Is God the Great Gamer?

Yep. Luckily, nobody sought His justice then, or Christianity wouldn't exist.

 

You would expect others to read into your words of sarcasm, yet you would not take the time to intently read the Word of God and request Him to make his Truth be known?

 

I'm an atheist.

 

And so are many who claim to be Christian but deny the supernatural power of God. I see you as honest regarding that aspect.

 

Please note that I have NEVER said that Jesus didn't claim to be the son of God.

I am FULLY aware of that claim. I have NEVER disputed that.

Note that I addressed an issue of history and that I certainly did not counter any claim of Christianity that I know about.

 

My apology if warranted. The application then, is to others.

 

That is precisely why I took exception to your word "verbatim". Unbelievers who delve into God's Word generally take that approach. I have been taught "line upon line, precept upon precept". If something comes into question, put it on a shelf, continue seeking and pray for revaelation. You see, that type of seeking truth is far different than the "verbatim" kind.

Just to give a quick response to some of the things Mr Martin Sheen addressed. He has little understanding of the Law. God gave us ten commandments. Mankind expounded on those, as is his nature, without a spiritual understanding. He added hundreds. We found out the Sabbath (the law) was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath (law). In other words the law was made to benefit man. Man was not made to follow laws! Jesus took the ten laws given to Moses and summed them up in two. Look them up if you care to. See, that kind of stuff puts a lot of lawyers out of business. You may ask me as in the 1st statement about the lady addressing homosexual activity as an abomination.....do I think it is? I would just say according to the "entire" word of God, it is not beneficial therefore I believe it is a sin, no greater than looking at a women as a sexual object. (Most all men struggle with that) but no less than murder. Mr. Martin Sheen in that clip has a legal background. Not sure he ever struggled with the "Deeper " things of God.

 

Frankly, I don't know why I'm bothering to answer this kind of clear and unadulterated attempt to deny the obvious.

I couldn't care less what The Last American said. I also find it very hard to believe that the words "religious leaders" really mean "progressives". I find it even harder to believe that anyone would mistake me for an American progressive. I'm not American. I'm Israeli. We don't do progressive much, it's counterproductive in my country.

I never said that. Christians can use what they damn please, as long as they don't use their holy texts against people whose beliefs are different. You don't get to tell Jews what they believe based on Christian texts and beliefs not shared by Jews. You don't get to tell Jews how to interpret their own sacred texts. You also don't get to tell Jews how to react if that happens.

This kind of BS doesn't work with me. I'll tell what I have to tell regardless.

Only the Pentateuch was translated early. The rest of the Septuagint wasn't.

I didn't say that Jews never used the Septuagint. I said it had probably been used by heretic Jewish sects.

What about Philo of Alexandria?

 

I've read the Christian texts several times. I've read books about Christianity. I sat in churches with my Christian friends. No Word of God for me though. Still an atheist.

Are you eastern orthodox? Greek or Russian?

 

Yes, in political science/international relations, we refer to the Exodus Trilogy as a National Unity Document. Not all countries have them, and it isn't required to be an actual written document. It can be the oral or written myths or legends of a country, and when written they're allowed to consist of more than one document. The purpose is chiefly to unify people, but they often serve other purposes as well.

The two armed camps are Exodus/No Exodus in spite of the reality being "Yes."

If you read the Journal of the Ancient Near East, Journal of Biblical Archeology etc, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the Canaanites and the Hebrews. If you were excavating a site, you'd pull your hair out trying to figure out if Canaanites lived there or Hebrews lived there, because the two cultures are virtually indistinguishable.

That's because 9 of the tribes always lived in Canaan with their neighbor Ugarit to the north until Ugarit was destroyed before the Exodus happened and no one ever lived there again, much in the same way Sumer was abandoned circa 1,900 BCE and no one ever lived there again.

Classical Biblical Hebrew -- which is nothing like modern Hebrew -- is the Ugaritic dialect of Aramaic without the case endings. Period. And that's only possible if the Hebrews always lived in Canaan.

