. But oh yes, we get off the hook but God has to stay on it. You clearly do not understand Christian doctrine. Never read the Old Testament? LOL. I can read it in the original Hebrew. Who is deluded? Not the warrior.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Enjoy your delusion:)
cosmos11 2 years ago
cosmos11. Enjoy your delusion that I'm enjoying a delusion. LOL.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
was Jesus not the most visible human sacrifice of all? and Transubstantiation parallel to ritualised cannibalism?
ThatGypsyBoy 2 years ago
ThatGypsyBoy. No, Jesus was not an example of humans offering to God another human as a human sacrifice. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic doctrine which has little basis, if any, in Scripture, and I am not Roman Catholic.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
erm, in scripture it does refer to Jesus as a sacrifice. Im currently doing human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism in my Theology course, and Jesus is one of the examples.
Although he is half human, half divine its still an example of a sacrifice to a God to clear sins - in the same vein Mayans would sacrifice people.
and although Protestant ideology doesnt have transubstantiation the bread and wine still symbolises blood and flesh.
ThatGypsyBoy 2 years ago
ThatGypsyBoy. I don't know what "theology course" you're taking, but if that course is saying Jesus is a "human sacrifice," it is not a credible accurate course. And orthodox Christianity does not teach that Jesus was "half" human and "half" divine. You need to do your homework.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
...he was born by a mortal woman as the son of God. Im guessing that makes him half/half.....
and he allowed himself to die to purge the sins. To die for a religious course IS sacrifice.
I know im seeing it from a non-christian viewpoint.
ThatGypsyBoy 2 years ago
ThatGypsyBoy. No, it does not make him "half/half." The Bible argues for Him being fully God and fully human, a unique union that is beyond our comprehension. Human sacrifice means humans offering humans. Jesus by definition cannot be a "human sacrifice" in the sense condemned in the Bible.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Is it possible, That maybe your the one who should do your homework? If said god does exist he's the only one who knows everything right? You, are not him. Therefore there is always room for error. You can't just say people are wrong because you don't agree with them. I don't care how many classes you took, I dont care what you studied. You can always be just as wrong as you think he is. You are not the smartest person on this subject.
MissDisastrous 2 years ago
MissDisastrous. No, it is not possible that I did not do my homework when I know I did...and I have the grades and credentials to back that up. I don't just "say" people are wrong. I demonstrate it with facts and evidence. I never claimed to be the smartest person on the subject. If I am wrong, I am waiting for someone to PROVE that.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
How can anyone prove you wrong when you wont admit that you are incorrect? Grades, Credentials, They mean nothing. You could very well be learning from a flawed system that has been passed down generation to generation. The only tangible thing you can truly grasp is faith, and with that you are in no place to call someone else "wrong"
MissDisastrous 2 years ago
MissDisastrous. You have me mixed up with some of the atheists here. I can admit being incorrect when I am proved so. Grades and credentials mean nothing? ROFL. What "could" be is not the issue. What "is" is. You also assume that there is no "wrong" when it comes to what you call "faith." Nonsense. The most basic principle of logic says that there cannot be two true contradictory claims.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Just because you demonstrate it doesn't make it right. (Your demonstrations are questionable) I could sit and very discriptively demonstrate how sniffing permanent markers is healthy, that doesn't make it right now does it? You lack the honorable qualifty of admitting when your wrong, it's pathetic really. It's your religion, you can believe in whatever you want, but dont write someone off as wrong just because it isn't what "you" researched and got a big fat A and a smiley face on.
MissDisastrous 2 years ago
LOL.. You are simply too immature and uneducated in these things to even argue over this. My demonstrations are not questionable because you say so. The issue is, can you PROVE they are? I doubt it. You are even wrong on the issue of my being able to admit being wrong. I've done it several times already, on minor things. I know my Bible and my "religion" well, and that some of my detractors even respect me for. You could learn from them.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
That's just what I was willing to spend a minute or two on locating, there is plenty more. This is enough however to show your assertion as false. The correct statement is god condemned human sacrifice to any god but him.
lredtree 2 years ago
No, there are not plenty more, unless they are taken out of context or misread in some way. My assertion is far from false.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
You could say that about anything, it's hardly a good argument.
lredtree 2 years ago
No, that is not true. I can DEMONSTRATE in detail, and go into the original Hebrew and/or Greek (since I can translate both languages now) to show you how wrong you are. I've already shown you that "natan" does NOT mean sacrifice. So you can claim anything you want with no scholarly support, but you have no valid arguments based on solid evidence.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
21:6 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibe-ah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose.
