Recently, I wrote an article entitled “Hebrew Abstraction” where I pointed out that the Hebrews had abstractions in their language (and, by logical implication, their day-to-day practice). Well, my post proved to be rather prophetic, in light of the following:
The Hebrew term translated as “faith” (emunah) is quite different from its English usage. [Jeff] Benner points out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all, just verbs and nouns. You don’t have faith, you do it. The word for “faith” is a verb, an action – giving support. Thus, a man of faith in the OT is someone who supports God. The outcome has nothing to do with it. You are determined to be on God’s side regardless.
For a religion based on Ancient Near East principles and an ancient understanding of Hebrew, it pays to actually get basic principles correct. If you can’t do that, what’s the point of discussing more complex things?
First, obviously the Hebrews had abstractions. The ability to think abstractly and use abstractions is a function of higher-level intelligence, not language, philosophy, religion, or culture. The claim that a people have no abstractions is the claim that they are all cognitively impaired.
I proved that the Hebrews used abstractions in “Hebrew Abstraction,” where I showed that even when lexical categories are not used, abstract concepts nevertheless exist and are simply expressed differently.
Rhetorical and literary methods are not to be confused with thought and reality. It is especially important to note that the elevated literary style of the Old Testament was almost certainly not “street speech,” with significant language deviations between the literary and the spoken. We can’t infer much about the latter from the restrictions found in the former. To wit (sarcastically):
“In the Old Testament, even the lowliest laborer spoke fluent priestly- and literary-grade Hebrew.”
Second, Benner does not point out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all. At the citation provided, Benner doesn’t mention abstractions at all! Read it for yourself here. As far as I can tell, the claim that “Benner points out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all” is made up nonsense.
Third, the Hebrew language contains more than verbs and nouns. It also contains interjections, conjunctives, prepositions, definite articles, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and particles. You can see a few of these in the very first sentence of the Bible. The claim that “Hebrew has…just verbs and nouns” is patent nonsense.
Anyone who thinks they are an expert at Ancient Near East in general and Hebrew specifically would not make this error. It reminds me of another commenter who didn’t know (or somehow forgot) that Hebrew reads from right-to-left, yet condemned me for agreeing with the traditional reading of scripture. I’m reminded of my comment recently:
But if you find (or found) [this obviously wrong] argument to be compelling, you should take the time to reevaluate your ability to understand right and wrong. You may want to find a mature Christian who can serve as your mentor and your moral compass. I would also suggest minimizing your involvement with social media.
Errors like this are serious and people who are teachers should not be making them. Unfortunately, the errors continue.
Fourth, the Hebrew language includes abstract nouns. Here are a few examples:
- chokmah — wisdom
- qodesh — holiness
- tsedeq — righteousness; justice
- chesed — mercy; steadfast love
- emeth — faithfulness; truth
These are just examples of linguistic abstractions. As previously pointed out, they also possessed non-linguistic abstractions, such as their abstract understanding of a pot, both categorically and qualitatively.
Fifth, faith is an abstract noun. The claim that faith is simply a verb in ancient Hebrew is objectively false. Actually, there are more than one Hebrew nouns that can be translated as faith or other English synonyms. Other nouns and verbs include emuwnah and emuwn (related to emeth), batah, mibtach, and qavah and tiqvah.
As I alluded to in “Dr. Michael Heiser,” there is a tendency of some to “collapse” the Hebrew nouns into the same sense as the Hebrew verbs, as if nouns are just as active as—and interchangeable with—the verbs themselves. For example, on page 42 of “The Unseen Realm,” Heiser translates a noun into a verb sense (“God imagers”) to suit his doctrinal preconception. Catacomb Resident appears to be taking similar liberties here.
Sixth, it is true that faith in Hebrew (and Greek) is different from the English meaning. In English, it is mystical in nature and often refers to so-called “blind faith” and the corresponding concept of unsecured hope. The Hebrew understanding of faith is not mystical.
Seventh, the outcome of faith matters greatly because faith presumes the outcome implicitly. The Hebrew words for faith involve assurance, confidence, confirmation, and certainty. It is not blind, but actively implies a known or predetermined outcome, especially if that outcome has not yet taken place. This is why the New Testament writers talk of faith being completed before the events have completed temporally. Faith is cerebral in the sense that it is something that is already known. Most importantly, faith without the outcome isn’t faith in anything at all: it would be folly to trust in nothing or in something that is uncertain.
There is a reason to bring this up and here it is:
Side note: Just talking like this will be intentionally misunderstood by legalists. They will latch onto the use of terminology – “words mean things” – and get all riled up, accusing you of being a liar just looking for an excuse.
Perhaps he protests too much?
To be clear, “talking like this” was making stuff up, misusing the meaning of the ancient Hebrew words by changing what they actually meant, and making claims that were well known, in advance, to be false (e.g. “Benner points out that Hebrew has no abstractions at all”).
Consider this hypothetically. If someone tells a lie, they have to know that people are going to question their fidelity, but they can’t get around this by front-running the accusation by dismissing and excusing it in advance. An advanced dismissal or excuse—to ignore the correct accusation that is rightfully coming—is obviously invalid (in the Shakespearian sense).
Further, he mocks “words mean things,” the idea that knowingly redefining words to mean novel things is “lying”…by (implicitly) redefining what lying is. He further tries to fend off legitimate criticisms by calling those criticisms intentional misunderstandings and the critics ‘legalists’ even before the criticisms are made. As far as the meaning of words go, this example matches the dictionary definition of prejudice. And for Radix Fidem, this is not unusual:
I find the accusation of “proof-texting” to be a juvenile-level objection. It’s lazy and dismissive. As with all personal attacks, accusations of proof-texting should come with proof. If you want to claim that someone is taking scripture out-of-context, then you at least have to show why their understanding of the context is wrong (and ideally what the correct context actually is, though this isn’t always possible).
Unlike Radix Fidem, I can show precisely where Radix Fidem’s doctrines conflict with the context of scripture. I can demonstrate it. I have no need to throw empty insults or question people’s motivations, I need only show that the interpretations do not match the context. Whether they are proof-texting or not ultimately doesn’t matter.
