Its hard to know how many Christians for instance really believe the stuff they are supposed to and how many just go to church for the social network.
Please see my 'Its up to us' humanism video to see a humanist in Cornwall, u.k. speaking very eloquently and briefly.
@skywize (cont) you see though this is EXACTLY what this video and many other misinformed Atheists attempt to do. Yes in the past our country (and many others for that matter) did things that we are not proud of, yes there have been times where man has acted in "the name of God" doing stupid things, just like the militia man says proud to be an american and shoots somebody. these are indefensible but none the less they are no longer applicable to today, its not about "cute" its about current
@skywize as for Christians loving the "cute fluffy bits" we understand the concept of old Vs. New Covenant, what we are under now as opposed to what was in order then. You clearly don't since you are lumping all info as applicable to today, its not. In fact that would be the same as attempting to lump every situation in American history on our current culture. it makes no sense and is illogical. I wouldn't say we are slave owners, in the midst of Prohibition, while not allowing women to vote
@skywize The "New Atheist" movement leaders like Dawkins and Hitchens are know for their rage against God.. have you read the God Delusion? (I have) have you read god is not great (I have) there is a great deal of raging against God and most implicitly Christians.
Lewis was not a moron as you say, he was on the English Faculty of Oxford (same place Dawkins is faculty). As was J.R.R. Tolkien (friend of Lewis, and Christian) as well as currently Alister McGrath (author of the Dawkins Delusion)
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" -Ravi Zacharias
Todd you really sound no different than the "angry kid" who heard someone say something and you are simply repeating it to get a reaction. Your bias, pandering, and trite, statements have a serious lack of intellectuality solid exegesis or hermeneutics. (look it up)
@blarbymcblarbston Actually those that have a belief in something have the obligation to prove it's existence. If someone does not believe in something disproving it is impossible. You cannot disprove unicorns, because there are no unicorns to prove don't exist. Every time someone gives a reason that a god does not exist, a theist says that whatever rule used does not apply. Example: invisible, and not of this dimension. This is impossible to disprove.
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs. Karl Marx (atheist)
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22
@blarbymcblarbston I won't argue this point, because I am not sure, but I seem to remember Karl Marx was a Lutheran. As for Lewis... He was a moron. Atheists rage against god? We cannot rage against something we don't believe exists. Do you rage against the tooth fairy?
Timothy 2:12 I suffer not a woman to teach. I permit not To become an authorized teacher off the church, a work confined to presbyters. Nor to usurp authority over a man. ...See I can do it too...
its nice that you take the old test. completely out of context, but leave out, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” - Galatians 5:22-23
Todd, while you try to sound "smart" you are simply pulling convenient poorly referenced old covenant verses that are no longer used to placate your ideas.
@blarbymcblarbston Christians love the cute fluffy bits of the bible and ignore the horrid bloody and disgusting parts, most of which is done by your own god according to your own bible. If you don't know that most of your bible is perverted and immoral, then you are not a very good christian. I true christian would know it cover to cover. Most Atheists do... It's how most of us became atheists in the first place.
The bible does not say "always mutilate your enemies." there are different times when God ordered destruction on certain people, but the bible also says "love your enemies," and not to use violence to solve problems and to forgive those who wrong you. Jesus pronounced harsh judgement on the people who rejected him, yet on is cross he said "father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Is this contradiction? well, read the whole bible and see what you think.
@dragonking700 I have read the bible, and read what people who study the bible have said. Most of the good moral bits are not as moral as one might think. The parts about not murdering, and love thy neighbor are about the Jews, and no one else. All the other tribes and religious followers are considered expendable. Most of the bible is about your god commuting genocide then telling people that murder is wrong... It is meant only in your own tribe, or specifically his, the Jews.
@dragonking700 Uh huh, I've read them. It's a lucky thing that the omnipotent god, rather than forgiving the sins of the world, sent his own son to be brutalized and executed as a scape goat instead. How loving.
actually, the bible says God forgives ALL sins of all people, and he can do this because he loved us enouh to send his son to die for our sins. whoever believes in him may be saved. You can choose to reject him, of course...
There's a reason God doesn't just forgive everyone regardless of whether they repent or not. That doesn't work in court. The judge can't just 'forgive you' whether you're sorry or not and let you go free.
@dragonking700 Actually, if there was a god and he truly was omnipotent, then he could do whatever he damn well pleases. Next you are going to talk about free will... Again...as an omnipotent being, he could choose to impede on free will, at times, if he chooses. This of course means that if a single man decides to slaughter thousands of innocents, an omnipotent being can simply stop him. If he does not, and is truly omnipotent, than he is an asshole for not helping.
You don't even believe i God. Who the heck are YOU to decide what God should or shouldn't do? If God exists, why should he be under the restrictions YOU make up?
Try to be a bit open-minded here. It's obvious that a God who wants everything on earth to be happy does not exists. So that's out of the question. If God exists, he's not the God you imagine him to be. Sorry :/
(continued...) because God isn't oncerned with happiness on earth. He cares about a much more important life, our eternal life.
Look at what Jesus did. He clearly said he could have easily stopped himself from dying. He could have easily destroyed the Roman empire and made everybody's life happy. But he didn't. Try reading the Bible, and you'll know why.
@dragonking700 ok kid, I get it, you are a devout nutjob and no one can tell you different. You're fucking batshit crazy if you think I'm reading all those replies when I know you are just trolling. Goodbye now.
How am I trolling? I'm not cussing at you, I'm not insulting you.
Is this another example of open-mindedness?
Come one, I just want to talk. Why can I never have a rational discussion with an atheist? When I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. I won't blow up and make some excuse like "you're just trolling" and then pretend I'm too good for you. If you're really a 'free-thinker' why can't you have a reasonable debate without resorting to insults?
@dragonking700 You are correct. I apologize. I haven't had the best couple of days and I've reacted defensively more than a few times to those who did not deserve it. I am sorry.
@dragonking700 Yes, Jesus would have had the power to do that, though I don't recall it being said. I have a limited memory as of late. The point I was trying to make is that Christians believe (and I think this one relates to every Christian) that their god is omnipotent and omniscient (two words that prove the worth of spell-check...). With just those two details in mind, you can conclude that the god would have all the power to do whatever he wanted at any given time, for whatever reason...
@dragonking700 Now, one more description is that he is all loving (I have to bring up the atrocities from the old testament in regards to that statement, it applies). Would a god who is all loving allow so much suffering? Not even human beings can bare the thought of others suffering, and as you know, we are by no means all loving. Humans try to help other living things to the best of their ability, but horrible things continue to happen. Where are the gods through all of this? That is not love.
So, humans can't bear the thought of suffering? What do you think about Hitler, should he suffer? or should he go to heaven anyway? what about the guy who kidnaps a little girl, rapes her, and buries her alive?
Do all humans "try to help other living things to the best of their abilities?" really?
If we were perfect, that would be different. we wouldn't need a savior. but as you said, we are not perfect. and God is just.
@dragonking700 I stated that incorrectly. I meant that humans in general....the general consensus tries to help out, though, in truth, it really a small number when taking the actual amount of humans on the planet. As far as suffering I was referring to that of the innocent or helpless. There are children who've never had the chance to do anything wrong all over the planet being abused or dying of hunger. What have these children done to deserve this?
@dragonking700 As for the the guilty, justice tends to be severely lacking. Many get off or are immune. For both of those last examples, I usually get the same answer. "They will be judged in the afterlife." ok... prove there is one... I have already stated that though horrible suffering, there is no higher power to be found. Why then would I believe he exists, and if he does not, there is absolutely no reason to believe in an afterlife at all. For the good and the bad, justice must lay here.
Again, why should God be anything you want him to be? saying 'if he exists, why hasn't he shown himself to me' is an invalid argument, because there's no reason god should follow any requirements you make for him. What if the whole point is that he doesn't reveal himself to you, because he wants you to come to know him by SEEING what he was done for you, and through GENUINE love and trust, not because he appeared to you and told you what to believe.
