You know that the first day and night doesn't happen until the fifth verse of Genesis 1 right?
Also, if you are going to take this first chapter literally, then where is it in the Bible that God creates the Strong force? Where does he create the electroweak symmetry breaking? Where is it in the Bible that God creates the Gravitational force? Or should we take the definition of "Light" in the first chapter to actually be the universal speed limit for bosons and fermions?
(part4) "Man must live not by bread alone but by every utterence(knowledge of good and bad)coming out of God's mouth" Math4:4. The more one study the Word of God and lives by it the closer he is to endless life.
(part3) (as if having the needed knowledge=having the right to eat from it). Lesson for us all is the same: If we want to move toward eternal life we need to turn to God for Knowledge how to live and not die(Prov2:6). Knowledge is the first thing we need.(Prov4:7) Then comes for ex.love, mercy etc.because in order to love first we have to KNOW what true love is. So the tree gives us very precious lesson that if one learns he's got the key to endless life.(Prov3:18) (look part4)
(part 2)God acted as a loving parent giving his children precious information how to keep their life forever, not to lose it. The tree would remind them that life depends on knowledge which they didn't have as having just been created, being very young in contrast to God who HAD the knowledge as the Creator and Source of life. The ban not to eat from it would remind them of constant necessity to turn to God for knowledge and not to try to act according to their natural ignorance(look part3)
What do you think about a point of view that the most important verse in the Bible is Genesis 2:9,17 "God made..the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD."This is the first thing God did after he had created man. It must be of great significance to us!I think the tree of knowledge means:to be able to live endlessly one needs KNOWLEDGE what is GOOD for life and what is BAD -harmfulf to life, what supports life and what destroys it.Naming one of the trees in the paradise in this way(look part2)
No matter what your opinion is it's irrelevant - God created the Heavens and the Earth... end of story and your opinion isn't gonna change it. You may speculate using your vain philosophy till the blue in the face and think you've won the argument but when the Final Day comes all your arguments will be flattened before the Face of God Almighty.
2.) What Dennis is saying is "There is no meaning to my life without the belief that a ridiculous Greek God-like story makes the entire universe into some kind of never-ending soap opera".
It's like needing to believe that your parents are asleep in the next room.. I've never understood it.
Believing that there is a god and he/she/it is above nature and that he/she/it created me and is playing with this world like a lego set.. does not give me meaning.
@Track607 I actually feel sort of sad for people that feel they (and others) can't be "good" without some sort of deity watching over them like an overprotective aunt.
1.) Morality is the name for a group of beliefs that anyone holds which dictate what we think is "good" or "bad." Since both "good" and "bad" are personal beliefs, they are subjective and everyone might disagree on them and never be wrong. It's like asking someone what their favorite color is.
If you believe that God or The Bible are necessary for morality to exist, you don't understand what morality is and you believe that your definition of "good" and "bad" are correct and others' are not.
If you believe in subjective morality, then it must follow that there is really no good or bad. I believe something is evil and you believe it is good; either one of us is wrong, or the said belief is neither good nor evil, only perceived differently by different people. Right?
Maybe you misunderstand my point. My argument was not that there is no "absolute value" for good or bad. If you are a relativist, it means that there can be no good or bad. Good and bad can not really exist. There can be no such thing. Goodbye morality, goodbye ethics, they are a fable.
@gruvymon The terms "good" and "bad" are words we as humans use to describe things we like and dislike. That is all. As long as we like and dislike things, they will require a words and those seem adequate to me.
It's an interesting perspective. I guess there's nothing inherently bad in something like genocide. It is only bad because humans "don't like" it. It makes me think that a nation who likes the idea of removing another race from the planet has pretty good grounds for the idea. I mean, under your definition, as long as they "like" the idea, it is good. Right?
@gruvymon Good to them. To you, in might be bad, even horrible. It's all subjective. But I doubt they think it is good; they simply see it as necessary because they display psychopathic tendencies. Which is to say, I do believe that there are things that all of humanity think are "bad". That is closest to an objective definition as can ever be achieved, I'm afraid.
"I do believe that there are things that all of humanity think are "bad". Why? On what does "all of humanity" base this determination.
BTW - Poland, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan... I hardly think "all of humanity" thinks that genocide is bad. I wish it were true. But what if, hypothetically, "all of humanity" believed it was ok to eliminate a race based on a determination that they were weaker? Then what? And if you believe that could never happen, why not?
@gruvymon They would all think of something as bad because they would all dislike it. In regards to the countries you listed - isn't it the minority in them that caused this "genocide" you refer to? In which case, is it not obvious to you that that minority displays those same psychopathic tendencies I referred to, earlier?
Those people have no emotions; they are dead inside. They can't judge good or bad for anyone.
