Why You Should Avoid The Cucked Interpretations Of Modern Christianity

Last week my colleague Donovan Sharpe published an article entitled A Red Pill Perspective On The Existence Of God. The article is a meditation on how belief in God, specifically from a Christian perspective, can be sustained in light of neomasculine philosophy. The topic is infinitely important for our lives so Donovan’s article deserves an intelligent response. Here is my attempt.

Modern Christianity is weak, cucked, and often plain wrong


Modern Christianity has watered down the message of Christ in many ways. Donovan mentions one of them: The “God has a wonderful plan for your life” slogan. This slogan was developed by Bill Bright who founded the Campus Crusade for Christ in the 1950s. Bright tried to boil down the Christian gospel to an easy-to-present plan to facilitate making converts.

The problem with the “God has a wonderful plan” slogan is that it is patently untrue. Traditional Christianity teaches that God does indeed have a plan for our lives, but that it might not be what we consider wonderful. The Twelve Apostles did not have wonderful lives. They were poor and persecuted during their lives and were martyred for their belief. Other saints through the ages experienced every sort of deprivation. If we wanted to develop a more accurate slogan for Christianity it might be: “God wants you to be with him eternally. Your life here may or may not be that great.”

This message that God promises people a wonderful life has had a deep impact on the lives of many modern Christians. It is a message that fits perfectly with our hedonistic culture that puts pleasure above duty. Christian couples forego having children so they can travel or drive luxury cars. Lukewarm Christian women divorce perfectly good husbands in pursuit of the Prince Charming they think they deserve. Bishops and pastors preach only those parts of the gospel that make them popular with the secular culture.

Modern Christianity is also compromised in other ways. Rather than standing against the culture, Christian churches have tried to accommodate as much of the culture as possible. Some denominations have embraced Christian feminism, push for left wing social causes such as open borders, and bless gay marriages. For that reason, if you want to learn what real Christianity is, you will have to ignore recent teaching in favor of the past.  A good rule of thumb is to simply avoid reading Christian material written after 1900. Listen to your Sunday Sermon but take it with a grain of salt.

But does it work?


Christianity is not the easy path.

Donovan’s article is written from a practical perspective: Does it benefit red-pill men? Here is my personal take on whether Christianity is helpful. To begin, the only reason to become a Christian is if you happen to believe it is true. If you believe it to be true, you have no choice. There are times when I wish Christianity wasn’t true because it makes me uncomfortable. That said, there are both advantages and disadvantages to Christianity.

The biggest disadvantage of Christianity is that it cramps one’s style. For men, the biggest hit comes in the form of sexual morality: you can only have sex with your wife. And you can’t divorce her. No fapping, no polygamy, and no concubines. If you are a PUA, becoming a Christian will end your pick-up career. That said, Christian morality, even sexual morality, is conducive to success in life.

As for advantages, I believe my life is better than it would have been had a remained an agnostic. I happen to like being married. Fathering children has been the greatest joy in my life and I can’t imagine doing it outside of marriage. Being a Christian was what made me realize that there was something very wrong with modern culture. I attribute becoming red-pilled to reading older Christian books. I have not found that Christianity leads to becoming a beta cuck. On the contrary, it is a call to be a man fully alive.

But ultimately, Christianity is not about earthly benefits. G.K. Chesterton was once asked why he had become a Christian and he responded, “To have my sins forgiven.” Christianity promises more than just heaven to believers: It promises nothing less than divine sonship—to be a son of God. The divine adoption of a Christian is not something that starts in the future, although it will receive its fulfillment there. It begins in the here and now. If becoming a son of God is not a good enough reason to become a Christian, I don’t know what is.

Islam and Women


Radical Muslim Tashfeen Malik led her beta husband to commit terrorism.

Donovan ends his article with the observation that Islam appears to do a much better job at dealing with women than Christianity. From an external point of view, this does indeed seem to be the case. In an Islamic society, women are forbidden from doing many things such as voting or driving. They also must not be seen in public without some type of covering. We might imagine that women in Islamic society are loving and obedient to their fathers and husbands. In my experience this romantic view of life under Islam is a myth.

While I was in college I had several Muslim friends so I was able to observe some differences between Islam and Christianity. Jesus laid great emphasis on interior disposition. He criticized the Pharisees for being obedient to the letter of the law, but not its spirit. For example, Jesus taught that it was not only wrong to commit adultery physically, but that one must also refrain from lustful thoughts. Serious Christians, therefore, make an effort not just to appear to be good on the outside, but to be good in their hearts.

Islam, on the other hand, appears to be a religion that is very much devoted to external forms. As long as you obey the letter of the law, you are bound for paradise. This is why the 9-11 hijackers saw no discrepancy between visiting a strip club before they flew planes into the World Trade Center. This legalistic attitude played a big role in the Muslim girls I knew. While they were technically virgins in that they still had a hymen, they were very promiscuous in every possible way that did not violate their virginity. These Muslim girls also tended to be very materialistic. All those hijabs in Saks and Barney’s are not just window shopping. And even the perception of obedience seemed to be a myth: Muslim women can be very demanding of their husbands. I will caveat my observations by noting that my sample size was very limited. I’m certain that some Muslims do interiorize their faith, but I didn’t witness that.

In contrast, devout Christian girls, while not perfect, are the real McCoy. If they are virgins (yes, they exist), they are more likely to be actual virgins, not just technically. While all girls like nice things Christian girls are less materialistic than non-Christians. And Christian women tend to be loving and faithful wives and excellent mothers. The only bad thing I can say about the Christian women that I know is that there are so few of them. They are usually the result of being raised in deeply Christian households. But the rarity of Christian girls is not a flaw in Christianity, but a deficiency of Christian leaders who have watered down the teachings of Christ to fit in with the wider culture.


We live in a post-Christian civilization. Most people who call themselves Christians, including many ministers and priests, have a weak faith that shrinks under the slightest opposition.It is natural that masculine men reject this flaccid philosophy. But true Christianity is anything but weak. If you are going to give Christianity a try, make sure it is the genuine article and not a modern day fake.

Read More: Philosophical Approaches To Proving The Existence Of God

821 thoughts on “Why You Should Avoid The Cucked Interpretations Of Modern Christianity”

  1. Since the dawn of man, people have been twisting religion for selfish, political purposes. Any church you go to needs to be looked at objectively before you jump into it. Christ once said “By their fruits (not San Francisco fruits) ye shall know them.
    If something seems amiss where you are at, study it and pray about it.
    “And if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given unto him”

  2. Christ is the ultimate example of what it means to be a man. Following his example and his teachings will make you stronger in every conceivable way. Good to see an article on Return of Kings that recognizes the King of Kings.

      1. Pardon. I just had to laugh at reading someone called Darth Vader commenting positively on a Christian article. 😀
        Literally had to laugh.

        1. OK, some of us may use the Force on occasion to choke those who perform poorly at their job. That doesn’t mean I’m a bad person! Don’t come out of hyperspace too soon and you’ll be fine. And make sure your annual evaluation is good; I do read those.

        2. It’s not the choking that pisses us off Vader! The emperor sent his dark lord of the sith to protect one small ventilation hole on his Death Star from an bunch of teenagers.

        1. Michael Sebastian is a good man, and a strong defender of the faith (for those coming from a Roman Catholic viewpoint).
          He did unfortunately repeat several common errors regarding Christian sexuality (and he should know better since I’ve discussed the matter with him on his own website). Michael is just repeating the position of the Roman Catholic Church on these issues.
          As a Protestant Christian, I have to point out what the Bible says on some of these issues.
          Michael wrote that Christianity prohibits polygamy. That is incorrect.
          The Bible never forbids men from having more than one wife. The Bible never calls it immoral. The Bible never calls it unclean. The Bible never calls it sin, ungodly, or anything like that. To the contrary, the Bible is full of Godly men who had more than one wife at the same time. None of these men are ever rebuked, punished, criticized, etc. for having multiple wives.
          The Bible simply calls polygamous marriages “marriage”. The man is called a “husband” and the women are called “wives”.
          Examples of Biblical Believers with more than one wife include among others:
          The Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob
          Moses, the great lawgiver himself
          Judges like Gideon, Ibzan, Jair, and Abdon
          Kings like David (rebuked by God for fucking another man’s wife Bathsheba, but never for having a dozen or so wives of his own),
          Solomon (who was rebuked for idolatry, and marrying forbidden women – but not for polygamy),
          Joash (with the blessing and guidance of the godly priest Jehoida).
          And even a few regular good guys like Elkanah the father of Samuel.
          The Old Testament Law clearly permitted traditional patriarchal polygamy. The New Testament never mentions polygamy. Neither Jesus, nor the apostles ever prohibited polygamy.
          Unfortunately many of the early church fathers had a very negative view of sex. The Roman Empire (and Greco/Roman culture) was against polygamy, and the early Church generally caved to the culture on the issue. The medieval Roman Catholic church also strongly discouraged it. Finally, at the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church totally banned polygamy.
          Today, most Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians are unfortunately ignorant regarding this issue. They just go along with what they’ve always heard, and been taught.
          Personally, I hold that the Bible is the final ultimate source of spiritual authority for the Christian. The Bible may discourage polygamy, but it certainly does not prohibit it.
          Sorry to say it Michael, but listening to Popes and Councils (when they contradict the Bible) is a pretty blue pill thing to do.
          I forgot to mention that the Bible also permits men to divorce an adulterous wife.
          I know that Rome forbids it, and that sounds pretty cucky to me.

        2. Unfortunately many of the early church fathers had a very negative view of sex. The Roman Empire (and Greco/Roman culture) was against polygamy, and the early Church generally caved to the culture on the issue. The medieval Roman Catholic church also strongly discouraged it. Finally, at the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church totally banned polygamy.

          Yeah, they had such a negative image of sex that Christians outbred pagans in the Empire…
          Polygamy is highly dysgenic and the one of the greatest contributions of the Catholic Church was its prohibition in the West. It’s true that polygamy is not a sin but there is a reason the Church is the “bride” not brides and why it was discouraged in the New Testament (Paul’s concept of marriage didn’t include polygamous arrangements)
          Polygamy is only sustainable when two conditions are met: perpetual wars of expansion and high male mortality. Otherwise you get the Middle East dysfunction.

          Personally, I hold that the Bible is the final ultimate source of spiritual authority for the Christian. The Bible may discourage polygamy, but it certainly does not prohibit it.

          Please show us the verse where Jesus or some prophet admonished us to worship the bible?

        3. Jesus Christ says in the Old testament he barely permitted polygamy basically because of how badly man had fallen into sin. In the New testament he declares marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the will of God, and it cannot be broken apart by man: Matthew 19:4-6
          4 But he answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he *who made man in the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:
          5 *For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
          6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

        4. I agree 100%. Christianity absolutely does not forbid polygamy. It merely prohibits senior church leaders from being married to more than one wife.
          Now, I don’t think that widespread polygamy is a good idea in a normal societal situation. But it could make sense in limited situations when there is significant gender disparity (i.e. after a war).

        5. As I mentioned previously, Christ never mentioned polygamy. What He did here and elsewhere was to repeat the basic Genesis 2 definition of marriage. Two become one flesh, and it is meant to be permanent. Christ is speaking against divorce, not polygamy. If He wanted to prohibit polygamy He would have. He did not.
          Here and elsewhere Christ upheld the Old Testament definition of marriage, by quoting the Law of Moses (Genesis 2).
          The Old Testament permitted it, as did Christ, and the apostles.
          Also, two becoming one flesh does not preclude patriarchal polygamy. Jacob was one flesh with Leah. Jacob was simultaneously one flesh with Rachel. Leah and Rachel were not one flesh with each other.
          Likewise, each individual believer is “one spirit” with Christ.
          Covenantal heads can serve as “head” over more than one person. Those under their authority have only one covenantal head.
          A father can have several sons, but a son can have only one father. A king may have many subjects,but a subject may only have one king. A master may have more than one servant, but a servant may only have one master.
          Likewise, a man may have more than one wife, but a woman may only have one husband.
          God has many believers, but the believer may have only one God.

        6. I agree that is is not generally advisable. It is more of an unusual exception kind of thing. That said, the mere theoretical possibility of polygamy serves to strengthen patriarchy.
          Wives are less likely to cut off their husbands from sex, if know that he can possibly take another wife. The headship of the husband is strengthened (see Esther chapter 1).

        7. No Jesus, the apostles, and the Church fathers were very clear on this matter. That’s why we don’t see the early Christians and actually Christians since having polygamous marriages.

        8. Excellent post. Also, don’t forget that NOAH’s dad was also married to more than one woman.
          But…inasmuch as the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue as you have stipulated, don’t look for much support for your ACCURATE theology in non-Catholic churches either! haha
          Also, check out the comments section of the video I linked to (it’s from my channel.)
          I support Christian polygamy as a legitimate option as well and have DEFEATED all who dared debate this topic.
          I don’t really even agree that the Bible discourages it, except in the case of kings, but that is more about EXPLOITING your position which is why (at least in my view) it also says kings shouldn’t multiply horses. As a rule, it’s hardly a sin to own a horse stable. haha
          Your voice, in particular, would be VERY welcome there!
          PS You do know you are WRONG when you say
          “The New Testament never mentions polygamy” right!

        9. YES!!! One of the DISTINCT advantages.
          This needs to be discussed and EXPLORED much more.
          Also, please check out the comments section of the video I linked to (it’s from my channel.)
          I support Christian polygamy as a legitimate option as well and have DEFEATED all who dared debate this topic.

        10. “Jesus Christ says Old testament he barely permitted polygamy basically because of how badly man had fallen into sin”
          bahah Typical FALSE teaching.
          He was talking about DIVORCE and you TWISTED it into talking about MARRIAGE.

        11. “Please show us the verse where Jesus or some prophet admonished us to worship the bible?”
          W-What! OK, you just SELF-disqualified. haha

        12. Deuteronomy 17 no more prohibited the king from having multiple wives than it prohibited him from having more than one horse (the wording about horses and wives is exactly the same).
          The king wasn’t suppose to abuse his position (hording tons of wives, horses, silver and gold). Likewise, he was to trust in God rather than alliances (sealed by marriage), military power (horses), or wealth (silver and gold).
          Solomon seems to have violated all three aspects of the command (horses, gold, and 1000 wives seem excessive).
          David on the other hand did not violate Debut. 17 even though he had multiple wives, multiple horses, and a lot of gold. He trusted in God, rather than these earthly things. Likewise, he didn’t go overboard with any of them.
          Where does the NT mention polygamy? I do think 1st Corinthians 6,7 and Romans 7:1 indicate that polygamy is still permitted.
          Thanks for your comments.

        13. Please. The only thing you have shown is your ignorance in the topic. One of the reasons the west cout outmatch its competitors…its men weren’t busy trying to get the family scraps to see if they were lucky and a pretty cousin was available while most of the pretty and virgin girls were claimed by rich men and politicians thus damaging their bloodlines in the long term and developing a tribal society where no one could be trusted….that what happens with polygamy sans perpetual war and/or male scarcity…
          Polygamy is not a sin, but it was not recommended let alone praised in the Bible, especially in the New Testament.

        14. 1000 wives would be terrible. Who wants to find 2000 stockings hanging from the curtain rack every morning

        15. I’m still studying my thoughts on Christianity and sexuality. Many Christian rulers have taken mistresses and were considered good Christians. Hell, even many clergy. You raise good points, still considering it myself. I’m pro marriage to one woman as an ideal, but that ideal is reliant upon culture.

        16. Jesus and the apostles clearly never prohibit polygamy. I think Paul even indicates its continuing lawfulness (Romans 7, and 1st Corinthians). The church fathers on the other hand do not speak with Divine authority. God has spoken in the Bible. Church fathers may aid us in understanding the Bible, but the authority is the written word of God.

        17. The Biblical terms for such women are harlots and whores, not brides. I’m ever grateful to God for giving me an honorable virgin Christian for a bride 17 years ago. She is still pretty and thin, as well as a good cook, and has a gentle kind spirit. She even works hard to cultivate a submissive heart.

        18. Soooo butt hurt. But why. Oh yeah. You don’t even understand the BASICS of being a Christian which means
          1) Born Again
          2) A scripturist – someone who believes the Bible IS the word of God and defers to an honest, reasonable thoughtful understanding of scripture in ALL matters.

        19. Right. But if “two become one flesh…” according to the official biblical definition; that’s TWO… not THREE or FOUR or FIVE etc. He’s not saying “I forbid polygamy” in those exact words. He’s saying the only marriage he approves of is between one man and one woman. I’m not Christian, but I certainly agree with this principle.

