If you are saying that the story of Joshua was written by the "lying pen of the scribes," I totally agree with you.

I don't believe that God ordered any murders.

Like I said, I don't believe the story anyway. It never actually happened.

But there are plenty of Christians who believe it did.

And they defend the actions of Joshua and their God of War.

p.s. my new policy: I don't respond to posts or questions followed by laughing and rolling heads.

Personally I don't believe the book of Joshua is even true.

I believe it is pure fiction. But the people who do believe it continue to make excuses for their blood thirsty God and the story of the genocide and theft of the alleged "promised land" by the alleged Israelite people. (And it never happened anyway.)

Christians have been taken in by these lies.

And the world 'Semitic' does not apply to a "people" but to languages of the Middle Eastern and East African region such as Arabic, Amharic, Tigrina, and Hebrew.

The expression "anti-Semitic" dates back only about one hundred years and it was an expression of European people's biases against their very own European Jews.

We are actually talking about myth and fiction here.

My beef is with people who insist that the God of Abraham was forgiving and merciful and then turn right around and defend the countless wars he supposedly led his people into.

I mean, seriously, killing women, children, babies... I don't care who told you they could talk to God and God said to do it.... even if that were true, does that really sound like a merciful forgiving God?

so,
Anyone else want to defend the war God of the Jews who ordered the merciless genocide of the people living in the alleged "promised land?"

OMG more rolling heads.

Most Bibles in the western world are written in English.
Jealous or Zealous I don't care how you translate the word.

This is not about semantics. Its about the question of whether or not we think that the God of Abraham, whatever name you want to call him, was a merciful and forgiving God.

Given the story of Joshua, I would say.... no, he was not.

nope.

Just stick with the King James version of the book and the book of Joshua please.

Anyone else want to defend the war God of the Jews who ordered the merciless genocide of the people living in the alleged "promised land?"

I found time to let the video run while tidying my room, the later when resting. I watched about the middle hour of the 90 minutes.

Remember, I spent a year associating with raw foodists. I've heard all this before. While I don't bother remembering specific names, dates, and specific trials, I've heard variations of the basic stories again and again and again and again. Most of the time, these events are tied to the most insane abuses of logic as these people draw conclusions about things.

Somehow they will go from "prominent AMA (or FDA etc) person is corrupt" to "therefore raw pineapple juice cures gall stones!"

The evils of big pharma and the evils of individual AMA or FDA members does not justify the evil of claiming that coffee enemas will cure cancer.

A number of much smaller errors of logic were made in this video, but in only a few places did I find it directly crossed a line into some misleading or anti-reality memes.

It took me a while to realized that the most important messages were not being explicitly stated. Like all good conspiracy 'documentaries', they posed questions, and presented answers, in such a way as to make dishonest insinuations and implications - without making the outright dishonest claims themselves. They also used music and imagery to try to shape the emotional experience of the viewer, encouraging those same wrong and biased views. It was like a lengthy big pharma advert, except for a different kind of product.

In short, this is a propaganda piece. Like all good propaganda pieces, it includes a healthy dose of factually correct information.

my brother no one is anti religious but we are against those who under the name of religion are spreading violence and hatred and making us fight against each other

Unfortunately, most of the hatred and fighting in the world today is based upon clashing religious beliefs. :(

Every religious person is a non-believer in every religion except for the latest one they have latched on to,
so it is difficult to understand this extreme hatred, but ignorance does come into play :(

I think many, many people are so easily controlled with fear, along with such a need for comfort (even if that comfort is imaginary),
that logic, truth and reason take a distant second place to these emotions...

I guess only time will tell who wins.... religion or mankind !!!

Welcome, to the Zone :-)

Most of those links are like watching David Copperfield and expecting him to show you the details of the trick . . . it isn't going to happen.

Real science can be summarized, and the sources can be easily defined.

the most pages of blocked users? I am at 3 pages which is an all time low for me. Do I hear 18 or possibly 21??

Oh, no, you have it backwards. I am not bored. If I was bored I might watch the video. And when I was 16 I would have found the video interesting, since it would have had so much new information.

... I spent 5 minutes jumping to different parts of the video, all which I found excruciatingly boring and filled with things I have already heard....

Well I followed the link and saw that it was 90 minutes total. I spent 5 minutes jumping to different parts of the video, all which I found excruciatingly boring and filled with things I have already heard. (Whether its from formal study at a university, or my deep and lengthy immersion in fringe health culture, or other).

I would be far more open to spending 15-20 minutes reading a complete transcript, and then jumping to portions that might have video worth watching, rather than spending 90 minutes watching this.

Do you have a link to a transcript?



To be clear, I intentionally use the label 'quackery' when any one of a collection of sets of sufficient conditions are met, only some of which I've commented on. Exploiting people for huge dollar amounts is part of one set of sufficient conditions, but its not a necessary condition. Depending on the particulars, the existence simply of over-hyped marketing BS involving claims of therapeutic benefit, which do not meet good standards of evidence, may be a sufficient condition for me to call something quackery.

Its not necessary for a treatment to be sold - sometimes the motive is simply to aggrandize one's ego. Sometimes its the books that are being sold, not the treatment. If it involves grandiose, unsubstantiated claims (or careful language intended to deceive people into believing such things, without explicitly claiming it), then I'd likely call that quackery.

I'm not calling gerson himself a quack simply because i lack enough specific information on him. There have been cases where a non-quack presented an interesting idea, and then foolish people developed a subculture around it, distorting the idea, and creating 'quackery' (wrong beliefs in the effectiveness of a treatment method, and a collection of memes to propagate those wrong beliefs) of their own. Which is a rare edge case in which I might call a treatment a 'quack treatment' without there being any actual 'quacks' profiting (or selling books, or aggrandizing their ego as the inventor).

In the case of people (supposedly) selling gerson therapy treatments for cancer patients for $5k a week, thats also a cause (given the lack of evidence for effectiveness) for calling them quacks. People like them can turn gerson therapy into a 'quack treament', just as could be done with aspirin. Just like with the aspirin example - the alleged practioners just south of the border do not, by themselves, invalidate any notion that gerson therapy may have a legitimate use.

If there was a group of people who were successfully selling aspirin in the manner described a few posts back, then I would call aspiring a 'quack treatment'. Clearly, its still good for headaches (and a dozen other uses).




I don't know if Gerson was a quack or not. I'm not even concerned about it.

Regardless of Gerson's integrity, or lack thereof, it looks like the therapy that bears his name is used by quacks. Further, the mythos surrounding the therapy that bears his name has gone far beyond quack status.




We all know that some foods contain cancer-fighting compounds.

This doesn't mean that eating that food will cure you of cancer.




Looking at the past couple pages, it seems like this really bothers you.


Your next comments criticize the FDA and big pharma. It's a sad state of affairs. Organizations like the FDA have even been selling out to big CAM, at least in other countries.