You speak with great authority on the psychopathic condition of despots. You seem unaware that you are making my case for me. How do you know that what you call psychopathic is not actually a more perfected human state? If I believe that, am I absolutely wrong? Actually, I do agree with you that despots do not correctly judge right and wrong. I'm with you and the vast majority of humanity on this.
Interesting though that the vast majority of humanity also believes in God.
@gruvymon No, I'm well aware of your 'case'. You want to believe that 'good' and 'bad' have absolute definitions because the thought that genocide might be seen as 'good' terrifies you.
But the answer is simple, as I've explained. First off, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks the value of 'good' to be. That is the great part of it - the fact that its subjective means that only your version of it is correct for you and no one can ever tell you different
@gruvymon Second, the people who oppose your view of 'good' and 'bad' on the extreme scales, such as on matters of genocide, murder, rape, etc. are not fully within their mental means. Where as you are (for the most part) a conscious, caring individual, they are more like animals.
To me, that is all I need to feel good about the world.
And in regards to the belief in a deity, that stems from the same barbarism as rape - is it a delusion that those people need in order to go through their day.
On meaning and morality: I don't see why it is necessary to have an objective or divine standard for meaning or morality. Both are man-made. Meaning requires an observer and does not exist as an inherent part of the universe. It is subjective by definition.
A state of nature is not immoral, it is amoral, because morality is also subjective. I don't see a man-made morality as inadequate. Why do we need divine or natural justification to determine how we should treat each other?
Your claim, as I understand it, is that the universe cannot exist without an intelligent Creator. Why not? (That the Bible says so is not a logically satisfying answer). Try to explain why not.
"Well, you know... it's so complex - how could all this happen by chance?"
How could it? Well, if the complexity of "all this" is not the primordial state - it has built upon itself for many millennia. We can't know the beginning, but our lack of understanding doesn't mean it's impossible.
I think it's important for one who refuses the existence of God based on reason to avoid arguments like "doesn't mean it's impossible" when referring to a natural explanation for the origin of man. If you try, you will find many folks who believe in God because, to them, His existence is more probable than the alternative.
The classic example: It could happen that I play a game of poker with my friends and draw 4 aces every hand for two hours. Not impossible, but not likely.
@richardtheconquerer The 1000 years comes from the time the Messiah will reign on earth. The judgment won't come until after this. 'Salvation' is about being saved 'from' our sins, its consequences, 'for' eternal life here and after death. Christ died for our sins. If u don't believe it - if God doesn't make this known to u Himself - if it is only a salesman promoting his sale - u won't get forgiveness, will go to where u deserve to go when u die, and then be judged for your works then.
Andrea Yates believed that she was a bad mother, and because of it her kids would got to hell forever. The Bible gives pictures of more than one place of the dead than hell. See Ezekiel 32 & Luke 16. These places as well as heaven are only temporary - see Revelations 20-22. The NT - Romans 11, says that the gifts and promises of God are irrevocable - the promises to Dennis' people still hold true. The Gospel is still good news. The death and resurrection bring salvation from sin to believers.
Is he trying to convert anyone here? No. He was simply pointing out the verse he believes is the most important in the Bible. Y'all sensitive atheists are so confused.
People only started looking out for the weaker once religion lost most of its meaning in the modern world. Hence the creation of many NGOs, most of which have very, very little to do with Genesis 1.1. only sprung up in the past 70 years (more or less)
@richardtheconquerer Agape love is about giving and giving and giving and giving, and when you can't give anymore, to keep on giving. Eros is about sex, phileo is about friendship, storge is about parent-child love. If anything, the "inequality" works entirely in the woman's favor. The little book of Ephesians is a good read, because it encapsulates Christianity in 6 pages. Each verse is better understood when seen in the context of the whole.
@deQuercy321 lol yeah ok. Defend these passages next: Exodus 21:7-11
Here's a cute one too: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 A man can randomly accuse his wife of not being a virgin and if she can't prove she is, she is stoned to death. If it turns out the man is lying, he is simply fined and has to stay married.
@richardtheconquerer My mistake. There's no need to defend God's Word. He can do it Himself. Don't believe it? That's really your problem. Blaspheme His name; slander His Word - then it becomes a bigger problem. The only reason any of us are alive is because He loves us. Don't know He exists? Don't know that it's even possible to know if the Bible is His Word? You have a few surprises coming. Don't believe me? My concern is that God doesn't remove from your life the blessing of life.
@deQuercy321 Nice, I love it. Absolutely love it. You can't defend an absurd passage from the bible, so you rely on fear mongering. You are seriously a sad, sad human being.