        20. Jesus does ban polygamy. “He who lusts with their eyes has committed adultery in his heart.”
          If you’re lusting after women after you’ve married one, you’re committing adultery. Therefore a man cannot find more women to marry without committing adultery.
          The word adultery itself means to “water down,” which is why polygamy was banned in the OT as well. “Thou shalt not multiply wives.” Thus lusting after more women once you are married is adulterating your marriage and a mortal sin. Therefore, polygamy is a mortal sin.

        21. Samseau – That is what the feminists in the church want you to believe, but it is not what the Bible says.
          The Bible generally defines adultery as “having sex with another man’s wife, or from the female perspective, having sex with a man other than her husband”.
          Jesus and Malachi also tell us that a man unjustly divorcing his wife in order to get a different one is basically adultery as well.
          Patriarchal polygamy is NEVER regarded as adultery.
          Look at the following passages for the definition I gave above.
          Leviticus 18:20, Exodus 20:17, Leviticus 20:10, Proverbs 6:29, Proverbs 7:19, Proverbs 2:16-17, Jeremiah 29:23, Ezekiel 16:32, Deuteronomy 5:21, Deuteronomy 22:22-24, 2nd Samuel 12:10, Genesis 20:3, Genesis 39:9, Numbers 5:12-13, Numbers 13:11-31, Romans 7:1-2.
          Also regarding ” lusting after a woman”, the specific Greek word Jesus used was for a married woman. The Greek word woman is the word wife. This word refers to a married woman.
          This is a translation issue. The translators should have translated it as “lusts after another man’s wife commits adultery in his heart”.
          Do some research on the Greek word. Then, come at this verse with the whole Old Testament law in view. Christ is clearly telling men not to lust (adultery in heart) after other men’s wives.
          It has nothing to do with polygamy. You are grasping at straws my friend.

        22. You talking about the parable of the ten virgins?
          I’m serious. Please explain. I’d like to know your thoughts.

        23. No I’m not grasping at straws, your entire argument rests on a translation issue. You raise an interesting possibility, but I will research more into this later. Much more likely you are wrong on this, even Young’s literal translation says “woman” and not “another man’s wife.”
          However, if the translation issue is true, then polygamy would not be banned. But Christ’s word is paramount.
          Please keep in mind the Apostle Paul never permitted polygamy for Church leaders, who are held as the highest standard for everyone in the community.
          One thing, however, is that neither Christ nor Paul banned concubinage; this was not banned until much later in Christian history (700 AD I think?). And a man could only have concubines BEFORE marriage, once he was married you can only have eyes for his Wife.

        24. The Greek word in question means both “wife” and “woman” and is translated both ways different places in Scripture (check Strongs’s concordance online to see) depending on the context. I am arguing that the context here (the word adultery) tells us that we should render it as “wife” rather than any type of woman.
          The Greek language also has words for young woman/virgin, and female in general, that Christ could have used, but chose not to.
          Lusting after a virgin might be sexual immorality or fornication in the heart, but it isn’t adultery.
          As I pointed out, in the Bible, the word adultery always refers to a married woman being violated. See all the passages I mentioned previously.
          A general principle of interpretation is is that the clear passages help interpret the difficult ones. The entirety of the Old Testament makes it clear that Christ was prohibiting us from coveting our neighbor’s wife (rather than honestly desiring marriage with an eligible woman).
          Those who heard Christ originally say this would have certainly understood Him to be referencing marred women.
          Also, regarding concubines, the Bible generally treats them as wives (real marriage) although having a somewhat lower status.
          These were slave/servant women who became a man’s wife by being bought, rather than being free women given by their father for a brde price.
          Hagar is an example. She is a maidservant who becomes a wife (Genesis uses the word wife describing her). Her son Ishmael is a legitimate son, but of a lower status (being born of a slave woman -see Galatians where Paul talks about it). Also, Hagar clearly has lower status than Sarah (but is still described as a wife).
          My point is this: A man with a concubine is a married man/husband.

        25. For further reference on the viewpoint that Christianity permits polygamy, I recommend the following books.
          Thelyophthora – by Martin Madan (English Evangelical pastor from 1700s) freely available as a pdf online from Google books.
          Man and woman in Biblical law – by Tom Shipley – modern book
          Or just start Googling Christian polygamy. There are Christians who have taught that polygamy is not prohibited.
          Even St. Agustine and Martin Luther admit in places that it does not violate God’s Law.

        26. First, I appreciate your contrary thinking on polygamy. Very interesting and I will be reading Thelyophthora soon. Can’t wait to see.
          I also find your translation claim to be very interesting, and I will be looking into this soon.
          That said, I can tell you are DEFINATELY operating on bad translations as well! You said:
          “Lusting after a virgin might be sexual immorality or fornication in the heart, but it isn’t adultery.”
          ‘Fornication’ only meant whoring in the original biblical context. And whoring means buying sex. Merely sex outside of marriage basically never happened; the entire concept of promiscuous sex was virtually unheard of in Christ’s day.
          The closest historical example of a raging slut is Saint Mary of Egypt (300 AD). And not once in her account does she refer to her activities as whoring, and she even makes a point to stress she never accepted payment for her rampant debauchery!
          I talk about this subject with my own original research here: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-47972.html
          So lusting after a virgin is not fornication (i.e. whoring) or adultery. Moreover how does any relationship start without some form of lust? Since we live in a world where most people have sex before marriage, it seems rather strange to say all men are sinning by having sex before marriage (although it’s most certainly not good, and thus a sin, for the woman!) The idea that men should go without sex altogether because there are no virgins is extremely unnatural and would be incomprehensible for early Christians. God made man to desire sex; he did not make woman to give away her sex as freely as she does today.
          Regardless, if you are interested in seeing the translation issues regarding “sexual immorality” I encourage you to read the thread I posted. I even found errors on the Vatican’s website!

        27. Interesting. I’ll check out your post. Thanks for sharing everything you mentioned.
          I will grant that polygamous Christian men probably can’t be pastors or deacons (1st Tim.).
          I think premarital sex violates the authority of the virgin’s father to give her hand in marriage. Also note that the Law required a man who seduced a virgin to marry her. I think that applies to Christians today also.
          I’m glad that my wife was a virgin when we married (I had never had sex before either). Also, her father freely gave her to be my wife. Patriarchy.

        28. That’s nice bro but there aren’t even close to enough virgins to go around. A father should have rights to his daughter’s virginity (as it was in 1st century AD) but we do not live in such a world.
          There is virtually no age limit to which girls can or cannot have sex anymore. Parents can attempt to steer their daughters away from premarital sex (and should) but if the girl has sex at 18 there is nothing they can do to punish or stop her. Boys growing up in such an environment cannot be held to a “no sex before marriage” standard when the girls are slutting it up with alphas everywhere.
          And men still should get married even in a world where most women are not even close to pure, yes? So the only way to determine if a fallen woman is worthy of marriage is to keep her as a concubine (i.e. girlfriend) for a few years and make sure she’s loyal beforehand. Because marrying a non-virgin without giving her a test run is not just foolish, but dangerous considering how severe divorce laws are.

        29. I totally flipped my view on gay marriage when I found out that there was a higher % of suicide amongst gays,
          I decided that they weren’t being gay just to piss people off, that I had no right to judge them, that they already felt judged by God often, and it was between Him and them,
          and that their ‘sexual sin’ was far less than the pastors who sleep with other people’s wives,
          logically, I would prefer if gay marriage was enforced, all of the bed hopping spreads STD’s.

        30. Where do you come up with this crap? the bible says no such thing. it actually instructs people to marry the wife of their dead brother so that she has a safe place to live.
          by your logic, a man couldn’t marry his first wife without committing adultery.

        31. wrong, learn to read. Adultery is when at least one person is married. Also OT law != NT law. Christ came to fulfill OT law by clarifying and expounding upon it.

        32. my reply was clearly about polygamy, and your comment that the OT banned polygamy, the verse you are referring to is about kings accumulating too many wives,
          but as far as adultery goes, the OT interpretation of adultery seems to be more about stealing another persons property, which a new wife isn’t doing.
          I don’t support polygamy, except in cases where say someone is long term ill, and happier for husband to get a life if it doesn’t involve him leaving her, believe it or not there are many marriages where a wife prefers her husband to get his sexual fulfillment from outside his marriage,
          I don’t see the bible forbidding that, but rather seeking to formalize it, so that the other woman isn’t left with nothing in old age.

        33. You are right to mention that the levirate law (marriage to the childless widow of brother) would sometimes REQUIRE a polygamous marriage (as would the law relating to the seduction of virgins – if a married man seduced a virgin – of course he shouldn’t do, since it violates the authority of her father).
          I also agree that polygamy is more of an unusual exception, and not is generally advisable. Still, it is real marriage, not adultery or sexual immorality.
          Finding an honest clergyman who will tell the truth about this issue is a difficult task indeed.

        34. “my reply was clearly about polygamy, and your comment that the OT banned polygamy”
          no, “he who lusts with his eyes…” is NT

        35. Try reading for comprehension.
          “He who lusts with his eyes has committed adultery in his heart.”
          Thus if you lust after any woman while you’re married, you’re committing adultery.

        36. Bart is right.
          The Bible nowhere forbids polygamy — neither in the Old Testament nor in the New.
          The Torah warns Kings not to “multiply” wives (something which Solomon ignored, as he did so many of the other commandments), but that is not a ban on polygamy. For instance, there is no sense that God disapproved of David’s polygamous marriages whatsoever — whilst God made it very clear that he did disapprove of David’s theft of another man’s wife (i.e. Bathsheba).
          The New Testament does not prohibit polygamy, either — a glaring omission, given the marital mores of the Middle East. Indeed, it says only that those with certain responsibilities and duties in the church (deacons and bishops) should be “the husband of one wife”. It is also notable that out of all the instruction given to Christians about sex and marriage in the New Testament, nowhere is the traditional Old Testament polygamous marriage forbidden.
          That said, it would seem polygamy is not God’s ideal (otherwise he would have created Adam and Eve, and Brenda and Daisy, etc.) — it is an arrangement which he permits. (Although he allows only polygyny, since polyandry is merely adultery in his eyes.)
          Moreover, the churchian notion that if a man ever lusts after any woman he has committed adultery in his heart is ridiculous and damaging. So many single men have been racked with guilt and tormented over that false doctrine, as it places an unbearable burden on them. Sexual desire for women is hardwired into men — even those single Christian men who manage to kick masturbation will soon find themselves having wet-dreams laden with lustful encounters with women they know.
          Adultery is defined very strictly in Scripture: it is where a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband. …And thus this passage makes sense only if the word which is translated as “woman” (namely γυνή) is taken to mean a married woman, i.e. another man’s wife (and throughout Scripture, γυνή is frequently translated as “wife” — almost as often as it is translated as “woman”).
          It is clear from the context (i.e. teaching on adultery) that Christ was warning men not to lust after a married
          — since having sex with a married woman was indeed adultery. Having sex with an unmarried woman was not: it is not possible to commit adultery in the heart with a woman who is unmarried, since even if one acted out one’s fantasies in the flesh, it would still not be adultery.
          Jesus was very concerned with sexual immorality, and preached against it uncompromisingly. But he did not lay unbearable burdens on people — and the dogma that he viewed single men’s sexual desire for a mate (or even their masturbation) as “adultery in the heart” has loaded down young men with crushing unbiblical guilt since time immemorial, which the churches, just like Pharisees before them, have not lifted a finger to remove, but have instead kept rigidly in place.
          There’s little wonder why the churches have lost men.

        37. If someone is making a judgment on Christian living without directly stating where in the bible it is told to us then they are full of shit. State your case.

        38. I appreciate the objection, namely,
          “Adultery is defined very strictly in Scripture: it is where a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband. …And thus this passage makes sense only if the word which is translated as “woman” (namely γυνή) is taken to mean a married woman, i.e. another man’s wife (and throughout Scripture, γυνή is frequently translated as “wife” — almost as often as it is translated as “woman”).”
          I am going to do more research on this, and see if your translation has any merit.

        39. Christianity permits polygamy as long as it’s the man committing the polygamy? So, we call out females and feminism on their hypocrisy every chance we get; but if we want to be hypocritical as fuck it’s all good. Got it.

        40. It’s funny how you can keep reading things and see them thru your own perception, you’ve been quite clear, but I’ve only just seen it,
          You can only see women as vagina’s, so you don’t think in terms of loving them without lusting for them.
          But I’d still argue the point that, the women that you’re eligible to marry are the ones not married to someone else, the girls if you will, so you aren’t committing adultery,
          If you look at the societies where polygamy is common, a women will often be happy for her husband to take another wife as it’s companionship for her and divides domestic duties, I’m greatly opposed to polygamy, where poor males can’t get a wife, but I can’t see that the bible forbids it,
          In a lot of Eastern European countries, there is quite a higher percentage of women to men, polygamy would allow the unmatched women to have a husband and not die alone,

        41. Very well said my friend.
          You seem to be a man who has carefully read the Bible, and thought a fair bit about these issues.
          That translation of “lusts after a woman” rather than “another man’s wife” has done great damage to a multitude of men. It is such a horrible lie.
          Lusting is a form of coveting. You covet that which belongs to someone else.
          There is nothing wrong with a man desiring a woman, a car, a house, etc.
          The problem arises when I covet the woman, car, house, etc. that belongs to another man. That is “theft in the heart”, or “adultery in the heart” in the case of the wife.
          It is ironic that the churchians decry the loss of “family values” and the “epidemic of fatherlessness”, but they contribute greatly to both by their constant caving to feminism.
          Dalrock has recently had some great articles related to this.

        42. A man’s love is inseparable from his lust. Moreover Jesus’ are very clear, the only way to overcome this objection is if you can show Jesus meant only married women and not women in general.

        43. Read your Bible man. Check out the following passages for your definition of adultery.
          Leviticus 18:20, Exodus 20:17, Leviticus 20:10, Proverbs 6:29, Proverbs 7:19, Proverbs 2:16-17, Jeremiah 29:23, Ezekiel 16:32, Deuteronomy 5:21, Deuteronomy 22:22-24, 2nd Samuel 12:10, Genesis 20:3, Genesis 39:9, Numbers 5:12-13, Numbers 13:11-31, Romans 7:1-2.
          You will never find any Biblical passage defining adultery as “sex with a woman other than your wife”. It just isn’t in there.
          Again, let me also mention that Malachi and the Lord Jesus Christ also teach us that divorcing your wife in order to marry another woman is adultery.
          Polygamy isn’t adultery.
          Look at King David. He had a bunch of wives. How did God assess his life?
          1st Kings 15:3 tells us that the heart of David was wholly true to the Lord his God.
          Also note that 1st Kings 15:5 says that “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”
          So basically – David has a bunch of wives, and God has no problem with it.
          Then David steals another man’s wife, and God has a big problem with him.
          Check out 2nd Samuel 12 for God’s response to David’s adultery with Uriah’s wife Bathsheba.
          Also note in 2nd Samuel 12:8, that God Himself actually gave multiple wives to David, when David was already a married man.

        44. So when your wife’s box dries up, you’ll have no further use for her, your views on love are well into the autistic spectrum, blood flow in the brain not really climbing above the amygdala.
          Ask some men what they like about their wife, some people are more than just their sex organs.
          Bart above covered greek meanings in NT. for the other issue.
          While you remain obsessed with sex, or not having sex, or not thinking about sex, no other part of your brain can work properly, you’re like someone who hasn’t had any water for a couple of days,
          can I suggest you google say ‘nude teen selfie’
          and whack off a few times, it will allow your thinking process to normalize, unfortunately, you might have to repeat the treatment periodically.

        45. You still fail to comprehend that the passage you quote regarding lusting is directed at “coveting another man’s wife” aka the 10th Commandment, not normal healthy proper sexual desire towards an unmarried woman.
          The Greek word HAS to be rendered wife, based on the context.

        46. I do see your point about marrying a non-virgin.
          Frankly, if I were a single man, I’d personally place a very high premium on finding a virgin to marry.
          I’d much rather marry a virgin home schooled young woman (who is likely feminine, knows how to cook, and how to care for younger siblings as well) that is only a 6 or so on the SMV scale, than marry some hottie whore riding the carousel that is more common in most churches today.
          Also, regarding sexual relations outside of marriage, I had another comment.
          The basic Genesis 2:25 definition of marriage is this: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
          This holding fast and becoming one flesh seems to indicate sexual relations.
          Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians that this applies to sex with prostitutes. He tells us that the act of sex with a woman (in this case a prostitute) somehow creates a “one flesh union – or marriage” with her.
          “Do you not know that kyour bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, l“The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord mbecomes one spirit with him.” (1st Corinthians 6:15-17)
          If sex with a prostitute creates a “one-flesh union – marriage”, and sex with a virgin creates a marriage, then sex with your non-virgin girlfriend would seem to do the same.
          Therefore, I would strongly recommend that you avoid sexual relations outside of marriage.
          Best wishes man.

