Tag Archives: bible

The Bible Deconstructed for Atheists.


It is not my intention to bore you.  I wanted to explain some things to you about the bible.  The people that wrote the bible didn’t take it literally because it was written in PaRDeS, the word PaRDeS phonetically mimics the word Paradise.  

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) )

Pardes (Hebrew: פרדסorchard) is the subject of a Jewishaggadah (“legend”) about four rabbis of the Mishnaic period (1st century CE) who visited the Orchard (that is, Paradise):

Four men entered pardesBen Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher (Elisha ben Abuyah),[1] and Akiba. Ben Azzai looked and died; Ben Zoma looked and went mad; Acher destroyed the plants; Akiba entered in peace and departed in peace.[2]


Rashi explains that they ascended to Heaven by utilizing the Divine Name, which might be understood as achieving a spiritual elevation through Jewish meditationpractices.  PaRDeS-exegesis is an acronym for the 4 traditional methods of exegesis in Judaism. In this sense, they were the four to understand the whole Torah[citation needed].  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(legend)#Exposition


This is a pretty good commentary on the exegesis of this legend metaphor:  



It might interest you to know that Muslims assume that the Jews altered the bible because while it foretells the coming of the messiah, it doesn’t foretell the coming of Mohammed.  


The reason the name of god is ineffable is that it isn’t spoken with words, it is spoken with your thoughts, your words, your emotions, and your actions.  When the Jews Helenized the absorbed the Greek Philosophy.  YHWH is a metaphor for praxis. Praxis could be simplified into the concept of living your philosophy which is rational and by which one can be falsified.  A psychopathic philosophy for example (Islam) cannot be used to falsify the individual Muslim or Muslims collectively because it can only be used for proving them correct. . .

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger,Hannah Arendt, Paulo Freire, Ludwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.


The first five books of the bible are known as the torah or the Pentateuch, which is the extended version of god’s name. Curiously it was written without vowels.  I think the significance of this is that each character of the Pentateuch represents a human being, the vowels weren’t added because they represented the feminine or the way in which all of the characters were connected to everything else.  Which is to say the way you pronounce god’s name on a global scale is through the correct relationship between everybody.  This also allowed different interpretations of Jewish faith to be codified in a way since that interpretation couldn’t be disproved which created a similar pattern to the Sanatana Dharma in India.  

Rabbis have a linguistic fetish and they play word games to look for hidden messages and to see things differently.  It is a source of inspiration.  If you consider my theory that Neural Myelination is passed on through cellular memory ask yourselves why are their so many Jewish comedians, lawyers, surgeons, philosophers, actors, and psychologists?  It was because of meditating on the Torah.  The laws of the Torah cement a democratic society that is cohesive, and it protects itself from psychological factors or economic factors that could tear the community apart.  

The Bible Code is just such a meditation that the Rabbis meditate on.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code

This is probably a little less credible but still fun, in the english version of the bible code one of my Nom de plumes has a bible code matrix, let’s see how accurate it is.  



The first two chapters of the bible are Genisis (going in) and Exodus (going out).  What is the first thing you do when you are born?   What is the last thing you do when you die?  First you inspire and then you expire.  

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.  genesis 2:7


inspire (v.)Look up inspire at Dictionary.commid-14c., enspiren, “to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);” also “to prompt or induce (someone to do something),” from Old French enspirer (13c.), from Latininspirare “inflame; blow into” (see inspiration), a loan-translation of Greek pnein in the Bible. General sense of “influence or animate with an idea or purpose” is from late 14c. Also sometimes used in literal sense in Middle English. Related: Inspired; inspires; inspiring.   http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inspire


Of further interest is that Rabbi Maimon said that the account of Moses was written in the present tense, which means get away from the Mizraim right now.  The Mizraim are the nations, specifically Babylon and Egypt.  Remember that Babylon (ancient Persia) was constantly trying to expand in increase it’s authority and that threat went all the way to Greece during the battle of Thermopylae.   The Bible was written by a people trying to maintain their identity and separate themselves from the ancient Persio/Babylonian mentality.  