Here's a thought: if a God did create you (which I DO believe some sort of god did, just not the silly, hyper-sensitive, immoral, ludicrous God who appears in the bible) why don't you use the BRAIN he gave you and think outside the box? Maybe, just maybe, some book that HUMANS wrote may not be the word of your creator.
@richardtheconquerer Praise the Lord! Was afraid He pulled the plug on you. If I didn't get the rev from Him, why should I believe it? The Bible certainly doesn't fit with the values of our society today. But as I look around, I don't see the world becoming a better place, quite the contrary. When you say that the God of the Bible is "silly, hyper-sensitive, immoral, ludicrous," it is a seriously sad, sad thing for me to see. Deny what i know? Why?
@richardtheconquerer I think all the time. I even think seriously about what you write. There are theological views that make that imply God is a huge celestial monster who likes to make bad toys, some to clean up, some to destroy in fire. There exists now in Chritian theology a major problem with the "big picture." Is it a problem with what the Bible says? Or is it what we fail to read and apply to the mix? Prager mentions it. Perhaps you see it, too. What is the answer?
@richardtheconquerer Very interesting passages. I wonder if they were ever applied. Can u imagine if in our society people were stoned to death for fornication and adultery? Would there be anybody left? Over in John 8 a woman was caught in a adultery and brought before Jesus for judgment. Notice any differences in application of Scripture before and after the Babylon deportation?
@richardtheconquerer The big question is this: is life worth living for people who don't become Christians? If the answer is no, what does it say about the God of the Bible, about abortion being a very good idea, about the lady in Texas who killed her 4 kids? How does the Bible answer the question? How does the English word - hell - misrepresent the numerous ancient words? If the answer is no, isn't God a monster?
@richardtheconquerer Most xtns believe we either go to heaven or hell. "Hell" is only a territory in the place of the dead. All these places including heaven are temporary. There has always been hope for the good - Isaiah 57,2. There was hope for the wicked in the OT if they repented - Ezekiel 18 & 33. Matthew 25 has 3 stories, the later 2 relevant to this: what about bad xtns? and the judgment likened to sheep & goats. It's hard to condense this all.
@deQuercy321 You're really going off on a tangent here. I answered yes to your question, and now you're talking about good Christians versus bad ones. Let's start with this: life IS worth living for people who don't become Christians. Start with that thought and that thought only and respond to it directly how you feel about it.
@richardtheconquerer Sorry about the tangent. Because at the resurrection of the dead non-Christians will be judged on the basis of their works, whether good or bad - yes, life is worth living for them if they do good; no, if they persevere in doing evil.
@richardtheconquerer When a person accepts Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, that person receives forgiveness of sins now, receives the righteousness of God put in him/her now, receives eternal life now - eternal life - knowing God as Father now, instead of as judge later. To live now in relationship to the Creator is the best life of all. He gives us His Holy Spirit who gives us the power, love, and wisdom to live for Christ.
@deQuercy321 So, what's the difference? Better to be forgiven now in case I want to do awful things later? What if I know I'm always going to do good? What's the use in being a Christian?
@richardtheconquerer The judgment for good works won't come for at least a 1000 years. So when you die, u get to pay for your sins. Jesus said that "the way is broad and the gate is wide that leads to destruction and many enter it; narrow is the way and small the gate that leads to life, and only a few enter it." 800 yrs before Christ, Isaiah wrote "Those who follow godly paths will rest in peace when they die." Better be very good indeed to get to that place. The past is already against u.
@deQuercy321 Where are you pulling this 1000 years number from? And what do you mean the past is already against me? You don't know anything about my life. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logic that being a Christian somehow "saves" you from something.
Take buying a car as a metaphor: should I buy a Nissan or a Ford? The Ford dealer tells me you'll "save" in the long run if you buy a Ford, but he can't tell me why or offer me any proof. Why exactly should I take his word for it?
@richardtheconquerer I think it's a fair consideration. I'm not a Christian because somebody sold the idea to me. I don't believe in the Bible because it's a remarkable book. In both cases God "broke through the nether" and invaded my life about these issues. I'm not God. If I were you i would want His imput about Himself and His book. I might be lying or seriously mentally ill. I don't hope that God will do for u what He did for me. I hope He does something for u entirely unique.
@richardtheconquerer To quote a good friend, "If the Bible is the Word of God, the better we understand it the better we understand God's mind on whatever He reveals." We as people have opinions and convictions about the data we receive during our lifetime. God has no opinions. His view is real. EVERYBODY underestimates God. The dimensions the Book addresses are beyond our earthly wisdom. Thru it, eternity opens up to us. There's no limit to what can be gained.