@dragonking700 That was a bit of a cop out and you know it. The "God works in mysterious ways" line is no different and is about as simple to bomb. It is the same as a kid saying "you can't see the monster in my closet because it's invisible when the lights are on." People believe in a god with some specific characteristics. If those are not present, then what they believe in does not exist. If there is no reason to believe something exists, there can be no 'genuine' love and trust for it.
@dragonking700 Let's say that I believed in unicorns. Now let's say there was a creature in the basic shape of a horse, Well, instead of one horn, there is two, the head is more dog-like, and it has no magical properties. Then this is not a unicorn. If Christians believe in a god that is timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and there is a being that is very powerful, but fails to meet the rest of the description, then they are not worshiping what they think they are.
Haha, why do atheists always get around to unicorns, santa claus, or leprechauns one way or another? God created us in HIS IMAGE. We have souls, and God is not going to just 'change' our souls to whatever he wants it to be. He COULD but then we would not be in his image. I COULD point a gun to your head and tell you to love me, or i could brainwash you into thinking you love me, but none of that would really make you love me.
@dragonking700 Fair, but if you wanted someone to love you, you would likely give them signs that you are interested. What we have here is a logical paradox. In order to prove that someone is capable of something, you must first show that that someone exists. Santa might be able to 'see you when your sleeping', but if no one can prove his existence, why would I care? (sorry, but I had to.... you planted the seed dammit!) lmao
@dragonking700 If I told you that I believed in a purple cat that could talk and vanish into thin air, you would think I was bugnuts. You would likely ask for proof that he exists. If I told you that he was spoken of in a book and that he came from another reality, you would simply say that isn't real proof. Well, what if I said whenever someone tries to get proof, he disappears? You would likely say I was imagining it. This is how absurd the idea of a god is to an atheist.
well, this is quite different. See, you are the only one in the world who believes in the purple cat that can talk and vanish into thin air. no others have claimed to see him. furthermore, the purple cat is not even known to be real, unlike jesus, who is at least documented in REAL history as a real person, and it is also documented that many many people saw him perform miracles, rise from the dead, etc. and believed he was the christ. he was also prophesied about. Jesus > purple cat
@dragonking700 Ok, I see a few points in this last bit.... One, there are so many believers in Christianity mostly due to the crusades and and other incidents like it. Back then, people found religion by the tip of the sword. Now it is due to something akin to peer pressure. Your indoctrination (I love you spell check) in childhood and follow your families chosen path, as I was until highschool. Most people are so immersed by their faith (regardless of which faith) that they never stray.
@dragonking700 As far as REAL history... where is this all documented, and don't say the bible. And eye witnesses to his miracles? The bible was written by several people spread decades apart, the first being a few decades after the reported death of Christ. The Cheshire Cat was at least concieved in the past few centuries.
lol Jesus is everywhere....there are ancient churches with pictures of him, there are writings of him from many different ancient historians. The gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. Matthew was a follower of Jesus, Mark is the name of the scribe of simon peter, Luke was a doctor of some sort who investigated the story of Jesus, and John was you know, John.
@dragonking700 Ok, we're not talking about photos here. We are talking about paintings derived by the idea of what he may have looked like. As for the gospels, they were not written by disciples. They were written by ghost writers who wrote under the names of the gospels....for which there is no record aside from the gospels themselves..... The earliest was written anywhere between 50-150 AD. which would make the first author around 65 if he was 15 at Christ's death.... in the bronze age...
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Valentius, Saturninus, Pontius Pilate (he sent records to Tiberius that are consistent with scripture) Phlegon, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr.
Many of these people were not christians, but agreed that Jesus did exist.
When the gospels were actually "put together in one book" is irrelevant, we know they EXISTED before that in oral form, or in writings that had not been officially recognized.
@dragonking700 I am not denying christ's actual existence. Though, I still doubt it, that is not my point. My point is the things that they wrote about him in the gospels were likely fabricated. We already know they were translated, and rewritten by hand over and over. It's even been said (though I have my own doubts) that the scribes who rewrote them could not read or write, they just copied the symbols.
@dragonking700 As far as stories being told in 'oral form' before they were written down.... First, there is no reason to believe that stories spoken or written are factual, and second, Stories that go from person to person tend to be distorted. I believe the analogies are Chinese Whispers and the kids game Telephone. It's like the 'proofs' today of the god's existence. Why should I believe that someone had a friend who saw someone else healed by a miracle? I wasn't there, and healers are fakes.
@dragonking700 I don't believe it has stayed the same, though, I'm no biblical scholar, so I would not know. What I do know are the accounts are not in perfect agreement (check Google for word: evilbible). As far as the basic story, there have been many versions of the same 'son of a god' scenario long before him, all with quite consistent traits, which would account for anyone of the time to know so many details, since, likely the stories had been pased down for generations of long lost gods.
Yes, I've been through evilbible and talkorigins many times before. You can't just trust all those biased atheist sources as if they're totally undeniably true all the time...that's called having faith, isn't it? the evilbible contradictions list is laughable. it looks like they didn't even TRY to understand what the verses are saying..or did they???
son of god stories before Jesus? Yes of course, it was prophesied long before he was born, lol.
@dragonking700 I was not listing the site as the ultimate source. It is one of many. I happened to have it on hand at the time. The only faith I have is in the people around me, and that tends to be scarce (you'd understand if you knew the people around me). And yes, their word for word contradictions are fairly lame, but there are some of value. What I meant my 'son of god stories' was that there were others before Christ that were entirely too similar to be coincidence.
@skywize You should check out the Zeitguist movie. It has a bunch of information on this topic. Mind you, though most of the information is accurate, it does take it's theories a bit far, lol. By the way, I am on Facebook. My name is Lukus Black. I'm fairly easy to find.
Well see, you said you "know" the stories contradict eachother because of these atheist sources. I'm sure every christian source will tell you the opposite, and provide explanations as to why these 'contradictions' are false. You can't just look at one side of the argument.
Okay, so which contradictions in particular jump out at you?
which son of god stories are these? I haven't heard of these before. Please enlighten me.
@dragonking700 I just woke up, so I am not doing the research right now! lol. I can recall only one at this point, but it is not something of consequence. The birth of Jesus fulfilled some sort of prophecy being the descendant of a king (David?) but since Joseph was not his birth father, he would not have the blood...like I said, nothing of consequence, but it's there. I believe that was Matt and Luke.
@dragonking700 As for similarities, we can exclude the birth and death dates. This is not a factor since the church manufactured these dates to appease the pagan tribes who had festivals at that time. The winter and spring festivals. There were similarities however. Dionysus (1000BC) was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was known as "King Of Kings". died, and was resurrected.
@dragonking700 Mithra (1200 BC) was born from a virgin, was a prophet, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected. Attis (1200 BC) was born of a virgin, Crucified, and resurrected three days later.
mithra was morn a full grown man out of a big rock. he was not a 'prophet,' but was considered a great teacher (which any leader would be. can you imagine a great leader that WASN'T considered a great teacher?)
the only evidence of their being 12 disciples comes from one POST-christian carving, and it is widely understood to be representing the zodiac. yup, he did miracles, but no feeding thausands, walking on water, turning water to wine, and healing the dead...
the only evidence of a 3-day resurrection comes from a book that talks about a book where someone says he THINKS there was a resurrection. (post-Christian)
either way, none of this matters, because the first mentions of mithra come over a century after the first mentions of Jesus anyway.
@dragonking700 But don't we come back to the same issue? The evidence may be slight, and circumstantial, but the evidence for Christianity is as well. Outside the bible itself has there been any proven evidence that the stories in the bible were factual, and not just mythology, possibly based on real people? Even today there is fiction written about real people. Why could the same thing not have happened 2000 years ago?
@dragonking700 They would have done so for the same reason Jesus would have. Remember, becoming an actual martyr is not unheard of, and tends to be quite popular among the extremists. Blowing yourself and a crowd of innocents to itty bitty bits if a favorite among certain people. Whether the prophet Muhammad existed or not, or whether his beliefs are true does not matter. People believe it. Extremist believers will kill and die for their beliefs. This explains the crusades as well.
