June 2024 – Page 4 – TrueFreeThinker

Atheist comments on “the depth of your indoctrination”

Such was the case when one of my Facebook Atheist trolls, Charlie Reid, commented as follows on this post:

Repeating “i have a book and you don’t” isn’t an argument, it merely reveals the depth of your indoctrination. Amazing how you can contradict yourself in a sentence without realising.

True Freethinker:

How does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise? Please understand that without such premises your complaints about supposed indoctrination, contradictions, etc. are literally impotent: they are merely the interpretation of haphazard bio-chemical reactions with the brain of a temporarily and accidentally existing ape.

Jerome Jerry Reiter, chimed in with this to Charlie:

I answered that question he posed to you – in depth and detail. He deleted it because he could not find an honest reply. Ken Ammi, the real name of this fundie wingnut, is very scammy.

True Freethinker to Jerome:

Evidence, please. [which I requested since I had deleted nothing at all]

Charlie Reid to Jerome:

i don’t interact with him much nowadays as he has no coherent answers and disingenuously ends up inanely repeating ‘i have a book’ whilst being unable to demonstrate how is contradictory book provide him with anything. He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god, so much so that he thinks his god is part of my life! Though he, and his ilk, still intrigue me alas his tiresome banal rhetoric has grown tedious.

True Freethinker:

I realize that Charlie has no premise upon which to condemn lying since he has never provided one but he just lied to you Jerome as I have never once written “I have a book” and even if I did and even if it was contradictory then you have provided no premise upon which to condemn that either.

Another deception of yours is the statement “He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god” when, in fact, I have referred to Atheism as a worldview to you many, many, many, many times and guess what: you are the one that always denies the fact that you hold to that “worldview that doesn’t include” God.

Charlie Reid:

Let me explain for the umpteenth time, I do not condemn lying as i’m not an indoctrinated child.

Over the centuries as morals and ethics have evolved, the non indoctrinated understand lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad with possibly equal consequences.

I have lied far more times for good reasons than bad as i have a premise, based on reality, that lying to cause harm isn’t good.

Do you understand the difference between Elmer Gantry saying “this snake oil will cure cancer” and Anne Frank saying “there are no Jews in my house”?

Do you honestly think any rational god would stop a parent preventing harm to their child by forbidding lying to them? I’m sure you’ll cite your ‘morally justified reasons,’ ‘works in mysterious ways,’ ‘finite minds cannot understand an infinite gods mind’ or whatever other cop out when unable to insert your square christian peg in a round reality hole.

Perhaps, like your mythical, invisible, lying, genocidal god you like to sit and watch suffering when lying would prevent it.

See above for premise, interesting you deny claiming the bible is your source for truth, logic, and ethics as that’s a lie.

Well through your ignorance you are actually partially correct as, unlike you, my worldview doesn’t include considering fairy tales that are demonstrably false as part of it.

You feel the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa, god, leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc are considerations when ascertaining an opinion whereas I haven’t been indoctrinated into believing false premises.

You are mentally incapable of conceiving of a reality without your sky daddy’s existence nor your book for a crutch.

You are so indoctrinated you are unable to contemplate the ‘no christian god’ possibility yet you flippantly dismiss other gods? Your life is a hypocritical, illogical shambles.

True Freethinker:

I stated “Charlie has no premise upon which to condemn lying” and you agreed with “I do not condemn lying” but that such is “as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur.

You also make a category error in correlating “morals and ethics” and claim that they “evolved” past tense so how do you know that they have stopped evolving? Also, that means that you have disqualified yourself form condemning anything since they evolve.

Now, since you believe that “lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad” then we should just assume that you are lying and so you have discredited yourself again.

But when you say that you “have lied far more times for good reasons than bad” you are inserting the concepts of “good” and “bad” without definition but then again, you did define them since “morals and ethics have evolved” then good and bad also evolved and are also just as subjective so you have discredited yourself again plus, if you believe that you are commenting here to do good then you can excuse lying and have discredited yourself yet again.