General purpose terminology—like the insult “bibliolatry”—which paints a whole group as guilty in the abstract…
— Ed Hurst, “Be the Gospel”
…is not godly nor loving. It is prejudicial.
Prejudice is one form that legalism can take, and it is on display here.
Truth cannot be propositional. If it’s propositional, it’s not the truth, and vice versa.
He says, in a self-refuting proposition.
Take your lumps when you get it wrong.
Good advice. Now, look in the mirror.
Doesn’t that explain why Jack likes Radix Fidem?
As it frees him from the ”formalism” he was addicted to and secretly despises?
Jack(with Scott) kept comparing themselves to the prodigal son in early 2021 Simp Frame posts.
IOW?
Jack wants to squander God’s word just as he did all the popularity Simp Frame got with Novaseeker and MOSES, JESUS & GBFMS help in early-mod 2021.
He’s just the RF version of {REDACTED} (who has his nose in Jack’s butt), is all.
I don’t think so.
No, it seems clear to me that he really likes formalism. It is why he has such fondness for Cathodoxy and, as seen below, Radix Fidem.
Although you wouldn’t think so if you only listened to the PR, legalism and mysticism are quite strongly related. Most of the strongest Christian influences of mysticism in America come from Roman Catholicism, a highly authoritarian, formulaic, legalistic framework. In my examination of the subject, whenever a Protestant church starts to embrace mysticism, it cites Roman Catholic sources.
Mysticism in Christianity—including Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism—is rooted in a high degree of “legal” structure and authority. Mysticism is a kind of legalism, but its proponents just don’t recognize that fact. They’ve fooled themselves into thinking that they are free from “rule or formula” even as they promote that very thing.
The most obvious legalistic principle of mysticism is the strong, often mutually exclusive, delineation between the five physical senses and the (presumed) sixth spiritual sense. This is the unspoken ironclad law of mysticism that I’ve found in every iteration that I’ve examined.
A couple weeks ago I wrote “Hellenization, Part 2” where I noted how Jack emphasized certain mystical disciplines. Mysticism is a legalistic “action-oriented” approach. You need to do those actions. Like other flavors of mystical Christianity, it is works-based (or experience-based). By contrast, the ancient Christianity of Jesus was based, first and foremost, in what you believe. Faith in Christ is governed by no “rule or formula.”
Radix Fidem—with its excessive adherence to mysticism—is therefore quite legalistic, but it doesn’t recognize its own legalism. It has defined “rule or formula” to only be products of the five senses and the mind, which are conveniently defined to exclude mysticism.
Doesn’t that explain why Jack likes Radix Fidem?
I don’t think so.
As it frees him from the ”formalism” he was addicted to and secretly despises?
No, it seems clear to me that he really likes formalism. It is why he has such fondness for Cathodoxy and, as seen below, Radix Fidem.
YES! But I’m going by what he says and claims.
IOW?
I’m going by how Radix Fidem and its fellow gnostics’ image is seen by most outsiders as in ”any door is acceptable ” doctrine.
Which reminds me of this Oliver B. Greene sermon i first heard nearly 30 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUSh-l4nVr0
Oliver B Greene “The gospel hour”
Ah! I understand what you mean by “any door is acceptable.” It’s about eliminating objective understandings of Christianity, eliminating all rules. Of course, the clever observer will note, this is an unavoidable metaphysical rule.
When we examined Jack’s testimony two weeks ago, what stood out was the simplistic claim that we hear all the time from atheists and Roman Catholics: there is no objective standard by which we can know what is in the Bible.
Is it better to rely on what everyone subjectively believes the Bible is telling them with no objective standard by which to judge what everyone subjectively interprets? This is exactly what has happened within Protestantism, resulting in hundreds of denominations.
Amazingly, Jack directed this criticism at Protestantism—the least legalistic form of Christianity—instead of Cathodoxy! Indeed, Protestantism is typically viewed by outsiders as the lawless Wild West of theology, the antithesis of legalism.
So what did Jack do when faced with this problem? He embraced subjective personal mystical experiences, that is, his own subjective authority. If you really, truly object to a lack of a source of objective truth, you wouldn’t respond by embracing subjectivity, the very thing you objected to in the first place.
But this illustrates exactly what kind of legalism we are talking about. The legalism is not found in the subjectivity, it’s in the reason for the subjectivity. Mysticism is the (objective) legalistic claim that all truth is subjective and experiential.
To become a mystic, you have to assert and believe in the universal ironclad law that no universal ironclad laws exist. You have to believe objectively that nothing is truly objective.
It is obviously self-refuting, but it is also obviously legalism.
THIS Sermon reminds me of OLE’ ”DON’T JUDGE OR BE AN EXTREMIST, UNLESS YE ARE AN OLD-SCHOOL ANE GNOSTIC OR A CATHODOXIST OR {REDACTED}WHO HAS HIS NOSE IN MY BUNS”gnostics like Jack, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bLNkhS8wy0
Evangelist Oliver Greens –Don’t Be an Extremist
Update on feral MENZ from Psudonymous Commenter & the Coop from ’82!
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 3:46 pm
I wonder what feral men would look like…
That would be your average underemployed incel under age 30.
There’s a misunderstanding or misnomer that “feral men” are all out there having all kinds of sex and dogging women out left and right. Roving marauding bands of little Roissys deflowering all the virgins and leaving unwanted pregnancies and devastation in their wake. Or that they are career criminals, or
No. The feral man works just enough to support himself. He’s most likely a substance abuser, almost always addicted to a substance (weed, meth, pills). If he has sex, he pays hookers for it. He’s a loner with not too many friends. He has no wife or children. He does not take good care of his physical health. He’s not really all that ambitious.
Have you ever seen “Breaking Bad”? The character of Jesse Pinkman is a feral man. Most of his associates in the first seasons of the show (Krazy-8, Badger, Skinny Pete) are feral men.
The feral woman goes outward to destroy herself and everything around her.
The feral man goes inward and destroys only himself(&a young Michael J. Fox & Roddy McDowall ladz).