@deQuercy321 Not sure you really answered my question here. You said God contacted you in some way, independent of the Bible, so I will ask again. If the book is irrelevant as it was written by humans and only claimed to be the words of God, WHAT is the purpose of the book? You (supposedly) had God reveal himself to you. I REALLY doubt his message was "hey, read that book, it's totally rad and it's what I want"
@richardtheconquerer Why would God use 40 different prophets over a 1500 year period to speak first to the Jews and then to all mankind? For one thing, to make Himself accurately known. Second, to make known to mankind who we are. Third, to make known what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, what is good and evil. Forth, and the main point: to prepare humanity for the Incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh to become the sacrifice for sin that is needed in order for us to know Him.
@deQuercy321 If he wanted to make himself accurately known, he did a very poor job given there are hundreds of different religions who all believe somewhat different things.
2nd, you're still not getting the issue. You said yourself that God made some sort of direct contact with you. Whatever it was, according to you, he has the power to do this. THEREFORE, there is NO purpose to a written book when God himself can contact any human at any time whenever he pleases.
@richardtheconquerer Not true (about the "NO purpose" part, or the "accurately known" part). You'd do well to read it, if for no other reason than to get some idea about what you're talking about. Up till now I've enjoyed your thinking. But this part doesn't do you justice. You need more knowledge of the Book. Otherwise, you are simply imposing your thinking on it, which if it fit would make sense, but it doesn't.
@deQuercy321 and the not accurately known part IS true Are you not acknowledging that there are hundreds of different religions? Do you really mean to tell me that's not confusing his word?
@richardtheconquerer The reason why God spoke to me is, at that time, I prayed to Him morning and evening on my face for 6 months to find out from Him if the Bible is His Word. He answered me on Easter Sunday 1976 and said, "John, you're a foolish man if you don't believe all of My Word." I told Him I would believe it all. "To whom much is given, much is required." I have more responsibility before God about this than u do. U don't know God or if the Bible is His Word.
@richardtheconquerer Hey, just to correct you with love as a real Christain and not the fake ones that call the,selves one. God actually did specifically say that HE wrote the word. WHERE??? in the bible. Get a bible and read John 1:1 if you want prove. but here is what God said " In the Beginning was the Word and the Word with God, and the Word was God. The word meaning the Bible. He is the author of the bible. But also he spoke his Word to some people to write, which born came the bible. :)
@mhmddleader I believe (don't remember though) that I was referring specifically to what God supposedly said to deQuercy321
But since you brought it up, what makes the Bible the word of God? Just because it says so? Don't all religions claim whatever their holy book is is the word of God? Why would God make things so confusing?
@deQuercy321 Also I assume you mean Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 kids ten years ago. I don't see the connection of that to anything we're discussing.
Dennis, here are a couple of good verses for you "But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." See Daniel 12.
"Those who follow godly paths will rest in peace when they die." From Isaiah 57
MrGrayish, your life is about a quadrillion beautiful coincidences happening constantly. The problem lies when the beautiful ones get overwhelmed by the bad ones, and then......., total system failure. I like the 'beautiful' part.
"In the natural world, hospitals aren't built" LOL yeah those damn animals won't build hospitals with all their tools and shit. Some jerks, those animals!
Why is everybody so afraid of nothingness after death. How can it be bad if it is nothing. Have you ever went to sleep and when you wake up you didn't remember any dream. What did you feel while you were sleeping? Nothing... was it bad? No!
Is the Bible the most influential book ever written? If so, is that a good thing? I mean, vengeful god destroys entire world because he's made (except he forgets to kill the fish).
Also, Genesis 1:1 is all the proof you need that the Bible is a load of crap
I thought you might pick that verse, Dennis. I thought: John 3:16, Jeremiah 9: 23,24. But, before you said it, I thought Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:27 has to run close to it. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The significance of this verse is that every person I meet, young, old, male, female, beautiful, not-beautiful, intelligent, not-intelligent, etc. has eternal value, - because God made them with it.
@deQuercy321 We have value because we're people, not because we're the magically vitalized mud sculptures of an invisible space wizard. Your god adds no value to human life.
@BoredInfidel Like it or not, God exists and reveals HImself. Why has He shut you out? You don't believe in Him - your choice. Don't like the way He permits evil, unrighteousness, injustice, suffering, hardship, death? We don't have a choice about it. I'm not kidding: God reveals Himself personally and powerfully beyond all other sensory experiences when He wants to. He does it all the time. Yet He is not personally obligated to do it at all. By grace alone - He acts.
@deQuercy321 Like it or not, Superman exists and reveals HImself. Why has He shut you out? You don't believe in Him - your choice. Don't like the way He permits evil,? unrighteousness, injustice, suffering, hardship, death? We don't have a choice about it. I'm not kidding: Superman reveals Himself personally and powerfully beyond all other sensory experiences when He wants to. He does it all the time. Yet He is not personally obligated to do it at all. By grace alone - He acts.