        47. Rather strange for you to support polygamy but somehow think sex with non-virgins is corrupting. Thus the only way you would have polygamous relations is if it was with multiple virgin girls becoming one’s wife? Can you imagine such a hellish world where virgins are hoarded by the alpha males?
          That said, a one-flesh union is not a marriage. The definition of marriage, is not merely sex by Biblical standards. It may represent something else spiritually, but it takes more than sex to create marriage. A good exposition on the subject can be found here:
          Personally I agree that sex with non-virgins is not ideal but in a world absent of virgins we must still make-do and find wives. Moreover the degree to which premarital sex is sinful depends on intentions; if the man just wants lots of strange then he is consumed with lust and in a state of sin, but if the man genuinely wants a relationship and uses sex to get there I would not say he is sinning.

        48. I met this lovely guy, who had a good job, and owned a nice house, but he was a square hed christian, he married a widow who lost her hubby in a road accident, but once she realized his head was made of concrete, she shot thru,
          and all he could think about was that she should come back and be a well behaved wife, that was how it was supposed to happen,
          but she’d moved on, and he wasn’t sure if she was seeing someone, she wouldn’t say, but she was very clear that she wasn’t coming back.
          And he was praying that God would give her a lobotomy, so they could be happy together, or rather so that he could.

        49. “Christianity permits polygamy as long as it’s the man committing the polygamy?”
          Yes, that is what the Bible teaches. Women are absolutely prohibited from having more than one man, yet men are permitted to have more than one wife.
          Men and women are different, and the God of the Bible has different rules regulating the sexuality of men and women.
          Men and women have different roles and responsibilities in marriage. For example, the wife is required to submit to her husband’s authority, and the husband is required to provide for and protect the wife. Both husband and wife are commanded to love each other, but the husband has the greater responsibility to do so, as he is called to love the wife like Christ loved the church.
          Believe the God of the Bible, or reject Him. The choice is yours. I’m just telling you what He said.

        50. As a Christian I don’t put the Old Testament above the new which, you are obviously free to do.

        51. I’m not a libertine. I’m trying to be a Biblically faithful Christian. In permitting polygamy, but forbidding extramarital sexual relations, I am consistent with all of scripture.
          Christ, Paul, Moses, the prophets, etc. This is what all of them taught.

        52. And that’s hypocritical and I flat out don’t respect it nor acknowledge it’s validity.
          I follow Jesus’s golden rule: Treat others how you want them to treat you.
          I can’t in good conscience expect a woman to be chaste and then bed whomever I feel like. That’s hypocritical as f*ck.

        53. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Bible is one grand story of redemption. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament.
          It is one book. The Old Testament gives us us God’s standards(the Law). We fail to keep God’s Law. God promises to send us a Savior.
          The New Testament tells us how God keeps and fulfills His promise to send the Savior. Christ became a man, fulfilled the Law for us, and died in our place to redeem us.
          Christ did not come to abolish the Old Testament Law, and replace it with some “newer and more spiritual law”.
          God is Holy. He has always been holy. His Law is holy.
          The Old Testament obviously clearly and overwhelming teaches that polygamy is marriage.
          The New Testament does not directly address the issue, but certainly still infers that polygamy is marriage rather than adultery.
          I cannot understand how people come to the following conclusion.
          1. Old Testament tells me that polygamy is marriage.
          2. New Testament never says otherwise.
          3. Polygamy is now adultery.
          Bull Crap!

        54. in a perfect world,
          dirt poor at the age of 22, Elvis Presley’s father built a house for his expecting wife, these days, dirt poor means you can’t afford to get married,
          While I pretty much agree with your interpretation, poverty and contraception reduce the harm of having a modern concubine, we don’t really live in times where a young male can start a family at the age when they should be having sex,
          I believe the laws in the bible are about harm minimization,
          and that having a child without 2 parents is definite harm, but modern well informed people should be able to work around it.
          The 2 people become one flesh didn’t stop the israelites putting away their foreign wives in the time of Ezra.

        55. is a modern definition, but not a biblical one, pls read the above discussion by Bart about original greek meaning.

        56. A man cannot “bed whomever he likes”. He can only bed a woman if he has assumed the sacred lifelong responsibility to love, protect, and provide for her and any children that will be born of this union. It’s called marriage.
          A man may marry more than one woman, but he can only “bed” his wife (or wives).
          I’m just telling you what the Bible says. Feel free to make up your own religion if you like.

        57. I think I have a different definition of “concubine” than you do. In the Bible, it seems like a concubine is a type of wife (a man takes his female slave/servant as a wife, rather than paying a bride price for a free woman). This is a way for rich, but old or ugly men to get a wife (or to take more than one wife).
          Jacob’s concubines Bilhah and Zilpah (Rachel and Leah’s maidservants) would be examples. The children of these unions are considered legitimate sons of Jacob (just like Leah and Rachel’s sons).
          I also agree with you that divorce is sometimes lawful, like in Ezra, where the men put away their foreign wives. These women came from nations that the Israelites were specifically prohibited from intermarrying with.
          I’d also note that God’s Law was not given to a perfect world. It was given to those of us who live in this current fallen world.
          God’s Law is perfect, but we, and the world we live in are not.

        58. totally agree, being a concubine wasn’t well paid, but they did seem to be a reas permanent possession, but even then, they would return to their family,
          You were super lucky to find and be able to secure a permanent relationship, what do you advise to people who are so busy working they can’t find someone who is any sort of match for them? well, what do you think God would advise them?

        59. Samseau, I am very late to reply to your comment. Please forgive the delay.
          In my opinion, concubines, as such, are prohibited by Jesus teaching.
          When the disciples say to Jesus, in Matthew, chapter 19, “If this [a man cannot divorce his wife] is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry,” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are [dickless men] who were born that way, and there are [dickless men] who have been made [dickless] by others—and there are those who choose to live like [dickless men] for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this [dicklessness] should accept it. [I’ve rendered “eunuch” to “dickless” to bypass any prevarication of the meaning of “eunuch.”]
          Thus, the only permitted union between a man and a woman is marriage. Since a man will desire a sexual relationship with a woman, his only options are abstinence, which may be impossible for most men, or marriage. Paul discusses this in detail regarding his advocacy for abstinence, where he also advises men to marry rather than risk damnation.
          As a practical matter, men and women pair, and few men can sustain a relationship with more than one wife, thus the absence of a prohibition of polygyny, since it would be difficult, and any sane man, given the option, would decline to marry if he could satisfy his sexual wants without commitment. Ultimately, the instruction regarding marriage and divorce is not about the sexual desires of men, but, rather, the provision for women.

        60. “The Greek language also has words for young woman/virgin, and female in general, that Christ could have used, but chose not to.”
          I doubt very much that Jesus addressed folks with Greek, unless very occasionally.

        61. Changing the way something is worded doesn’t change the action itself. The bottom line is that it’s monumentally hypocritical to expect a woman to be chaste until marriage and then devote herself to one man, while that man can court and marry other women while he’s already married. I don’t need to make up a religion because I don’t need a religion to tell me what’s right or wrong to begin with. All I’m saying is any God or religion that supports the type of hypocrisy described above is a joke unworthy of respect. Ethics, my friend. Ethics.

        62. I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but I am not sure you’ve arrived at the logical conclusion. Let me explain.
          I’ve been looking for a connection between regular sluttery and whoring in the NT. Back in those days it was extremely rare for people just to have recreational sex – a man either paid for it or married.
          Thus I was always confused if the prohibitions against whoring applied to banging sluts in the modern times, since paying for sex versus seducing a woman are two different things.
          However, in both Matthew 5 & 19, according to Young’s literal translation (only one worth using for serious moral teachings), Jesus says we cannot divorce, “apart from whoredom,” which means that recreational sex outside of marriage would also be considered whoring and adultery for the wife in question even if she did not accept money for it.
          Thus, we can say a man who seduces a women merely to bang is participating in whoredom even if the women themselves are not explicitly whores, in the same way a woman who cheats on her husband participates in whoredom even if she did not accept money.
          However, the question becomes, what if a man who seduces a woman is not doing so merely to bang, but because he wants to consider her a wife?
          IN NO WAY do I advocate men should prefer sluts over virgins, or men should try to defraud virgins, or men should just go for a high notch-count.
          My point is that, in a world absent of virgins, sex outside of marriage for men is a logical must for those who want to start families and find wives. This is because the nature of women demands it – marrying a non-virginal woman carries insane risks, even without the current marriage laws, because there is very little guarantee she will remain loyal. Modern churches today do not understand this, because the clergy and priests usually marry virgins cultivated within the Church, or remain celibate. They are essentially gameless men who are clueless about the nature of females. It is shameful when they display any lack of empathy for men outside of their privileged situation. A fallen woman must be tamed before she is marriage worthy, and that means sex before marriage. This is the truth confirmed by literally thousands of men within the manosphere, and the truth is the light of God, so therefore anyone opposes this truth must either prove it is not true or they are in direct confrontation with God.

        63. Samseau,
          Much of what you’re written has merit. You lack the next step.
          You wrote, “A fallen woman must be tamed before she is marriage worthy, and that means sex before marriage.” This, I think, is error, as your assertion overlooks the assumption of Christian scripture, which is this: sex is marriage.
          The path to that assumption may be found in old testament rules for virgins, which include the requirement that a man marry a woman he fucks (and pay the bride price), or else pay the bride price. Thus, the assumption is Christian scripture is that every woman a man fucks, for a Christian man is not a promiscuous rake, is a woman he intends to marry, and by fucking her, he marries her. This is how a marriage contract is concluded (consummated). Jesus own instruction as related in Matthew 19 confirms and clarifies the requirement: a man cannot divorce his wife unless his heart is hard (this not being the condition for permission, but the condition for being selfish) and that men who are not willing to marry the woman (or women) they fuck are obliged to be dickless.
          All that circles back to the original discussion you had with others who argued that polygyny is permitted (though not encouraged). A Christian man accrues an obligation to every woman he fucks, and that obligation is marriage. A Christian man is not obliged to a promiscuous woman, but he is commanded to abstain from whoring, which, if I understand you correctly, also includes fucking what we modern men would call promiscuous women. Therefore, a Christian man may fuck a “whore,” or slut. or whatever term we want to use, but thereafter, she is his wife.
          A man could argue that fucking sluts who then fuck other men creates a divine “get out of jail free” opportunity because the slut will certainly go and fuck another man, but any Christian man who relies upon that is not marrying when he fucks a new woman, but instead whoring.
          The whole thing is VERY difficult in modern American culture, but my advice to young men is that they select women VERY cautiously, play with women and women’s feelings, enjoy the company of women, but refrain from fucking any woman but one he’s chosen to marry. When he does fuck, it must be with the explicit understanding, explained to her without deception, that his decision to fuck her requires her monogamy, that he will not abandon her as long as she devotes herself to him alone, and that if he does take another woman (which he can only do if he takes her as a wife), he still will not abandon her, and, further, he will remove himself from obligations not related to his home so that he has more time for his (now plural) marriages. Incidentally, women are naturally cautious of an already married man, primarily because he already has obligations. If our society made fucking = marriage, then even the “alpha shitlords” would be extra cautious before fornicating, because fornicating would be marriage if only the women he fucked would refrain from other men thereafter and assert her status as a wife.
          I’d cite chapter and verse on this, but I think you are capable of finding the relevant portions among the (old testament) law, Jesus many comments and instruction regarding marriage, and the instruction of Paul, Peter, et al, as contained in the letters included in Christian scripture.
          To reiterate: sex concludes a marriage contract. That may require explanation to modern women, but I’m relatively confident most modern men and women would benefit from negotiation of terms and conditions before fucking.

        64. “Its too hard to find a girl.Just dont try!!!” Will love it when your loser Asian genes die out.

        65. Matt 5:28 forbids lusting after another man’s wife (the word that was translated as “woman” only refers to a married woman).

        66. Extraordinary claims require proof. I cannot find a single translation that supports your claim, so if you have proof please show.

        67. γυναῖκά – this is the Greek word for wife. In the ancient Greek, as well as in most modern European languages, the word for “wife” and “woman” is the same (French: femme; German: Weib; Spanish: mujer; Portuguese: mulher, etc.). English alone distinguishes between the two – one cannot rely on the English translations, since the original Greek did not contain the nuance that modern English does. So one must look to the Old Testament to ascertain what “adultery” consisted of. In the Old Testament, one could not commit adultery with an unmarried woman; “adultery” was having relations with a married woman. In Matthew 5:28, Jesus was condemning mental adultery. Compare Exodus 22:16 with Deuteronomy 22:22. Both actions are condemned, but the consequences are drastically different.

        68. Is “become one flesh” merely a sexual act, or is it the union of “flesh” in a procreative act? The Bible is silent as to whether non-procreative sex is “becoming one flesh”. In 1 Kings 1:1-4 an ailing King David got himself a young beautiful girlfriend but didn’t go all the way with her (he never “knew” her), yet she “ministered” unto him – there was no union of the flesh; it was not a procreative act.

    1. But what’s the ultimate example of what it means to be a woman…. cuz that’s the real issue with America. Our women! Eve was a dirty whore.

        1. The serpent fucked Eve? That’s news to me.
          Just because the serpent tricked Eve into eating the apple doesn’t mean she’s a “dirty whore,” unless your definition of the term is way different from mine.

        2. Do you also believe Cain was “the seed of the serpent”?
          I know that some who hold that the forbidden fruit was a euphemistic reference to sex with the serpent also believe that Cain and Abel were of different fathers — via a process called heteropaternal superfecundation.

    2. Matthew 5:17 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
      Matthew 5:18 – “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
      So all the stuff like genocide, slavery, rape, and incest from the Old Testament is still valid according to Jesus.
      Fuck you and fuck Jesus.

      1. Specific orders against specific peoples are one thing. These are the genocidal orders to destroy the Canaanite peoples in the land of Israel found in Deuteronomy.
        Specific orders to one people (the Jewish kingdom) are another. These are the commands to kill witches and the sort.
        The Law and the Prophets are another altogether. These are the 10 Commandments, the Shema (“The Lord our God is One. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength”), and the like.

        1. So what about Exodus 21 where it says you can enslave your fellow Hebrews?
          21 “These are the laws you are to set before them:
          Hebrew Servants
          2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
          5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
          7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
          Personal Injuries
          12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
          15 “Anyone who attacks[c] their father or mother is to be put to death.
          16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
          17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
          18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.
          20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
          22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
          26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

        2. And in Leviticus, it says to enslave only those from other nations.
          It is the common interpretation that these laws apply to the Jewish people under the old covenant, which has passed away with Jesus and been reborn under Him. Along with such laws we do not worship at the temple in Jerusalem alone, mandate circumcision as a prerequisite for being Christian, or abstain from shellfish.

        3. Exodus 21 tells Hebrews that they can enslave their fellow Hebrews. There’s even a loophole where they can enslave their fellow Hebrews forever.

        4. That mainly had to do with debts being owed from my understanding. Jews couldn’t charge usury on on each other but if one owed the other and couldn’t pay the debt back he became a slave for up to six years.

        5. Although God liberated the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, slavery is not universally prohibited in the Bible. Slavery was permissible in certain situations, so long as slaves were regarded as full members of the community (Gen. 17:12), received the same rest periods and holidays as non-slaves (Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14-15, 12:12), and were treated humanely (Exod. 21:7, 26-27). Most importantly, slavery among Hebrews was not intended as a permanent condition, but a voluntary, temporary refuge for people suffering what would otherwise be desperate poverty. “When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt” (Exod. 21:2). Cruelty on the part of the owner resulted in immediate freedom for the slave (Exod. 21:26-27). This made male Hebrew slavery more like a kind of long-term labor contract among individuals, and less like the kind of permanent exploitation that has characterized slavery in modern times.

        6. Matthew 5:17-18 say that nothing from the law in the Old Testament shall be changed until all has come to pass.
          5:17″Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18″For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
          So if the Old Testament law doesn’t matter that means the 10 Commandments don’t matter.
          You can’t throw out 2/3rds of your holy book just because you haven’t read it and it’s inconvenient to you.