[1] Was not the dragon vanquished and captured? I did destroy the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads
[2] For all that you smote Leviathan the slippery serpent, [and] made an end of the wriggling serpent, the tyrant with seven heads

(Note: "[1]" refers to the line number in the text)

Sound familiar? From the Old Testament?

The Hebrews did not write that. The Ugarits wrote it and the Hebrews copied it, just like they copied everything else from the Ugarits.

Here are the Ugaritic roots plus Hebrew roots and then Hebrew with vowels:

Ugaritic tnn with the Hebrew tnn (tannin) i.e. sea monster
Ugaritic ’qltn with the Hebrew ’qltn (’agallaton) “squirming”
Ugaritic brh with the Hebrew brh (bariakh) usually translated “fast-moving”

The Hebrew Daniel was plagiarized from the Ugaritic hero Dan'il.

There is no god and it wouldn't matter if there was, because the translators of the King Joke Vision aren't connected to, filled with, inspired by or aware of any god and the proof is here:

Proverbs 26:23 in the Hebrew text was divided as mygys psk and all texts, including the King Joke Vision incorrectly translated it as "silver lips." Thanks to the original Ugaritic text, we know the division should have been mygysps k which means "like silver" and now the Proverb --which was originally written by Ugarits and copied by Hebrews -- makes sense

In Psalm 89:20 the word rz is translated as "help" but thanks to the the original Ugaritic text we now know the correct word is gzr which means "young man" so how stupid are the King Joke Vision translators who translated it incorrectly for centuries? And then all those Hebrew scribes who translated it incorrectly for more than 2,000 years?

Those are just 2 of several 100 examples.

The members of the 9 tribes in the Exodus Trilogy all have exclusively Canaanite names, which is proof they always lived in Canaan and not Egypt.

The members of Reuben, Simeon and Levi have exclusively Egyptian names. X-Moses, Aaron, Phineas, Dathan, et al are all Egyptian.

Later editors of the texts were either ignorant of cultural customs, or attempted to obfuscate for political reasons.

Ephraim is the true heir of Israel and not Judah.

Why does the 12th-born son Joseph get the birth-right? Because custom says so, but later editors of the text either forgot about the custom, or were attempting to obfuscate.

Why do people hang mistletoe, light a yule log, and put up a tree and decorate it at Christmas? Nobody remembers the real reasons why we do those things, we only know we're supposed to do them.

The custom was the ranking scheme:

1) Preferred half-sister wife
2) All other half-sister wives by rank
3) Preferred wife
4) All other wives by rank
5) Preferred concubine
6) All other concubines by rank

Jacob married Leah first, but Rachel is the preferred wife so her 1st-born son Joseph out-ranks all of his brothers, which is why they hated him.

That's also why Jacob gives the birth-right to Joseph. He gets half of everything and not just half, he gets to pick the best half, so instead of taking impoverished Jerusalem, he takes the fertile prime real estate that borders Ugarit.

The Joseph immediately passes his birth-right to his youngest son Ephraim. If you read the texts, it is clear Ephraim's mother was a wife, if not the preferred wife, while the mother of 1st-born son Manasseh was a concubine.

Here it makes little difference, since two brothers split the land equally, but Ephraim takes the best part.

Later editors of the Hebrew text don't understand that, or try to hide that from you, and they jump through hoops trying to explain away things.

They say Reuben lost his birth-right because he slept with his father's concubine. Wrong. It's because his mother was a concubine and probably low-ranking at that.

They say Simeon and Levi lost their birth-right for murdering the men of Sheckem. Wrong. It's because their mothers were also low-ranking concubines.

Don't forget that contradicts an earlier claim that they bought Sheckem for 100 shekels, so the Yahweh-thing either doesn't exist, is fallible or has dementia -- take your pick.

You're Reuben -- the 1st-born and the eldest -- so what are you going to do? Share-crop on a younger brother's land 'cause you have no land of your own?

How freaking humiliating and embarrassing is it to have a younger brother lord over you?

But if Joseph was a low-level government administrator in Egypt -- and I believe he was -- he could set them up right. He could give land to Reuben and Simeon, and probably named Levi as a priest.

Now it all makes sense.

