Comments by "Chompy the Beast" (@chompythebeast) on "ReligionForBreakfast" channel.

  1. ​ @JohnGrapes  Well, can't argue with that, I reckon. Of course, you'd have to be pretty invested in the first place to argue over whether the Balrogs had wings and to take any of it too seriously
    2
  2.  @jdewit8148  This very vid pointed out the lay lunacy of pulling the "Were you there?" card to discredit any read of history that one dislikes, and here you are using it immediately lol. You're talking about what you want the text to mean, and your own rhetoric can be used against you to prove it: Were you there? It's silly
    2
  3.  @FleurPillager  I suppose you're right, now that I think of it more
    2
  4.  @markjapan4062  Uh, what?
    2
  5. His argument is that it was not an ecumenical council who forged the canon, they merely ratified what had already been in practice. We put far too much stock into these official councils, when in reality Christianity at this time was very much beyond the control of the Church. It would be another several hundred years before religious authorities had that kind of perscriptive power over the masses
    2
  6.  @sobertillnoon  Letters have more than one sound they can make, especially in English. End/English/Ensnare all start with "en" but the "e" could be pronounced differently in each case. Other languages have vowels that are much more consistent, but English as a written language is in many ways a translation and transliteration of several diverse tongues, all crammed into one 26 letter Latin alphabet. In fact, "nun" itself is a Greek word (νῦν) meaning "now", and while it is pronounced "noon", as you can see, a more faithful transliteration would give you not "noon" but "nun", pronounced the same either way. That's the art of transliteration for you
    2
  7. There are social democrats in both parties, especially the Dems. It's still a liberal bourgeois ideology, after all
    2
  8. Truly! I thought these people loved being told what to do!
    2
  9. Why were you so concerned with finding a loophole for rich people to pull a fast one on god?
    2
  10. Conflicting sociopolitical identities cause war, and religion can play a large, small, or virtually all-encompassing role. To contrast somewhat with your example, take Ireland: The people in the North and in the rest of the country all consider themselves Irish, and even though religion itself isn't directly the source of strife between them, the conflict is nevertheless often characterized by its own participants as Catholics versus Protestants
    2
  11.  @Saleh128.  Right, and when we die and see Zeus or Ahura Mazda or Kali, they won't be happy that you didn't worship them either. The truth is you are not glorifying Allah but yourself, because you can no more prove your statements to be true than worshipers of Zeus can. You are picking earthly fights and threatening your brothers and sisters. You act arrogantly and shamefully, you do not glorify the Divine
    2
  12.  @Saleh128.  You are being smug, not wise. You do not know anything about the Divine that I do not know, and I do not know anything about the Divine that you do not know. You can prove nothing but your own prejudice, it has no reflection upon the Divine whatsoever. You are the one who has already earned all the reward you will ever have, if this is how you act
    2
  13. Saying it like that makes it sound like he's pro- some other religion, rather than just viewing the miraculous claims of Christian mythology with a scientific eye
    2
  14.  @BladeEffect  "Don't have a sacred cow, man"
    2
  15.  @MemoryPallace  Brain surgeons don't operate based upon faith, nor indeed do bakers bake based upon faith. Would you go to a brain surgeon who never went to school, refused academic rigor, and instead only guided their scalpel by their faith?
    2
  16.  @paulthompson9668  Paul, if you can prove your statement, you'd be the greatest human to ever live. What you're doing is being holier-than-thou, not being wise. If you could offer even a shred of scientific proof that your myths are real when others' myths aren't, again, you would be the very first to do it, and your name would be legend forever. I await such a glorious revelation. Until then you are merely stamping your feet, no different from the fervent believer of any other myth
    2
  17.  @paulthompson9668  And I you, and you and I will be availed of the same by each other's effort. You do not hold some key which I do not, brother. What you wield here is arrogance. You would do well before your maker to remember that, lest you stray and continue to seek to glorify not the Divine, but yourself, as you have here
    2
  18.  @randokun6430  You've just described exactly why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses: not because it's bad in and of itself, but because it inspires this passivity that completely (and not-accidentally) empowers the wealthy and the status quo. It's funny how the same people who say "god helps those who help themselves" will also rebuke any systemic change. Do we do God's will, or don't we? This perspective just seems inherently hypocritical
    2
  19. This was a great survey of what I'm sure is a topic that could be discussed all day and then some. I rather liked your rather call-to-action style conclusion: "...the current trend suggests that Iceland may stand as a case study in the near future for what a secular country will look like after Christianity loses its historical dominance." Forgive me for admitting the prospect excites me!