There is quite a considerable difference. First of all, Jesus' death was clearly for the purpose of paying for our sins, not because Jesus wanted to go to heaven and that was the only way. The disciples were repeatedly told not to teach the message of Jesus, but they continued to do so even though their lives were at stake. There was no pride in this, because EVERYBODY seemed to disown them, but they continued to teach. (continued...)
they were continually harassed and tortured for their beliefs, but they continued to teach. and their message didn't seem to benefit them physically AT ALL. they left their homes, they constantly put their lives in danger, and they didn't teach people to 'hand over their money' or to praise THEM (the disciples). Their message was all about love, the love Jesus' showed for the world. (continued...)
Islam on the other hand teaches that if you blow yourself up and kill innocent people you will instantly be in the presence of 72 virgins to get it on with. There are no trials or hardships, it's easy, just blow yourself up and boom, instant heaven.
Christianity on the other hand is the only religion that teaches that there's NO WAY you can 'bribe' God into forgiving you. But God loves you so much, that he sent his only son to die for you so that you can be FREE.
lol yeah, and "getting tossed in the bin" is not freedom.
Do you think criminals should be "free" to commit crimes, and we should never try to put a stop to them? should people be "free" to steal from one another without consequences? of course not. Being able to do evil things and get away with it is not freedom.
But not only is God just, he is loving. he loves you and me, even though we are sinners. he loved us enough to endure intense pain for us, to set us FREE from slavery.
@dragonking700 ok, these 'crimes' are of his own design. On earth we are imprisoned for attacks on our fellow man. The Ten Commandments are mostly attributed to not worshiping him. #1: Though shalt have no other gods before me. Anyone but true Christians get to burn forever.
@dragonking700 #2 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. I believe that Christians interpreted this wrong,.. stupidly actually. It has nothing to do with swearing. Don't take the lords name in vain is likely a direct interpretation. Vain = Vanity. Don't hold yourself above others because you believe in me. It's a much better interpretation than don't swear.
actually, it applies to all crimes against God's reputation. If you are a christian, you represent God on this earth. by using his name as a cuss word, by teaching false doctrines, by being hateful (westboro baptists) and doing anything in front of people that makes them think less of christians and therefor of God, is taking his NAME in vain.
and actually the original does say 'don't use it in vain' as in don't use it uselessly.
@dragonking700 All of that makes perfect sense apart from the curse (sorry, I detest the word cuss) bit. The use of the word 'god' or the name 'Jesus Christ' in the form of a curse would likely be fairly recent. I cannot imagine someone from the bronze age hitting his thumb with a hammer and yelling 'Ah Christ!'.... I just don't see that happening. The rest sounds perfectly agreeable, though, specifically, your use of the word vain. The redundancy reference never even uncured to me.
To damn something is to eternally condemn it. It's a very serious thing. it's not something you should say when you hit your thumb with a hammer, because God is not going to send the hammer to hell.
Yes, people use different expressions theses days as they did two thousand years ago, and likely will use different expressions two thousand years from now. using Jesus to curse is just as bad as using hell or damn or god to curse.
but what you need to understand is that you aren't saved because you don't curse. You are saved because Jesus died for you. people often ask "so, if Jesus forgives all sin, can't you just do whatever you want and Jesus will forgive you?"
the answer to that is "absolutely!"
But do you WANT to do these things, now that you know God loves you and that Jesus died for you?
See, Christians don't do good things because it gets them to heaven. they do them out of thankfulness to God.
@dragonking700 This is no different than Atheist morality. We do good things because it feels good to help others. The more thought out version might be that we crave approval of out peers, but it's far simpler than that. The problem with the theistic version is of less worth. You must believe in something to crave it's approval. To believe in something you must have some sort of proof, enough for that person to believe anyway. I have not seen proof enough for even the simplest of people.
Christians do good things because they know they are good, because they care about other people, and out of thankfulness. It is 100% selfless (of course, nobody is perfect, so a christian can still be selfish, hopefully though he will realize he is wrong and repent)
An atheist does good things because he has a conscience, and (usually) naturally knows what is good and what is bad. But he also does good things for his own personal gain, just because it makes him feel good.
Atheists aren't any more sinful than anybody else. And it's not like christians don't sin either. If they didn't sin, they would have no need for Jesus! What makes you a christian is not doing good things. It's realizing that you CAN'T do good things. That's why you need a savior.
(also, some people do good things because they care about OTHERS, not just to make themselves feel good.)
@dragonking700 #4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Don't work on Sunday... seriously? This is a hell worthy commandment? #10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house..... So wanting things, envy, is something punishable? Bullshit. #5-9 are the only commandments dealing with morality. The rest deal with Yahweh's own pride. basically, make him feel good, or he'll fry your ass. He sounds like a very violent dictator.
The "Highest Rated Comments states that "every quote was checked by three different Bible scholars". So we should believe a few unnamed "scholars" without knowing their academic credentials much less which faiths do they subscribe to or how well accepted their views to the majority of the mainstream sects?
Most Christians don't take the entire bible literally, and any passage needs to be interpreted within the context of it's time. Also, true faith and true knowledge will never confict.
@1grandmajoyce The problem with this is obvious. There is no red line to cross when talking about what is meant to be true in the bible and what is meant to be a fable. Most christians just assume that all the bad stuff is not to be taken literally....well...who says? The bible doesn't. Where exactly, in the bible, does it say "this story is just a moral lesson" or "this is not to be taken literally" or "don't really sacrifice a family member, this is just a story....".
FUCK YEAH TO FREEDOM FROM CHRISTIANITY! FREEDOM FROM ISLAM!!! FREEDOM FROM JUDAISM AND FREEDOM FOR THE MIND! FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CULTIVATION OF RATIONAL AND REASONABLE THINKING!!!
I don't understand your post on authenticity. Am missing the context or what you're referring to. But, there is more outside corroboration of the Bible than probably any other book of history. Again see some of my playlists on this.
@Brencs Miracles are no problem at all. If you went back a few centuries and showed people the technology we have, they'd call you crazy and believing in fictional fantasies or miracles. But, it just shows you have higher knowledge. Same with God.
Check my playlist and watch the series "Come Search with Me". I'm trying to get time to make one that is far deeper...and deals with many common atheists criticisms and shows them for the logical fallacies they are. Google this and you'll find a site with a good overview as well:
godandscience "common atheist myths"
Rational thinking simply does not follow cherrypicked things or anomalies (most in the Bible have been explained long ago in detail btw). It follows the weight of evidence)
Here here, to humanism, but this guy is talking about stuff most atheists/humanists have already heard a dozen times from a dozen different speakers. In a gathering with like-minded people one ought to take on deeper arguments.
@Brencs Do all atheists go to some guru to learn how to use logical fallacies? This is cherry picking at it's finest. I could do the same thing to science (just cite Joseph Mengele and a few like him and then set about eradicating all scientific knowledge), education (cite a few cases of abusive teachers and then began burning down all schools), government (do I need to detail the abuses?), democracy, and to do the same to atheist would be child's play and far more valid.
@TruthIsLife7 I don't particularly find this guys rhetoric too compelling, so I don't understand why the question. But please, don't compare religions with science or the rest you mentioned. None of those claim to be sources of ultimate absolute truth.
@Brencs I was responding more to others than you (you appear a little more reasonable than some), just split it up&addressed it to many here.
The Bible NEVER claims to have ALL truth.Neither does Christianity.Christianity was absolutely crucial for the foundations of science and much of it's progress for many reasons. Bible science when followed adds 10+ high quality years to the average (See: /watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM, esp. 11:30+, but this doesn't show many Bible principles).
@Brencs The Bible has over the last 3,000 years been far more valuable and useful than pretty much any other institution that exists, esp. when it's lessons are followed wisely and as intended. It dramatically improves health, happiness, relationships, pioneered advances in science, education, govt., economics, pioneered many human rights, was instrumental in defeating communism and has produced so many other benefits for society that the benefits are incalculable.