Liked by 1 person
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 3:52 pm
Continuing on that same trajectory:
Walter White is not feral. He’s ambitious. He’s trying to build a legacy and leave money for his kids when he’s gone.
Mike Ehrmantraut is not feral. He’s intelligent and is also trying to amass money for his granddaughter. He has something to live for.
Tuco Salamanca is not feral. He’s insane. He’s psychotic with breathtakingly severe anger issues. (Feral men still have their grasp on reality and have stunted emotional responses.)
Like
Psudonymous Commenter says:
17 September, 2025 at 4:25 pm
The only danger society has from feral men is that the trash isn’t getting taken out, we don’t have enough widgets getting made; we don’t have enough people to fix the widgetmakers when they break down; and we can’t get the widgets from one place to another.
Society has much, much more to fear from feral women.
& the Coop’s version (with a young Michael J. Fox & Roddy McDowall):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ry9sLmUqOc&list=RD1ry9sLmUqOc&start_radio=1
I Am The Future, Class Of 1984 Tribute
When does a dream become a nightmare?
When do we do what must be done?
When do we stand and face the future?
When there is nowhere left to run?
And you’ve got to learn
Just how to survive
You’ve got to learn
How to keep your dream alive
Take a look at my face
I am the future
How do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
And you belong to me
When does a dream become a nightmare?
When do we learn to live with fear?
When we cry out for some salvation?
Why is it no one seems to hear?
You’ve got to learn
It’s up to you
If you can learn
That the dream just might come true
Take a look at my face
I am the future
How do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
The world belongs to me, yeah
Take a look at my face
I am the future
Now, how do you like what you see?
Take a look at my face
I belong to the future
And the world it belongs to me
It belongs to me
It’s all mine
Just take a look at my face
I’m the future, no disgrace
Take a look at my face
This world belongs to… to me
i forgot all about when{REDACTED} was ”bi-winning” in 2010/11 and blaming phones and his Wayneing popularity on ”trolls”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88NJfL9YOtQ
‘This Generation’s JFK Moment’ Charlie {REDACTED} Sheen On Kirk Assassination + Baring ALL In New Book
The DS gang is officially over now!STRAIGHT from one of the ”winning” RS!
{REDACTED} says:
17 September, 2025 at 7:09 pm
When Charlie Kirk Died, So Did the Democratic Party. What’s Coming Next Is Even Worse.
https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2025/09/17/when-charlie-kirk-died-so-did-the-democratic-party-whats-coming-next-is-even-worse-n4943815
A pretty good ”BI-WINNING” article.
If you’re intending to be speaking of me there, you are wrong. Don’t waste your time posting Your “proof” I’m telling you that you are misinterpreting that one particular error that I made, while sleep deprived, regarding how that website displayed their interlinear text. I was taught those things during my 15 years of Christian school Bible classes.
When I referred to old punctuation, like was used in the Masoretic texts, it was as a way to make the point that other scholars interpreted that there ought to be sentence breaks and such where I think they belong too. The point I was trying to make was that my interpretation was not novel but was shared by others who knew ancient Hebrew better than anyone today.
You are wrong in what you are saying, if that was intended to refer to me. Please stop saying false things regarding what I did or didn’t know. Because you do not know. And I am telling you that what you are saying is not true, and was not true, so quit publishing untrue things about me. I have already conceded that I made an error. And it wasn’t hard for me to do, as I am not stubborn in refusing to admit where I’ve made an error. Unlike somebody I know who twists and spins but will not turn from stubbornly maintaining their foolish errors.
And, professorGBFMtm, please stop copying and pasting your comments from here into the contact form at my website and sending them to me. I don’t have the time nor desire to try to make sense of your gibberish. And I have expressed to you before that if you want to communicate with me, use the English language according to how they taught you in school. I find it insulting that you still send me gibberish, after I’ve already told you I don’t appreciate it, when I know you are capable of writing your thoughts out plainly. And you seem to be taking advantage of me not being willing to block emails from my own website, to spam me with your unwanted copied and pasted gibberish. If I want to read your Manosphere-trolling comments, I’ll come here and try to read them.
And once again, I also think that you only further alienate people when you post altered quotations, I know that you and Derek, who hosts your altered quotations, apparently approve of that sort of deception, and so I reckon y’all will still stubbornly continue to lack the wisdom to quit when people tell you to stop.
So, basically: “You are wrong, but don’t waste your time showing that I’m actually the one who is wrong, because I’m not going to listen.” That’s exactly what I expected you to say. If you change your mind, let me know.
No, that’s not how life works. You don’t get to avoid debate while simultaneously making unilateral demands. I’ve already proven that my description of events is accurate (link would go here if I was obligated to respond to your claims). The burden of proof is now in your court. Moreover, what you said is not sufficient to overturn that proof. Your revisionist version of what happened doesn’t even make logical sense. So, I’ll honor your desire not to get into a debate, but then you must surrender your right to any kind of dispute resolution and any right to make a judgment of right or wrong. If you don’t like that, then you have to prove your point substantively and subject it to cross examination. If you can’t do that, then what I have already stated and proved stands on its own merits.
Thus, we have a difference of opinion. That is all.
If you can’t substantiate your claims, I will treat them exactly as they are—baseless.
But, let it not be said that I’m unreasonably stubborn. I’ll throw you a bone. I’ve modified my statement in the OP to more closely conform to what is well known to have happened. Satisfied?
Ad hominem makes one look foolish.
Incorrect. But, as I’ve already explained it to you and you seem to not have paid attention to what I said, I won’t bother repeating myself.
Regardless, as this is a place of ideas, if you disagree with anything anyone here has said specifically, you are encouraged to quote it and further substantiate a rational counter claim. Censorship is, IMO, a poor alternative to rational debate. There are plenty of other forums that will moderate their comment sections to match your preferences for censorship over debate. Feel free to try your luck there.
Derek, I’ve already established repeatedly that I cannot change the position of a stubborn liar like yourself, so my comment is not a vain attempt to convince you, but it was merely me going on the record as denying the veracity of what you had originally written. (Which you have now changed)
If you are not aware, there are interlinear Bibles and parallel Bibles that read left to right for us native English speakers, and some online versions have toggle options to allow the text to be displayed in either direction however you prefer it. I’ve already admitted I made a mistake in that particular comment. If anything, people should be able to see from my ability to admit a mistake, that I’m honest, unlike yourself.