        7. That doesn’t matter. They were still slaves. They were owned as property and their owners could beat them with rods.
          Exodus 21:20″Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”

        8. Just Some Guy – So when you are talking about the old testament law as it relates to the new testament, are you meaning ceremonial law, the civil law or the moral law? Also, the fact that one is the old covenant and one is the new covenant should highlight the fact that something is different between the two.
          Also, what is Jesus referring to when he says “until everything is accomplished?”
          The rational answers to those questions posed above answers the questions you pose.

        9. What was Paul’s plea for Onesimus in Philemon? Just because the Law (any law) allows us to do something to someone doesn’t mean that we we should. Especially via the magnification of the Law by Jesus.

        10. Talmud says non jews are donkeys, Quran says infidels should be beheaded, and Richard Dawkins says aliens are real while pedophilia is okay.
          Try harder next time

        11. I see the aspie atheists have shown up to hate on Christianity. As usual, their arguments betray not only a deep ignorance of the subject matter, but an emotional instability when it comes to evaluating the claims of a religion that they claim to believe is simply made up. Funny. I never get upset about the claims of Islam or Buddhism.
          Yes, Ancient Israelites “owned” slaves and punished them. Tearing this out of its historical context and transplanting it to your own pussified modern culture only makes you look like an idiot. They were nomads in hostile territory and their life was brutal. Many of the communal laws were harsh because it was the only thing keeping them from schism (which would kill them) or being overrun by neighboring peoples (which would kill them).
          Most punishment (free or slave) was corporal. They didn’t have “time out”. A slave being punished with rods was no different than a free man being punished with rods. Parents punished their children with rods (Prov 13:24). The point of the laws about punishing slaves wasn’t, “YAY! We can beat our slaves (unlike normal people who we totally can’t beat)!”. It was, “Hey, douchebag… just because they are temporarily in your service doesn’t mean you can treat them like crap”. They were protective laws, not permissive laws.
          As others have pointed out, slavery wasn’t the “I own you for life” deal that modern chattel slavery was. With the schmita and Jubilee, slavery would never last someone’s entire life. Usually it was 6 years and when they were done, they basically got a severance package. In other words, if you relate the slavery of the ancient Israelites to your (most likely limited) understanding of modern chattel slavery then you’re doing it wrong.
          But all of this is irrelevant because your initial premise is retarded.
          No, Christians do not have to obey all of the Old Testament. Duh. This should be obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with the OT law. First, many of the laws explicitly applied only to Jews. And since most Christians aren’t Jews, well… hopefully you can figure out the implications of that. Second, a huge portion of the law related to rituals involved in the Temple and its sacrifices, and since Jesus eliminated the need for a Temple and sacrifices, well… again, let’s hope it isn’t too difficult for you to follow that line of logic.
          Yes, Jesus said that He didn’t come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And guess when He fulfilled it? Guess when all things were accomplished (or “finished”)? Here’s a hint: He actually said, “It is finished” when it happened.
          Not only did Jesus make it clear that things were going to be different because of Him (Mark 7 where He overrode the dietary laws, Matt 5 where He overrode several things like the retaliatory law, divorce laws, oaths, etc) but Paul explains it further by pointing out that through Christ’s death we all “died” to the law, rendering it null (like when your spouse dies), so that we could enter into a new covenant (Romans 7).
          While a painfully literal (and boneheaded) reading of Jesus’ statement in Matt 5 could lead one to conclude that all Christians are still bound by every OT law, understanding its context (considering that the statement is immediately followed by Him overriding OT laws) and His purpose for showing up in the first place, and all other Christian scripture which explains the purpose of OT law and how NT law overrides it, should lead someone who is actually trying to understand Christianity to the obvious conclusion.

        12. So were everyone else.
          That’s called a punishment. Isn’t it nice when you have an authority which says, “Don’t punish people who work for you in such a way as they suffer permanent damage.”
          Or do you think that kind of consideration for the well being of others is just too uncouth?

        13. Quote the Verse.
          Here’s a couple:
          Deuteronomy 24:7English Standard Version (ESV)
          7 “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
          Then there is:
          Leviticus 24:22English Standard Version (ESV)
          22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.”
          Lest we forget:
          Deuteronomy 23:15English Standard Version (ESV)
          Miscellaneous Laws
          15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave[a] who has escaped from his master to you.
          Mmmm yummy:
          Acts 10English Standard Version (ESV)
          9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour[b] to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
          What you eat doesn’t make you unclean? “That’s right,” says Jesus (aka God).
          Matthew 15
          “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?[d] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

        14. And you don’t get to tell others what s contained in a book you’ve never read.
          Begone satan, your filth is not wanted here.

        15. You are an expert on the Hebrew language?
          You do know the Bible, and other ancient writtings, shows us that ancient cultures considered all manner of people ‘slaves’ as you so ignorantly narrowly define the term.
          Soldiers were the slaves of their generals.
          People were the slaves of their kings.
          Employees were the slaves of their employers.
          What is the substance of your appeal to incredulity but a weak attempt to define what is ancient by what is modern?
          Fallacy of Presentism.

        16. It only, “doesn’t matter,” if you want to take all the true meaning out of the subject to shove it into a tiny container which conforms to your own bias.
          Oh no! How horrible it is to have rules which forbid excessive punishments.

        17. What about the context of history and the actual historical meaning of the word, “slave,” as it was used in the passage?
          Or is that concept to much for your bias to consider?

        18. What about the fact that the bible says you can buy people and own them as your property and even bequeath them to your children?
          Leviticus 25:44 and Exodus 21.

        19. Matthew 5:17 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
          According to Jesus, the Old Testament is still valid.
          You’re retarded.

        20. Old Testament law is all laws and rules given to Hebrews either by God himself or his messengers like Moses. This includes animal sacrifice for menstruation and owning slaves.
          What “until everything is accomplished” or “until all has come to pass” refers to the end of time when nothing will exist.
          If there is a new covenant, what are it’s rules, and why does Jesus say that the Old Testament is till valid. (Matthew 5:17-18)?

        21. [According to Jesus, the Old Testament is still valid.]
          You didn’t actually read what I said, did you?
          According to Jesus, the Old Testament is fulfilled. Learn to read.

        22. What about it? Do you actually have a logical argument against what happened back then? Something other than, “muh feelings”, that is.

        23. Keep in mind those are mostly just historical records of a very, very primitive society. It’s questionable as to whether all that nonsense can be considered “Moses’s law”

        24. The real irony here is that you have no logical basis to even be angry about something like slavery (the ancient Jewish kind or the modern kind). It was the philosophy (and efforts) of Christianity which largely abolished slavery in the middle ages and finally removed it from the West in the modern era. If atheists had been running things, slavery would still be prominent (because hey, they’re just sacks of meat, right?).

        25. Jesus also stated outright that some of Moses’s commands were less than optimal “band aids” to deal with how awful the Israelites were. (Matt 19:8)

        26. Many “aspie atheists,” as you call them, grow up traumatized by Christian indoctrination.
          I’ve met a few people who had the good fortune to grow up as atheists, and they don’t seem to have missed out on anything by not receiving the indoctrination about Jesus’ terrifying supernatural powers and his threats to judge you in the afterlife and punish you forever.
          If anything, lifelong atheists look like characters from an advanced civilization out of science fiction.

        27. Its true – most so-called atheists I know are “recovering Catholics” that is, products of an awful Roman Catholic education. It’s a shame really.

        28. An ‘advanced civilization’ where all that exists is the Self and maybe the State.
          Not my idea of advancement….

        29. Retarded…..
          Y’know a lot of retards I’ve met in my life tend to repeat the same thing over and over and are unable to question it.
          Just something to think about while you’re throwing that word around….

        30. Dont you see? If we abolish morality and authority, then we can finally have our monocultiristic Galactic Federation society! Just look how progressive Europe and America is today, its very obvious that the world Elites support our best interests 🙂

        31. Lets not forget such a peaceful ideology like Communism which was severely anti Christian.

        32. [Many “aspie atheists,” as you call them, grow up traumatized by Christian indoctrination.]
          Then they weren’t subjected to “Christian” indoctrination. Christianity isn’t traumatizing (except to those who are intent on doing evil).
          Also, one’s upbringing has nothing to do with the truth. We should be able to objectively assess evidence regardless of how we were raised. They don’t get a pass on their ignorance and bias just because their teenage angst didn’t like daddy telling them that they couldn’t have sex.
          [Jesus’ terrifying supernatural powers and his threats to judge you in the afterlife and punish you forever]
          Ah yes, the spoiled toddler view of eternal judgement. “How DARE God judge ME!!”
          [If anything, lifelong atheists look like characters from an advanced civilization out of science fiction.]
          Man, if it weren’t for your other comments, I would assume that this was satire. Poe’s Law FTW!
          What you see in modern atheists isn’t some “superiority” inherent to atheism. It can’t be, since atheism has no core tenets outside of “there is no God”. After that, an atheist can literally believe any number of things and hold to any number of widely disparate moral standards.
          What you really mean is that atheists who grew up in a prosperous, secure, and comfortable Christian society look good to you (because you agree with them). Well obviously. Try looking into atheists who didn’t have the advantage of having a comfortable and secure life in a Christian society and see how they behaved throughout history, especially when in power (Hint: it often isn’t good).
          In reality, atheists are a demographic dead-end. They may seem “enlightened” to others who think exactly like them, but they are nothing more than a temporal anomaly. A cultural malaise. They can only leach off of other belief systems and societies. They don’t have a coherent philosophy or enough babies to actually make their own.

        33. You have quite the circle jerk going on don’t you.
          Name one moral code that we came up with that we absolutely needed religion for and not, say, empathy.

        34. I have a question for you. And I’m assuming you’re a Christian or at least a theist.
          How do you know God is real and exists?

        35. What basis do you have for you claim that slavery would still be prominent if atheists were running slaves?

        36. Well of course I don’t KNOW he exists, I BELIEVE he exists. Still, even without church or the bible or anyone else’s teaching or interpretations I keep coming across hints in people and the natural world that suggest the Divine. Difficult to quantify.

        37. The same Tyrants who said Religion must be abolished and have probably committed the highest amount of murder out of any ideology.

        38. Yeah, he can do whatever. No one needs to satisfy you in the least nor take heed of anything that dribbles forth from thy face hole.
          You are a little bitch with nothing better to do than attempt an argument online-because you are an impotent little bitch in life and the only outlet for your pathetic aggression is anonymously online so you dont rattle your teeth loose with your ever present crippling fear.
          “Look at me and pay attention”—-atheist fringe

        39. Nothing but emotionally driven desperation, yet they wish us to see them as educated and wise.

        40. PUSSY!!!!!!
          NO ONE here will tolerate victim status.
          Grow up and have some fucking self respect!
          Traumatized my ass! Im traumatized by fucking atheists who know very little and act like experts.
          Tell me what you accomplish by attackin nthe faith of others!
          Do you think being a dumb cunt is bringing amyone over to your side?
          Fucking pathetic man!

        41. Empathy enough to not barge in and act like you know better than everyone else for NO REASON?
          You claim to be superior. Hows that working for you?

        42. He cant point to a single atheist society that wasnt a laughable disaster, but he wants you to jump through his hoops for no good reason.

        43. You mean Israelite kindgom. The word “Jew” is first used in the book of II Kings. A “Judahite” only refers to Judah and Benjamin.
          The Hebrew and Greek words translated “Jew” can mean a Judahite, Judean, or the religion of Judaism. Passage context.
          If there were a “Jewish” kingdom (like the Khazarian kingdom) based on religion, it would be based on the Babylonian Talmud. Jews follow Jewish law found in the Talmud. Christians, old testament Hebrews and Israelites (including Judahites) followed God’s law found in the Bible. Jesus and true believers always rejected the Babylonian “traditions” (Judaism) practiced by the Pharisees.

        44. The term “Jew” first appears in II Kings. The term “Jew” is never used in the Bible to refer to all Israelites. The people of the OT were Hebrews and Israelites, not “Jewish”. Judaism is the religion of the Babylonian Talmud which was called “the tradition of the elders” in the NT. This is what the Pharisees religion was. It came out of the Babylonian captivity of Judah. It is not “the religion of the old testament” as many assume.
          Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic laws contained in ordinances from the Bible. The ceremonies and sacrifices. This has nothing to do with Judaism. The moral laws in the 10 commandments and their statutes are eternal just as Jesus said. Judaism does not now, and never did, follow the 10 commandments.

        45. You’re right again, JSG. Ask what the New Covenant actually is. Most professing believers have not a clue. There’s only one place in the Bible that tells us what the NC is and it destroys the anti law argument along with the direct quotes you used from Jesus.

        46. You mean Israelites, not Jews. The term “Jews” appears for the first time in the Bible in II Kings. If the word is referring to a people, it is referring to Judah and Benjamin only. “Jews” is never used to apply to all 12 tribes anywhere in the Bible.
          As far as Judaism the religion goes, it comes from the Babylonian captivity of the southern kingdom of Judah. Judaism is not the “religion of the old testament”. The Pharisees practiced “the traditions of the elders”, which Jesus very vocally condemned at every opportunity. Those traditions are what we know today as Judaism. They are recorded in the Babylonian Talmud, not the Bible.

        47. Ephesians 6:5 (which is in the New Testament) – “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

        48. It seems that it’s you who doesn’t have a clue. I guess this is the result of heresy and lack of understanding.

        49. Name one moral code that we came up with that we absolutely needed religion for and not, say, empathy.

          Probably all moral codes known to men. Ahh and Budhism doesn’t count. It’s a godless religion but is an offshoot of Hinduism, hence it copied its screwed code mostly.

        50. So are you saying that we never would have came up with “don’t steal from, rape or kill each other” without religion?
          What about the golden rule, which Jesus actually talks about?

        51. It’s pretty obvious for anyone who has read history that there has never been a godless society in the history of mankind. Polytheist yes, but godless no. The closest thing in ancient times was Budhism and their code was borrowed from Hinduism. And the laws and codes from the Marxist experiment were partially (what was not left out or twisted) borrowed from the Christian society it tried to destroy. Now observing modern atheists, one can see why there has never been a moral code written by an atheist and widely used as the basis for a society…

        52. So the moral codes of don’t kill, rape and steal from would have never happened without religion?
          You’re an idiot.

        53. I don’t have a belief in a God. I’m rejecting your claims.
          Do you have evidence to back up your belief?

        54. This is just going to turn into a red herring fallacy.
          – They provide effective results
          -The results confirm with reality
          How do you know God is real and exists?

        55. Predictable, ignorant, and pointless seems to be your preferred disposition. Thanks for helping demonstrate the wisdom of the Bible:
          “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.”

        56. I reject the idea that claim(s) that “God” does. To say that God doesn’t exist is claim that I need to back up.
          – I’m not making a claim, I’m rejecting theirs.
          Disbelieving = not believing…. so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at.
          I do not believe the claim put forth by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that a god (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah), by any theistic religion exists.

        57. I am honestly having trouble following you. I remember going over this, and arguments like this in grade 9 or so…

        1. Mommy took away his metal records and his copy of Diablo II, now its time to get back at the hetero Christofascism patriarchal society!

      2. Matthew 5:19 – “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
        shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
        heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
        Jesus basically said that if you follow the commandments, the better your rewards are in heaven. If you don’t follow or teach them, you will still get into heaven anyways, just without extra rewards. So yeah, works based salvation is done away with after Christ’s sacrifice, the only requirement to get into heaven is believing in his death, burial and resurrection.
        Where do any of the commandments say thou shalt rape, commit slavery, genocide, and incest?

        1. First off, there are more laws than just the 10 commandments.
          Rape: When God told Moses and his men to kill the Midianites, and then God allowed the men to rape the virgins.
          Genocide: The Flood of Noah…….
          Slavery: Exodus (21) Leviticus 25:44-45
          Incest: Adam & Eve, Noah’s family, Lot & his daughters.

        2. The Midianites were slave traders, pimps, and warmongerers who worshipped the satanic god known as Baal. God only ordered Moses to fight them. You could learn all about the historical context here instead of Googling “violent bible verses” http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html
          Read Genesis chapter 6 for the flood. It mentions how moral decadence was prevailing over humanity and destroying God’s creations. God preserved someone righteous like Noah so that humanity wouldn’t be wiped out forever.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5:32-10:1
          For slavery, scroll down to W Public’s comment, he does a much better job explaining how the historical context behind the term slave is similar to the modern equivalent of someone with a job.
          Incest? The first living beings had no other way to procreate, even evolutionary scientists would agree that we all have a common ancestor. God and the Bible both condemn any unnecessary case of incest. You can learn more here https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/950-does-the-bible-conflict-with-itself-in-the-matter-of-incest

        3. Ok, and he let Moses’ men to take the virgin women for themselves.
          The slaves were slaves. They were owned as property.