@TruthIsLife7 You say the bible never claims to have all truth and then go claim how it's the best book on everything yourself. First I didn't say 'bible' I said 'religions' as all religions are equally "truthful". But ok. Even if in the bible got something right along with all the heaps of stuff it got wrong, it does in no way prove that it's something more than just a collection of semitic folklore from times we knew so little about how the world works.
@Brencs I did not claim the Bible is the best book on everything (and very few if any religions claim to have all truth). What I DO say, is that the Bible has the most important information for a good life on this earth AND for a life for eternity. It's ridiculous to think that all religions are equally truthful. See: watch?v=J9i8HIdKGWs for example. No, the Bible did NOT get heaps of stuff wrong. By any rational and fair judgement, it is infinitely more than folklore.
@TruthIsLife7 First - Yes You Do. You did it again in this answer. Second - stop saying bible helps you live 10 years longer. It just makes you sound silly. Obviously in the video about longevity the main idea was that having a disciplined lifestyle in a close community is what helps and the Okinawa people had done better with the help of ancient Asian philosophy. Findings of modern science can surely do and does a better job at it.
Modern science on health & other areas wouldn't exist without the Bible and Christian scientists following ideas directly and indirectly inspired by it.
3) I'm working on a book to get the arguments organized better (and uploading videos and making playlists). The problem is I have too much information (and youtube's stupid 500 char limits).
4) Skeptic criticisms of the Bible have been falsified countless times. Their track record is atrocious. Geology has no disagreement with the OT.
@errantwind "I think your making claims you cannot defend."
-
That's about the most wrong you could ever be :). I was giving tons of final tests and had grading submission deadlines at my university. Nearly done now. For accurate predictions, you can see my playlist on prophecies and also Bible science gives 10+ years extra health for starters. Then there's the list of videos about the historical accuracy of the Bible. The 1st one and Mountain of Fire are quite good. Many others.
1) I don't claim the Bible is infallible, but it is the most accurate and useful and practical book in history.
2) There is nothing silly about the Bible's health principles giving people 10+ years of life. See my playlist on Bible science and health for proof. Few people except Christians followed most of these principles until this century. The Okinawans are in a scandal now that means they aren't the longest lived. Adventists are.
1) How many novels or made up stories do you know that help people live 10 years longer than the average NOW, that could accurately predict 1000s of years of history?
2) There is no evidence of trial&error investigation before true scientific principles were written down as you have in other cases. The scientific method was not widely known or practiced at those times&barely invented.
3) If accurate predictions are not evidence, start burning most history&science books.
@TruthIsLife7 Third - you're claiming so much about it, my direct knowledge one half the new testament is going to run out. But even from only what I've read, I've seen only the ludicrous claims of performing miracles, statements that clearly show a complete ignorance about how the world works and the worst of all - an ass backwards morality, that no sane modern person can perceive as good. Off course it has mention of historic facts, but so does the works of Homer without divine inspiration.
@Brencs I don't claim that the Bible is infallible. Nothing with humans involved is. But, it is by far the most truthful book (&the few cases where there are differences are not lies,people just saw things differently like witnesses of a traffic accident may not have the exact same story in every detail, but overall agree...and that is evidence of it's authenticity). It is also by far the most accurate and practically helpful book even compared with the scientific establishment over 4k years.
@TruthIsLife7 Fourth - you're jumping to different arguments like a lot of shaky ones would make a one stable argument.
Fifth - Clearly there are religions that sound much crazier than yours (christian, I now presume). I would have taken my words back after watching the ridiculous the word of smith vs. the word of god video if not all the claims of impossible miracles in the new testament and all the geologically obvious fallacies in the old.
@TruthIsLife7 There are more than a few cases and no, it is not evidence of it's authenticity. Evidence of it's authenticity would be corroborating documents from an outside source. In what regard are you claiming that it is accurate? I think you might find some disagreement on how helpful it is.
@callac Why? 22 states have been officially atheist&killed infinitely more people for being different from their views than have happened in all prior history not to mention their complete intolerance of religious people, imprisonment, fines, suppression and all sorts of other human rights abuses. Basically, atheism is for free thought, but only when that thought chooses to align itself with atheism. This has been proven time and time again whenever atheism gains power, no matter what kind.
Although I am sympathetic to these criticisms, it seems like he is attacking the low hanging fruit. Fundamentalism needs no straw man to knock down, as it parodies itself. Hence, he comes off as making cheap shots. ( I do realize that the Islamic fundamentalism is also accompanied by deadly actions - and must be renounced.)
There are many today who call themselves Christian who have recast scripture to allegory, therefore taming its primitive perspective. Atheists need talking points here.
@Byrdhousemedia I have almost as many problems with some kinds of fundamentalism as I do with some atheists. Both are extremely dogmatic in many cases and full of logical fallacies, cherry picking, double standards, the works (atheists more in dealing with religion, fundamentalist Christians more in politics...esp. with the detestable Fox News).
People who use cherry picking as an argument, esp. the ones this naive guy is using, really don't have a leg to stand on rationally.
Every quote used was checked by three different Bible scholars to be certain that the quotes are in context. If you doubt the context, read the surrounding passages for yourself and decide if the Bible is promoting good or ill. My question to Johnm295 is, in what context would it be moral to take virgin girls for yourself as sex slaves or to rip open pregnant women or murder children? Your context defense fails because in any context, these Bible quotes are advocating evil.
@trs1470 The Bible verses cited are parts of a judgement.These often save far more lives long term. God also gave people freedom of choice(see this video for a great explanation on this topic: watch?v=Ky30JjA8hUo)&so has to lead people as they are willing to obey.As to the religion of the founders, read the Declaration of Independence which starts off in its very first lines referring to rights based on what our Creator gave us.This kid simply hasn't done his homework or learned logic very well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've never met an atheist who doesn't take the bible out of context as does Mr. Anger in this video. If atheists actually took time to study the context of the very selective verses they choose to "exploit", they would feel betrayed by the leaders who led them astray. Consequently, while under the control of ignorance, they lead others astray in their anti-Christian crusade.
@johnm295 I've never met a theist who doesn't take the bible out of context as does Mr. Anger in this video(?). If theists actually took time to study the context of the very selective verses they choose to "exploit", they would feel betrayed by the leaders who led them astray. Consequently, while under the control of ignorance, they lead others astray in their theist crusade.
Its hard to know how many Christians for instance really believe the stuff they are supposed to and how many just go to church for the social network.
Please see my 'Its up to us' humanism video to see a humanist in Cornwall, u.k. speaking very eloquently and briefly.
maryfletcher4 10 months ago
I agree with what he says but he looks too much like he's from the church of scientology.
yuriythebest 11 months ago
@skywize (cont) you see though this is EXACTLY what this video and many other misinformed Atheists attempt to do. Yes in the past our country (and many others for that matter) did things that we are not proud of, yes there have been times where man has acted in "the name of God" doing stupid things, just like the militia man says proud to be an american and shoots somebody. these are indefensible but none the less they are no longer applicable to today, its not about "cute" its about current
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
@skywize as for Christians loving the "cute fluffy bits" we understand the concept of old Vs. New Covenant, what we are under now as opposed to what was in order then. You clearly don't since you are lumping all info as applicable to today, its not. In fact that would be the same as attempting to lump every situation in American history on our current culture. it makes no sense and is illogical. I wouldn't say we are slave owners, in the midst of Prohibition, while not allowing women to vote
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
@skywize The "New Atheist" movement leaders like Dawkins and Hitchens are know for their rage against God.. have you read the God Delusion? (I have) have you read god is not great (I have) there is a great deal of raging against God and most implicitly Christians.