You call it “Ad hominem” but I was actually just avoiding going into the details for the 100th time.
You claimed that the statement “I believe X” is an example of circular reasoning and you claimed that using such circular reasoning meant I was teaching based upon logical fallacies after I responded to your question by clarifying what I believed in a belief statement. You wouldn’t agree to let your church decide if you had stretched the definition of “circular reasoning” by including any and all statements of belief in your definition. And later you conceded that even if a person does use circular reasoning that does not prove that there is necessarily any fallacy present. So, to say that my teaching is based upon fallacies, just because I told you what I believed when you asked me, and you wrongly construed that to be a logical fallacy in itself, is just foolishness and a lie against the truth.
Furthermore, you ignorantly claimed that when I cited quotes from the early church fathers, that it was an example of “survivorship bias” and again you then stretched that purported bias into being evidence of outright fallacy.
but whenever you quote the surviving works of the early church fathers it is never “survivorship bias”. It was clear to me that you misapplied the whole concept of survivorship bias because the church would have had no reason to only preserve the writings that conflicted with what has been their new stance for the last 1500 years.
Anyhow, your constant inability to admit your error, in those two initial lies that you told against me, is why I’ve given up trying to reason with you. (because you’ve proved yourself unreasonable)
And, you don’t have to give up your beliefs on censorship to tell your truth-challenged commenter to curtail their incessant use of altered quotes when they’re posting at your site. By not even making any effort to correct that deceptive practice when multiple people have complained that they’ve been misquoted here, you are showing that you tacitly approve of that tactic. Otherwise, you’d say something. Lord knows you don’t hesitate to express contrary opinions about anything else. LOL I thought you practicing Anabaptists were the type to be careful of what you endorsed by your association. I don’t recall you speaking out against that dishonest practice being carried on here at your site. It’s as if you think it is OK to be dishonest when it supports your cause.
How does the truth-challenged, emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJW reconcile the ”redpill” with supposed ”Conservative” values? Most likely, like your idol, elrushbo here with his deceptive lust for Satanic drugs””
Cause of addiction: He stated that he had become dependent on the drugs after they were prescribed to treat severe back pain from spinal surgery.
Blamed himself, not doctors: In his statement, Limbaugh emphasized, “I am no victim… I take full responsibility for my problem”.”
YEAH, let’s put aside this statement from ”Personal Responsibility”Limbaugh.
”During his talk show on October 5, 1995, Limbaugh stated:
“There’s nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”
Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease, and that it should be combatted with strict legal consequences.
In October 2003, news outlets reported that Limbaugh was under investigation for illegally obtaining prescription drugs. Limbaugh illegally purchased hundreds of prescription pills per month over a period of several years. He engaged in the practice of “doctor shopping” by visiting different doctors to obtain multiple prescriptions for drugs that would otherwise be illegal. When this was disclosed, Limbaugh checked into a treatment facility. He said:
“Over the past several years I have tried to break my dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do so…. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next steps.”
Though doctor shopping was punishable by up to five years in prison under Florida law, charges against Limbaugh were dropped after he sought help and agreed to the prosecutors’ settlement. Limbaugh has said that he became addicted to painkillers as a result of serious back pain. ”
You ”RPGenius” ”leader” emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWs are viewed as complainers & lazy beach shorts wearing pill-popping bums(like elrushbo since he moved to Florida) by the manosphere MEN, the demonized young MEN & even secular folks like Trump.
That’s why emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWs supported Satanic churches,elrushbo, W. & now Trump as he ”considers” changing divorce laws as ye clap your hands together & sing praises to him as if ye had your nose in his rear end.
IOW?
You’re still upset(& crazily angry like your sockpuppet ”George”projecting said elsewhere) that your site isn’t getting the tens of thousands of pageviews it did when i was there.
It’s as if you think it is OK to be dishonest when it supports your cause.
What side of this war with Ben Shapiro is Mr.” honest” on?
Your thoughts on Redpill content vs Traditional Conservative values and its implications for the Republican party over the next generation.
Sex & Marriage
Redpill content (Andrew Tate, Fresh n Fit, etc) has become highly popular among young men. It is often associated with the right-wing, mainly because of its opposition to liberal feminism.
However a recent “exchange” between Fresh n Fit host Myron Gaines and Ben Shapiro really exposed a core difference in values. I’ll paraphrase the exchange but it pretty much went like this:
Myron: Men should get married when they’re 35, are worth $150k, and have slept with at least 50 women.
Ben: That’s stupid. Data shows traditional marriage and marrying young produces happier stable marriages.
Myron: Well that’s just your Jewish white male privilege speaking. Not all men are raised religious in stable homes.
Obviously I’m paraphrasing a bit, here’s the video, but that was the gist of it.
If young right-wing men are following the redpill content, what implications for Republican party values do you think it has over the next generation?
The disconnect is that Myron wants to marry someone based on how hot they are and can be a homemaker for him. And Ben married someone who makes him better, is a life partner, and can raise a family together. Ben even says in the clip they cut that “when you’re 35 you’re already rigid in your ways” because he’s implying that marrying younger means you’re more willing to be a life partner to someone.
The best line is at the end: “at 24, you can’t marry someone and have money to support her and raise a family” like my brother in Judaism, Ben always says “my wife is a doctor”, not some bimbo you have to keep happy.
I am interested in what “studies” support Myron, it didn’t come up in the video. Before I completely write this guy off, I’d love to know if there’s any evidence he has, or if he’s just some alpha male.
Some of their favorite “studies” include:
— Tinder swipe data to suggest women are much pickier than men and only go for “alpha males”, ignoring that 80% of Tinder users are men which affects the dynamic.
— Another claim that women only go for a small ‘top percent’ of men based on an OKCupid attractiveness survey in 2005, where most women ranked most men as unattractive and most men ranked half of women attractive. However, it ignores that the same study found that most of the women still messaged and said they’d date men they don’t find physically attractive, whereas 70% of the men primarily messaged and pursued the same most attractive women on the app.