Common sense dictates you trade with your kin in Canaan and you can do that until Egypt loses suzerainty over Canaan and control of the region. Why? Because when it costs you more to hire mercenaries to protect your trade caravan than the cost of the goods in the caravan, you're losing money hand-over-fist. Trade is interrupted and they also lose contact with each other.

Fast-forward a few centuries. There's a short-lived religious cult that arises in Egypt under a particular pharaoh and when he dies, the next pharaoh bans that religious cult.

Your options are go underground or flee, and I suspect they did both, go underground for a time, then leave to re-establish contact with their kin in Canaan.

The archeological evidence supports that, because they only signs of town/settlement expansion are in the mountains where Reuben was, which expanded for about 20,000 people, and then south of Jerusalem where Simeon was, which expanded to accommodate 12,000 to 14,000 people. The Levites as priests had no land.

That expansion did not occur suddenly overnight. It took a few decades, say 40 years?

So, they send an advance party, and then everyone else trickles in over the next 40 years or so.

Anmoses/Amenmoses is their leader.

In looking at Anmoses/Amenmoses, Hilkiah and Jeremiah would have thrown a hissy-fit and so they changed his name from Anmoses to just "moses" or from Amenmoses to just "moses."

Of the two, it is most likely Anmoses.

Why? Well, remember that Hilkiah and Jeremiah goad Josiah into destroying a holy relic made by X-Moses at Yahweh's command, namely the copper serpent on a pole used to cure the Hebrews of poisonous snake-bites whilst allegedly wandering around the Sinai.

Who does not see the inherent contradiction?

It would take a friggin' huge pair of big brassy balls to destroy a holy relic your god commanded someone to make. That's like asking Yahweh to strike you dead.

But why stop there? Why not destroy the Ark of the Covenant or the Tablets (of the 10 Commandments)?

There's a reason why.

The god An was a serpent god and that was his cult symbol.

Jeremiah and Hilkiah know that and being the total Yahweh fanatics they were, it would have driven them insane to know that the cult symbol of a foreign god -- an Egyptian god no less -- was in the freakin' temple sitting right next to the freakin' Ark of the Covenant.

That's how they convinced Josiah to destroy that holy relic, but that's not what the say in the texts -- which they wrote and edited.

But An is not Yahweh so overtime they were co-opted into believing that they're all the same god.

Since Terah was chief priest for the god whose Sumerian name was Ninurta and whose Akkadian name was El Shaddai, well, now you know where El Shaddai came from, because that is the god Abram/Abraham would worship, since his father was Terah and since he was born/lived in El Shaddai's principal city and cult-center, which was Ur.

Then, Terah, and Abram/Abraham and his half-sister Serai/Sarah (same father different mother) pick up and move to Haran in the Hurrian Kingdom and it just so happens that Haran is the principal city and cult-center for Ninurta/El Shaddai whose Hurrian name is Teshub.

The Hebrews are polytheists like all other cultures and this the Ugarit pantheon that the Hebrews worshiped:

El = Enlil in both Sumerian and Akkadian
El Elyon = Anu (Sumerian)/An (Akkadian)/ On (Egyptian)
El Berith = Marduk in Sumerian/Akkadian
El Shaddai = same in Akkadian/Ninurta (Sumerian)
Ba'al = Adad (Sumerian)/ Hadad (Akkadian) and younger brother of El Shaddai
Yam = Enki (Sumerian)/Ea (Akkadian) also Ptah in Egyptian and a sea serpent god -- Note: Yam in CBH is sea as in Yam Suf (Sea of Reeds)
Asherah = Ianna (Sumerian/Akkadian) and wife of Yahweh
Dagan = Dummuzi (Sumerian)/Tammuz (Akkadian)
Kothar = Gibil in Sumerian/Akkadian
Lothan = Ningishiddza Sumerian/Akkadian also a serpent god
Mot = Nergal in Sumerian/Akkadian -- Mot is CBH means death
Yahweh = Mekizide in Sumerian/Akkadian

Note that Sumerian texts say it was Enki/Ea who held a debate between a king of Sumer and a king of Aratta --located in the east -- to determine if the world should speak one language or many languages.