@dlandon2000 The only need you have is for God to establish for you that the "collection of absurb barbaric stories" were given by Him. Why else believe them? I went to HIm, wanted to know about His book, and to my surprise - and when God acts personally for people "surprise" is the word to describe it - He told me I was a "fool" if I didn't believe it all. You're just a miracle away, Landon. How can we know these things unless God reveals them. Happily, He is very generous on that end.
What a parochial know-nothing! There are about a hundred billion galaxies each containing a hundred billion stars. So our sun is a tiny, tiny speck of dust inside a speck of dust, which is our galaxy. The size of the earth is all but negligible in that context. "The heavens and the earth" was written by an ignorant bronze age man. If it had been a god, he would have known better.
@pumaboy77 Of course YOU know, what gods steps are. By gods steps, do you mean Matthew 15:4 or Mark 7:10? Please don't insult me with god's will, words or steps. How convenient, that they always coincide with YOUR will, etc.
You believers are the epitome of arrogance. An eternal life with your ilk: the horror! Delude yourself all you want, but don't shove it down other peoples throats. Had you been born in Afghanistan, you would tell me to follow Muhammed.
I deny the Bible is the most influential book ever written. Seems to me that the Principia sparked a far more immediate and far reaching effect. The Bible made us build some churches and burn a bunch of people alive, the Principia allowed us to walk on the moon (among rather a lot else).
@aClockworkBoec As sure as I am of anything in this life. The evidence available is simply against it. Creation is a ridiculous myth, the flood is a fairy tale, the tower of Babel is a fanciful tale of how languages came to be. The whole thing reads like any of the countless myths humans have come up with over the millennia. I'm sure if you look at it critically you'll reach the same conclusion too. It's inescapable.
@aClockworkBoec Wrong. Categorically false. Read something other than that flood geology crap Gish came up with. The sedimentary layers have been laid down by local floods in some areas but there never was a global flood. The reality is that there are layers that take thousands of years to lay down underneath layers that take a few years. There is no way you would get that kind of sedimentation in a year-long global flood. There are too many things making a global flood an impossibility.
@bernygagne Local floods, you say? Really? In the middle of Europe, Africa, Asia, North and South America?
Actually, you think that the world today was the same as it was 5000 years ago. But it's not. Global flood shaped the world we see today. That's a fact.
Maybe he's' Jewish, and in that case, none of that applies to women, as women are treated as equals, and both men and women are discouraged from talking in synogouge? And a man is just the head of the family, but no where superior to the women, who is praised for her important work?
@israelawareness1 He could be, but he talks about how great Christianity is on his radio show all the time. I'm not familiar with what Jewish people study but don't they read the Old Testament at least? Some pretty messed up stuff in that.
Yeah I just listen to some of his talk shows also, not familiar with what he believes in.
Judaism only believes in the Old Testament. You wrote the words "Corinthisans" and "Ephesians" as the names of books and they don't exist in the Old Testament (although I never heard of them either in the New Testament). Of course, a lot of stuff in both books is open to how you interpret it, and how you will work your society.
From my knowledgeof Christianity, even if it does say that, women are still treated equally, so those 2 verses weren't to make them inferior or anything, just general rules and organization of a family, you know?
@israelawareness1 Both are indeed in the New Testament. Yes, any writing is open to interpretation, but some of it I don't feel can be twisted too much. Even if all it meant was an "organization of a family" why would the man necessarily be in charge? Take this for example from Genesis 3:16 "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The Old Testament is kinda crazy in of itself. Seems like the punishment for anything is death.
I can't speak for Christianity's interpretation, just that I know women are usually treated equally, but with Judaism, women are viewed as equals, and that verse is just for family structure, and the Torah (Old Testament) gives jobs to the husband, and jobs to the wife, so each play a vital role.
And Torah doesn't really give too many punishments, the Oral Torah (Talmud) does, but not even that many are death. Only if you kill, commit adultery, idoltary, child sacrifice
@israelawareness1 Adultery is a pretty measly crime to warrant death. Exodus 21:15 and 21:17 say if you strike or even just curse your parents, you're to be put to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says if your son is rebellious, he is to be put to death by stoning. Deuteronomy 13:12-15 says to chop people up with swords if they believe in different gods. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says if a girl lies about her virginity, she shall not only be killed, but stoned to death in front of her father. Classy.
In a holy society like in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, adultery isn't a measley crime... And yes, that think about striking your parents, there's a lot more in depth to it, but it's basically telling kids not to hit their parents. Everything that you said - there's a lot of commentaries on it. And as I said before in the Talmud it says: A court which has killed 1 person in 70 years is a bad and corrupt court system. It was so rare to kill someoen back then.