— Women are ‘naturally hypergamous’ and will cheat on you as soon as they find a better option because something something look at birds, something something look at lobsters
See how Decent_Ear589 is like DEREK, who questions the emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWs who invaded the golden age Roissy/manosphere & laid claim to ”redpill” A.K.A. the MRA,mgtow, game & pua (that they stole from and repurposed for their churchian simp frame goddess worshipping ways of bluepill yet ”redpill” ways by their ”honesty”) to ”I love fellow tradcon ”debaters” like Ben Shapiro” by the emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWs in the sphere that murdered the golden age manosphere.
I get it. You struggle with basic reading comprehension. I said “Ad hominem makes one look foolish” in response to this:
No amount of “going into the details for the 100th time” has anything to do with what I said. Yours is a nonsensical response to what I said. If you don’t have anything good to say, then don’t say anything at all. Didn’t you have parents who taught you that? Ad hominem is not a replacement for argument.
Do you even know what an ad hominem is? It does not appear so. Here it is:
You can’t undo an ad hominem by providing a more detailed argument or repeating an argument, because an ad hominem has, by definition, nothing to do with the argument.
You could, instead, fix an ad hominem by apologizing, but instead you double-down:
You couldn’t have missed the point any harder if you had tried. What is abundantly clear is that you were not “actually just avoiding.”
Talking with you is a challenge, because, like the right-to-left and punctuation examples, you generally demonstrate very little knowledge about what you are going off about. What you lack in knowledge is made up for in the extreme ability to think you are right. To wit:
Are you being serious? That’s a massive retcon. As for your “ability to admit a mistake,” it took me two months explicitly goading you—at least fourteen times—for you to finally come up with a cover story. And the story didn’t even make sense. Here is what you wrote:
It’s a cute story. You may even have believed it when you wrote it. But, it is objectively false.
First, no, you did not do so in the “wee hours of the morning.”
You made your erroneous challenge on Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:29pm CST / 7:29pm MST from a particular North American ISP. You were not using cell data. The IP address you used back then geolocates to the same place you are known to be from, both past and present, so I know I got the locale correct.
This is what happens when you wait 2 months to “admit” your mistake: you forget what the real circumstances were. You end up manufacturing an unreliable, fictitious tale that just isn’t true.
Second, during those two months I was subjected to who knows how many spurious ad hominem. Now, nearly two years later, you are still hurling ad hominem, but now telling a different cover story from the one above:
When I referred to old punctuation, like was used in the Masoretic texts, it was as a way to make the point that other scholars interpreted that there ought to be sentence breaks and such where I think they belong too. The point I was trying to make was that my interpretation was not novel but was shared by others who knew ancient Hebrew better than anyone today.
…and…
Surely, even you can see that, again, your second (not 100th) story has changed? With this iteration, the myth grows. You sound even more reasonable (and less guilty) than in your first explanation.
Everyone knows that witness testimony two years after the fact is insanely unreliable because it gets whitewashed over time (as demonstrated in the first point). What took place at the time, and when you had the opportunity to respond (but didn’t) tells me much more than this dubious cover story you now tell.
Third, you now claim that you actually knew that Hebrew reads from left-to-right, but you’re trying to demonstrated it by acknowledging that you didn’t know the Hebrew you cited read from right-to-left on biblehub? Not only is that absurd, but the text on bible hub is literally right justified, the verse number starts on the top-right, and the period is found on on the bottom-left.
If you know, in advance, that a language reads from right-to-left, it is not possible to see a sentence break (a period) at the left side of a sentence or word and mistakenly think it was a right-to-left interlinear. The whole point of your comment was focusing on the position of the period to the left of the words!
No matter what device you use (PC, phone, or tablet), Bible hub always displays the end of sentence on the far left, with only whitespace to its left. Here is what it looks like on a phone:
Notice that the “colon” next to the period is included in the Hebrew word itself. It’s not possible to get this confused if you know that Hebrew reads from right-to-left.
No matter what device you use, the period will always be included with the word that includes the colon on the left side, indicating that it is right-to-left.
Since you were, without a doubt, looking at exactly that, you could not have made this mistake if you actually knew. Here is exactly what you said:
Help find the sentence break for me: (here)
This isn’t a formatting problem—for the formatting was unambiguous and clear—it is a knowledge problem. You knew about the sentence break, but you didn’t know what a sentence break on the left side of a word signified! You unambiguously interpreted it as if it had been written from right-to-left…
…when it obviously was not.
This is not a mistake that people who know what they are doing could ever possibly make. Maybe at one point in your life you knew, but clearly you did not at the time you made your mistake. I’m sorry, but your attempt to retconn the situation is not convincing.
If you read…
“Fish are great. Fish are the best.”
…you would never think the first period terminated the sentence on the right. Similarly, if you read…
“.tseb eht era hsiF .taerg era hsiF”
…you would never mistake this as left-to-right. The placement of the period as part of the word itself explicitly tells you whether the language is right-to-left or left-to-right. All this talk of toggle switches and different websites is irrelevant. All the information you needed was right there at the section you were examining, but you didn’t have the knowledge to realize it.
Fourth, two months before your comment, you had explicitly cited the same biblehub interlinear (Genesis 1) and the same verse (27) in a publicly published article, so I know for a fact that you were not unfamiliar with “how that website displayed their interlinear text.”
Fifth, your initial cover story only partially admitted your error. Your second cover story even backs off on this admittance. Additionally, you have still not acknowledged this error (as further supported here and here) or your most egregious error yet here. And just to prove this isn’t about me, neither have you admitted that you misrepresented someone who isn’t me.
In short, you’ve shown that you don’t know how to properly use interlinears, concordances/lexicons, AI, and online translators. To wit:
This is so wildly insane, that I cannot fully express how ignorant you have to be to make this kind of mistake. When I told my son that the commenter had done this, he was flabbergasted. It’s such a “rookie mistake” and conforms to what I said recently here and here:
The skill gap between what is being claimed and what is being demonstrated is like claiming to be able to do Calculus but struggling to multiply 2 times 3. This is so awful that I am starting to suspect that the Commenter might actually have an intellectual disability or some other mental health challenge. His claim to have an at- or near-genius level IQ may be a delusion. I have no desire to debate with someone who is cognitively impaired.