You do not seem to understand what a premise is and you merely insert the unjustified concepts of “based on reality” and that “lying to cause harm isn’t good” as mere assertions—base on subjectivism, of course.

But since I distinguish morality from ethics then I, just as does the Bible, recognize the difference in Gantry’s statements and can justify them with something beyond subjective pragmatism based on speciesism.

But since you have no premise for logic than you complaints are just the acting out of an ape—as per your views, not mine.

You positively affirmed that God is “mythical…lying, genocidal” and must now prove it.

The Bible is one of my sources of some truth.

But when you state, “that’s a lie” guess what? You stated, “I do not condemn lying” so you discredited yourself again.

So we agree, Atheism is your worldview.

Also, correlating God with “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc” is a category error.

What makes you think that I “flippantly dismiss other gods” especially when you flippantly dismiss all gods—except the one you see in the mirror.

Lastly, you have often claimed that I am indoctrinated, I have often asked you for proof, you have always failed—at least on a theological level. We both agreed that we were both indoctrinated into evolution, it is just that I have outgrown thinking that I am an ape and you still act like one.

Charlie Reid:

You may be the most indoctrinated person i’ve ever come across, your rhetoric is so ingrained you’re unable to understand simple English. I would have to have a premise to either condemn or not condemn something otherwise my comment would be arbitrary. This is your brain restricting rational thought.

You cant even demonstrate how your book is, or logically can be, a premise to condemn lying as your contradictory god, which you falsely believe you base premises on, lied numerous times, according to your fairy tale.

What does that gibberish mean?

<“as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur.>

Again you display your a misunderstanding of terms, please explain why it’s a non sequitur?

Surely even you aren’t dumb enough to not see the correlation! Ethics derive from morals and as you cannot demonstrate how objective morals exist, ethics and morals change with time, or are you still stoning adulterers?

I won’t accuse you of dishonesty as, due to your indoctrination, you are unaware of cherry picking,

You really don’t have a very good grasp of the English language do you. Even your attempt to misconstrue is pitiful as I actually said “as morals and ethics have evolved” which is present tense and doesn’t even imply they’ve stopped evolving.

<Also, that means that you have disqualified yourself form condemning anything since they evolve>

Why? Over the centuries people have constantly condoned then condemned things, it’s called being intellectually honest, where you can change your opinion as new information arises. You’re stuck defending a goat herders guide to the galaxy, which is not only irrelevant but damaging to society.

<Now, since you believe that “lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad” then we should just assume that you are lying and so you have discredited yourself again.>

Why should you assume I am lying when i’ve never lied to you before?

This may be the most contradictory convoluted gibberish you’ve ever concocted and this has embarrassingly been explained numerous times to you my friend.

Good and bad are subjective terms people apply to circumstances pertinent to the action being described. You think an incestuously raped 12 year old being forced to conceive a disabled child is a good thing where as people not indoctrinated with a death cult may think it’s a bad thing.

I presume you adopt?

So reality is an unjustified concept now but god is? What planet are you from mate!

Yes I think lying to cause harm isn’t good. When god commands you not to lie why do you think that is?

Of course and until you can demonstrate this objectivity you continually fail to demonstrate exists subjectivity is all we have, no matter what your book says.

Try reading my comments before commenting, i quoted two lies with differing objectives but please justify whatever straw man you are inventing using your objective premise.

Another fine example of your indoctrination is your poorly constructed phrase “just as does the Bible” as the reality is it’s “coz the bible sez so”

But since you have no premise for logic than you complaints are just the acting out of an ape—as per your views, not mine..

“acting out of an ape” is not only grammatically lacking but a futile attempt at an ad hom, deny science and reality all you like we’re all primates.

than you complaints = then your complaints?

There are many reasons I believe your god doesn’t exist, i’d explain but you’ve shown you are incapable of understanding such simple concepts but, his actions contradict his attributes unless you think murdering innocent people or sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths ….

I’d never have known.