Lewis was not a moron as you say, he was on the English Faculty of Oxford (same place Dawkins is faculty). As was J.R.R. Tolkien (friend of Lewis, and Christian) as well as currently Alister McGrath (author of the Dawkins Delusion)
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" -Ravi Zacharias
Todd you really sound no different than the "angry kid" who heard someone say something and you are simply repeating it to get a reaction. Your bias, pandering, and trite, statements have a serious lack of intellectuality solid exegesis or hermeneutics. (look it up)
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
@blarbymcblarbston Actually those that have a belief in something have the obligation to prove it's existence. If someone does not believe in something disproving it is impossible. You cannot disprove unicorns, because there are no unicorns to prove don't exist. Every time someone gives a reason that a god does not exist, a theist says that whatever rule used does not apply. Example: invisible, and not of this dimension. This is impossible to disprove.
skywize 11 months ago
Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
The rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs. Karl Marx (atheist)
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 18:22
Come let us reason together (Isaiah 1:18)
taking an atheist quote out of context can has the same effect of all this.
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
@blarbymcblarbston I won't argue this point, because I am not sure, but I seem to remember Karl Marx was a Lutheran. As for Lewis... He was a moron. Atheists rage against god? We cannot rage against something we don't believe exists. Do you rage against the tooth fairy?
Timothy 2:12 I suffer not a woman to teach. I permit not To become an authorized teacher off the church, a work confined to presbyters. Nor to usurp authority over a man. ...See I can do it too...
skywize 11 months ago
its nice that you take the old test. completely out of context, but leave out, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” - Galatians 5:22-23
Todd, while you try to sound "smart" you are simply pulling convenient poorly referenced old covenant verses that are no longer used to placate your ideas.
blarbymcblarbston 11 months ago
@blarbymcblarbston Christians love the cute fluffy bits of the bible and ignore the horrid bloody and disgusting parts, most of which is done by your own god according to your own bible. If you don't know that most of your bible is perverted and immoral, then you are not a very good christian. I true christian would know it cover to cover. Most Atheists do... It's how most of us became atheists in the first place.
skywize 11 months ago
The bible does not say "always mutilate your enemies." there are different times when God ordered destruction on certain people, but the bible also says "love your enemies," and not to use violence to solve problems and to forgive those who wrong you. Jesus pronounced harsh judgement on the people who rejected him, yet on is cross he said "father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Is this contradiction? well, read the whole bible and see what you think.
dragonking700 1 year ago
@dragonking700 I have read the bible, and read what people who study the bible have said. Most of the good moral bits are not as moral as one might think. The parts about not murdering, and love thy neighbor are about the Jews, and no one else. All the other tribes and religious followers are considered expendable. Most of the bible is about your god commuting genocide then telling people that murder is wrong... It is meant only in your own tribe, or specifically his, the Jews.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
oh, have you read these verses: 1 John 4:14, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world"
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Uh huh, I've read them. It's a lucky thing that the omnipotent god, rather than forgiving the sins of the world, sent his own son to be brutalized and executed as a scape goat instead. How loving.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
actually, the bible says God forgives ALL sins of all people, and he can do this because he loved us enouh to send his son to die for our sins. whoever believes in him may be saved. You can choose to reject him, of course...
There's a reason God doesn't just forgive everyone regardless of whether they repent or not. That doesn't work in court. The judge can't just 'forgive you' whether you're sorry or not and let you go free.
however, God is also merciful.
Romans 3:23-24
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Actually, if there was a god and he truly was omnipotent, then he could do whatever he damn well pleases. Next you are going to talk about free will... Again...as an omnipotent being, he could choose to impede on free will, at times, if he chooses. This of course means that if a single man decides to slaughter thousands of innocents, an omnipotent being can simply stop him. If he does not, and is truly omnipotent, than he is an asshole for not helping.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Wow, wow, wow, lol.
You don't even believe i God. Who the heck are YOU to decide what God should or shouldn't do? If God exists, why should he be under the restrictions YOU make up?
Try to be a bit open-minded here. It's obvious that a God who wants everything on earth to be happy does not exists. So that's out of the question. If God exists, he's not the God you imagine him to be. Sorry :/
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize
(continued...) because God isn't oncerned with happiness on earth. He cares about a much more important life, our eternal life.
Look at what Jesus did. He clearly said he could have easily stopped himself from dying. He could have easily destroyed the Roman empire and made everybody's life happy. But he didn't. Try reading the Bible, and you'll know why.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 ok kid, I get it, you are a devout nutjob and no one can tell you different. You're fucking batshit crazy if you think I'm reading all those replies when I know you are just trolling. Goodbye now.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
How am I trolling? I'm not cussing at you, I'm not insulting you.
Is this another example of open-mindedness?
Come one, I just want to talk. Why can I never have a rational discussion with an atheist? When I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong. I won't blow up and make some excuse like "you're just trolling" and then pretend I'm too good for you. If you're really a 'free-thinker' why can't you have a reasonable debate without resorting to insults?
I challenge you to be logical.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 You are correct. I apologize. I haven't had the best couple of days and I've reacted defensively more than a few times to those who did not deserve it. I am sorry.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Yes, Jesus would have had the power to do that, though I don't recall it being said. I have a limited memory as of late. The point I was trying to make is that Christians believe (and I think this one relates to every Christian) that their god is omnipotent and omniscient (two words that prove the worth of spell-check...). With just those two details in mind, you can conclude that the god would have all the power to do whatever he wanted at any given time, for whatever reason...
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Now, one more description is that he is all loving (I have to bring up the atrocities from the old testament in regards to that statement, it applies). Would a god who is all loving allow so much suffering? Not even human beings can bare the thought of others suffering, and as you know, we are by no means all loving. Humans try to help other living things to the best of their ability, but horrible things continue to happen. Where are the gods through all of this? That is not love.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Hey, you're actually on the right track here.
So, humans can't bear the thought of suffering? What do you think about Hitler, should he suffer? or should he go to heaven anyway? what about the guy who kidnaps a little girl, rapes her, and buries her alive?
Do all humans "try to help other living things to the best of their abilities?" really?
If we were perfect, that would be different. we wouldn't need a savior. but as you said, we are not perfect. and God is just.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 I stated that incorrectly. I meant that humans in general....the general consensus tries to help out, though, in truth, it really a small number when taking the actual amount of humans on the planet. As far as suffering I was referring to that of the innocent or helpless. There are children who've never had the chance to do anything wrong all over the planet being abused or dying of hunger. What have these children done to deserve this?