The evidence is stacking up:
— Failing to recognize that Hebrew reads from right-to-left
— Failing to recognize that the original Hebrew had no punctuation
— Conflating grammatical gender with biological sex
— Mishandling singular collective nouns
— Misusing concordances and lexicons
You come here with the express purpose not to debate, but to fix the “stubborn lies.” This forces me to point out that you don’t know what you are talking about and are manifestly unqualified to speak on these matters.
I may be a novice on these matters, but you are not even an initiate.
Update on the Myron vs. Ben Shapiro war with ”real-life stats” ”for women”!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGVZ29Phuk
Myron & SOS Prove Ben Shapiro WRONG w/ REAL LIFE Stats!
Maybe DEREK should do a post on the data, yes?
I know this is difficult for you, but I’ve admitted my errors on many occasions to many different commenters. But I don’t admit my errors to you because I didn’t make any. The errors between us are all yours. Your persistent refrain of “liar! liar!” adds nothing to the conversation.
Maybe one day you will actually substantiate one of your claims. On that day, you may have the chance to see me admit to some error. But since you don’t do that, the chances of witnessing it are quite slim.
I’ve beaten that one to death, carefully going over the evidence piece-by-piece. I’ve demonstrated exactly why your claim is without merit.
Since the first time you’ve made that claim, you’ve presented no new information and you’ve not quoted anything I’ve said to substantiate your claims. All you do is make the same empty assertion over-and-over again. Moreover, while you’ve responded to many of my comments over the years, you have never responded to the one that directly addressed and refuted this accusation, even though I’ve referenced it at least nine (!!) different times now.
Got that? You’ve never responded to my rebuttal of your vacuous claim.
You seem to think that repeating unsubstantiated claims will get me to “admit” that I’m wrong, as if, by repetition alone, you can make false claim become true.
I’ve exhaustively discussed that one too. The same critique I made above applies here as well. But, honestly, this is one of the unintentionally funniest things you’ve ever said to me:
*WHOOOSH*
I know you think this is a very serious accusation of the gravest of sin, but I have trouble taking you seriously when you say obviously ridiculous stuff like that. You have no self-awareness of exactly how silly your objection is! The error you think I made is entirely imaginary.
Imagine I said “2+2=4” and you said “You liar! It cannot be the case that ‘too plus too equals fore’, because it can’t be ‘fore’, it must be ‘tootoo.'” Your comment is equally absurd and equally funny. Your objection doesn’t even make sense. You’ve never understood what I said.
That’s a nice opinion you’ve got there. I happen to disagree with you and I’ve explained why to you in the past. It’s not my fault you don’t remember.
I’m familiar with that logical fallacy. If you find logical fallacies so compelling, you can feel free to personally embrace them. But, I won’t be joining you.
Well, I let you post here—despite all the falsehoods—don’t I?
Like the Professor, you have free will. You could stop the baseless ad hominem at any time if that’s what you really wanted. Yet, no matter how many times I tell you to stop, you still don’t listen. You plow ahead full-force. What makes you think the Professor would react any differently? Are you saying that you think he is a better person than you?
I “judge” you and the Professor the way I would want to be “judged.” As (presumably) adults, you guys are expected to accept criticism and self-regulate without the application of force.
Regardless, I know for a fact that Surfdumb has explained another theory that explains the evidence other than the one you are now describing. You didn’t listen to him, as the neutral observer, so why would you listen to me? You already have your mind made up.
By not even making any effort to correct that deceptive practice when multiple people have complained that they’ve been misquoted here, you are showing that you tacitly approve of that tactic. Otherwise, you’d say something.
This R-”based” troll fellow is just complaining like a SJW woman, i might add, that Deti brings up Derek’s posts at Spawnys, but NEVER his nor that guy he always is butt sniffing named Jack, the supposed English ”professor” who is even accused of being confusing by the same butt sniffer, is all. Simple As That
Let Huey and the news elaborate on it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt9NZFB_6Mk
Simple As That
Simple As That · Huey Lewis & The News
[Instrumental hook]
You go to work, work hard all day
At the end of the week, you collect your pay
That’s just where it’s at
It’s as simple as that
You pay your bills the best that you can
But the rising cost sure hurts a family man
While the rich man gets fat
It’s as simple as that
And the money goes so fast it ain’t funny
(Hah-hah-hah, it ain’t funny)
Your mind’s made up to get that house on the hill
But you just don’t know if you ever will
Because you can’t get the cash
It’s as simple as that
Cause the man from the bank, he won’t give you a loan
Without putting a mortgage on all that you own
(A tit for a tat)
It’s how it is
(It’s a simple as that)
Oho, and the money goes so fast it ain’t funny
(Hah-hah-hah, it ain’t funny)
No! It’s as simple
It’s as simple
It’s as simple as that
Hey!
[Instrumental hook]
Before you know it the kids are all grown
And married off with kids of their own
(Now it’s all in the past)
True story, yeah
(It’s as simple as that)
You’ve reached the autumn of your life
And all that’s left is you and your wife
(And a dog and a cat)
It’s how it is
(It’s as simple as that)
Ooh, and the money goes so fast it ain’t funny
(Hah-hah-hah, it ain’t funny)
No, it’s as simple
It’s as simple
It’s as simple as that
Hey-yeah!
It’s as simple
It’s as simple
It’s as simple as that
Even though
[unintelligible]
Hey-yeah!
Bottom line?, From a superstar, Billy Graham(that got a certain troll 34+k pagehits in 8+ months instead of 36k in 4 years & ahalf+, instead of that anti-Anabaptist ex-Mennoite troll who(comes here)& thinks he is pastor Billy Graham since he was almost named after him?”RPGenius” ”leaders” need to get off their lazy bums and start coming up with original stuff(that gets the Detis of the world talking) like the guy the troll who thinks he is pastor Billy Graham butt sniffs told Derek here months ago.