So-called "scholars" claim Aratta is a "mythical" place in spite of the fact that Aratta was Ianna's domain and in spite of the fact that Harappa is a transliteration of Aratta, and Harappa was in India, which is very obviously to the east.

You can see the evolution of theology.

The world is polytheist and the belief is the Deluge was caused by a celestial event which the gods were powerless to stop, and did not warn humans.

Later, the world is henotheistic and the belief is the Deluge was caused by a celestial event, the gods could have stopped it, but didn't because they're mean-spirited bastards.

Later, monolatry arises with the adoption of national gods, and the Deluge was caused by god to punish people.

The Hebrews were still henotheistic at the time the 3 tribes from Egypt joined them in Canaan and it's centuries later when monolatry becomes vogue that it is necessary to crow-bar everything together to at least create the appearance of unity.

 

I don't accept this, as the Bible has been around for a long time, and there are huge numbers of people who have analyzed this writing.

"Put it on the shelf" is ok for ones personal study, but I don't see that as working for Christianity as a whole.

Of course, the purpose of secular law is not the same as religious law.

The 10C is fine for religious law, but it does not address the issues of a modern society.

Thus, at least half the 10c have no analog in our legal system.

All the Christian denominations of today see great value in the marriage relationship. They point out that this comes above the issue of children.

So, the problem I have with your analysis of homosexual marriage is that there isn't any difference.

It does sound like you might actually be referring to the self gratification of having relations outside of this dedicated union. But, that can't be seen as dependant on who is involved - surely it applies to everyone.

 

God the Father is someone other than Jesus in 'potential' since Jesus was the Logos/Word emanating from God, but not the Creator. Yet the Logos/Word is part of God in the same way your thoughts are part of you.

 

I'm not sure what you mean...

Do you have an opinion concerning the exorcisms being conducted today?

 

It's actually "sar" but I transliterate it as "shar" so that people accurately pronounce it.

Many languages, and that includes Semitic languages of which Sumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic et al are a part, have two "s" sounds, one being "s" like "stuff" and one being "sh" like "ship."

You know how the now-dead former Libyan leader Momar Ghaddafi had 50,000 different spellings of his name?

That's because journalists are irretrievably stupid.

The purpose of transliterating is to allow you to correctly pronounce a foreign word in your language. So, which is correct, "Koran" or the now in vogue fashionable "Quran." Well, if you speak English, then Koran will do nicely.

So, to pronounce "Ghaddafi" correctly in German you would spell it one way, and a different way in French, and Swedish, and Italian, and Spanish and the idiot journalists couldn't understand that thought they were spelling it wrong.

In Romania, we have a city called Iasi. How would I transliterate that into English? I would write Yash. Or, perhaps Yahsh, since the "a" sounds more like "a" in "alter" than the "a" in apple.

Funny thing is, on British and American maps it's written as Jassy. I have no idea how they came up with Jassy.

In Sumerian, a "sar" is either a great circle or a great year of 3,600 years.

Could Mesopotamia and the Harappa/Mohenjo Daro come up with 432,000 independently on their own?

Sure. But, why?

It would mean both used numbers and math, and more importantly, that is only possible if they are using the Base 60 number system.

That only begs the question, why Base 60 instead of Base 10?

You know, Base 10, Decimal, 10 fingers etc?

Base 60 or Sexagesimal is based on 60. How do you come up with 60?

How did Scandinavian cultures come up with that?

I have no freaking idea.

Even more confounding is that at the time, Base 60 was history and had been for at least 8 centuries.

I'm not seeing Scandinavians having contact with either of the cultures in India/Pakistan, or the Middle East.

I'm fascinated by human migrations. I'm also a former law enforcement agent. I was on the road 2 years before becoming a detective sergeant, and then running an investigative section, and then I was private investigator and then I worked for law firms off and on for a long time.

So, gathering evidence and trying to flesh out the truth is something I not only have a college degree for, I'm trained and experienced in it.

The gospels? Any first year law student would shred Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on the witness stand.

I took a college course in religion, specifically on the Hebrew texts, and as you might guess the bible thumpers showed up with their King Joke Vision.

When the professor told them they had to use the Stuttgart Bible (Codex Leningradis) or Codex Aleppo, they all went ballistic.