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 As for the the guilty, justice tends to be severely lacking. Many get off or are immune. For both of those last examples, I usually get the same answer. "They will be judged in the afterlife." ok... prove there is one... I have already stated that though horrible suffering, there is no higher power to be found. Why then would I believe he exists, and if he does not, there is absolutely no reason to believe in an afterlife at all. For the good and the bad, justice must lay here.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Again, why should God be anything you want him to be? saying 'if he exists, why hasn't he shown himself to me' is an invalid argument, because there's no reason god should follow any requirements you make for him. What if the whole point is that he doesn't reveal himself to you, because he wants you to come to know him by SEEING what he was done for you, and through GENUINE love and trust, not because he appeared to you and told you what to believe.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 That was a bit of a cop out and you know it. The "God works in mysterious ways" line is no different and is about as simple to bomb. It is the same as a kid saying "you can't see the monster in my closet because it's invisible when the lights are on." People believe in a god with some specific characteristics. If those are not present, then what they believe in does not exist. If there is no reason to believe something exists, there can be no 'genuine' love and trust for it.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Let's say that I believed in unicorns. Now let's say there was a creature in the basic shape of a horse, Well, instead of one horn, there is two, the head is more dog-like, and it has no magical properties. Then this is not a unicorn. If Christians believe in a god that is timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, and there is a being that is very powerful, but fails to meet the rest of the description, then they are not worshiping what they think they are.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Haha, why do atheists always get around to unicorns, santa claus, or leprechauns one way or another? God created us in HIS IMAGE. We have souls, and God is not going to just 'change' our souls to whatever he wants it to be. He COULD but then we would not be in his image. I COULD point a gun to your head and tell you to love me, or i could brainwash you into thinking you love me, but none of that would really make you love me.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Fair, but if you wanted someone to love you, you would likely give them signs that you are interested. What we have here is a logical paradox. In order to prove that someone is capable of something, you must first show that that someone exists. Santa might be able to 'see you when your sleeping', but if no one can prove his existence, why would I care? (sorry, but I had to.... you planted the seed dammit!) lmao
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 If I told you that I believed in a purple cat that could talk and vanish into thin air, you would think I was bugnuts. You would likely ask for proof that he exists. If I told you that he was spoken of in a book and that he came from another reality, you would simply say that isn't real proof. Well, what if I said whenever someone tries to get proof, he disappears? You would likely say I was imagining it. This is how absurd the idea of a god is to an atheist.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
well, this is quite different. See, you are the only one in the world who believes in the purple cat that can talk and vanish into thin air. no others have claimed to see him. furthermore, the purple cat is not even known to be real, unlike jesus, who is at least documented in REAL history as a real person, and it is also documented that many many people saw him perform miracles, rise from the dead, etc. and believed he was the christ. he was also prophesied about. Jesus > purple cat
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Ok, I see a few points in this last bit.... One, there are so many believers in Christianity mostly due to the crusades and and other incidents like it. Back then, people found religion by the tip of the sword. Now it is due to something akin to peer pressure. Your indoctrination (I love you spell check) in childhood and follow your families chosen path, as I was until highschool. Most people are so immersed by their faith (regardless of which faith) that they never stray.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 As far as REAL history... where is this all documented, and don't say the bible. And eye witnesses to his miracles? The bible was written by several people spread decades apart, the first being a few decades after the reported death of Christ. The Cheshire Cat was at least concieved in the past few centuries.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
lol Jesus is everywhere....there are ancient churches with pictures of him, there are writings of him from many different ancient historians. The gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. Matthew was a follower of Jesus, Mark is the name of the scribe of simon peter, Luke was a doctor of some sort who investigated the story of Jesus, and John was you know, John.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Ok, we're not talking about photos here. We are talking about paintings derived by the idea of what he may have looked like. As for the gospels, they were not written by disciples. They were written by ghost writers who wrote under the names of the gospels....for which there is no record aside from the gospels themselves..... The earliest was written anywhere between 50-150 AD. which would make the first author around 65 if he was 15 at Christ's death.... in the bronze age...
skywize 11 months ago
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Valentius, Saturninus, Pontius Pilate (he sent records to Tiberius that are consistent with scripture) Phlegon, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr.
Many of these people were not christians, but agreed that Jesus did exist.
When the gospels were actually "put together in one book" is irrelevant, we know they EXISTED before that in oral form, or in writings that had not been officially recognized.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 I am not denying christ's actual existence. Though, I still doubt it, that is not my point. My point is the things that they wrote about him in the gospels were likely fabricated. We already know they were translated, and rewritten by hand over and over. It's even been said (though I have my own doubts) that the scribes who rewrote them could not read or write, they just copied the symbols.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 As far as stories being told in 'oral form' before they were written down.... First, there is no reason to believe that stories spoken or written are factual, and second, Stories that go from person to person tend to be distorted. I believe the analogies are Chinese Whispers and the kids game Telephone. It's like the 'proofs' today of the god's existence. Why should I believe that someone had a friend who saw someone else healed by a miracle? I wasn't there, and healers are fakes.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
right, so why are all accounts in agreement with each other, and why has the bible stayed exactly the same over 2 thousand years?
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 I don't believe it has stayed the same, though, I'm no biblical scholar, so I would not know. What I do know are the accounts are not in perfect agreement (check Google for word: evilbible). As far as the basic story, there have been many versions of the same 'son of a god' scenario long before him, all with quite consistent traits, which would account for anyone of the time to know so many details, since, likely the stories had been pased down for generations of long lost gods.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Yes, I've been through evilbible and talkorigins many times before. You can't just trust all those biased atheist sources as if they're totally undeniably true all the time...that's called having faith, isn't it? the evilbible contradictions list is laughable. it looks like they didn't even TRY to understand what the verses are saying..or did they???
son of god stories before Jesus? Yes of course, it was prophesied long before he was born, lol.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 I was not listing the site as the ultimate source. It is one of many. I happened to have it on hand at the time. The only faith I have is in the people around me, and that tends to be scarce (you'd understand if you knew the people around me). And yes, their word for word contradictions are fairly lame, but there are some of value. What I meant my 'son of god stories' was that there were others before Christ that were entirely too similar to be coincidence.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize You should check out the Zeitguist movie. It has a bunch of information on this topic. Mind you, though most of the information is accurate, it does take it's theories a bit far, lol. By the way, I am on Facebook. My name is Lukus Black. I'm fairly easy to find.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Well see, you said you "know" the stories contradict eachother because of these atheist sources. I'm sure every christian source will tell you the opposite, and provide explanations as to why these 'contradictions' are false. You can't just look at one side of the argument.
Okay, so which contradictions in particular jump out at you?
which son of god stories are these? I haven't heard of these before. Please enlighten me.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 I just woke up, so I am not doing the research right now! lol. I can recall only one at this point, but it is not something of consequence. The birth of Jesus fulfilled some sort of prophecy being the descendant of a king (David?) but since Joseph was not his birth father, he would not have the blood...like I said, nothing of consequence, but it's there. I believe that was Matt and Luke.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 As for similarities, we can exclude the birth and death dates. This is not a factor since the church manufactured these dates to appease the pagan tribes who had festivals at that time. The winter and spring festivals. There were similarities however. Dionysus (1000BC) was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was known as "King Of Kings". died, and was resurrected.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 Mithra (1200 BC) was born from a virgin, was a prophet, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected. Attis (1200 BC) was born of a virgin, Crucified, and resurrected three days later.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
mithra was morn a full grown man out of a big rock. he was not a 'prophet,' but was considered a great teacher (which any leader would be. can you imagine a great leader that WASN'T considered a great teacher?)
the only evidence of their being 12 disciples comes from one POST-christian carving, and it is widely understood to be representing the zodiac. yup, he did miracles, but no feeding thausands, walking on water, turning water to wine, and healing the dead...
(continued...)
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize (...continued)
the only evidence of a 3-day resurrection comes from a book that talks about a book where someone says he THINKS there was a resurrection. (post-Christian)
either way, none of this matters, because the first mentions of mithra come over a century after the first mentions of Jesus anyway.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 But don't we come back to the same issue? The evidence may be slight, and circumstantial, but the evidence for Christianity is as well. Outside the bible itself has there been any proven evidence that the stories in the bible were factual, and not just mythology, possibly based on real people? Even today there is fiction written about real people. Why could the same thing not have happened 2000 years ago?
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
the issue here is that we KNOW:
2. Jesus existed
3. Jesus was a great teacher and prophet and claimed to be the christ that was prophesied.
4. Jesus had many followers who claimed to have seen him do amazing miracles
5. Jesus did die and was buried and the tomb was found empty
6. The disciples claimed to see Jesus alive in person (not just visions or dreams of him)
7. and (this is the big one) the disciples went out and RISKED THEIR LIVES to spread the teachings of Jesus.
why?
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 They would have done so for the same reason Jesus would have. Remember, becoming an actual martyr is not unheard of, and tends to be quite popular among the extremists. Blowing yourself and a crowd of innocents to itty bitty bits if a favorite among certain people. Whether the prophet Muhammad existed or not, or whether his beliefs are true does not matter. People believe it. Extremist believers will kill and die for their beliefs. This explains the crusades as well.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
There is quite a considerable difference. First of all, Jesus' death was clearly for the purpose of paying for our sins, not because Jesus wanted to go to heaven and that was the only way. The disciples were repeatedly told not to teach the message of Jesus, but they continued to do so even though their lives were at stake. There was no pride in this, because EVERYBODY seemed to disown them, but they continued to teach. (continued...)
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize
(...continued)
they were continually harassed and tortured for their beliefs, but they continued to teach. and their message didn't seem to benefit them physically AT ALL. they left their homes, they constantly put their lives in danger, and they didn't teach people to 'hand over their money' or to praise THEM (the disciples). Their message was all about love, the love Jesus' showed for the world. (continued...)