Parody. Satire. Wouldn’t you agree?
That’s how i’ve seen most of the manosphere(as a Parody, Satire blogosphere)for almost a decade and a half now.
It’s sort of the inversion of Superstar Billy Graham being the original 80s & 90s versions of Hulk Hogan in the mid-late ’70s in that the Roissy copycats will NEVER be as popular as the original ”modern” ”redpillers” ROISSY & GBFM (even Dalrock is forgotten by young secular and religious young MEN & incels at a certain site, but NOT ROISSY & GBFM!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ie682roKVs
Hulk Hogan vs Billy Graham: The ORIGINAL vs THE COPYCAT🐐🔥 | Episode 1 of Stolen Spotlights
Derek, you’re right that I’m not listening to you. Nor reading most of what you wrote. Just because I give you additional different details to try to explain things to you in a different way rather than repeating what I’ve already told you and you seemingly could not understand, does not mean that I’m somehow trying to change what happened by explaining it another way with other details in hopes you might come to understand.
You sperg on-and-on as if stupid mistakes are supposed to make good logical sense. LOL Everything I wrote regarding this has been true. (except for the one initial error which I admitted was an error) I don’t have any need or desire to lie. If I said I looked at Bible hub at around 3 AM, or that I composed part of my comment in the wee hours of the morning, or that I was sleep deprived, or whatever it was that I wrote, it was all true. Why don’t you use your supposedly superior hermeneutical skills to see how you can reconcile those things instead of trying to make me into a liar like yourself. I fear I’ve only “fed the trolls” by interacting with you and trying to correct your libel.
Perhaps the reason why you’re so stubborn in not admitting to your own faults is because you think other people might behave like yourself and still be writing going on-and-on about a single error that you made in a single comment back in 2023 and have admitted was an error. But most folks aren’t like you.
Anyhoo! I’m probably going to drop back out of the discussion. I’ve had enough of your fellowship to remind me of why I ought to stay away from interacting with the tar baby.
I thank you for the favor that you did for me privately. But obviously I’m making no headway by addressing the untruthful things you write regarding me publicly.
Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. “If I said it, whatever it was, it must be true.” You deny the truth, even when the truth is unambiguous.
Why do you double-down on what is clearly false? What are you trying to prove?
I just keep revealing more information that contradicts your story (as I do, again, below), and then you have to scramble to come up with another fake cover story that tries to explain away the discrepancies. But your three “explanations” are now so hopelessly contradictory, that you can never hope to unwind the true from the false.
Now I didn’t even present all the evidence I have against your claims. Are you going to double-down again? Maybe you can try presenting a fourth cover story and see if it contradicts the evidence I have not revealed yet. What do you say? It will be a good test to see how your mind has manufactured a false reality.
Your ability to project is exceptional.
You claimed to have written that “in haste,” not a day or two in advance. You claimed to have written that in the “wee hours of the morning”, but you posted it at 8:29pm on a Sunday evening. The comment in question followed another one you wrote at 6:43pm earlier that evening. It’s as clear as daylight that you composed and posted your second comment between those two times, not in the “wee hours of the morning” like you falsely claimed.
In the wee hours of the morning, did you see a portion of Hebrew text backwards, but in your haste, throw it into the comment on my site? No you did not. But you told me you did.
But, no, if you were to admit that, you’d have to admit to yourself that you lied to yourself, telling yourself something that didn’t actually happen. So, of course, this means that I must be the liar. Logically, since you are perfect, I must be the spawn of Satan.
Truly astounding. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen such self-delusion in another person. You’re completely immune to the truth. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone in my life who was not only this stubborn, but projected that stubbornness onto others.
Do you think I and my readers are stupid? You are literally, right here and now, refusing to admit your error. You are claiming that despite having posted your comment in the evening, that it was actually really early in the morning. You’ll call me a liar over and over, despite it being false, but you won’t call yourself a liar for intentionally denying what you know took place? Why is that?
To be libel, it has to be a false statement. But, I documented proof of what took place. What I said is true. By contrast, you’ve now given three witness testimonies that contradict each other. The only one engaging in libel is you, for all the many things you’ve said about me that are known to be false.
Do not idly speak of fellowship when you have personally severed any Christian fellowship that we might otherwise have, casting me out as Satan’s servant. We have no fellowship, and you are the reason for it. I will not lie and act like it isn’t. There can be no fellowship unless you repent. As it stands, I will warn all Christians about you, exposing what you say to the light of truth.
To Jack the emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJW, I don’t have the time nor desire to try to make sense of your gibberish. And I have expressed to you before that if you want to communicate with me, use the English language according to how they taught you in school,supposedly as PHD in English. I find it insulting that you still post Satanic ” ANE ” gibberish, after I’ve already told you I don’t appreciate it & it goes against our very non-ANE Simp Frame ancestors, when I know you are capable of writing your thoughts out plainly with the king’s English. And you seem to be taking advantage of me not being willing to block simp frame posts from my own website, to spam me with your unwanted, copied and pasted churchian soccerdad bluepill yet ”redpill” gibberish. If I want to read JackANESF’s Manosphere-trolling comments, I’ll come here and try to read them while my nose is in his rear end(as usual).
And once again, I also think that I & other emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdads only further alienate people when I & other churchian blue pill soccerdads ”redpill’ post bluepillish altered ”redpill” , I know that Jack and I, who both host altered churchian blue pill soccerdads ”redpill” posts and comments, apparently approve of that sort of churchian blue pill soccerdads ”redpill’ deception, and so I reckon WE will still stubbornly continue to lack the wisdom to quit when people like rmaxgenactivepua tell us to stop with our emasculated, pussified world view.SMH
About time you bluepill churchian soccerdads admit to ruining the manosphere with your emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWS world view, as we knew all along.