Explained above but once again, I don’t condemn ALL lies, like your book it’s ok to lie sometimes.

My point exactly, you’ve been brainwashed into believing god is a necessity, like oxygen so you may never understand how silly your assertion is.

Have explained this numerous times, atheism isn’t even a part of my ‘worldview’ any more than leprechaunism, Santaism or Draculaism, because a nonsensical, illogical concept exists doesn’t mean it has to be considered.

An interest and dislike of religion would certainly be part of it as religion is an every day reality, atheism is merely an answer or an opinion on one question, do you see the difference?

<Also, correlating God with “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc” is a category error.>

You keep saying this without ever demonstrating why, they are all mythical entities where’s the category error?

Don’t you?

You think i’m a god?

<Lastly, you have often claimed that I am indoctrinated, I have often asked you for proof, you have always failed—at least on a theological level.>

So what level didn’t I fail on, reality?

No, you’ve been indoctrinated into believing the bible, you had trouble fitting evolution into your worldview so reverted back to type. Were you 18, going through a tough time, have a special revelation …..

Yes we do have characteristics of an ape, it’s because we’re related.

True Freethinker:

You are finally coming close to probably getting it when you say “I would have to have a premise to either condemn or not condemn something otherwise my comment would be arbitrary.” I have told you time and time again that since you have no premise that proceeds forth from YOUR WORLDVIEW, you beg, borrow and steal from mine. Thus, you do not have a premise that is your own but you do appeal to a premise that is mine, and do so unjustifiably. And so, on your worldview, your comments (plural, all of them) are (all) arbitrary. Yes, indeed.

You then appeal to logic but guess what: your worldview also fails to provide you a premise for that so your condemnations are arbitrary. Yes, indeed. But you still condemn illogicality (or, your subjective opinion of what such is) by stealing from my worldview (again) even as you (failingly) attempt to discredit my view (for no apparent reason except that you have a lot of free time) so that if you are successful, you will discredit the very method via which you succeed which means that you would have defeated yourself.

Now, you also cannot complain that I (supposedly) “cant even demonstrate how your book is…” since I already proved that you cannot even justify demanding evidence or demonstrations.

Moreover, you actually complain that God (supposedly) “lied numerous times” after having stated “I do not condemn lying”: friend, I do not have to do anything, I just ensure you have your say and you discredit yourself.

You then positively affirm that God and/or the Bible is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it. But just because I am feeling charitable, you writting “I do not condemn lying…as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur because the one statement does not and cannot lead to the other. Unless you care to elucidate how (supposedly) not being indoctrinate leads to you not condemning lying (but then going on to condemn it anyway).

When it comes to morals and ethics I am speaking technically so that your low hanging fruit claim that “Ethics derive from morals” is just that. I am referring to the mores vs. the ethos, mores are what “change with time” since they merely describe that which people do while the ethos is absolute and thus, never changes.

But you discredit yourself again by demanding that “ethics and morality change with time” but then still condemning unethical and immoral behaviors such as lying: which you do not and also do condemn.

So you have decided that “morals and ethics have evolved” and you somehow know that they have stopped evolving well, I guess I did not get the memo—whence did you get it?

By referring to “goat herders” you are committing a logical genetic fallacy.

But you “have disqualified yourself from condemning anything” if “they evolve” even if people have taken it upon themselves to change their minds due to intellectual honesty or, by the way, intellectual dishonesty. Your problem is that you were indoctrinated into believing in your thoughts, your brain, life, the Earth and the universe being accidented into being and so you merely follow wherever the zeitgeist may lead—but, of my, wait until that zeitgeist becomes a poltergeist. Also, I am unsure how a “goat herders guide…is not only irrelevant but damaging to society” when the majority of humans hold to it as their worldview and the most successful first-world cultures have been premised upon it. But then again, you are stating all of that upon hidden assumptions (stolen from my worldview) and without premises from your worldview—so you discredit yourself again.