    2
  20.  @emptyhand777  It's wild how bigots see that as a story condemning homosexuality rather than condemning wanton violence, cruelty, abusing innocent travelers when they are your guest, and, you know, r*pe. People who think that homosexuality was the biggest problem in that scenario are the ones who are truly perverse
    2
  21.  @nth7273  Naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are testable. Once again, this is abut the sheer methodology: If physics or chemistry based upon mythology and non-naturalistic understanding cannot produce greater results than physics or chemistry which limit themselves to the testable, why should other studies? Articles of faith are fundamentally unscientific in nature, and simply are not congruent with history or religious studies. This isn't about an individual bias, this is, if anything, a bias inherent to science itself―and the scientific method has, once again, produced demonstrably greater results in all fields where it's been applied than non-naturalist forms of study that predate it by millennia. Rejecting the historicity of all the miraculous events recorded by humanity except for the ones that appeal to your own personal faith is simply an inherently ahistorical perspective
    2
  22. Your faith is prejudice and arrogance. You cannot prove your claims, yet you are quite good at condemning those of others. It is you who is divisive, voluntarily denouncing others' religions while acting affronted when others do the same to you. This behavior is a product of the worst that religious impulses inspire in humanity: You are not glorifying god, you are picking fights with your very real fellow human beings
    2
  23.  @farrex0  "So in the end, you have a lot of people playing hot potato with money." This is correct, and exactly what money should be used for, if it is to exist at all. Hoarding wealth is explicitly deadly, both to human beings and (according to Jesus) to their souls as well
    2
  24. These councils ratified canons, they did not create them. What a bunch of dusty old men said in their hallowed halls didn't really matter to most Christian communities until centuries later, when the Church had become the de facto political ruler of Western Europe. But even then, outside the West, such canons mattered little
    2
  25.  @NessaEllenesse  Who am I to say? As if I said these things and not Christ himself? Who is Jesus himself to say, who are the authors of the Bible to say, you mean! Yours sounds like a great justification for ignoring the lessons of your god while also insisting that you'll benefit from their power regardless. Might as well ignore every commandment, god can give you the VIP pass regardless! There is no religion! The rich do not deserve the same reward as they poor whom they spent a lifetime exploiting, and this goes for you too, beneficiary of horrible empire. You think Jesus wasn't explicitly preaching against wealth and imperialism? You think you're free from those vices in the richest and most exploitative empire in history, should you happen to be American? Behold faith neutered of all responsibility to one's fellow human beings: None of the lessons or commandments matter, you can do whatever you want, all you need to do is act holier-than-thou to others and BAM! Better salvation than the struggling poor!
    2
  26. Woke has no meaning other than to slander ideas one doesn't like, usually humanist ideas. It's one of those words that says a whole lot more about the person using it than it does about anything else
    2
  27. Bethlehem is in mourning. All who celebrate Christmas without mourning Palestine are destined for Hell, not Heaven
    2
  28. Jesus was a communist who had read the entire works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and Sankara cover to cover, he'd never cast a ballot for an imperialist
    2
  29. Peter, Paul, George, Ringo, and Billy Preston
    2
  30.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  No, he's a scholar of Religious Studies. None of this has to do with proving or disproving any mythology to be "true". You seem to want him to confirm the unconfirmable of your faith, you seem to not understand the academic nature of this channel. This isn't a woo woo channel here to tell you how angels are real, nor even how they are not real
    1
  31.  @notyourtypicalwaifu  Also I still don't know what "outside script" you're referring to, he is citing the Old Testament throughout this vid
    1
  32.  @MelonieG85  Are you seriously asking that question? That's rather like a child defending Santa Claus' existence with "Who puts the presents under the tree??" Science has decades-since answered the question of the universe's early days, and we have demonstrated that the universe did not require an outside agent to "start" or "create" it
    1
  33.  @franciscoscaramanga9396  This very video mentions that Jewish people were "forcibly converted" in Portugal. Both religions have been propagated by the sword. Tribalist, pro-Christian Islamophobia of this kind is simply ahistorical
    1
  34.  @ReligionForBreakfast  The drift towards the immaterial is something I think you've brought up yourself in more recent vids. As they say, the gods and spirits tend to shrink away into the cracks in our understanding. We know personified forces don't manipulate the universe, so we imagine these concepts now as we imagine gravity or electromagnetism
    1
  35. Sounds a lot like the spurious additions scattered all throughout the texts, like the scene where Jesus apparently predicted the destruction of the Second Temple decades before it fell (the text was written some hundred years after that event). Most of those "predictions of the future" were just authors putting the result of history into the character Jesus' mouth
    1
  36. I know this comment is a few years old by now, but as someone who has no interest in wearing a fedora, I wish people didn't seem to take this (or any) stereotype so 100% seriously
    1
  37.  @Daniel24445  Wow, communism is really sounding cooler and cooler
    1
  38.  @NOTTHASAME  Yikes
    1
  39.  @McLovin_2007  In what world are the Democrats not fully siding with the genocidaires? Did you pay any attention this May Day morning?