        4. Quote some actual verses. The “slavery” argument is used a lot and shows what a huge lack of understanding Bible critics such as yourself possess. You are correct that there are more laws than just the 10 commandments. They are called statutes. You’re also correct that the moral law (commandments and statutes) are eternal. Kudos on those points because you actually have more Biblical understanding than most professing believers with just those two points.
          Slavery is alive and well today. You should be directing this anger of yours over slavery to modern military enlistment because they are the exact same things. The government just has it now that they are the only ones who can own slaves. Biblical slavery is pretty much indentured servitude. The cause and duration may differ, and in those cases context is key.
          Kidnapping someone, and then selling them into forced servitude, is just that. The Bible calls this “manstealing” and equates it with murder. Manstealing is a capital crime in the Bible. Contemporary wordsmiths have jacked the word “slavery” and redefined it so that people knee jerk to visions of Africans being kidnapped by whites then lead to a life of chains and torture. That’s pure fiction unless you count Arab countries and African countries who still actually do those things.

        5. Ephesians 6:5 (which is in the NEW TESTAMENT) “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

        6. Should it have said “slaves, disobey your masters” so they all got the death penalty under Roman law?

        7. What’s your point? Do you obey the tax man? Do you obey the banker? Do you obey the police? If you get out of line, and the police have to rough you up a bit so they can preserve peace and order, are they wrong for doing so 100% of the time?
          What exactly is your definition of a “slave”? You obviously have a huge problem with the word or the idea. Where does that come from and how do you fail to realize you are a slave just like every other person on the planet?

        8. More name calling and vitriol what a surprise. You’ve had plenty of chances to come to the big boy table and converse like an adult. You bore me.

        9. I just don’t want to debate against Red Herring and Straw Man fallacies with someone too stupid to know what a slave is, and wants to try to turn the meaning of physically slavery into metaphorical slaver.

        1. For spouting half ass talking points you heard from the last liberal girl who made you watch her get smashed by 5 black dudes while you wanked i.
          Like a little cuck bitch.

        2. It’s ok to have a Provate profile. It’s actually really weird that you feel the need to check that lol.

      3. The Bible does not condone or endorse slavery, rape, or incest in the Old Testament. It forbids rape and incest, including concubinage (sexual slavery). It also placed significant limits on slavery.

        1. It forbids incest……….Then how the fuck did Noah repopulate the Earth without incest????????
          “It does not endorse slavery”
          Exodus 21 (OT), Leviticus 25:44-45 (OT), Ephesians 6:5 (NT).
          Female slaves were basically fuck toys for the masters.
          It doesn’t endorse slavery, but also limits slavery, which it doesn’t endorse.

    3. Yes turn the other cheek, be a beta who saves a whore and sacrifice yourself for others so Jesus is the biggest white knight.

      1. Congratulations trolly, you’ve been indoctrinated in a lie.
        i.e. what you ‘think’, “turn the other cheek,” means, is actually naught but a concoction of idiocy.
        To, “strike a person on the left cheek,” involved hitting a person with either the left or the back of the right hand. Both of which were insults at the time. The law made it a 5 shekel offense to insult another person. Jews at the time were ‘taking the law into their own hands’ and essentially mugging those who insulted them, which often resulted in feuds.
        Instead, Christ was telling people to respond to an insult by giving them the opportunity to not only repeat the insult, this time with witnesses, but to shame the insulting party by literally offering them the opportunity to back up their insult with assault (hitting the left cheek typically involved the right hand which was considered physical assault and had much more severe penalties).
        Jesus was actually telling people to go up to their bullies and say, “go ahead do it again, I dare you. But this time on the other cheek WITH all these witnesses now watching.”
        Please educate before you pontificate.

        1. Even if i am wrong on the issue of cheeks Jesus still is a simp who goes and gets tortured on a cross (when God could have prevented this) and saves whores from stoning
          Also stop with your fedora fag language who the fuck uses the words pontificate? unless you are British and are now enjoying a morning tea and biscuit you have no excuse using such language.

        2. Re: the whore, Jesus merely asked the men who witnessed her crime, adultery. That was a threat. I think you know that.
          Jesus is impressive as a character, even if I think his story is fiction.

        3. Theres actually far more evidence that Jesus existed than many other historical figures that no one seems to question whether or not they existed.

        4. You are actually an example of the fatal flaw that Jesus discuss.
          A hater…
          Think about what it took for someone to die so horribly for their principles. Could you do this?

        5. Dying for principles is not a rare event i mean even Che Guevara (racist ass dictator) died for his principles.
          What is worse is that it is supposedly to redeem mankind by a holy scapegoat to held avoid responsibility for your actions.

        6. Che Guefukkinvera?!?!?
          Why do I waste my time?
          God the father became God the Son so that he might experience the full range of human experience, including the loss of faith and
          life. Experiencing this, including pain and death allowed him to comprehend and forgive the imperfections and sinful tendencies of his

        7. I don’t know, I think its pretty rare… most people don’t die this way. Sure Che was an evil bastard but he has earned respect either way (note I do not share his principles).

        8. At least with Che we know his ass existed and we have a bigger scope of his life then Jesus plus he actually wrote down his ideals and did not need eyewitness accounts decades latter to report them.
          Sure his ideals were flawed and his political views do not work in reality but he at least spread these views and was alive to preach it compared to Jesus which we know very little about outside of church tradition and the gospels.
          And when it comes to Christianity it in itself is a bullshit story which is a omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator creates a situation in where he knows a devil will rebel and that when he makes man he knew they will fuck up and he sets them to fall. Then which after they fall he must impose a genocide then followed by a racist ass tribe of people where he promotes further genocides and conquest till eventually he sends a holy scapegoat down to save the people by making himself bleed so his future followers can metaphorically drink his blood.
          God knew from the gecko what would happen, how it would happen and why it would happen and he created man knowing there fate in life and whether or not they will burn in hell for all of eternity which he all knew before the beginning of time and if he did not know it he would not be omniscient, if he was powerless to change it then he would not be omnipotent and if he did not change it but knew it all and could then he would not be omnibenevolent sinceh is creation would be doomed for an eternity of punishment without end.

        9. First let me say you are totally correct. Knowing the history and a little bit of Greek and the culture makes it easier. That said, I can’t help but to think of this

        10. Good response.
          ..I’d also add that if the “saves a whore” remark was referring to the woman caught in adultery in John 7, then here Jesus simply upholds the Old Testament Law, rather than going along with the kangaroo court which has assembled to try to catch him out and accuse him.
          The very idea that Jesus was a white knight is laughable: how many white knights do you know who would first ignore a woman in distress and then casually refer to her as a dog before finally helping her? (Matthew 15)

        11. You comment is interesting because I didn’t assert Jesus himself was fiction, only the stories about his life. A man needn’t discount a historical Jesus to discount the stories asserting his divinity.

      1. Yeah we should just do whatever makes us happy, moral relativism always worked!

        1. Empathy, respect, kindness.
          The Golden Rule.
          Why does this stuff which is so simple a 4-year old could understand it need religion?

        2. Thats not any kind of a basis. God tells us what to do or not to do, and its up to us to test his theory and understand why.
          Every time I used science to understand God’s rules, it always lined up.
          If this stuff is so simple, then how come people in western society which was once Christian dominant, lost their sense of morals after abandoning God during the hippie movement?
          Ive even seen prominent Atheist figures such as Richard Dawkons or Lawrence Krauss try to normalize sexual degeneracy by using moral relativism as opposed to science, because they have no basis, you can’t draw a line without a moral authority.

        3. “God tells us what to do or not to do, and its up to us to test his theory and understand why.”
          -Oh like killing those who believe in other gods, sacrificing animals for menstruation and enslaving foreigners forever and even enslaving your fellow Hebrews?
          People lose their sense of morals when they lose their religion because they attached morals to religion.
          Why can’t people just not kill each other for the sake of not killing each other?
          Treat each other the way you want to be treated.
          It’s that fucking simple.

        4. You mean the Canaanites, who sacrificed babies to Moloch the owl god? Yeah, God is the bad one for wanting to stop that.
          Your slavery strawman was already debunked several times if you scroll above.
          Anarchy doesn’t work, men were biologically designed to be leaders and workers, and in order for a society to survive, there has to be laws and structure based one what God designed. For example, the black community in America is technically matriarchal, and statistically its been proven that 9/10 males who are raised without male guidance end up becoming criminals, which is a prevalent problem that is holding back their community from thriving.
          For another example, Communists ideology was rooted in hating religion, but it ended up murdering almost 100 million people in the 20th century alone, more than any religion ever, which makes it kind of comical that you pick on Christianity of all things which has no laws in the new testament ordering followers to commit Jihad, nor are there any links to fundamental doctrines causing murder as opposed to Islam which strictly orders its followers to commit murder.

        5. So god hates when people sacrifice stuff to other gods, but calls for animal and human sacrifice to himself.
          My slavery argument isn’t a strawman. All the apologetics trying to justify slavery are strawman.

          Did I say “anarchism”? No, so your argument is invalid.
          I’m taking about secular humanism an morals based on empathy and the well-being of human nature.
          Communism, the ideology that just runs over people because the rulers just want to. No communists did things because they were atheists.
          And what about all the wars religion has caused?
          What does your statistic have to do with God?
          Your New Testament argument is a strawman because according to Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 the law (being the Old Testament) will never change until “all has come to pass”.
          The only law that Jesus did away with was the sacrificial law.
          The New Testament also allows slavery. Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves obey your earthly masters”.

        6. God never allowed human sacrifice but his own, go read Genesis 22 and get the full context instead of strawmanning. Also the Canaanites were regularly sacrificing babies and children to Molech(Satan), so I have no idea how you defend that or brush it off, do you really want people like that being allowed to have a society?
          A godless society without a leader is anarchism, with a ruler its communism. If people put their faiths in the government instead, then the government becomes tyrannical. Look at the rapid decline of western society ever since secular people enabled modern liberalism to take over.
          It’s easy confuse Old Testament Slavery with Western Slavery. If you
          think that God was O.K. with this sort of slavery, check out this verse
          only a few verses earlier.
          “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his
          possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
          Western style slavery was a capital offense as was rape and
          pre-meditated murder. God commanded his people repeatedly to protect and
          defend and care for the foreigners in their land.
          Exodus 22:21:
          You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners
          in the land of Egypt.
          (The very next chapter even requires people to leave their own crops for
          foreigners to be sure they would not starve.)
          A “slave” in that day was a person who had incurred an un-payable debt
          to another and had sold himself into that person’s employment. (Thus the
          phrase: “He is his money”) Even this was limited by God. Once in every
          generation, debts were totally and completely cancelled, no matter how
          great the debt, and people were returned to their own property.
          out Leviticus 25 and 27.
          After Jesus, slavery was still a cultural issue and Paul spoke to this
          issue this way:
          Ephesians 6:9
          And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening,
          knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no
          partiality with Him.
          The ideal in scripture actually goes like this:
          Galatians 3:28
          There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,
          there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

        7. “God never allowed human sacrifice but his own,” What about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter after God allows Jephthah to win a battle?
          “Judges 11:30-40King James Version (KJV)
          30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
          31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
          32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
          33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
          34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
          35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.
          36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
          37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
          38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
          39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
          40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11%3A30-40&version=KJV
          Or how about sacrificing priests ?
          “1 Kings 13King James Version (KJV)
          13 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the Lord unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
          2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones shall be burnt upon thee.”
          Or Moses sacrificing 32 men?
          “Numbers 31:40-41English Standard Version (ESV)”
          40 The persons were 16,000, of which the Lord’s tribute was 32 persons. 41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the contribution for the Lord, to Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.”
          Go read the Bible instead spewing bullshit. That 0/1 right so far.
          “Also the Canaanites were regularly sacrificing babies and children to Molech(Satan), so I have no idea how you defend that or brush it off, do you really want people like that being allowed to have a society?”
          – No, I’m not defending that. I’m also not defending God for killing the first-born of Egypt (which included children).
          “Exodus 12:29
          New International Version
          At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.”
          0/1 right so far.
          “A godless society without a leader is anarchism”
          Merriam-Webster dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
          – Anarchism
          “Definition of anarchism
          : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups”
          – Not one single mention of a god, or lack thereof.
          “Definition of communism
          a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
          b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed”
          – Still no mention of a god.
          Wrong again. 0/2 right so far.
          “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his
          possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
          *MAN = HEBREW.* Why does the Bible say not to kidnap a man, but you can buy kidnap and buy a foreign man?
          Leviticus 25:44-46 – “New International Version
          “’44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
          Wrong again. 0/3 right so far.
          3 Videos of slavery telling the truth:
          “Why Does God Support Slavery? – The Atheist Experience #605”

          “TAE – GMan Destroyed by Matt Dillahunty on Slavery”

          “Bible Slavery: TOTALLY DIFFERENT”

          You are defending slavery and indentured servitude. Both are permitted by God in the Old Testament (Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:44-46), and is NOT CONDEMNED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22) Both have to do with owning people as property. Both are wrong by any decent moral standing, just like sacrificing babies to Molech.
          0/4 right. You are completely wrong on all grounds and arguments.
          Go read the book.

        8. For Judges 11:30-40, if you actually read it and study it, youll find that there is nothing saying that Jephthah murdered his daughter. He offered his daughter to God in exchange for victory against the Ammonites. In exchange Jephtha’s daughter remained celibate and devoted her life to God. God wouldn’t order child sacrifice after fighting it.
          31:40-41: “The persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s
          tribute was thirty-two persons. So Moses gave the tribute which was the
          Lord’s heave offering to Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded
          After the war, they were dividing the spoils. Among the spoils of war
          were some women that were kept alive. A certain percentage of the spoils
          were to be allocated as “the Lord’s tribute”, so Moses gave some cattle
          and the 32 women to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s “heave offering”. You assumed that “heave offering” means human sacrifice.
          If you had just done some simple research on what is heave offerings,
          your assumption will look quite silly. So, basically what happened was
          this: After the war, the Israelites divided the spoils among themselves,
          and set apart a portion to God. Since they can’t give it to God direct,
          they instead gave the portion to God’s priest Eleazar. Not killed or burnt. Just for the priest to take home, most probably to
          be divided among his fellow priests and Levites. The women will be
          drafted as domestic maids or farm helpers.
          About human sacrifices, consider this verse:
          Jeremiah 7.21: “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is
          in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their
          daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My
          I never said a secular society is anarchy, I said a society without leaders or rules is anarchy.
          In terms of Communism and God, here is a line from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx:
          28. “Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates “separation of church and state”
          Also a quote from Marx. “Religion is the opium of the masses”
          Kind of proves my point when the father of Communism has contempt for religion, especially when you research how Communists turned Russian Orthodox churches into brothels.
          I already debunked your slavery argument twice. God never endorsed any kind of harsh slavery, especially when he sent Moses to emancipate the Jews from Pharaoh’s tyranny. You just called me “wrong” without any explanation.
          However, if youre still not convinced that God doesnt enforce slavery, then here are better explanations: https://gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

        9. From Wikipeida: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah
          “Jephthah led the Israelites in battle against Ammon and, after defeating the Ammonites, fulfilled a rash vow of his, by sacrificing his daughter.”
          From Judges 11.”30 And Jephthah *vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
          31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.* …..
          34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, *his daughter* came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances:
          39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that *she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed*: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel”
          Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. It’s in the Bible. Deal with it.
          “I never said a secular society is anarchy,” neither did I.
          “I already debunked your slavery argument twice.”
          – No you didn’t, I’m talking about *what the book actually says*, Leviticus 25:44 “your male and female slaves may come from the nations around you, from them you may buy slaves.”
          – It does not matter what actually happened in those times because this is about *WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAYS*.
          -The Bible advocates owning another human as property (against their wishes) and allows you to beat them as long as they don’t die, and you can pass them on to your children.
          New Testament: Ephesians 6:5 -“Slaves obey your earthly masters.”
          “God never endorsed any kind of harsh slavery”
          – You can buy foreign slaves and keep them forever, and own your fellow Hebrews as property. There’s even a loophole that says you can enslave them forever.
          Exodus 21 says you can beat them as long as they don’t die.
          Exodus 21:20-21 – “Anyone who *beats their male or female slave with a rod* must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 22 but they are *not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property*.”
          Men can even sell their daughters into inescapable slavery. Exodus 21:7 – “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.”
          You are a moronic asshole trying to justify slavery, and trying to apologize saying it was indentured servitude, well guess what, it wasn’t.
          It’s clear you didn’t watch even one of the three videos I sent you.
          You’re wrong, the Bible is evil, and religion is a scam.
          Now, kindly fuck off.