Those are just a few. But let me give you a famous quote from the Talmud:
"A Supreme Court which gives the death penalty once in every 70 years is a bad Supreme Court." What that means is the Supreme Court had to do such a thorough investigation and try to give an alternative punishment, and also to make sure that people didn't do these sins in the first place. And in the modern world, with Israel a secular state, the court system isn't based on the Talmud.
@israelawareness1 (1)I don't really care about the court system. I'm quoting what is the supposed word of God. In the Bible, God says the punishment is death for this, this, this, etc. Then later on, it says it isn't, then it says it is again. I'm really not sure which was worse: the death for doing anything or the inconsistencies.
Lol nothing contradicts itself in the Bible... And every single world is written there for a meaning, there is no extra word, there are extensive studies on this. What you think is an inconsistency actually relates to something else and is meant to teach us something. The Talmud, and commentaries, deal with this.
This is one of the reasons I don't like to discuss these topics... Because the only real way to learn about this and realize it's not inconsisten is to actually look it up in that verse in a commentary or the Talmud (which isn't exactly somethin either that you can walk into not knowing anything and just read it). So I have no purpose here, I've made my points, if you really want to know something I won't be of any use, there are commentaries for that.
@israelawareness1 Can't you provide an Internet link to where the inconsistencies are explained? Cause there are tons of them. Some of which, TBH, are no big deal but just strange that they don't match up. For instance, saying one person is someone's father then in another verse, someone else is that person's father. There can't really be any hidden or alternative meaning in that. It's just a straight-forward mistake. But like I said, if you provide me a link, I'd be happy to read it.
You can inbox me specific ones if you have questions (I'd rather clear up the comments here, detracts from the video). The most known commentary on the Torah and most simple one and explains why this is written here and that is written there and why not chronological order etc is known as Rashi, I can't find him online in English though, and if you want to know just the down and dirty law then there's the Sulchan Aruch. I can't find complete English online though.
Also, one of the things is that a popular translation book like Artscroll will have Rashi in English, but most other commentaries are left out, so you really have to know Hebrew if you want a full understanding and here what others have to say... Otherwise all i can tell you is nothing is inconsistent, and there are even explanataions for why this word was chosen and not that word and why this is here even though it seems extra it's really not... Etc. Interesting stuff.
Also, since the Talmud discusses courts and punishment a lot, they often explain these "inconsistencies" which is often, "This verse was referring to this type of crime as we know by the word ___," while "this verse referred to this type of crime as we know by the word ___." It's something dealt with in depth, but isn't ignored, and in the long run, there aren't any inconsistencies.
@richardtheconquerer The 1 Corinthians 14 passage definitely states that the church meeting was "man time." The passage even ends with "and this is the command of the Lord." But the Ephesians 5 passage gives instruction to the wife AND to the husband. The wife's responsibility: submit to and respect her husband. The husband's responsibililty? "love your wife as Christ loved the church" - love like a crucifixion.... The man is NOT commanded to dominate his wife. To each his/her own job.
@richardtheconquerer In your equal relationship system of marriage, does it work on a point system where each partner puts in a certain number of points? What happens if one of the partners begins to fall behind due to illness, pregnancy, child care, of something else? Is there any place for "love" in it?
The Hindus had a system a couple of centuries ago called "satee" (or setee). The woman was not allowed to live long after her husband, and when he died, she got to burn alive on the pyre.
@richardtheconquerer In the Ephesians 5 passage the people of God are commanded to "be filled with the Spirit, - a command, and then several adjoining commands by participles in the Greek, to be submitted one to the other (men and women). The man is to be the head of the wife (not the sperm donor as in most cultures). But then he is commanded to love his wife with agape love, not eros love, not phileo love, not storge love. He is essentially called to love his wife like a slave. She's not.
"No one, not even the most devoted atheist, denies that the Bible is the most influential book ever written." I deny that. Therefore that comment is demonstrably false. /video
And the human mind is "Glorious!" As it invented the "Idea of God". I don't pity Atheists. I pity Rich people who suffer from the sin of greed. Their empty shallow lives drain others. Do something altruistic and stop trying to make other people believe your thing.
@AnilKnows well done for repeating history's mistakes and hating someone for a belief that has no impact on your life. y'all have a good war now, ya hear? I'll just be sat here in my christianity chair having a civilised discussion on theology with my atheist friends.
I disagree with atheists because I believe they displace hatred of religion into denial of God's existence. I believe that secular humanism is a horrible doctrine in a literal sense: it creates horror. It is the basis of the ideological wars of the 20th century, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Fundamentally, the idea of atheism is nothing more than the glorification of the human mind as the measure of all things. Try to respond without using expletives and crude personal attacks.