As a god worshipped by the Phoenicians and Canaanites, Moloch had associations with a particular kind of propitiatorychild sacrifice by parents. Moloch figures in the Book of Deuteronomy and in the Book of Leviticus as a form of idolatry(Leviticus 18:21: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch”). In the Old Testament,Gehenna was a valley by Jerusalem, where apostate Israelites and followers of various Baalim and Caananite gods, including Moloch, sacrificed their children by fire (2 Chr. 28:3, 33:6; Jer. 7:31, 19:2–6).






Expressions of Contempt



I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric.  What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist.  He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science.  What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion.  He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good.  And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields.  What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t.  Socrates was accused of being an atheist.  So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful?  Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government.  There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is.  Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego.  He wants to be worshiped.  He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail.  Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent.  You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights.  They are amoral systems.  Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new.  What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists.  It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it.  Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right?  If you survive or succeed you are the fittest.  Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.





Probably my favorite word of all time.  

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

shibboleth (/ˈʃɪbəlɛθ/[1] or /ˈʃɪbələθ/[2]) is a word or custom whose variations in pronunciation or style can be used to differentiate members of ingroups from those of outgroups. Within the mindset of the ingroup, a connotation or value judgment of correct/incorrect or superior/inferior can be ascribed to the two variants.


The term originates from the Hebrew word shibbólet (שִׁבֹּלֶת), which literally means the part of a plant containing grains, such as an ear of corn or a stalk of grain[3] or, in different contexts, “stream, torrent”.[4][5] The modern usage derives from an account in the Hebrew Bible, in which pronunciation of this word was used to distinguish Ephraimites, whosedialect lacked a /ʃ/ phoneme (as in shoe), from Gileadites whose dialect did include such a phoneme.

Recorded in the Book of Judges, chapter 12, after the inhabitants of Gilead inflicted a military defeat upon the tribe of Ephraim (around 1370–1070 BC), the surviving Ephraimites tried to cross the Jordan River back into their home territory and the Gileadites secured the river’s fords to stop them. In order to identify and kill these refugees, the Gileadites put each refugee to a simple test:

Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan, and whenever Ephraimite fugitives said, ‘Let me cross,’ the men of Gilead would ask, ‘Are you an Ephraimite?’ If he said, ‘No,’ they then said, ‘Very well, say “Shibboleth” (שבלת).’ If anyone said, “Sibboleth” (סבלת), because he could not pronounce it, then they would seize him and kill him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell on this occasion.

Judges 12:5–6, NJB
Funny story, I once used the word “Sibboleth” and some woman corrected me and told me it was “shibboleth” she was completely serious.  I told her that was pretty ironic considering the etymology of the word, lol. 

Sibilance is a manner of articulation of fricative and affricate consonants, made by directing a stream of air with the tongue towards the sharp edge of theteeth, which are held close together; a consonant that uses sibilance may be called a sibilant. Examples of sibilants are the consonants at the beginning of the English words sipzipshipchip, and Jeep, and the second consonant in vision. The symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet used to denote the sibilant sounds in these words are, respectively, [s] [z] [ʃ] [tʃ] [dʒ] [ʒ]. (The sounds [tʃ] [dʒ], as in chip and Jeep, are affricates; the rest are fricatives.) Sibilants have a characteristically intense sound, which accounts for their non-linguistic use in getting one’s attention (e.g. calling someone using “psst!” or quieting someone using “shhhh!”).

In the alveolar hissing sibilants [s] and [z], the back of the tongue forms a narrow channel (is grooved) to focus the stream of air more intensely, resulting in a high pitch. With the hushing sibilants (occasionally termed shibilants), such as English [ʃ], [tʃ], [ʒ], and [dʒ], the tongue is flatter, and the resulting pitch lower.[citation needed][we need cite that they are not grooved]