        10. Okay, Wikipedia said Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, but notice how it had no biblical verses or any other sources to back it up? Judges 39 explains the context of the vow, which is Jephthah’s daughter remaining celibate as a promise to God. No where does it state or imply that he murdered her, you’re just skewing that way to fit your bias.
          Again, I debunked your slavery argument, re read what I sent, you only sent one video which fails to explain the historical context of slavery in the Bible, instead it interprets it as the same meaning as slavery in the 1800s, which is completely disingenuous. I sent you Biblical and Historical evidence which you conveniently ignore out of cognitive dissonance. Taking the word Slave in the Bible as literally as you and every other belligerent atheist does is about as smart as reading the word “queer” in a Shakespeare play and assuming it means homosexual.
          Ephisians 6:5 is once again referencing Slaves as in laborers, if you actually studied the historical context and understood how to read 15th century English, then you wouldn’t be arguing with me. I have to obey my boss(master) who buys my services for 8-12 hours a day, that doesn’t mean I’m picking cotton while in shackles. However, If I don’t obey my boss, then my ass is fired.
          Also yes, there was corporal punishment back in the day, even non Christian societies like ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt had this where teachers used to hit their students with sticks. Times have changed, and the simple threat of unemployment in a dwindling economy is more than enough to keep workers in place.
          If you understand the historical background of Exodus 21:7, you would know that parents who were too poor to raise a family, gave up their children to slave owners who would feed them and raise them. Slave owners let the boys go during their teens once they were old enough to work for someone else, and they would keep the women until a man came along and married her. The slave owners also didn’t give their slaves to foreign lands in order to protect the women from being turned into concubines and the men from being worked to death.
          Also the slave owners had to pay reparations if they were cruel to their slaves, because they had a duty to make sure the men grew up into being hard workers, and the women into modest housewives. Its simple logic really, why would the slave owners just act stupid and prevent their society from thriving? Maybe because slavery in the Bible is not parallel to the modern leftists interpretation.
          Calling me a “moronic asshole” is nothing more than cheap rhetoric and an ad hominem attack. I proved to you several times that slavery in the biblical context is nothing more than labor, you just skew it to fit your confirmation bias by reading the word slave and assuming its literally the same as the African slave trade, because that’s the most deceitful and effective way to get an emotional rise out of someone.
          The only proven evil is humans trying to supersede God.
          “You’re wrong, the Bible is evil, and religion is a scam. Now, kindly fuck off.”
          Did you type that with shaking hands, a quivering lower lip, and teary eyes by any chance?

        11. “And Jephthah *vowed a vow unto the Lord*,”
          – Jephthah makes a vow
          “that whatsoever *cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me,* when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, *shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.* …..”
          – the vow in question: If God lets me win the battle I’ll sacrifice whatever comes out my house first.
          “behold, *his daughter* came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances:”
          – his daughter comes out first
          she returned unto her father, who did with her according to *his vow which he had vowed*: and she knew no man.
          – He fulfilled his vow and sacrificed his daughter.
          *HIS VOW.* His vow to sacrifice his daughter, which he did.
          If have debunked your indentured servitude strawman, you sloppy apologetics about slavery, and your outright lies bout the scripture.
          I called you a moronic asshole because you lie about the Bible and defend slavery. You pretend like it was different, which it actually wasn’t, because Romans didn’t treat their slaves kindly. The Bible says you can beat you servants/slaves as long as they don’t die in a day or two.
          I am talking about WHAT THE BOOK ACTUALLY SAYS.
          “skew it to fit your confirmation bias”
          -“reading the word slave”
          -“assuming its literally the same as the African slave trade*,
          Leviticus 25:44 – Your *male and female slaves shall come from the nations* around you. From them you *may buy slaves*.”
          -“Come from the nations around you”
          -“may buy slaves”
          How is this not slave trading?

          You are a living example of cognitive dissonance.
          You’re done.

        12. It’s funny how you tell me told look back at your comments for evidence, but you won’t do the same for me.
          You’re either a troll or just stupid.
          You’re done.

        13. Lmao its right there in the text dude, she remained celibate for God which became a tradition among women at the time, otherwise their society wouldn’t have existed if the tradition was men burning their children.
          Yes, the same as in the way slaves in modern times were treated. The biblical term for slave is closer to a modern day laborer. Ive already proved this, your video is just interpreting slavery in a modern sense. If the word was laborer instead you wouldn’t have even noticed it, your just going by the word slave alone rather than the context.
          Nah, im just getting warmed up, its pretty funny watching you go in circles.

        14. So apparently Jephthah’s vow to sacrifice his daughter (which is clearly written) actually translates to his daughter staying a virgin?
          Ok troll.

        15. Jephthah
          had made a foolish vow to God that if God gave him victory in
          battle, he would sacrifice whatever first came out of his door when he
          came home (Judges 11:30-31). Jephthah’s daughter was the first thing to come of out his door when he came home (Judges 11:34). God never specifically tells us whether Jephthah actually sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering. Judges 11:39
          seems to indicate that he did: “He did to her as he had vowed.”
          However, since his daughter was mourning the fact that she would never
          marry instead of mourning that she was about to die (Judges 11:36-37), this possibly indicates that Jephthah gave her to the tabernacle as a servant instead of sacrificing her.
          Whatever the case, God had specifically forbidden offering human
          sacrifices, so God never would have wanted Jephthah to sacrifice his
          daughter (Leviticus 20:1-5). Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; and 32:35
          clearly indicate that the idea of human sacrifice has “never even
          entered God’s mind.” Jephthah serves as an example for us not to make
          foolish vows or oaths.
          So where am I trolling?

        16. I showed you the verse(s) stating Jephthah sacrificed his daughter and you’re saying he didn’t.
          His daughter was moaning because she was a virgin when sacrificed.
          If there were mental gymnastic olympics you’d win every event.

        17. I never denied that Jephthah offered up his daughter as a sacrifice to God, however there is no verse saying she was burned to death or that he murdered her at all, you just assumed that. Her remaining a virgin is metaphorically just as bad as if she was sacrificed, because it ends her family’s bloodline, which was considered horrible back then. God never in his own words condoned human sacrifice, he only condemned it and punished people who practiced it, such as the Canaanites. Before you mention the binding of Isaac, Isaac was never killed, that whole story was about Abraham showing his fear of God while foreshadowing Jesus’ sacrifice, otherwise God would have allowed Isaac to be murdered thus making him no better than Molech.
          Could I put my medals next to whatever they gave you at the special Olympics? Because its hilarious how you expect to shut me down by quoting a verse, and then when I explain the context and history behind it, suddenly Im the one from your perspective that is spitting rhetoric.
          You gonna call me an asshole again or share the same video I debunked for the fifth time?

        18. “however there is no verse saying she was burned to death or that he murdered her at all,”
          And Jephthah *vowed a vow unto the Lord……..shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.* (BURNT OFFERING)………………she returned unto her father, who did with her according to *his vow which he had vowed*
          “Could I put my medals next to whatever they gave you at the special Olympics?”
          How many did you get?

        19. “and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel.” Actually finish the verse next time, genius. Show me where there was a custom in Israel where everyone was just committing human sacrifices in exchange for favors with God, after God already condemned it.

        20. She knew no man because she was a virgin. That was the custom, women being virgins until marriage or death.
          Wow, selective reading and cognitive dissonance really work well for you don’t they?

        21. Judges 11:39
          “And it came to pass at
          the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with
          her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.” AND she knew no man, if shes already murdered according to your false assumption, then wouldn’t it kind of go without saying that shes not hooking up with anyone?
          In Judged 11: 35-38, Jephthah tells his daughter about his vow to God, and shes gets upset over having to remain a virgin, if he burned her, then she would have been fearing for her life instead.
          The custom was virgin women remaining virgin till death as a punishment from God for making rash vows, no where does it state that human sacrifices were done at God’s will, God condemned human sacrifice numerous times.

        22. How is that relevant to our debate? You linked me to a guy multiple times who has Richard Dawkons as his avatar, the same Richard Dawkins who believes in aliens and sympathizes with Pedophilia.

      2. Also, we should make smarmy ass comments to reject the religion that has created utterly unprecedented human progress.
        I’m sure the atheist youtube video you watched just demolishes Augustine, Aquinas, and CS Lewis’ arguments.

        1. I didn’t know religion discovered bacteria or made cars or sent man to the moon or cured smallpox or discovered evolution or electricity or made the Internet or discovered the planets. Ask Galileo and Ptolemy about religion’s hand in human development.

    4. Christ teaches the hardest lesson. Its more difficult to love than to hate. Witness the many people here who “hate” someone whether its Muslims, successful entertainers or whoever. Someone who can put hate aside and discuss these issues impassionately is a rare person indeed.

      1. Good point. There is a Biblical doctrine of hatred and a time to hate. It’s a righteous hate and not a humanistic hate. In our days there is so much humanistic hate people just stumble over it so it profits little to go into the meat of the subject when most people have yet to even get used to milk.
        That said, the Biblical definition of love is obedience. People think it is “emotionalism”. The whole law hangs on these two commandments: love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (commandments 1 through 4) and love your brother as yourself (commandments 5 through 10).
        To have a strong difference of opinion, yet remain civil and engaged, is definitely rare. Returning evil for evil is very popular with people.

    5. First of all, his name is NOT Christ. That’s always a red flag! haha.
      Christ is a TITLE, not a name. And Christ is NOT his LAST name either. haha
      Secondly, while walking in bodily form on the Earth, Jesus was simultaneously 100% God 100% man.
      Kind of unique for that era. So, keep that in mind.
      Plus, Jesus actions are exemplary for women as well as men.
      But, I agree with you when you say – Good to see an article on Return of Kings that recognizes the King of Kings.

    6. Amen to that!
      There is a good book called “The Manliness of Christ” written by Thomas Hughes and published today by forgotten books that explains the reasons why Christ was manly and why the new feminized idea of Christ was pushed to accommodate church women. The main idea of the book is that Christ while being a God and being able to crush his executioners and live but decided to keep up with his pre-determined plan and follow it to become the Saviour of Mankind.
      The progressive beliefs of x-stianity are the product of entryism and infiltration to the Church by: skype-lovers, kebab-lovers, progressives, communists and homosexuals. All these people want only one thing: to destroy traditional Christianity. The first loss were the Protestant Churches, then The Catholic one and right now few only Orthodox Churches remain pure.
      According to an article published by vox popoli: The progressive X-stians, who are too fearful or cucked, in the future will either stop being self-defined as Christians or will cut themselves off of their Churches in a new and much needed schism I might add. If that happens or when, the progressives will sit willingly on the left of the divine Throne and slowly diminish while the traditional ones will keep furthering His Word.

  3. If there is a god like the one of christianity and will punish you for sinful thoughts (not ACTIONS, thoughts), then in my opinion it is impossible to describe this god as merciful or benevolent. In fact I would describe such a god as petty and somewhat tyrannical.
    Having said that, I can agree that these watery, touchy-feeley hippie christian churches are rather pathetic. I am an atheist but see that truly good, religious people pride themselves on service, sacrifice and trying to know something bigger than themselves (although I can’t understand it). Most of these inclusive, modern churches seem bent on falsely building self-esteem as if they were the Church of St. Stuart Smalley

    1. That is what Christ is there for. We all will sin, every day. The direction we are pointed is what matters. If we continue to progress through eternity, we may be able to achieve that perfection that is requested of us in the Beatitudes.

      1. But he does not tell you directly what you need to do. You rely on indirect signs/tea leaves to be read.

        1. He has said it clearly. Love God with all your heart and Neighbor as self. If you love God you will obey the commandments, and most are totally clear and plain. He will be merciful about the edge cases, the Pharisees used “fine print”.

        2. I can’t let everyone someone who can condemn me to eternal suffering & punishment for breaking the rules. I can fear him. But can’t love, can’t respect.

        3. Don’t discount the LIBERTY that a Christian has in Christ Jesus. We have our LIBERTY, but we are admonished not to use our LIBERTY for an occasion of sin, but rather to do good with it.
          Galatians 5:13 “For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY; only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”
          The Lord loves a cheerful giver, not a begrudging one. Better to give less and be cheerful about it than more and find your self regretting it.

        4. Except your breaking the rules condemns others to suffering. Initially it is temporal, but what happens if you insist on going into eternity unrepentant – and demand to hurt people in heaven?
          You won’t be condemned to Hell for breaking rules (the Pharisees obeyed them), you will be condemned for being evil and wanting to do hellish things even in heaven.
          Worse, God created you. It is minimally ingratitude to demand he accept an evil hurtful person in heaven. SJWs will be in hell. Would you wish to be in heaven with a bunch of screeching, mocking SJWs – God should just let everyone in?
          There is no reason to fear God. There is reason to fear that when you look into a mirror you see a pretty but evil monster that desires to inflict pain on others for his own pleasure. Such deserve hell. If you fear you are one, it is the beginning of wisdom and Grace with Faith can insure you aren’t such a monster.

        5. “If you love Me, keep my commandments” -Jesus
          This seems like something other than “directly what you need to do” to you?

        6. Pharisees used non Biblical traditions they picked up from Judah’s Babylonian captivity and then added to the Mosaic law. Jesus often said, “You’ve heard it said of old [by the Pharisees], but I say unto you”, denouncing their man made traditions and re-affirming the true Mosaic law.
          They “made the law of God to no effect due to their traditions”. Jesus kept, promoted, and taught God’s law (given to Moses) perfectly and always endorsed it.

        7. So desiring to do evil without enacting evil is still sin. Begs the question “what is the evil?”. If the answer is in the bible I would point out that slavery is not condemned, nor are several brutal acts.
          I don’t know about wanting to do with evil in heaven, but I thought it was a place free of the yoke of drudgery and full of bliss. I will say islam promises certain pleasures in heaven (jinnah) that are forbidden on Earth.
          Like I said, I fear anyone with that kind of power over me, however good his intentions may be. If he spoke to me directly, said “this is what I expect, and these are the consequences, and here is concrete proof of my absolute power over you.” then obedience is my only option. But a slave does not love a master, and that is what I would be.

        8. Figurative tea leaves? Yes, without the guidance of the early Church Fathers, pactice and even belief become too subjective. You see this in the American evangelical groups and even some mainstream protestant churches

        9. There’s actually more places in the Bible that say to fear God than to love Him. The Bible says, “the fear of Yahweh is pure”. Fear is actually a good thing in that sense. From a moral standpoint, fear should kick in to produce a moral character when the motivation of love is not enough.
          Paul comments that “there is no law for the righteous man”. The righteous man willfully lives a clean life free of coveting, bearing false witness, theft, adultery, murder, disrespecting parents, etc. out of love for God and his fellow man. They follow Jesus example. What about those moral concepts would a person disagree with to say they “can’t love . . . respect” them or their Source?

        10. That’s my point, when you fear someone you can’t love or (really) respect them. This (to me) seems to contrast with what I thought was christian “love” of god

        11. Evil is in hell. If you desire it, you can only get it there. That is the choice. If you don’t desire evil, you can achieve Heaven.
          Post death, you will get what you desire. If you are redeemed you will not desire evil so won’t end up in hell.
          This is no different than nature – do you desire being strong and thin or do you desire to be a glutton and eat lots of sugar, starch, and fats?
          To complain about God is not much different than to complain about Nature. There are easily perceived and understood rules. In this world, breaking the rules can result in the first death. In the next it will result in the second death.

        12. There was no complaint. The concept of god is fundamentally different though as a tsunami, tornado or hurricane has no consciousness and is therefore neither punitive nor lenient. It just is. Furthermore nature directly intervenes, god does not.

        13. God directly intervenes, though sparingly. He established the laws of Nature where such laws intervene. God is not a concept, he is three persons in one Godhead.

        14. The God of “love” is a farce created by effeminate Churchianity. God is love. He’s also jealous. He’s many things. Just like our earthly fathers are many things.
          It’s a hard truth to receive (mostly for professing believers) but God, Jesus, and righteous saints like David also hate. It’s a righteous hate of evil, not a humanistic hate like humans create with each other over stupid disputes or what have you. Everyone’s been taught it is always wrong to hate so the subject causes many to stumble.
          “Biblical Doctrine of Hatred” is a popular sermon by a Pastor John Weaver. I think he sums it up best at one part where he says something like, “Are you telling me there was a bumper sticker on Noah’s Ark that said, ‘Smile: God loves you’”

        15. Matthew 6
          1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.2
          Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
          3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what
          thy right hand doeth:
          4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth
          in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

    2. Disciplined thoughts are the root of disciplined actions. Controling your thoughts develops will … its not for the weak. Also, whining and crying and demanding endless mercy and benevolence is a mark of the feminized western churches influence.