So, he just went through the King Joke Vision and showed them how the translator not only screw up the translations, but how they outright lie and just make stuff up that isn't even in the text.

Never saw a bunch of sad-faced people (and it shut them up.)

Here's where science proves John is a liar. It's claimed the darkness at the time of the crucifixion was an eclipse, so here's the science.

We're talking Saros Series 72 and the total solar eclipse occurred on November 14, 29 CE at 00:46 AM UT (Universal Time) at 20° Scorpio 10' lasting a shade over 4 minutes, or 4.13 minutes which is about 4 minutes and 8 seconds or so.

LMT in Jerusalem is 2:20, so
2:20
+:46
----- 2:66 or 3:06 AM in Jerusalem. There's no possible way anyone in Jerusalem saw that solar eclipse, much less anyone in Rome.

In Saros Series 82 there was a total solar eclipse at 9° Scorpio 21' lasting a whole 1.07 minutes at 3:43 PM UT on November 3, 31 CE.

3:43
2:20
-----
5:63 or 6:03 PM. That would have been visible in Jerusalem.

In Saros Series 62 there was total solar eclipse lasting a shade under 2 minutes that occurred at 0° Sagittarius 58' on November 24, 29 CE at 9:17 AM UT.

9:17
2:20
-----
11:37 AM in Jerusalem and clearly visible.

The problem with all of those is that Passover does not occur in November.

That leaves only one other possibility.

In Saros Series 59 the total solar eclipse lasted 4 minutes 6 seconds on March 19, 33 CE at 10:43 AM UT at 26° Pisces 51'.

10:43
+2:20
-------
12:63 PM or 1:03 PM Jerusalem time which would also have been visible.

In case anyone is wondering, the longest known total solar eclipse was in 1937 and lasted 7 minutes and 13 seconds. Regarding time reckoning, it's Mesopotamian. A beru is 12 hours and a double beru (written beru.beru) is 24 hours. It's reckoned from sunset to sunset, so the 6th hour is either midnight or noon.

Since the texts claim the crucifixion occurred during Passover, that would mean the only one that could possibly fit would be March 19, 33 CE which at 1:03 PM is close enough for government work to be the 6th hour.

But, that also means the New Moon was on a Thursday, so that means John is a liar and it means there's no such thing as Good Friday.

 

I thought Saint Paul said it? Also when you say 'works', what do you mean by works? Do you mean only charity and good deeds? What about one's everyday kindness and compassion towards others, wouldn't that also be a person's works, and wouldn't that be dependent on the state of a person's heart and soul?

I think what Luther meant is that the extent of a person's faith will determine their works.

 

I have no idea why most of that got posted. It's interesting that it didn't include how Gaddafi and his countrymen would have spelled his name.

As to the last, I really don't see the concern about John.

I see no evidence that John lied. Besides, why would he lie? He may have been misquoted or mistranslated. He may have misremembered it. Maybe someone smudged his transcript.

I really hate that we've moved the popular definition of "lie" to cover misstatements of any kind. Too many times it is a disgustingly false charge - an ad hom attack on someone's veracity.

Even in our law, stating a falsehood in a court of law isn't perjury unless it pertains in some important way.

 

In a sense.. yes..... Nietzsche stated something to the effect that both God and the angels strive against boredom.......
confronting INFINITE TIME both in the past as well as in the future would tend to give One a different view of
what really matters.......

True courage cannot exist if there is zero threat of pain, suffering or death......

I began to argue and debate and question Messiah Yeshua - Jesus vehemently and with the usage of four letter words in 1990 just after Yom Kippur...... and ALL OF MY QUESTIONS were answered..... (mostly through near death experience accounts as they helped me to understand hidden meaning in the Jewish and Christian scriptures).

My debate centered around the eventual salvation of Azazel.....
and I figured that if Azazel could be saved then how could my great grandmother Sade Smith be "lost" in any permanent manner!


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 16&version=RSV



10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Aza′zel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Aza′zel.



20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat; 21 and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities upon him to a solitary land; and he shall let the goat go in the wilderness.