    1
  40.  @McLovin_2007  In what world are the Democrats not fully supportive of the geno side? Did you pay any attention this early May Day morn?
    1
  41.  @sobertillnoon  "Ruse", "Rude", "Rule", "Ruminate". There are many words where u is pronounced the long way rather than the short way. We have weird rules about silent e's affecting the length of our vowels, but clearly our vowels make multiple different sounds in English either way. And the upsilon is the parent of our modern u, it isn't really a different letter at all in a historical sense. So when working with historical documents, our English u makes more sense to most than using completely different dipthongs or letters that reflect English's quirks more than the source language's. If you pronounce "English" "en-glish", then I'm curious what sort of accent you speak with: It's pronounced "ing-glish" by virtually ever native speaker I've ever heard, though maybe some dialects might do it differently. The en in "end" and "ensnare" are often pronounced the same, but you can also pronounce it "in-snare" and it would be just as regular. Anyway, transliteration, like translation, is an art, not a hard science, so you're of course entitled to do it the way you prefer to
    1
  42.  @sobertillnoon  You accuse me of not understanding how silent vowels affect length as you ironically champion a transliteration that does exactly that, "oo". That isn't two o's, its the first lengthened by the second, just like the silent e in "rude". I clearly understand that in English we use separate letters to affect the length of our vowels in ways most languages do not: This is exactly why transliterations into English normally don't use them, preferring instead to use the serviceable syntax closest to the original language. For the record, my degree is in philology. Granted, I am not a linguist, but I have engaged in translation and transliteration (from Greek, no less) a fairly great deal. This topic of conversation is elementary in that regard and my credentials aren't required, but I share them because you seem to forget the academic nature of this channel and the discourse that happens here. Because "But it makes no sense to transliterate something into A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT script and not follow basic rules and instead make new exceptions." describes the art of transliteration to a tee, and I agree with this sentiment, it's just that you don't seem to know the standard rules used in its execution. Once again, feel free to translate Πολυκράτης however you like if seeing the unusual-in-English y in "Polykrates" rubs you the wrong way. He could just as easily be "Pahlickratees" if that's how you like it
    1
  43. People will say this, but then will turn around and say things like "Ah it's not my fault the natives were genocided, that happened in the past!" History is built on the bones of the past, and we are inheritors of its legacy. It falls to us not to ride evil status quos or to accept historical narratives spoon-fed to us by hegemonic authorities, but to yes, see that history is living, and understand our place in shaping in it, even and especially when that means going against the reigning grain
    1
  44. If 7 out of 10 people are religious, and all you need is a simple majority to be elected, then I guess religiousness (ie Christianity) stands a better chance to be elected. But I mean, congress represents the ruling class, not the general population, so it's rather a fallacy to expect that it would be modeled on the population at all. It's also a gerontocracy, so that contributes (I'm sure the older the demographic skews more religious). And I have no doubt many members are essentially lying about their faith, believing (perhaps correctly) that it helps their electability
    1
  45. I'm pretty sure it's all just fiction and none of these things ever actually happened, that is far more likely
    1
  46. We are an unusual, neurotic species. It is not hard to rationally understand why marching in step might produce increased camaraderie, and indeed we think we do rationally understand it, yet there is nothing terribly rational about that biological truism at all. Our self-consciousness is clearly born of the "lizard brain" (or the id, if you like), and yet we employ it in such a radically different manner
    1
  47. Rich Christians aren't Christians. Rich people don't deserve to exist to begin with. Wealth hoarding is a sin against man, let alone against god. Jesus said "Eat the rich", and any kiddos of rich parents in Sunday School need to learn that lesson, they shouldn't be encouraged to believe they deserve to have that power over their fellow human beings
    1
  48. Then looking at our "democracy" He'd just be vexed
    1
  49.  @dexyangaryputin  A friendly reminder, sock puppet account, that you cannot shame non-Christians with selections from Christian dogma. May you have a very Free Palestine day
    1
  50.  @GMarieWrites  No indeed. Unless the Christian is trying to persecute the pagan and the pagan is not trying to persecute the Christian, in which case the Christianity of the former is indeed less valid
    1