How Social Justice Warriors Such As Paul Elam & Blue Pill Soccer Dads ie. W.F Price & Dalrock Ruined The Manosphere Part Two
rmaxgenactivepua / April 19, 2014
This is basically a summarised, easier to read version of part one, as the original was an unedited rant …
Anyway …
Churchians, soccerdads, stayathomemoms, & leftists are basically petty, vindictive, & will stab you in the back, for refusing to kow tow to their emasculated, pussified world view
A masculine man, isn’t welcome in their community, as most masculine men stand at odds with churchanity & the community of emasculated married men …
Unfortunately alot of these emasculated married men, have invaded the manosphere, turning it into what it is today …
Basically the manosphere went from mgtow, game & pua, to being over run by soccerdads, blue pillers & married men, all claiming to be red pill & practising game on their wives …
While never posting anything about actually standing upto their wives, or any evidence or advice on actually holding wives responsible for their actions
Basically nothing proving they are in fact red pill …
It got so farcical, even married men such as Keoni Galt, a married man, started claiming he was a mgtow …
Then you have Paul Elam turning the MRA into a leftist anti-feminist craphole, instead of the MRA a movement based on masculinity, game, race, hbd & working class men, as originally intended, by its creators
Basically a clearing house of the truth …
For example AnygryHarry’s site, & older bloggers run by working class men, such as captain no marriage, & men-factor
What we have now is essentially Churchians & soccerdads ie. Dalrock, using the red pill & game to white knight for women, instead of calling women out on their irrational behaviour
ie Dalrock’s infamous anecdote of using game to win over his wife,who falls out of love with him, instead of calling her out on her lack of commitment to him after 10 years of wedded bliss …
When are these men going to realise, after years of being devoted to a single person …
Bullshit excuses used by women to cover up their aging, erectile dysfunction causing menopausal, hit the wall looks, should never be tolerated
Chrisitains validating her need for thugs & assholes …
Whats even worse, what they dont realise by gaming their wives, all theyre doing is validating her need for thugs & aholes
Instead of validating his need for her to stop comparing him to the thugs & aholes she rode the carousel with, & stop forcing him to jump through hoops like a trained monkey
Of course its alot easier to say she needs to be gamed & you need to be more masculine, then it is to call her out on her shit, & demand your wife actually changes into a regular rational human being
Instead of the typical churchian, pedestalised moron most churchian wives turn into …
In short the manosphere is still here, we just refuse to be associated the soccerdads, churchians & married men, as we know dedicating your life to a vagina, is the ultimate blue pill
What we have now is essentially Churchians & soccerdads ie. Dalrock, using the red pill & game to white knight for women, instead of calling women out on their irrational behaviour
Notice where He-MEN RS like [Redacted] NEVER confront so-called ”redpill” brothers(or stubbornly never Patriarchally correct their own wives, every few months like their patriarchal ancestors did?) over them NOT calling out their wives or wimminz irrational behaviour?
Yet he criticises those who do, trying to take away that ”weapon” from more righteous MEN!
“Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.”
― Mark Twain
YEAH, that’s why i just usually zlolzzlozlzlz at emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad SJWS in and outside of the manosphere.
Basically Benner is conflating the usage of emunah as an adjective “Moses hands were steady” with its usage as a noun “faith” and then pretending faith doesn’t exist. Hebrew is a barbaric language. So it reuses words in ways we don’t. It has a horrible alphabet after all. In a more advanced and civilized language using the Latin alphabet, of course we don’t need to reuse the word faith as an adjective for steady and say “Moses hands were faith.” But to be cute some people do stuff like this even in English, or it originates as slang among the barbaric. For instance in the 80s saying “Word” after someone said something you agree with. So now this means that word no longer means a word but means “I agree.” So let’s edit the Bibke “In the beggining was the I agree.” This is how dumb these kind of people are.
And they would be mad of course if they heard that Hebrew is a barbaric language. They think its the perfect language, crwated by God to be the lerfect vehicle of the perfect OT. These type of people belong as Jews. If the OT were perfect there would be no NT. If Hebrew were so great, God eouldn’t have switched to Greek. Greek is a better language than Hebrew, period. God just had to wait for a better language to develop and spread and become popular. This fact would scandalize those fools.
Well, it’s circular reasoning. I note this on many occasions how theology is constructed: reason forwards from one thing to another and then (later) reason backwards. There are so many examples of this in the realm of theological development. I sometimes bring this up when I write about the headship doctrine, for example.
Radix Fidem has a soft spot for Michael Heiser. They collectively share the idea of the Unseen Realm, which relies heavily on selected pagan Canaanite beliefs. Heiser’s thesis absolutely rests on philosophical evolution, that Hebrew is the evolution of the Canaanite languages and that their theology is deeply rooted in that tradition.
It seems fairly obvious to me that Jesus, the Apostles, and the early church preferred the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew, especially as time went on. In the first century, ancient Hebrew had been replaced by its linguistic derivative Aramaic anyway. After 70AD, when the Old Covenant ceased, there was no serious attempt by the church or the Apostles to carry along the Hebrew scriptures.
I just noticed its Catacomb Resident making this argument. He’s an absolute Judaizer so its funny for him to accuse the people resisting his antichristian redefinition of words (whereby he tries to push antichrist Judaism) of being “legalists.” Of course as a Judaism pusher he wants to redefine faith as nothing more than beleiving your eyes, so you will not have a mystical faith in Chtist and be saved, but auddenly he will change the meaning of faith back when you see his fellow Jews comit a crime of course because then you can’t trust your lying eyes, in which case he will require you to have a mystical blind faith in their genetic and spiritual superiority that will convince you that even Epstein never done nuffin wrong, because he is of the superior angelic stock who are incapable of it.
This appears to be an unsubstantiated claim.
I have never seen Catacomb Resident pushing Judaism, unless you are referring to his emphasis on so-called Hebrew “Ancient Near East” mysticism? Nor have I ever seen him identify as an ethnic Jew.
I know, specifically, that Radix Fidem is not pro-Judaism.
Its the impression I got when I stopped reading him probably back in 2020/2021. I couldn’t prove it in a court of law. Its perhaps this idea thag everything is about covenant and his weird ideosynceatic meaning to covenent that ungirds an extreme legalism. It just felt like underneath all the rhetoric he was trying to make me a Jew.
Ah, that makes sense. It’s their special flavor of “covenant” theology that does it.