        1. Eternal life is a choice, but you must choose it. If you really want to choose eternal punishment, God will grant you that.
          Heaven has few requirements and God is merciful, but you do have to say “yes”.
          A dog that won’t be housebroken will not be let into the house.

        2. The concept of “eternal punishment” in the Bible is debatable. I personally reject the idea of a Biblical “eternal BBQ pit”. I believe the Bible does not support a “hell” in the commonly understood sense.
          It is beyond the scope of a short statement to go into full detail, but I will give the main “smoking gun” why I believe “hell” is bunk: Jesus paid the price for the sinner. Every Christian will agree to that. That means He took our place, died, and came back. If “hell” is an eternal BBQ pit, then Jesus would have never come back. He’d still be paying the price of eternity in hell in place of the sinner and none of us would be saved because He took our place.
          The Bible does teach eternal destruction, or the second death. I take this for exactly what it says: eternal destruction. The end of a soul. Energy cannot be created or destroyed except by the One who created it. “Eternal destruction” was twisted into “eternal torment” by some less than honest men looking to cash in on duped believers, IMO.

        1. It was a compliment. The first part of your statement was basically the philosophy of Vulcan. Which I may be wrong about but I think it was derived from Stoic philosophy in Ancient Greece.

        2. It is a compliment. The first part of what you said was basically the philosophy of the Vulcans…who had emotions but learned to contain them in favor of logic. Which Gene Roddenberry had riffed from the Stoic philosophy of Ancient Greece, if I remember correctly.

        3. Wow, that’s really interesting. I don’t know much at all about Star Trek. I’m one of those dreaded female types, and was just relaying my Russian Orthodox faith, but much appreciated anyway 🙂

    3. A temptation is not sin, so I’m not sure what you mean by “sinful thought” other than you really, really desire to sin but don’t do so for some reason (I’d like to rape her but a cop might come; I’d steal that but there is an alarm).
      If you refuse the discipline to control your thoughts in this way, how can you not fall to every fear, desire, and FEELZ like the SJWs do?

      1. There is some merit to what Krampus is saing. Like when Christ mentions “to look at a woman, to lust after her, is already committing adultery in his heart” While looking at porn or intentionally sneaking a peak at some girl is not as difficult to repent of as cheating on your wife, it still is sin that needs to be repented of.

        1. True, but how much is just temptation, what is superficial where today you can’t avoid it (I don’t have a TV and rarely do movies), and how much is you going and buying a porn magazine or visiting a porn site and masturbating to the images? There is a continuum.
          I think the “look at a woman” is not a glance, but like the word used to describe Lot’s wife when she took a long perusal of Sodom as the fire and brimstone started to fall and ended up a pillar of salt.
          Your body reacts – your lizard brain. Your NeoCortex has time to respond and you can will away the pre-lust desire. Or you can choose to indulge it.

        2. Good point. I think there is a further harmonizing on this subject, as well. The “woman” being “lusted after” resulting in “adultery” has to meet the criteria of an unlawful woman. The Pentateuch details specifically what constitutes adultery and it can be more than sex with a married woman. Anything that adulterates the sexual union of a man and a woman qualifies. So it could be a betrothed virgin, or a married woman, or another unlawful woman.
          Having said that, God also said, ” . . . and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife. . . “. So, God made provision in His law that endorses a man’s desire for His beautiful creation, woman. As long as the desire for a beautiful woman is not otherwise sexually immoral (another man’s wife, etc.), it is not ungodly.

      2. Sinful thoughts as in something that runs through your mind but that you do not entertain or dwell on except briefly.

        1. I love how the Bible makes the distinction. Man looks at the outward appearance, but God judges the heart.
          By my reading, it is unwise for us to entertain punishment of thoughtcrime, because we only ever know what comes out in word or deed.

        2. It is like the candy that is on the floor for less than 5 seconds so doesn’t pick up any bacteria.

    4. Umso, having moral standards makes someone petty and tyrannical? If there was a god who didn’t give a shit what sort of a person you really and truly were deep deep down in your heart and soul, that would be a nicer god? I see it this way, that God and His standards of spirituality are Perfect, but His Mercy and Grace are what make the allowances for our human shortcomings. It seems you make the typical atheist error of misunderstanding the purpose of moral standards and the meaning of mercy and grace and forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ that saves us from our selves. God is able to uphold His perfect and holy standard without compromise while at the same time saving all those who put their trust in Him even though it is impossible for any of us to fulfill such a perfect and holy law that says we cannot even think bad thoughts.

    5. What part of the Bible are you referring to when you say “. . .god. . .will punish you for sinful thoughts. . .”?
      The Bible teaches that Jesus, who was without sin, became sin, in order to redeem actual, guilty sinners from their sin. Even as sinners were murdering Him on a cross He asked they be forgiven because they were ignorant of their actions.
      This seems like something other than mercy to you?

      1. No it seems like scapegoating. Also look at the comments of your fellow believers, they disagree with your assessment vis-a-vis thoughtcrime

        1. It is scapegoating, actually. The term “scapegoat” actually came from an old testament sacrificial ordinance. It involved a goat that carried the sins of the people and was cast into the wilderness. That ordinance was a shadow forecasting the reality of Jesus’ sacrifice to come.
          I’m a student of the Bible so I like to take any specifics there. I have doctrinal differences with other believers as well.
          To “thought crimes” in general I can cite the 10th Commandment, you shall not covet. It is the only sin that does not have a judgment in Gods’ law because no one knows the heart of another person. It’s still wrong and leads to breaking all the other commandments. It’s between you and God.
          Gods moral commandments are a “light yoke”. Abstain from false god worship, profaning the holy name, take a day of rest once a week, honor your parents, don’t murder (kidnapping is considered as murder), don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness, don’t covet. Very attainable and does good for a man and his neighbor.
          Harboring evil thoughts that break one of these commandments would be bad, but only the person harboring them and God knows these thoughts unless they are acted upon. I’m unaware of any actual Biblical passages dealing with some other kind of “thought crime”.

  4. Christian girls, statistically, are not that great. But statistically, where else are you going to find young virgins that want to stay home and raise kids and homeschool without a college degree? Statistically, where else do you see polite social smart obedient drug free kids outside the Christian home schooling movement?
    Back when i was an atheist, One of the indicators of the power of the Christian philosophy was their children. Not perfect, but compared to my secular upbringing. … no contest.

      1. It’s rather funny all those wise progressive open atheist…are still in the same collage strip bars and clubs I left their ass a few decades ago. They did not get better, just spin in circles and corrupt the new crops of collage kids as if it’s some high duty. I see it for what it is, they and their life’s are so pathetic, the only solace they get is ruiners dragging potential to their level. They can’t stand a person that’s not screwed up, the more deranged you are or act…the wider their arms open.

    1. Stop confusing protestants girls with Christians. If a church doesn’t maintain female virginity and gender roles, then it is not Christian.

      1. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Reformation. It’s simply churches that teach women their proper role.

    2. “Christian girls, statistically speaking are not that great…..”
      That is a direct result of what this article explains.

    3. Like many things pertaining to the subject, this depends on what you mean by “Christian”.

    4. When it comes to Christianity i grew up in a Christian school/church enviroment and there still was all the drugs and there was still sex and dirty language the only difference is that we bastards hid it from the pastors so they could not find out.

      1. Right. In my wife’s high school, the security guard smoked with them behind the bleachers.

  5. You need to know where to look. Then intermountain west is Christian country and there are a lot of Christian women here.
    But there are two aspects to eternity. One is your soul, the second is children.
    As far as I can tell, RooshV’s line will end with him. Lots of sex, Zero offspring, and that is the point of Bang! and the PUA. The casual sex mirroring the shallow women.
    If you want children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren, you need a wife and family. And uncucked Christianity argues for large families. When you are old, what will you remember and still rejoice over? Maybe you can do ElderBang, or like the empty large house or nice car you have trouble driving. But sons, daughters, grandchildren will continue and go into the future.

    1. “And uncucked Christianity argues for large families. When you are old, what will you remember and still rejoice over? Maybe you can do ElderBang, or like the empty large house or nice car you have trouble driving”
      That is a valid point – there is a price to pay for everything including the life of a nomadic pua. On one hand growing old alone must have a strangeness to it – one the other hand I would not want to have ungrateful kids in my life. One may argue that it is important to raise them correctly – but eventually the zeitgeist of any culture affects them and they become the people they become because of society.

      1. Not if you homeschool properly and insure they are entrepreneurs instead of going to the Uni(as in non Di)versities.

    2. Christian women are not magical nawalts and they still will do all the divorce bullshit and they can be even worse since they use the cloak of religion to hide their nature.
      When it comes to having children and grandchildren you do not need a wife to do it being in a mutual relationship with some chick having kids will still have the same affect as marriage. Also when it comes to Christianity arguing for large families you know your Christian wife can suddenly so fuck Jesus and become an Atheist right?
      I might have kids but i sure as hell am not gonna marry.

      1. Having bastards simply means we would recreate generally what is happen within the black inner cities where there are children raised by grandmothers, 4th+ generation on welfare.
        Christianity is no panacea, and there are “Churchians” (see Cuckservatives by Day and Eagle), but it alters the balance if the woman is part of a Christian family who will disown her if she divorces. She may become an Atheist, but most of such also tends toward a “liberated feminist” that would just leave and take nothing.

        1. Having bastards is far better then playing Russian roulette to a cunt which you have no control over at all legally.
          Women do not think in the long term about divorce and they will divorce for the cash and prices then rationalize that you were some scumbag or even that you turned Atheist on her.

      2. The data sharply contradicts your claims. Actively religious women are far less likely to initiate a divorce.

  6. John Eldridge is a solid Christian author to read. He authored “Wild at Heart,” which was the first book I read that sapped me out of the blue pill mindset and pushed me toward where I am today.
    “John Eldredge revises and updates his bestselling, renowned Christian classic, Wild at Heart, and in it invites men to recover their masculine heart, defined in the image of a passionate God. And he invites women to discover the secret of a man’s soul and to delight in the strength and wildness men were created to offer.”
    An excerpt: “But what happens to those dreams when we grow up? Walk into most churches, have a look around, and ask yourself: What is a Christian man? Without listening to what is said, look at what you find there. Most Christian men are…bored.”
    Link to the book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secret-Mans/dp/149152300X

    1. I find the connection between “red pill”, religion, and game fascinating. I learned game in my early 20’s, the art of picking up girls and playing them off each other. Not 3 years later, religion entered my life and the realization that the world is upside down from what is taught by society. How could becoming a player be so tied to eternal truths?

      1. I believe that game, religion, and red pill knowledge all carry pieces to the massive puzzle concerning the questions of life. As you grow, you start to realize that pieces that fit together on the right side of the puzzle eventually meet with the middle pieces, which then meet with the pieces on the left side to create the bigger picture. What once seemed contradictory or totally unrelated starts to fit in with what you’ve learned in other aspects of life.
        A key, yet forgotten theme within Christianity and many other religions are the ideas of masculinity and femininity. Game allows us to maximize our attractiveness to females. You either must be masculine, or at least be able to feign masculinity in order to be successful with women.
        Religions (not the new fluffy kind) recognize the need for strong, masculine fathers and feminine mothers in order to build the human race and maintain a moral society. Regardless of one’s views on polygamy vs monogamy, the institution of marriage, while some may see it as a means to control men, was born from the understanding that children need both a mother and a father in order to thrive.
        Red pill views allow one to see through the bullshit. It is a tough pill to swallow, mainly because it enlightens you to the darkest reaches of human nature. This is why so many men who take the red pill are angry for a year or two. They are disillusioned. The red pill is necessary when exterior forces are working against the natural order of things. I think it’s a natural state of mind when people’s heads aren’t being continuously filled with lies and propaganda.
        So how do the three intertwine? Well, it’s simple. It comes down to the truth about human nature. And that truth is that there are men and there are women. In order for the human race to survive, men and women must procreate. The strong will survive, the strongest will thrive. The weak will be weeded out over time.
        Most who fall in the survival category are your every day people–those who work hard, are vital to building/maintaining society, and have multiple children with the same women. A very select few live like kings (those who thrive), are married to several women from different nations, and potentially have hundreds of children.
        Game recognizes the basic truth of attracting women. You don’t have to be the best looking guy in the world. Sure, you may not have a harem, but displaying strength and confidence should at least land a man a wife so that he can have children to carry on his DNA. Red pill knowledge helps a man be more selective since he can cut through the mud and darkness of this world. And religion recognizes that maintaining civility, order, and morality relies upon the ability of every day people to live within the masculine/feminine dynamic and raise children who will lead similar lives.

    2. Also highly recommend Wild at Heart. I had the same reaction to reading it years ago and attending a couple of Eldrege’s boot camps in Colorado. It’s an excellent introduction to whats wrong with contemporary Christianity……its been feminized. Christ is not some mama’s boy but a leader of men.

  7. Going all-in on any organized, modern religion is like betting your life here on earth, that things in the next lifetime are going to be really great, while you possess zero evidence of that fact. I’m a gambling man for sure, but that’s one hell of a fool’s bet.
    God? Yes. Spirituality? Yes. A supreme creator? Hell yes.
    Dogmatic indoctrination followed by mindless belief, whereby one just has to, “take it on faith”, and dedicate himself to living his entire life, following the ambiguous behavioral edicts dictated by a book that appears in myriad different versions, and has seen more rewrites than a really terrible screenplay? No freaking way. There is no way I’m betting my life on that one.
    I’ll just find a better bet, while continuing to believe in a supreme creator who had his religion co-opted, and his words twisted, by powerful men who set a trap for fools…

    1. The “blind leap of faith” is Protestantism. In real Christianity reason leads to the faith, and faith is in conformance with reason.

      1. The “blind leap of faith” is weak theology, and weak theology is common among “Christians” of all denominations. Look to the fathers of what we call Protestantism (John Calvin, Martin Luther, et al.) and you will find a strong scholarly tradition. The fact that so many wolves wander among the flock in all churches (we have our Joel Osteens, and you have your new pope) does not discount the reason and logic of so many true believers who have now fallen asleep.
        But on one point we do fundamentally disagree. Reason does not lead to faith, but rather the Lord gives the Holy Spirit and faith unto us. As it is written, “No one can come to me unless the Father draws him,” and similarly, “No one comes to the Father except through me.”
        The preacher Spurgeon was once asked why he preaches when he believes this teaching. Spurgeon remarked that if he knew that all who would be saved had a star-shaped mole on their right asscheeks, he would stop preaching and pull down pants. But because God uses the “foolishness of preaching”, he continued to preach.

        1. Well yes reason alone cannot lead one to faith because the truths of faith are divinely revealed. But reason and faith go hand in hand and reason supports faith.

        2. Good post. The term “blind leap of faith” is absent from the pages of the Bible, as well. It comes from somewhere else.

        3. I think we agree. I was just saying “blind leap of faith” is not a Biblical term. People who’ve yet to learn about the Bible may think othewise because it is a common term for whatever reason.
          The whole concept of a “blind leap of faith” IMO is foolish (lacks reason) and a poor tool (if anyone actually uses it this way) for evangelizing. So, B. Smith has some valid points.
          Salvation is simple and is the free gift of God. While infinite concepts have to be accepted by faith, because we are finite beings, repentance leading to salvation is about as strait forward as it gets.

  8. let me change that title for you ever so slightly: “why you should avoid religious retardation and embrace science”.

  9. “God wants you to be with him eternally. Your life here may or may not be that great.”
    And thanks for this article. I made a tldr comment echoing these sentiments under Sharpe’s article last week. It always amazes me how wrong (and entitled) many people are about Christianity, even many Christians.

    1. Another loving quote: “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

        1. ehm..i wasn’t trying to disprove god..
          ..but now we are on the subject..can you disprove my belief in the flying spaghettimonster who circles the moon every 2000 years or so? no? well, then it must be true.

        2. What were you trying to do?
          And why would I want to disprove your belief in 2005-era atheist memes? Have fun with them if that’s your bag.

        3. i was merely quoting the bible in an attempt to show people what an outdated piece of garbage it is.
          ..it is good that you cherry-pick the morally decent parts (of which – i admit – there are a few), but basing your life on a book the romans used to keep the proles under control is rather silly.