That is definitely an argument, and I generally agree with everything Mr. Prager says, however, in this case, you could go to just about ANY verse in the Torah or the Christian Bible, and make a case for THAT verse being the most important. Every person has to find his own verse that is significant to him. This one is Dennis's verse. But it is not the most important verse in the entire Torah.
Is a human being, who believes there is a Creator but doesn't follow any religion, considered an atheist? Because I am disgusted to the marrow of my bones of all religions that have caused millions of people to die! You don't have to go to churches, mosques, or donate money to some lazy religious fucks who make living by exploiting people's faith and fears, to go to a better place, people! Just always be good to everyone around you, regardless of faith, race, or gender, thats all you have to do!
While you think you're spreading good with your videos, you're actually spreading blind faith, which is the exact opposite of curiosity and rationality which makes us strive to make a better world.
Not asking "Why?" and simply accepting a "Because" is to me the most dangerous trait in human history since it gives rise to people who will use it for their own purposes (See the Muslim Ayatollah, the Christian Pope and the Jewish Rabbis).
@Zivlet It's odd your list did not include any secular totalitarians.I would suppose the followers of Mao,Stalin and Pol Pot thought of themselves as highly rational.
@Pomiferous Throughout the history, there were many crazy and dangerous people from both ends, religious and secular, and I disapprove of them all. But it doesn't make religious zealots any better just because there are different kind of zealots, other than religious ones.
As a guideline, I wouldn't blindly follow anyone without first thinking if what I'm following is worthy to me.
If you to hear a different opinion other than your own, i suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
@Zivlet Ziv-I'm trying to decipher your statement and for the sake of general conversation.You must find Prager "unworthy" of your attention in order to be promoting Richard Dawkins during one of his presentations.Or, am I just too blind and zealous to see a more elevated intention.
So, heavens & earth were created by an imaginary being. It's a very special being: unlike the other imaginary beings that preceded it, we imagine this one is "outside nature" and has a grand purpose for creating nature (and us), which is, um... unknown / incomprehensible. (But it's for our sake!)
Well, that must put all our uncertainties to rest, if we can just ignore the fact that our various notions about this special imaginary being are inconsistent, incoherent, and violently irreconcilable.
Your statement that I'll be disappointed is irrational, because if you're correct, I won't exist after death. Pascal realized this in his famous wager. Christian theism is not irrational because it's based on a reliable, internally consistent revelation from God that adequately accounts for all we experience in life. All other belief systems fail in this respect. For example, you say you "think" I'll be disappointed, but your thoughts have no authority.
The point of being in heaven is getting to spend eternity with someone lovable, as opposed to suffering for eternity. But that's not Prager's point, & that's not the meaning of life.
Scripture doesn't record God copulating with any human, including Mary. It was more like in-vivo fertilization for the purpose of Christ fulfilling the Kinsman Redeemer prophecies, not for God to experience the thrill of copulation as in the mythologies Prager was referring to. But even if God did it for the thrill, that would still be an irrational basis for not being a Christian. Do you have a reason that isn't irrational?
@funhistory Point taken, though I disagree that if G-d got a thrill, it wouldn't matter. I'm mostly just very troubled by the fact that Jesus is G-d but is also a man. Where Jewish monotheism differed hugely from pagan religions was the way G-d was unequivocally not man; that He was high above man and was not a physical entity. There are many books and videos on the subject of how Jesus's is very very similar to many pagan myths, some of which were floating around at about the same time.
"He was high above man and was not a physical entity"--then you apparently have problems with some of God's other rare physical appearances as men (Genesis 18, 32; Exodus 33; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1).
@funhistory I think there is a contradiction between the verses that say that you cannot look upon G-d or you will die, that G-d is simply spirit, that G-d doesn't have face or form, etc. if you look at it that way, so I see those as either metaphors or as G-d speaking through something physical, which is not how most Christians see Jesus.
There's no contradiction in the Bible though there are passages that people interpret that way (mostly due to poor translations) despite having the option to harmonize them. The one you mentioned involves mostly Ex 33, John 1, 1John 4. There's a clear, non-contradictory distinction between having a chat with God in God's presence (in covert forms like Abraham's guests & Moses' cloud) vs. seeing God the Father in full glory (whatever that is) vs. seeing God the Son (Jesus).
Another one you mentioned (& misrepresented) is "that G-d is simply spirit". John 4:24 states "God is a Spirit." Not simply! God is a Father & God is a Son from other verses. No contradictions. I am an engineer, I am an American, I am a Christian, etc., but I am still one human. I'm not aware of a verse that states God doesn't have a face or form at any time.
@funhistory G-d of course has a presence in this world and can at many times be heard (which is in some sense worldly). The difference is that because of the Holy Trinity, G-d is not in a way simply present in Jesus, which you could write off. I don't know about you, but all my Catholic religion teachers said that G-d IS Jesus and Jesus IS G-d.