21:9 And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibe-on-ites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
lredtree 2 years ago
Iredtree. I don't know what "21:6" is, but regardless your misreadings will not help you. The passages do NOT claim that humans are being offered as human sacrifices.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Yes, actually it does. Very clearly.
lredtree 2 years ago
NO, it does not. You might want to take Hebrew. Obviously you have not.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Iredtree. I would suggest that before you try to post any more passages you THINK proves me wrong, that you study more thorough passage context overall Biblical context. You also might want to look up the meaning of some Hebrew words.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Your arguments of "context" and the meaning of Hebrew words is pointless.
The main concern here is what the bible says in it's current translation, not what the Torah says. The Hebrew version may be all flowers and hugs, but there aren't any christians in this country reading it.
lredtree 2 years ago
Now that is about the silliest argument I've every heard. In other words, I don't know the original, and so I will go by my ignorance and trust the translation which ALSO doesn't say that "give" means "burnt sacrifice" LOL. Good bye, Iredtree.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
You state at 2:30 in your video that god condemns human sacrifice.
Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
lredtree 2 years ago
Iredtree. Yes, God condemned it, and I gave the passages for that as well. Exodus 22:29 is NOT God saying give the firstborn in sacrifice. You are misreading the passage. That passage is speaking of consecration, not human sacrifice. The Hebrew word for give (Natan) used in Ex. 22:29 is the same Hebrew word used in 1 Sam. 1:11. This indicates dedication and consecration, NOT burnt offering sacrifice.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
weak argument; god DID commit theological suicide. No amount of mental gymnastics can justify god's wicked deed here.
duksun 2 years ago
Weak argument? Please. And when and where did YOU learn any Hebrew to even begin to understand the issues here? I suggest you do some serious study and reflect on the contextual emphasis, which is NOT what you think it is but what the TEXT says it is.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
Be a man, enable ratings, drop moderation. Or you can't face reality? Prove me I'm wrong and you are not a coward.
rgzdev 2 years ago
LOL. The warrior doesn't have to "enable ratings" to prove anything. The fact that you even bring that up shows you lack substance in argumentation.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
@CRoadwarrior You don't need to enable rating, just don't disable them. But most christian apologists can't do that.
Even heavily moderating, you shoot yourself in the foot without any help, what a disgrace.
rgzdev 2 years ago
rgzdev. I have explained in times past the very valid reason why I screen posts, since people like to name-call and run, make racial comments and run, and so forth. So I'm not going to go through all that again. They're my video pages and I can screen comments if I like. You don't like it, watch something else. The real disgrace is that you have no other argument but to talk about ratings when the video topic has nothing to do with them. THAT is the disgrace.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
@CRoadwarrior You keep repeating I have no arguments as if that made them vanish away.
Mattew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Your god threatens to eternal torture for petty misdemeanors, this is morally abhorrent and unfit as a moral guide.
Incoming hand wave in 3...2...1...
--
ratingless == spineless
rgzdev 2 years ago
rgzdev. Grand ignorance. Go research what John Calvin in his commentary had to say about the passage. This has been addressed YEARS ago.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
@CRoadwarrior Ok I'll amuse you, I googled it and Calvin's argument is that "Fool" == Anger and Anger is punishable. Sorry, I don't condone the though police, Brother.
See, this is why I didn't heard of John Calvin, he's rubbish.
Now amuse me, first get a PhD in Biology, Geology and Archeology, *then* you can start talking about whether evolution is science or not.
Can you play your own game?
--
ratingless == spineless
rgzdev 2 years ago
rgzdev. That is NOT Calvin's argument. You need to go to a library or be more honest about what you read because I know exactly what he said about the passage, and that ain't it.
If my arguments are based on those who do have doctorates in biology, geology and archeology, and their arguments are valid and hold up, I don't have to get one to argue whether evolution is pure science or not. So no matter how you slice it, you lose the game because you have no clue about the rules.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
@CRoadwarrior That is John Calvin, if you havea different argument speak up your mind instead of being always evasive. What are these Biologists you speak of? What are their arguments? Why are you always so evasive?
And there is no arguing virtually all Biology Doctorates disagree with you so you need to justify your position.
Lie again and I'll get the heck outta here.
--
ratingless == spineless
rgzdev 2 years ago
@rgzdev You oversimplify Calvin and are dishonest. Thus, you cannot post here any longer. Look up Dr. Michael Denton, Dr. A.E. Wider-Smith, and Dr. Gary Parker. Talking about how virtually "all" biology doctorates disagree with me is not an argument. Truth is not determined by numbers. That's a consensus gentium fallacy.
CRoadwarrior 2 years ago
CRW. ALL these arguments have been addressed YEARS ago. I LOVE these atheist YouTubers who come onto Christian videos and make comments as if THEY are coming up with some NEW argument against scripture. I especially like the ones who have obviously just come from the SKAB website.
Deke101 2 years ago