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize
Islam on the other hand teaches that if you blow yourself up and kill innocent people you will instantly be in the presence of 72 virgins to get it on with. There are no trials or hardships, it's easy, just blow yourself up and boom, instant heaven.
Christianity on the other hand is the only religion that teaches that there's NO WAY you can 'bribe' God into forgiving you. But God loves you so much, that he sent his only son to die for you so that you can be FREE.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 no, not free. Free to believe and worship him. If you don't, you get tossed in the bin.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
lol yeah, and "getting tossed in the bin" is not freedom.
Do you think criminals should be "free" to commit crimes, and we should never try to put a stop to them? should people be "free" to steal from one another without consequences? of course not. Being able to do evil things and get away with it is not freedom.
But not only is God just, he is loving. he loves you and me, even though we are sinners. he loved us enough to endure intense pain for us, to set us FREE from slavery.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 ok, these 'crimes' are of his own design. On earth we are imprisoned for attacks on our fellow man. The Ten Commandments are mostly attributed to not worshiping him. #1: Though shalt have no other gods before me. Anyone but true Christians get to burn forever.
skywize 11 months ago
@dragonking700 #2 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. I believe that Christians interpreted this wrong,.. stupidly actually. It has nothing to do with swearing. Don't take the lords name in vain is likely a direct interpretation. Vain = Vanity. Don't hold yourself above others because you believe in me. It's a much better interpretation than don't swear.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
actually, it applies to all crimes against God's reputation. If you are a christian, you represent God on this earth. by using his name as a cuss word, by teaching false doctrines, by being hateful (westboro baptists) and doing anything in front of people that makes them think less of christians and therefor of God, is taking his NAME in vain.
and actually the original does say 'don't use it in vain' as in don't use it uselessly.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 All of that makes perfect sense apart from the curse (sorry, I detest the word cuss) bit. The use of the word 'god' or the name 'Jesus Christ' in the form of a curse would likely be fairly recent. I cannot imagine someone from the bronze age hitting his thumb with a hammer and yelling 'Ah Christ!'.... I just don't see that happening. The rest sounds perfectly agreeable, though, specifically, your use of the word vain. The redundancy reference never even uncured to me.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
To damn something is to eternally condemn it. It's a very serious thing. it's not something you should say when you hit your thumb with a hammer, because God is not going to send the hammer to hell.
Yes, people use different expressions theses days as they did two thousand years ago, and likely will use different expressions two thousand years from now. using Jesus to curse is just as bad as using hell or damn or god to curse.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize
but what you need to understand is that you aren't saved because you don't curse. You are saved because Jesus died for you. people often ask "so, if Jesus forgives all sin, can't you just do whatever you want and Jesus will forgive you?"
the answer to that is "absolutely!"
But do you WANT to do these things, now that you know God loves you and that Jesus died for you?
See, Christians don't do good things because it gets them to heaven. they do them out of thankfulness to God.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@dragonking700 This is no different than Atheist morality. We do good things because it feels good to help others. The more thought out version might be that we crave approval of out peers, but it's far simpler than that. The problem with the theistic version is of less worth. You must believe in something to crave it's approval. To believe in something you must have some sort of proof, enough for that person to believe anyway. I have not seen proof enough for even the simplest of people.
skywize 11 months ago
@skywize
Christians do good things because they know they are good, because they care about other people, and out of thankfulness. It is 100% selfless (of course, nobody is perfect, so a christian can still be selfish, hopefully though he will realize he is wrong and repent)
An atheist does good things because he has a conscience, and (usually) naturally knows what is good and what is bad. But he also does good things for his own personal gain, just because it makes him feel good.
dragonking700 11 months ago
@skywize
sorry, i thought i responded but i guess not...
Atheists aren't any more sinful than anybody else. And it's not like christians don't sin either. If they didn't sin, they would have no need for Jesus! What makes you a christian is not doing good things. It's realizing that you CAN'T do good things. That's why you need a savior.
(also, some people do good things because they care about OTHERS, not just to make themselves feel good.)
dragonking700 10 months ago
@dragonking700 #4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Don't work on Sunday... seriously? This is a hell worthy commandment? #10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house..... So wanting things, envy, is something punishable? Bullshit. #5-9 are the only commandments dealing with morality. The rest deal with Yahweh's own pride. basically, make him feel good, or he'll fry your ass. He sounds like a very violent dictator.
skywize 11 months ago
The "Highest Rated Comments states that "every quote was checked by three different Bible scholars". So we should believe a few unnamed "scholars" without knowing their academic credentials much less which faiths do they subscribe to or how well accepted their views to the majority of the mainstream sects?
Most Christians don't take the entire bible literally, and any passage needs to be interpreted within the context of it's time. Also, true faith and true knowledge will never confict.
1grandmajoyce 1 year ago
@1grandmajoyce The problem with this is obvious. There is no red line to cross when talking about what is meant to be true in the bible and what is meant to be a fable. Most christians just assume that all the bad stuff is not to be taken literally....well...who says? The bible doesn't. Where exactly, in the bible, does it say "this story is just a moral lesson" or "this is not to be taken literally" or "don't really sacrifice a family member, this is just a story....".
skywize 11 months ago
FUCK YEAH TO FREEDOM FROM CHRISTIANITY! FREEDOM FROM ISLAM!!! FREEDOM FROM JUDAISM AND FREEDOM FOR THE MIND! FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CULTIVATION OF RATIONAL AND REASONABLE THINKING!!!
FUCK RELIGION! READ THIS AND SAY FUCK YEAH ALL!
WisenedGnome 1 year ago
@WisenedGnome FUCK YEAH!
skywize 11 months ago
Great speech! Thanks for pointing out how incredibly barbaric and evil the scriptures of these "holy books" are.
TheCircle000 1 year ago
"All religions are equally true to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher"
anonymous7527 1 year ago 7
@anonymous7527
then why are so many philosophers religious?
dragonking700 11 months ago
I don't understand your post on authenticity. Am missing the context or what you're referring to. But, there is more outside corroboration of the Bible than probably any other book of history. Again see some of my playlists on this.
@Brencs Miracles are no problem at all. If you went back a few centuries and showed people the technology we have, they'd call you crazy and believing in fictional fantasies or miracles. But, it just shows you have higher knowledge. Same with God.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Check my playlist and watch the series "Come Search with Me". I'm trying to get time to make one that is far deeper...and deals with many common atheists criticisms and shows them for the logical fallacies they are. Google this and you'll find a site with a good overview as well:
godandscience "common atheist myths"
Rational thinking simply does not follow cherrypicked things or anomalies (most in the Bible have been explained long ago in detail btw). It follows the weight of evidence)
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Here here, to humanism, but this guy is talking about stuff most atheists/humanists have already heard a dozen times from a dozen different speakers. In a gathering with like-minded people one ought to take on deeper arguments.
Brencs 1 year ago
@Brencs Do all atheists go to some guru to learn how to use logical fallacies? This is cherry picking at it's finest. I could do the same thing to science (just cite Joseph Mengele and a few like him and then set about eradicating all scientific knowledge), education (cite a few cases of abusive teachers and then began burning down all schools), government (do I need to detail the abuses?), democracy, and to do the same to atheist would be child's play and far more valid.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 I don't particularly find this guys rhetoric too compelling, so I don't understand why the question. But please, don't compare religions with science or the rest you mentioned. None of those claim to be sources of ultimate absolute truth.
Brencs 1 year ago
@Brencs I was responding more to others than you (you appear a little more reasonable than some), just split it up&addressed it to many here.
The Bible NEVER claims to have ALL truth.Neither does Christianity.Christianity was absolutely crucial for the foundations of science and much of it's progress for many reasons. Bible science when followed adds 10+ high quality years to the average (See: /watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM, esp. 11:30+, but this doesn't show many Bible principles).