I discern vicious circularity when you ask “Why should you assume I am lying when i’ve never lied to you before?” when there is no reason for me to think that you have not, especially when you claim that “lying is merely a tool.”

So when you write that you “have lied far more times for good reasons than bad” you then admit that “Good and bad are subjective terms”: you have utterly discredited yourself again—can you really not even see that?

I presume you abort.

No, reality is not an unjustified concept on my worldview, but on yours: reality is an accident as is you (supposed) ability to discern it. Plus, I referred to your “unjustified concepts of ‘based on reality’” so you took me out of context.

You then have the chutzpah to actually type out the words, “Yes I think lying to cause harm isn’t good” after admitting that you believe that “morals and ethics have evolved” and “Good and bad are subjective terms” so you discredited yourself again.

The phrase “until you can demonstrate this objectivity you continually fail to demonstrate exists” is hardly legible but if will interpret it to mean that you are demanding demonstrations without a premise from your worldview which means that you are unjustifiably demanding demonstrations (yet again). But whey di I think that God commands us not to (maliciously) lie? Because God is holy and so the ethos proceeds forth from His very nature and essence as an eternally relational conflict-free being.

On those instances that you subjectively decide to claim we should not lie, you do so based on subjective interpretations of accidental biochemical reactions within your accidentally existing brain.

When it comes to being primates well, I am personally not impressed by manmade taxonomy—especially not when someone who holds to your worldview has done it.

You really hit rock bottom when I note the logical fact that you must prove that God is “mythical…lying, genocidal” since you positively affirmed it without evidence and all you can muster regarding this utterly key issue of your worldview is to run away claiming that you are just too smart and I am “incapable of understanding such simple concepts.” Your arrogance is not proof so you discredited yourself again.

But, you did offer a few one-liners “his actions contradict his attributes unless you think murdering innocent people or sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths” which you ended with “….” which means that you cannot even complete a one-liner. You really need to learn how to read your own comments so try this: “his actions contradict” an unjustified appeal to logic, “murdering innocent people” an unjustified condemnation of murder, “sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths” (something, something, something) another unjustified vague and generic comment. Thus, your open-ended one-liner is merely a string of assertion based on hidden assumptions so you discredit yourself again. But, of course, you just condemned illogicality, murder and sitting watching children die after admitting that you think that “morals and ethics have evolved” and “Good and bad are subjective terms” which means that you have utterly discredited yourself beyond repair.

Now only is “Bible is one of my sources of some truth” but yours as well: as is quite evident.

You wrote “He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god” which implies that it is possible to have a worldview that does not include God. If I have been “brainwashed” (for which you have no evidence) “into believing god is a necessity” then so have most of the most brilliant philosophers in history as they recognize that God is a “necessary being”: and you also prove that God is a necessity by constantly and exclusively appealing to His revealed ethos and Word in order to argue again His revealed ethos and Word.

So, let us play your game again since the first few dozen times did not stick: in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you make provision for God’s existence—accept and admit the actual existence of God?

Yes, since “Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27) you “dislike” this and “atheism is merely an answer or an opinion on one question” about which all Atheists can do is make unevidenced assertions—got it.

You are being circular when you claim that “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc…are all mythical entities” since you have not proven that God is such. Thus, the category error is that you are categorizing a philosophically necessary being with philosophically unnecessary beings.

No, I do not “flippantly dismiss other gods.”

No, I do not think that you are God but you place yourself in the place of ultimate authority which makes you a (very much lowercase) god in your own eyes made in your own image.

So I again (and again and again and again and again) ask for proof of your talking point that I am indoctrinated and you once again (and again and again and again and again) fail.

Ah, but you then claim that I have “been indoctrinated into believing the bible” which is so utterly laughable that you if you know anything whatsoever about my life you would scurry off with your tail tucked between your legs in utter shame—you do not have a single clue of what you speak in this area and the fact that you are actually going to tell me about my private personal life without knowing a thing about it speaks VOLUMES as to why you are so stunningly wrong so shockingly often: this opens an enormous window into your modus operandi.

If you wasted less time playing grammar police and typing our allegedly clever put-downs, you might be able to actually engage in reasoned discourse. But that is part of the problem: your worldview tells you that you are in a long line of apes who settled arguments by tossing fecal matter at each other so you act accordingly.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Is it the case that “the fallen angels in 2 Peter 2:4 that are in chains of darkness the Watchers or Nephilim, and how do they compare to Satan and his angels that fell?”

Such as a question posted to the Quora site which led to the following discussion after Scott Salvatore commented

The angels in chains are they that fell from heaven with Lucifer.

Revelation 12:4

King James Version

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven.

Take my advice and leave the book of Enoch alone it is full of lies theres no such thing as watchers or nephilims who people say are the children of angels and humans. This fable is conjured up from people who don’t understand the scriptures the same can be said about the trinity believers.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Just a technical point: not “with Lucifer” since his (a Cherub, not an Angel) fall was as per the Gen 3 timeline while theirs was as per the Gen 6 timeline.

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Scott Salvatore

Overall Lucifer is a angel the scriptures refers to him many times as angel or fallen angel. Cherub is a rank within the angelic army that’s it.

Ken Ammi

Can you provide the quotations and citations from where, “the scriptures refers to him many times as angel or fallen angel”?

I will note that there are zero and the only time he is referenced as any such thing is when we’re told that he pretends to be a Angel of light.

There’s also zero indication, “Cherub is a rank within the angelic army” that’s just a category error that violates the law of identity and is just a man-made tradition that someone just invented. But again, maybe you can provide quotations and citations.

Scott Salvatore

Sure the scriptures never said it plainly that Lucifer was a angel that’s because the scriptures are a book of mystery only those who patiently seeks God and gains favor will unlock it’s mysteries.

Revelation 12:7-9 – And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.

Michael a angel led army of angels against Lucifer a angel and his army of angels.

Revelation 12:9 – And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

This scripture refers to Lucifer falling to earth after Michael defeat him in heaven proving he was a angel in heaven. No one else but God the angels and few humans like Enoch who was translated are in heaven currently. Heaven is not a place people can invade spirit or humans remember the tower of babel story?

2 Peter 2:4 – For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

All that was cast out according to scripture were angels Lucifer including because the scripture did not make a separation between Lucifer and angels.

Ken Ammi

“scriptures never said it plainly that Lucifer was a angel” because he’s not and we’re told that he is a Cherub (the one in the Garden: Ezekiel 28:14) thus: mystery unlocked.

It’s a non-sequitur that since, “Michael defeat him in heaven” this is, “proving he was a angel in heaven” since Angels and God are not the only residents of heaven: there are, at least, Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim (if they count).

When you assert, “Heaven is not a place people can invade spirit” you must be thinking about the New Heavens rather than the intermediate heaven, which is where the war took place.

In asserting, “All that was cast out according to scripture were angels Lucifer including because the scripture did not make a separation between Lucifer and angels” you’re ignoring, “You were in Eden, the garden of God…You were an anointed guardian cherub…guardian cherub,” “I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God…I cast you to the ground” (see Ezekiel 28).

Debbie Harrington chimed in with

Son of the Morning – Isaiah 14

Satan, the personification of evil, was once one of God’s most beautiful angels in Heaven. This evil angel was originally called Lucifer, which means son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12). He was the prince of angels, the bearer of light. God created him to be perfect in wisdom and beauty, a spectacle of flawlessness. But this was not enough for him. For He wanted to sit on the mount of God and be like God.

Debbie Harrington

Nephilim are in the Holy Bible so is the Godhead/Trinity😊

Scott Salvatore

The Godhead is different from the trinity which is a pagon belief practice by pagon religions all over the world before Christianity existed. The pagon Roman Catholic church is responsible for introducing the trinity doctrine to Christianity. Religion like Egyptian for example believe in the Trinity garbage.

Nephilims do exist in the scriptures but they are not what people say they are. People believe that they are giants who were the sons and daughters of human and angel parents but they are not. Angels never lusted after humans because the nature of angels are spirit and spirit doesn’t feel the desire for sexual intercourse the flesh does. Also spirit cannot impregnate flesh because they don’t have what’s needed to fertilize a woman’s egg that being things like blood for example. Seek God for yourself and stop swollw every pill you hear.

Debbie Harrington

Guess the Holy Bible is wrong and you are right hna lol

Ken Ammi to Scott

But you’re merely asserting, “Satan…was once one of God’s most beautiful angels…was the prince of angels.” I just directed Scott to one of the relevant texts that you’re paraphrasing but misapplying: Ezek 28.

Ken Ammi to Debbie

The Godhead is a Trine being.

You asserted, “Nephilims do exist in the scriptures” so please check Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33.

You then merely assert, “people say they are…the sons and daughters of human and angel parents but they are not” and merely assert, “Angels never lusted after humans” and merely assert, “angels are spirit.”

So, since you’re Angelology is faulty, you ague, “spirit cannot impregnate flesh” when that has nothing to do with the Gen 6 affair.

Scott Salvatore

You clearly lack understanding of scriptures so I’ll humor you a bit

Show me a scripture in the bible that says God is three in one or that the Godhead is the trinity.

Show me a scripture that said angels begat offsprings from humans and I’ll debunked it for you. I could now but I rather do so after you’ve provided the scriptures that you misinterpreted friend

Ken Ammi

It would appear that you’re unfamiliar with hermeneutics in terms of basic reading comprehension when you make challenges such as, “Show me a scripture in the bible that says God is three in one or that the Godhead is the trinity.” A formulation is a formulation and is meant to formulate. Feel free to check out my book, “The Trinity Texts: Does the Bible contain Trinitarian Theology and if so, where?”

It’s fascinating that you admitted that if I could show you scripture, you would debunk it: what more proof do we need that your defending man-made tradition?

Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

Indeed, “there was no angelic guard at the gates or in Eden.”

I’ve no idea what you mean by, “believe that Cherub and the others don’t fall under the title of angels”: I only “believe that Cherub and the others don’t fall under the title of angels” because they don’t, because that is a category error (in at least three ways) and because it violates the law of identify. Just because someone came along centuries after the Torah and made up man-made claims doesn’t change those biblically verifiable facts.

It’s also a fascinating window into your modus operandi that you demand, “The scriptures said anointed cherub not guardian cherub” exclusively based on your subjectively preferred version. Please familiarize yourself with a subject before commenting about it on the WORLD WIDE web for all to see, here are very many versions for you to peruse: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2028:14

“God casting Lucifer to the ground” is a post-Jesus’ ascension event.

Scott Salvatore

Ofcource you would start with disrespectful comments because it’s obvious people like you would see every criticism as an attack. I don’t have the time to read all the none sense you wrote so I refuse to read it all so please make known what scriptures you want to debate on or just go away.

Feel free to check out my book, “The Trinity Texts: Does the Bible contain Trinitarian Theology and if so, where?” NO I WILL NOT READ YOUR GARBAGE. MAYBE WE SHOULD DEBATE ON THE TRINITY IF YOU WANT THAT IS.

Ken Ammi

There’s a difference between my comment and your emotively subjectively malicious misinterpretation of it. You’re comporting yourself like Atheists do: getting angry and literally judging a book by its cover.

Scott Salvatore

Believe whatever you think of me I’m not bothered nor do I care for your opinion. If you’re not willing to discuss scripture and instead wants to argue do it somewhere else. And if you’re reply is still none sense I will not responding again

Ken Ammi

You may be projecting since all I’ve been doing all along is attempting to get you to engage.

Scott Salvatore

Then ask your question if you need something or just want to prove me wrong to scratch your ego.

Ken Ammi

See above.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Metal Bible Podcast on Chuck Missler and Michael Heiser regarding Nephilim giants

The Metal Bible Podcast posted on Facebook in order to ask and answer, in part, “Who has been the most influential person for you who has helped you in your understanding of scripture? For me it started with Chuck Missler…and then moved to Dr. Heiser after that…Missler introduced me to the concept of Nephilim and then Heiser took that baton and sprinted with it…”

Sandy Mueller commented

Ken Ham was the first, then my local pastor Steve Wilson, then Ray Comfort, now it’s Chuck Missler and Bible project. I’ll have to look up Heiser. For apologetics Greg Koukl, and Hillary Morgan Ferrer. For mothering Abbie Halberstadt.

I, True Freethinker, replied

One thing Missler and Heiser had in common was un-biblical Nephilology if for no other reason that they both taught post-flood Nephilim but that’s not a biblical doctrine.

Sandy Mueller

I haven’t researched the nephilim much but I believe they are talked about in numbers when the spies give the report about the land. From what I understand there isn’t much about them in the Bible so I’m not going to be upset if someone I listen to is … See more

The Metal Bible Podcast

True Freethinker Numbers 13:33 literally says there were post flood Nephilim… it uses that exact word…

[Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

The Metal Bible Podcast

Sandy Mueller Michael S. Heiser is an AMAZING source for this kind of stuff… one of the few you can actually trust to give you the truth on this topic without taking away from what the Bible actually says about this topic

True Freethinker to Sandy Mueller

But friend, we could talk about George Washington right now but that doesn’t mean he’s alive or that I’ve actually seen him.

Yes, “they are talked about in numbers” but it wasn’t the generic, “spies” but ten of them: the ten who presented an “evil report,” were unreliable, and were rebuke by God. The reason why one single sentence from them is the entirety of post-flood references to Nephilim is that they just made up a tall-tale—and they contracted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God.

I hate to be self-serving but I’ve written some dozen Nephilology books, many, many, many, many, many articles and many videos.

Just beware since 100% of pop-Nephilologists tech un-biblical tall-tales.

True Freethinker to The Metal Bible Podcast

Actually when you say, “Numbers 13:33 literally says” that’s a reification fallacy and no one would have understood to what you’re referring until a full ¾ of the way through church history.

So, the key question are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.

Now, I can use the exact words “George Washington” and claim that I just saw him so “it uses that exact word” has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

What you’re doing is quoting one single sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so, why do you believe them? They made five mere assertions and contracted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God.

As for Heiser, by definition when it comes to demonology and Nephilology he die take away from what the Bible actually says.

Here are a couple of examples:

“Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s ‘All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal'”

“Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy”

Matthew Vancil

The two you said and Rob Skiba.

True Freethinker

One thing Missler, Skiba, and Heiser had in common was un-biblical Nephilology if for no other reason that they taught post-flood Nephilim but that’s not a biblical doctrine.

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

Since I don’t base doctrines on one single verse, can you tell me who said that, why they said it, if it was accurate, what the reaction to it was, etc.?

Fred Shewmake

Craig keener, nt wright, David desilva, William lane Craig and Michael Heiser

True Freethinker

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy

Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong…. [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

If you read the articles, especially the one about “…Flawed Nephilim…” you wouldn’t be merely asserting “Wrong” and merely posting one verse.

MemeVangelists ·

Heiser hole gooooooo

True Freethinker

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy

Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE: my repetitiveness will become an issue in the follow-up to this post. I tend to do things such as this because I never know who will want to engage in discussing it, who will actually read the articles, who will ignore me and them, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

If you read the articles, especially the one about “…Flawed Nephilim…” you wouldn’t be merely asserting “Wrong” and merely posting one verse.

The Metal Bible Podcast

See? I can copy and paste my same comment too….

Wrong… [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

Friend, I already elucidated why your MO is fallacious. Now, we can play FB reply ping-pong for months but why not save ourselves some time: let’s have an iron sharpening iron discussion on your YT channel or mine?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[NOTE: I never received a reply to that and followed up some weeks later nicely noting that I was still awaiting a reply]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.