        4. But you are the one who cherry-picked, inserting a Psalm into a discussion of a totally different context.
          And then you followed that up with the spaghetti monster strawman, lol.
          You’re free to believe whatever you’d like, but your logic and critical thinking skills are far short of the scientific ideal you seem to idolize.

        5. i picked one out of thousands of ludicrous passages in the bible to make my point.
          the scientific method is the exact opposite of what you are saying.. it is not up to science to disprove the existence of god..if someone had actually proved the existence of god, then it would be up to science to disprove his existence.

        6. But you haven’t proved anything, that’s my entire point. What exactly is “ludicrous” about the passage you cherry-picked?
          I mean, really, I’m supposed to take the word of dildo faggins over several thousand years’ worth of biblical scholarship? How scientific!

        7. Don’t you think we should purge the scourge of Islam before whining about Christianity and other benign religions?? Order of priorities please..

        8. don’t take my word..take the word of the leading scientists instead.. read a modern book of physics or biology (fields that continuously expand, develop, and – most importantly – update their theories when they do not have a leg to stand on).

        9. Which one of those books disproves Christianity? I’ll be happy to read it if you’d point it out to me.
          And again, what is “ludicrous” about your cherry-picked passage above? You haven’t even framed the terms of the discussion, but you’ve assigned a value judgment of “ludicrous” based on zero evidence.
          That’s not science.

        10. Christianity is obviously benign relative to Islam.. but people believing in it – and dedicating so much of their lives to it – is holding our part of the world back.

        11. I told you it is not the job of science to disprove something like that.. you didn’t like my spaghettimonster analogy, but it is the exact same thing.

        12. How was that ignoring your question?
          Anyway, if you are genuinely interested in hearing a first class scientists take on religion, then read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”.

        13. Oh I’ve read that, Hitchens’ work too. And they’re both 100% theory. Believing them requires the same amount of faith as believing the bible.
          And I said question(s) plural. Are you sure you’re a scientist? You’re not very observant. I’ve asked a couple of different things that you’ve completely ignored.
          Also, you said above that you’re here to educate people, but you’re doing a really bad job of it by failing to not only answer questions but to even recognize that they’ve been asked. Education implies expertise and the transference of knowledge, and thus far all you’ve managed to do is label Christians as low IQ and fail to provide any evidence for your claims.
          Which is cool, this is just a forum. But if you’re going to wade in here brandishing science like some sort of weapon, you might want to actually conduct your arguments in a scientific manner.

        14. you seem to be big into science but science hasn’t disproved anything religious..in fact, the opposite. The idea that 220 billion galaxies formed out of nothing – this precise is pretty slim.

        15. College level physics and chemistry was a big factor in my conversion, there are so many laws, constants, variables and principles that have to be just so for the Universe to exist. When I came to realize that, I understood that the order could not have been by chance.

        16. Well part of the reason for believing in Christianity is that Jesus Christ really did exist, he perfectly fulfilled the prophesies about himself, & he preformed many miracles witnessed by thousands of people. Even he himself references this fact that he has provided overwhelming evidence that he is the Messiah in the Gospels. So to compare him to a figment of your imagination really isn’t an honest analogy.

        17. For this reason and no other physicists lean on the multiverse theory. The odds are almost infinitely close to zero, so they need an infinite number of undetectable universes with different parameters to justify the theory that this could happen by chance.

        18. and out of the infinite number of universes, we just happen to be the tiny speck of the one that can support life that can think about all this.
          I am lucky to be alive, to say the least.

        19. I appreciate these films, but never is people going to be proven that God is there through documentaries or any other man made “proof”. God just doesn’t work that way. If that was so, it would negate the very nature of faith.
          The Egyptians had 9 plagues, and still they didn’t believe. After all the first born were all killed did they let them go. Even after that, they pursued the Israelites and even chased them partway through the Red Sea.
          Evidence follows faith, that evidence typically comes through the Holy Ghost, and the burning in your heart.

        20. The title looks misleading I know. It’s not a documentary proving God, but proving creation vs. evolution from a finite, scientific prospective we can understand.
          Your comment reminded me of this interview with James Perloff. He had a conversion similar to yours and he does a great job of debunking evolution from a scientific standpoint. It’s a worthwhile watch for anyone interested.
          Infinite concepts can definitely only be accepted through faith.

        1. because there are many decent philosophical articles on how to grow as a man.. and some good articles on game.
          ..the articles on religion that appeases only to the readers of lower intellect (you have to be a special kind of stupid in our day and age to believe in something so ridiculous) are just annoying.

  10. If you want to telepathically accept as your master a long dead Hebrew anarchist, be my guest. Just don’t foist your insane delusions on the rest of us who have an IQ in triple digits.

    1. Sooooooo, who do YOU accept as your master? Whose philosophy do you follow?
      Does the fact that this “long dead” anarchist still wields more influence today than anyone alive mean anything to you?

      1. Shheeeeeeiiiiit, he ain’t got no master! He’s got a triple digit IQ! He’s the master of his life, his destiny, nay the universe. Which is no doubt why he’s hanging out in the comment section of a self-help website.

      2. I am my own Master. “Does the fact that this “long dead” anarchist still wields more influence today than anyone alive mean anything to you?” —Nope. Bullsh*t is still bullsh*t no matter how many people believe it. I much prefer the learnings gathered from reading Sun Tzu. —“Self help website” is entirely correct, I am responsible for my actions and improving me. I credit or blame no other for my triumphs or defeats, and most assuredly do not give credence to fictional characters as having an influence on my life.

        1. You still use the moral code and all the advances of 1000 plus years of Christian civilization. You are a hypocrite.

        2. Rubbish. You honestly think the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong is from Christianity? Or even the Hebrews way before him had to have it carved in stone that murder was wrong? Or stealing? Then you are deluded beyond help.

        3. We westerners do not follow the Hebrew moral code. Our code is a combination of Christian (the precepts laid down by Jesus), GrecoRoman and Northern European customs. This code is the one I’m talking about. Try again ignorant.

        4. Meaningless waffle. If our forefathers long before any of those religions or civilisations you mentioned had not worked out that killing and stealing were wrong, then none of them would have existed. T’is you who is ignorant.

        5. You are an idiot if you think we follow the same ethics and moral code of the Greeks, the Romans or the Norsemen. The only good of that is that a fool like you would have been killed a long time ago should we live in such societies…

        6. It’s too painful trying to debate you when you have the intellectual capacity of George W Bush. For the record, I am Anglo Norman and proud of it. Goodbye, you tiresome troll.

        7. So saith the one who has not presented a single fucking argument in his favor. It’s too painful to discuss with someone so dumb. Anglo-Norman=Anglosphere….got it. Bye troll.

    2. The Bible teaches that only some have ears to hear and eyes to see. While every Christian has hope that everyone would see and hear, the discerning among us understand few find the narrow way and that is part of God’s plan.
      That said, everyone has a god. The generic term “god” literally means “mighty one”. You have “insane delusions” of your own just like everyone else. The source of your ideas of right and wrong, the source of your “moral” code, is your “mighty one”. Regardless of what you call it or even if you pretend you are different, it does exist.
      Fallen man is slave to his own sin. Christians are slaves to Jesus Christ.

      1. If you are convinced by that sort of thing, you are perfectly entitled to be. I am not. I have NO god, either your definition of a god or not. I KNOW I have no god, just because you say everyone has one is absurd in the extreme, not to mention arrogant!

        1. OK. You definitely sound like someone who is morally neutral. You definitely don’t serve a belief that says “you don’t serve anybody’s definition of a god”, or become zealous and use caps if that nonexistent moral principle of yours is taken offense to. I stand corrected.

        2. I used all caps to highlight those important words, in the same manner as you changed the italics on the word ‘everyone’ to draw attention to it, not as you alluded to as an act of aggression or indignation. I am not bound by morals moreover I work by my set of ethics which has served me well. There is little moral fibre to be found in your god of the OT, and even that Jesus character has some questionable attitudes to others which christians seem wont to erase and gloss over. If you really get your ‘morals’ from the teaching of such characters you really need to start looking further into them.

        3. Much gets lost in text. Caps are commonly understood to be equivalent to yelling.
          “Morals” vs. “ethics” is attempting word gymnastics. What you said proves my point. The idea of what a “god” is in modern times has been so confused because of ignorance. Everyone has their version of right and wrong whatever they choose to call it. The source of those ideas of right and wrong is that person’s “mighty one”.
          In modern times that source for many people could even be a politician, for example. In ancient times people would decide what their preferred idea of morality was, murdering babies for a good harvest or whatever, and then ascribe those “morals” to a statue and call it their mighty one. Some still do that today. At any rate it is the same concept.
          What “attitudes” or examples of “little moral fibre” do you speak of?

        4. On Jesus? He was a hypocrite. He told his followers not to call anyone a fool., but…
          “Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22
          Yet he often called his critics and disciples fools.
          Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
          Ye fools. Luke 11:40
          O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25”
          On God? The capricious, malcontent who without a second thought could order the slaughter of infants, turn people into stone for merely looking over their shoulder, and who wants to end the world in a bloodbath? Really? You want to blindly accept his will? Well I don’t and I’m not having it. And you know what else? IF I am wrong I have no fear whatsoever of looking your god in the eye and saying “How dare you, cast me in the hell you created for at least I go honestly and knowing I lived my life with far greater compassion you ever should to the defenseless”.

        5. I see what you’re saying and it all comes from a failure to harmonize scripture properly. What each person chooses to believe is obviously their own choice. You seem to believe in Him to a degree because your example has Him casting you into hell. I personally don’t believe in hell, but again each person believes what they want.

        6. Why are you having fantasies where you quote what you say to God like this:
          “How dare you, cast me in the hell you created for at least I go
          honestly and knowing I lived my life with far greater compassion you
          ever should to the defenseless”
          It would seem from this you consider yourself morally superior to the rest of the human race somehow and even God. You’re your own deity. Every person is a sinner, every person has a source they draw their moral code from. That source is their deity or god even if it is themselves.
          You’ve been likely coasting on the flawed argument that you “have no religion” or “have no god/deity” because people lacked the understanding to correct you properly and that’s over now. Denial is the first stage. You’ll be OK.

        7. You seem confused. This is exactly what you said:

          “How dare you, cast me in the hell you created for at least I go honestly and knowing I lived my life with far greater compassion you ever should to the defenseless”.

          You say you don’t believe in God, but quote yourself talking to Him. If He’s imaginary why bother? I couldn’t care less what you do or do not believe as I’ve made abundantly clear already.
          Your comment also reveals you consider yourself to have, “far greater compassion” and “honesty” than God. You’re your own deity. To each their own.

        8. Ah, I see why you are confused. If you re-read my text I capitalized the prefix ‘IF’, to highlight that I may in fact be mistaken, unlikely though this is. But IF I am wrong, I have higher moral (though I work on ethics) standards than that alleged malcontent. I said nothing of being superior over other human beings, you just made that up in fact.
          “You’ve been likely coasting on the flawed argument that you “have no religion” or “have no god/deity” because people lacked the understanding to correct you properly and that’s over now. Denial is the first stage. You’ll be OK.”
          Nope. Former Christian. Can happily show fatal flaws in Christianity til the sheep wake up.
          By the way, Sheppard’s tend their sheep because they either want to fleece, f*ck or eat them.
          Very apt.

        9. Nice! You left being led by the Spirit as well, it would seem. Language being the first sign. I’m a (mostly) reformed ex-Sailor. I can struggle at times with commenting on here because people tend to inspire the more fleshly side of me to drop to their level with name calling and whatnot. I’m far from perfect I still manage to quip in my own way sometimes.
          At any rate, I’d be happy to discuss the flaws in Christianity you claim to have if you want to point them out. My pure motivation being the exchange of ideas. Many people struggle with former religious affiliations and I can respect that. If you’re easily offended, or prefer to “hit below the belt”, I’d consider it a waste of time. I strive to disagree agreeably and some of the people I admire most are people I disagree with on major issues.

        10. Happy to, and I agree, no need for this to degenerate into name calling. I am an Ex-Soldier so we have the wearing of uniform in our past in common. As for the flaws in Christianity, shall we start at the beginning of the Bible? Genesis always provides rich fodder for this exercise but I am happy to choose any book. I only make the point that currently I live in Australia so our time frames may not always overlap.

        1. Right. You’re absolutely neutral on every issue of human morality.
          So much so that you’ve found motivation to volunteer your opinion to people who do have a professed moral preference and judge them according to your moral neutrality.
          Which you do not serve because isn’t “mighty” in your life. And that’s not what brought you here because you don’t serve this nonexistent idea of morality in any way.

  11. I agree . Non delluded Christians are among the best people on earth. The whole Western world own them a great debt.

    1. “Non-deluded” – Yet they believe in magical sky daddy with no evidence and that a man rose from the dead with the only (unverified to be true) evidence being a book.
      Oh and magic is real. Harry Potter says so.

      1. Non deluded are people that understand that there is a gap between their faith and the modern world, and who fight to make the better of it.
        The modern western world is based on AND against the Christian model.
        This powerfull fight build us.
        It made us the ruler of this very material world.
        Now, christianity is crumbling.
        The Fatherly figure, the familly one and the Heavenly One is disapearing from our society.
        What will replace him ? The Invisible Hand of the market ?
        Well, busibnessis good, but it won’t die for your Epod…

        1. Religions are political, ethical systems. The structure they put of any group have practical conséquences.
          An example: most jewish people aren’t belivers, religous peopel. But modern Israel, wich was founded by ‘socialists’, only exists because of the religious underlying structure.
          That’s their only common point. Take that from them, they are just a bunch of people with different origins, different values, different interests.
          Sorftware Israeli production is great, but no israeli would die for it.
          But most israeli citizens are ready to fight for the land linked to the Faith of their ancestors.
          Without that, their neighboors will eat them alive.
          My point is to say that Christianity was the underlying strcuture of the western world. It produced stable famillies, work ethic, discipline, universities…
          Chrsitians (non fundamentalists one) are among the nicests people you can meet. A little too nice to my taste.
          Exept if you want to marry one…
          And that’s another interesting point. There is a strong concensus on this site (and not only there).
          if you want to marry, the chance to avoid a catastrophy (divorce, allimony, wrong testimony etc) is strongly reduce if you marry a non delluded religious partner from your original culture.
          And for most of us… guess what ? It’s a Christian.

  12. Nothing creates controversy like an opinionated article about religion. It guarantees that a lot of people will have their pet frogs stepped on, and they’ll go ballistic…sex may indeed sell, but religion will line your pockets with gold. Just ask the Roman Catholic Church about that one.

    1. The Vatican is the biggest religious scam on the planet.
      It’s all about power and riches.
      Burning so called “heretics” at the stake.
      Did Jesus tell ’em to do that ?
      Please show me that in the Bible…
      Ah.. you can’t…. right.

    2. Yeah right, that’s why they bequeath the cathedrals to their sons and preside over great mega-shows and preach the “Prosperity Gospel”….oh wait

  13. Real Christianity starts with reading the real Bible !
    The modern revised Bibles are all completely corrupt and watered-down versions of the real deal.
    ALL the post-King James Bible versions are translations of DIFFERENT manuscripts than the manuscripts the KJV is based on.
    The KJV is based on the majority text (Textus Receptus) and these manuscripts have been the gold standard through the ages.
    All revised versions that are created since the late 1800’s, (not only in english but in all languages) are based on CORRUPTED MANUSCRIPTS; Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and others that are modified by the Vatican.
    The quality and the accuracy of a modern translation might be decent but if the manuscripts on which it is based contain false doctrines, ommit parts of verses, contain doctrinal perversions all bets are off.
    In the best case scenario you’ll get a good translation of wicked perverted manuscripts.
    Garbage in, garbage out.
    I am not talking about insignificant details here.
    I am talking about garbage manuscripts that are perverted and EVIL !
    The manuscripts used for the modern versions are the same the catholics use for their bibles.
    One of ’em is named Codex VATICANus, the Vatican manuscript.
    Are you willing to trust the Vatican to give you the real and unaltered bible doctrine ?
    Please do not believe a word of what I just told you without checking it for yourself.
    Go to youtube and watch Gail Riplinger’s videos about the modern bible versions or do some google searches on the subject.
    Many Christians are being deceived with a watered-down pseudo Christianity and this is mainly happening because of the modern perverted bibles.
    An example;
    The KJV states “flee fornication”, but modern versions replace “fornication” with “sexual immorality” or similar words.
    Fornication is a very precise definition, “sexual immorality” leaves room for all kinds of personal interpretation.
    Is premarital sex immoral ?
    What about gay sex between two men who are in love with one another ?
    Do you get it ?
    Modern versions are evil !

Comments are closed.