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@Brencs The Bible has over the last 3,000 years been far more valuable and useful than pretty much any other institution that exists, esp. when it's lessons are followed wisely and as intended. It dramatically improves health, happiness, relationships, pioneered advances in science, education, govt., economics, pioneered many human rights, was instrumental in defeating communism and has produced so many other benefits for society that the benefits are incalculable.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 You say the bible never claims to have all truth and then go claim how it's the best book on everything yourself. First I didn't say 'bible' I said 'religions' as all religions are equally "truthful". But ok. Even if in the bible got something right along with all the heaps of stuff it got wrong, it does in no way prove that it's something more than just a collection of semitic folklore from times we knew so little about how the world works.
Brencs 1 year ago
@Brencs I did not claim the Bible is the best book on everything (and very few if any religions claim to have all truth). What I DO say, is that the Bible has the most important information for a good life on this earth AND for a life for eternity. It's ridiculous to think that all religions are equally truthful. See: watch?v=J9i8HIdKGWs for example. No, the Bible did NOT get heaps of stuff wrong. By any rational and fair judgement, it is infinitely more than folklore.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 First - Yes You Do. You did it again in this answer. Second - stop saying bible helps you live 10 years longer. It just makes you sound silly. Obviously in the video about longevity the main idea was that having a disciplined lifestyle in a close community is what helps and the Okinawa people had done better with the help of ancient Asian philosophy. Findings of modern science can surely do and does a better job at it.
Brencs 1 year ago
Modern science on health & other areas wouldn't exist without the Bible and Christian scientists following ideas directly and indirectly inspired by it.
3) I'm working on a book to get the arguments organized better (and uploading videos and making playlists). The problem is I have too much information (and youtube's stupid 500 char limits).
4) Skeptic criticisms of the Bible have been falsified countless times. Their track record is atrocious. Geology has no disagreement with the OT.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@errantwind "I think your making claims you cannot defend."
-
That's about the most wrong you could ever be :). I was giving tons of final tests and had grading submission deadlines at my university. Nearly done now. For accurate predictions, you can see my playlist on prophecies and also Bible science gives 10+ years extra health for starters. Then there's the list of videos about the historical accuracy of the Bible. The 1st one and Mountain of Fire are quite good. Many others.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 The bible is crap everyone is realizing that, game over.
WisenedGnome 1 year ago 7
@WisenedGnome
An example of thorough, open-minded, atheist logic. If the atheists say it isn't true, it must not be. game over. lololol
dragonking700 11 months ago
@Brencs Sorry for late answer. EXTREMELY busy.
1) I don't claim the Bible is infallible, but it is the most accurate and useful and practical book in history.
2) There is nothing silly about the Bible's health principles giving people 10+ years of life. See my playlist on Bible science and health for proof. Few people except Christians followed most of these principles until this century. The Okinawans are in a scandal now that means they aren't the longest lived. Adventists are.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@Brencs Here's why.
1) How many novels or made up stories do you know that help people live 10 years longer than the average NOW, that could accurately predict 1000s of years of history?
2) There is no evidence of trial&error investigation before true scientific principles were written down as you have in other cases. The scientific method was not widely known or practiced at those times&barely invented.
3) If accurate predictions are not evidence, start burning most history&science books.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Third - you're claiming so much about it, my direct knowledge one half the new testament is going to run out. But even from only what I've read, I've seen only the ludicrous claims of performing miracles, statements that clearly show a complete ignorance about how the world works and the worst of all - an ass backwards morality, that no sane modern person can perceive as good. Off course it has mention of historic facts, but so does the works of Homer without divine inspiration.
Brencs 1 year ago
@Brencs I don't claim that the Bible is infallible. Nothing with humans involved is. But, it is by far the most truthful book (&the few cases where there are differences are not lies,people just saw things differently like witnesses of a traffic accident may not have the exact same story in every detail, but overall agree...and that is evidence of it's authenticity). It is also by far the most accurate and practically helpful book even compared with the scientific establishment over 4k years.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Fourth - you're jumping to different arguments like a lot of shaky ones would make a one stable argument.
Fifth - Clearly there are religions that sound much crazier than yours (christian, I now presume). I would have taken my words back after watching the ridiculous the word of smith vs. the word of god video if not all the claims of impossible miracles in the new testament and all the geologically obvious fallacies in the old.
Brencs 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 There are more than a few cases and no, it is not evidence of it's authenticity. Evidence of it's authenticity would be corroborating documents from an outside source. In what regard are you claiming that it is accurate? I think you might find some disagreement on how helpful it is.
errantwind 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 Examples of accurate predictions?
errantwind 1 year ago
@TruthIsLife7 I think your making claims you cannot defend.
errantwind 1 year ago
Sad part is: he was probably talking to a VERY small crowd :(
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 seems so, but luckily millions of people can watch it here :D
NoNotes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steveb0503 Sad part is: he was probably talking to a VERY small crowd :(
--
Lucky that..a big crowd or an intelligent crowd with any sort of logical ability would have laughed him off the stage.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Brazil has now a Humanist organization too, (LiHS – Liga Humanista Secular do Brasil). =)
callac 1 year ago 13
@callac Congratulations! You should consider taking part in the International Humanist and Ethical Union - we are all over the world!
NoNotes 1 year ago
@NoNotes Yes and several philosophies based on REALLY bad logic (not just atheism) seem to be all over the world as well.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
@callac check out there homepage: iheu.com
NoNotes 1 year ago
@callac Why? 22 states have been officially atheist&killed infinitely more people for being different from their views than have happened in all prior history not to mention their complete intolerance of religious people, imprisonment, fines, suppression and all sorts of other human rights abuses. Basically, atheism is for free thought, but only when that thought chooses to align itself with atheism. This has been proven time and time again whenever atheism gains power, no matter what kind.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Although I am sympathetic to these criticisms, it seems like he is attacking the low hanging fruit. Fundamentalism needs no straw man to knock down, as it parodies itself. Hence, he comes off as making cheap shots. ( I do realize that the Islamic fundamentalism is also accompanied by deadly actions - and must be renounced.)
There are many today who call themselves Christian who have recast scripture to allegory, therefore taming its primitive perspective. Atheists need talking points here.
Byrdhousemedia 1 year ago
@Byrdhousemedia I have almost as many problems with some kinds of fundamentalism as I do with some atheists. Both are extremely dogmatic in many cases and full of logical fallacies, cherry picking, double standards, the works (atheists more in dealing with religion, fundamentalist Christians more in politics...esp. with the detestable Fox News).
People who use cherry picking as an argument, esp. the ones this naive guy is using, really don't have a leg to stand on rationally.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
6:50 moment says it all.
Thumbs to see?
LoopuleasaIonut 1 year ago
Every quote used was checked by three different Bible scholars to be certain that the quotes are in context. If you doubt the context, read the surrounding passages for yourself and decide if the Bible is promoting good or ill. My question to Johnm295 is, in what context would it be moral to take virgin girls for yourself as sex slaves or to rip open pregnant women or murder children? Your context defense fails because in any context, these Bible quotes are advocating evil.
trs1470 1 year ago 30
@trs1470 The Bible verses cited are parts of a judgement.These often save far more lives long term. God also gave people freedom of choice(see this video for a great explanation on this topic: watch?v=Ky30JjA8hUo)&so has to lead people as they are willing to obey.As to the religion of the founders, read the Declaration of Independence which starts off in its very first lines referring to rights based on what our Creator gave us.This kid simply hasn't done his homework or learned logic very well.
TruthIsLife7 1 year ago
Comment removed
trs1470 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've never met an atheist who doesn't take the bible out of context as does Mr. Anger in this video. If atheists actually took time to study the context of the very selective verses they choose to "exploit", they would feel betrayed by the leaders who led them astray. Consequently, while under the control of ignorance, they lead others astray in their anti-Christian crusade.
johnm295 1 year ago
Comment removed
rkulla 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnm295 I've never met a theist who doesn't take the bible out of context as does Mr. Anger in this video(?). If theists actually took time to study the context of the very selective verses they choose to "exploit", they would feel betrayed by the leaders who led them astray. Consequently, while under the control of ignorance, they lead others astray in their theist crusade.
One, or both of us, are guilty of projection.
WickeDFate4 1 year ago 2