Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Answering a non-Satanist who comes close to arguing for Satanism

Well, with this post, this blog on what US refers to as "7.11" has 711 posts. Post-ID has both 999 and 696 - and, fortunately not the reverse of the first.

Now, as usual, who I comment on is on a video. Warning, do not go there, that is why I don't give clickable link:

Satanic Bible vs. The Holy Bible
Repzion | 14.VI.2017

No, it is not very seductive to normally minded people, but some aren't and to the rest, it is painfully stupid.

OK, it can be seductive to ignorant people too. This is what I am trying to fix:

5:27 If you are formerly from a Baptist home, it seems that becoming - it would seem - Satanist would have caused you more confusion when wide awake than I have after a night with too little sleep.

  • 1) Jesus neither turned nor claimed to turn fish into bread or bread into fish.
  • 2) Jesus did multiply on two occasions both bread and fish - and both happened after He had turned water into wine.
  • 3) But the glaring point is, if you were right and "he" hadn't - how could "he" have gotten away with claiming "I turned water into wine" or claiming "I multiplied bread and fish" if the adverbs going along with claims were "on a wedding near home" and "before thousands of people who got fed, twice" if nobody ever saw "him" do it?

If I asked you "do you remember last year, when you came over to France and I smacked you on the head in three boxing rounds, each ending with your falling down knocked out?" would you believe I did that just because I had made such a claim?

No way (and very rightly so) ... and that very elementary critical reason does not depend on having a college degree, on knowing how to read or on having access to reliable fact checking news media.

There is no such thing as someone claiming to turn water into wine and being believed without showing anything.

Would the Satanic Bible by any chance be claiming "he" did it by magic? If that is supposed to mean sleight of hand, tell me when Oliver Twist (I think there is a stage magician who took his stage name from a Dickens character) is getting empty handed to a starvation stricken area (big or small, doesn't matter) and by sleight of hand produces food for everyone ...

5:40 Oh, you agree with Jesus not feeding 5000 men plus women and children from two breads and five fishes?

Well, that is one thing.

Next thing is, explain how the story he did arise. "He" claimed it? Could work for acts done out of human observation or with one easily accompliced observer, like what Hercules did with no human or only Iolaus watching. For treating a party near home to wine made from water or feeding 5000 people, the idea "he" claimed it and got away with it makes no sense at all.

6:21 "and not hurting anybody in the process of that"

Hmmmmm ... would this mean things like "not hurting anybody who counts" or "well, it's not really hurting him, can't be"?

By the way, at 6:47 you don't look very happy.

7:39 "a passage which says that a woman can be sold to her rapist"

It says her father decides on whether he must marry her or has to pay dowry. Wait, that was the parallel passage ... here is Deuteronomy:

22:[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Taking her ... doesn't actually specify by rape, does it?

Also becoming rape victim's husband is not like becoming her absolute master, he cannot get rid of her:

he may not put her away all the days of his life.

Obviously it is a system for paying damages to a rape or seduction victim and her family. Not an option for a rapist to buy a rape victim if he likes to!

7:51 "as a slave" is not specified.

Parallel passage as I recall has father decide whether rapist has to marry her or has to pay damages equivalent of dowry ... and if a father in that position is NOT taking his daughter's wishes into account:

  • a) he's not a very Hebrew father to a daughter;
  • b) she might be worse off staying with her father.

7:58 Does the Satanic Bible also say the reciprocation need to be in the form of a freewilled verbal yes? Or could it involve sth other?

In other words, I don't think the quoted words are a foolproof guarantee Satanists will neither rape nor commit statutory rape.

They are perhaps however an incitation for Satanists to be too concerned about rape and statutory rape. I recall that Satanist girl who killed a man who made advances after she "admitted" she was underage. She had made fighting statutory rape a kind of "crusade" ... of a non-Christian type.

Oh, Foundational Falsehoods is now an audiobook.


Shows that videos that are for free can at the same time be also sold as audiobook - same content in two formats, one for free, one paid - no problem with that one.

And because it is exactly that content, I actually took it on.

This is the beginning of a series of blog posts, on the format on blogger they are for free:

Creation vs. Evolution : A Man not at all prejudiced against God is criticising Creationism (not me, we'll get back to who it is)

No comments: