Comments by "Eric Astier" (@ericastier1646) on "ReligionForBreakfast" channel.

  1. You'd have to be a fool to assume anybody could speak on this subject and remain objective. Of course his own take is influencing his discourse. It's clear he is not Christian, possibly Jewish but not religious. And i think he should share where he stands to be more honest about where he might be influenced.
    10
  2. This is quite understandable, they understood there was danger in the toilets from the stench and that diarrhea was tied to toilets and not a good thing. It is an ancient way of putting superstition where they could not explain bacterias and worms but knew instinctively it was bad.
    4
  3. So help me with this, if you grossly simplify ancient history, all the semitic people including arabs came from the sumerians ?
    1
  4.  @Abilliph  What a useless empty reply. I no longer use the abused notion that we evolved "out of Africa" because that erroneously makes people think today's africans were our ancestors. Absolutely not. Fair skinned people may have lived as a separate competing specie for million years on that continent next to savages before they left it and were already distinguished by better planning and organisation of their small societies. Northern Africa used to be lush with vast forests where the dark skin was not necessary.
    1
  5. I might have had Gnostic thoughts. For example the creator seems to have made a joke of the anatomy of animals including humans where he put the excrement orifice the closest to the creation of life sexual organ of women. Even though there's anatomic justification logic for it, it still seems the whole material world is a big joke at our expense that some demiurge created and is having a laugh about, while the monad the higher god has forsaken us.
    1
  6. are you jewish ?
    1
  7.  @hosatk  You are in self contradiction and confirming that only fools will believe this subject can be presented objectively without bias influence from the author. There is a reason why financial writers in the press are obligated by law to divulge ownership of underlying stock(s). There is nothing objective in this channel from the moment he presents his subject of the day, omits important cults like the Aramaic, partakes in the ever more daring but subtle anti-christian push diatribe, it is subjective. You do not see him doing the same with old testament figures heads which could be an indication of his background. It is not entirely honest for him not to divulge where he stands so that viewers can preemptively be on their guards when he intentionally or unintentionally slips into bias at least they'll know what to look for. It is easier to manipulate people by hiding your beliefs. There is nothing new here, this is the moto of the famous 17th century Descarte "Concealed, I progressed." Even though that might not be his intent, it is the right method to do it. The bias is often not what is said but what is left out and what is given too much focus. You can take a painting representing a sunny flowery landscape and selectively mask parts and leave only dark green areas visible, you will not have lied (modified) the painting but viewers who only see these parts can be swayed into believing it is a dark humid forest swamp painting especially if you add a slight suggestive narration in that direction. These are methods well in use intentionally in the mainstream media dissecting and shaping the news in a very specific liberal neo con way and pretending themselves to be an oracle of truth and universality when they are not even demographic representation of the general population. There is no such thing as a universal academic neutral point of view. This is how ideologies are formed with political intents and with the right mind manipulations turned into mass murdering genocidal movements like the Bolcheviks. We still have a lot of this approach in the mainstream media and this channel shows influence by that approach.
    1
  8. Quite interesting but i am not sure i can believe you.
    1
  9. yes and what about agnostics ?
    1
  10. You need to put Aramaic more in your references and videos.
    1
  11. The rational view is that Jews as a group historically had motives to hate the Jesus religion because of how they were coerced to become christian and worship Jesus as conversos or be banned from Spain and Portugal. Many did but remained jewish and were then called Maranos. This is a heavily taboo subject for Jews.
    1