26 And he who lets the goat go to Aza′zel shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. 27 And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be carried forth outside the camp; their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned with fire. 28 And he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.


29 “And it shall be a statute to you for ever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves, and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you; 30 for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. 31 It is a sabbath of solemn rest to you, and you shall afflict yourselves; it is a statute for ever. 32 And the priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the holy linen garments; 33 he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.” And Moses did as the Lord commanded him."




To this day I am having difficulty in understanding how Messiah Yeshua - Jesus could be typified by a goat?????????


Many of my questions were answered in the NDE account of Bruce F. MacDonald Ph. D.

www.ThomasTwin.com/


http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html

“Against boredom even gods struggle in vain.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ

 

Tell you what. On Easter Saturday, go to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, that is if you can get in. And there you can watch God's reaction to your hypothesis about Good Friday, as flames begin dancing and lighting up all around you and the Holy Fire descends on Christ's tomb when the Patriarch prays.



The properties of the Holy Fire are different in the first 20 to 30 minutes so that it doesn't burn. Afterwards it becomes fire as we know it.

 

No, I am an American member of the Body of Christ......no other affiliation. Some would say I'm an evangelical.

 

The Relationship Christ has with his Church is equated to the relationship of a husband and wife. If you studied scripture, you might glean an understanding between male and female their strengths and weaknesses. They each have a special contribution to the relationship that makes them "one flesh". The culture now has strayed from the concept, but followers of Christ do not.
If you go visit the Supreme Court in D.C. you would see the 10 commandments posted on the building. Jesus summed them up in two. He said, "obey these and all will be fulfilled. Is that simple enough for you? It would be simple for all of us if we understood the Nature of God. That is for what Christians strive. It is about "Relationship".....not "Religion".

 

Yes, many Christians are virulently misogynistic. But, you are right that it is no longer seen as a requirement for the Christian religion.

We know it was the culture of those in Biblical times to be supremely misogynistic. And, it is seen in the Bible as a result.

But, we know today that misogyny is not religion and is not good as a requirement for relationships, either.

So, to use misogyny as an argument against same sex marriage makes no sense at all.

 

I don't understand your use of the word "misogyny". I do know Christ actually treated women in a way that was revolutionary for the times. Human nature relegated the physically weaker sex to a lower platform much as it does in Islam today. If you are trying to make a case for homosexual lifestyles and even pretend marriage, declare it for crying out loud! However, I believe those that are truly part of the Body of Christ have a deep respect for the opposite sex.....and of those there are two.

 

It was you who brought up misogyny, not me. You made a comment about differing capabilities that are inherently based on sex and apply to all humans.

I'm the one saying that is not just nonsense, but seriously problematic when it shows up in society today.

Jesus treated everyone well. He backed up his statements in Matthew 25:31 to end, doing a reasonable job of demonstrating with his own actions. I applaud what Jesus said and did wrt human relations and society.

And, I write off the misogyny in the Bible as a fact of the society of that time - NOT something that anyone should follow.

 

Sounds like a lot of hate spewed by a complete and utter moron who has difficulty reading above the 1st grade level. The character that Sheen plays of course - not you. I'm sure you're smarter than that.

For slavery, read Philemon. For the Sabbath and unclean things read Acts 15, Romans 14. But near the end, he simply makes up punishments which didn't exist, even in the past. He mistakes something being unclean as being sinful. He simply says a bunch of moronic stupidity. He's making up a book and religion to hate - not one that actually exists. And then at the very end he insists that everyone worships him like a god. What a moronic butthole.

So, which passage do you want to talk about first? Or are you unwilling to discuss things with someone who knows what's up?

Of course you could just watch this 90 second video as well.



Or would you rather learn the Bible from a fictional moron?

 

You know that is quite untrue. You used the word, I never did. So you are one who denies there are differing capabilities among the sexes. We could go one direction and examine world pole vault records. Men have done around 20' while women are at 16'. Is that misogyny? Women do breastfeed more children than men....I think. Women do have finer motor skills in general than men. It is a fact they mature faster than men. Of course you may scoff at what I say here, but then again I am not considering the 51 genders that modern day Professors claim to have identified. I would venture to say DNA only recognizes two.