@funhistory I was raised Catholic but never got any satisfactory answers to any of these problems and so could never bring myself to truly believe in Jesus. Furthermore I don't think that Jesus fully fulfilled the prophecies that would make him the Messiah, but there are more videos and articles about that, as I wouldn't be able to fit all the detail in these small comment spaces.
3:41 No !god never copulates with humans, only his spirit impregnates a woman so that some guy walking on seas will tell you to be happy .. no matter what is your religion if your a good and kind person u are that way cuz u choose to be that way ...Like every other book on a shelf the bible was written by a wise man just so he could pass his beliefs ... and so was the quran and the new harry potter book
If something too complicated for you to understand, it not means god created it.
It means you need study more about our world and aspire for knowledge, it means that the human brain could not understand all because after all we are just animal in this world, with gens, that meant to reproduce in this world, not more.
I've heard Prager debate Hitchens on Prager's radio program, and also in a rather informal debate with Dinesh D'souza. What I meant was I would like to see just the two of them go at it in a formal debate.
You know that the first day and night doesn't happen until the fifth verse of Genesis 1 right?
Also, if you are going to take this first chapter literally, then where is it in the Bible that God creates the Strong force? Where does he create the electroweak symmetry breaking? Where is it in the Bible that God creates the Gravitational force? Or should we take the definition of "Light" in the first chapter to actually be the universal speed limit for bosons and fermions?
ArodienX 1 week ago
(part4) "Man must live not by bread alone but by every utterence(knowledge of good and bad)coming out of God's mouth" Math4:4. The more one study the Word of God and lives by it the closer he is to endless life.
gnostic38 2 weeks ago
(part3) (as if having the needed knowledge=having the right to eat from it). Lesson for us all is the same: If we want to move toward eternal life we need to turn to God for Knowledge how to live and not die(Prov2:6). Knowledge is the first thing we need.(Prov4:7) Then comes for ex.love, mercy etc.because in order to love first we have to KNOW what true love is. So the tree gives us very precious lesson that if one learns he's got the key to endless life.(Prov3:18) (look part4)
gnostic38 2 weeks ago
(part 2)God acted as a loving parent giving his children precious information how to keep their life forever, not to lose it. The tree would remind them that life depends on knowledge which they didn't have as having just been created, being very young in contrast to God who HAD the knowledge as the Creator and Source of life. The ban not to eat from it would remind them of constant necessity to turn to God for knowledge and not to try to act according to their natural ignorance(look part3)
gnostic38 2 weeks ago
What do you think about a point of view that the most important verse in the Bible is Genesis 2:9,17 "God made..the tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD."This is the first thing God did after he had created man. It must be of great significance to us!I think the tree of knowledge means:to be able to live endlessly one needs KNOWLEDGE what is GOOD for life and what is BAD -harmfulf to life, what supports life and what destroys it.Naming one of the trees in the paradise in this way(look part2)
gnostic38 2 weeks ago
No matter what your opinion is it's irrelevant - God created the Heavens and the Earth... end of story and your opinion isn't gonna change it. You may speculate using your vain philosophy till the blue in the face and think you've won the argument but when the Final Day comes all your arguments will be flattened before the Face of God Almighty.
vik72od 2 weeks ago
One of my favorites. " The law came through Moses."Grace and truth through Yeshua.
Pomiferous 1 month ago
This so true. Genesis 1:1 is the most important verse. thanks Mr Prager.
NewUser21111 2 months ago
Absolutely true! Genesis 1:1 is the MOST important verse in the Bible! Well stated, Dennis.
walksbyf8h 2 months ago
2.) What Dennis is saying is "There is no meaning to my life without the belief that a ridiculous Greek God-like story makes the entire universe into some kind of never-ending soap opera".
It's like needing to believe that your parents are asleep in the next room.. I've never understood it.
Believing that there is a god and he/she/it is above nature and that he/she/it created me and is playing with this world like a lego set.. does not give me meaning.
Dennis, you're crossed off m book.
Track607 3 months ago
@Track607 I actually feel sort of sad for people that feel they (and others) can't be "good" without some sort of deity watching over them like an overprotective aunt.
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
1.) Morality is the name for a group of beliefs that anyone holds which dictate what we think is "good" or "bad." Since both "good" and "bad" are personal beliefs, they are subjective and everyone might disagree on them and never be wrong. It's like asking someone what their favorite color is.
If you believe that God or The Bible are necessary for morality to exist, you don't understand what morality is and you believe that your definition of "good" and "bad" are correct and others' are not.
Track607 3 months ago
@Track607 :
If you believe in subjective morality, then it must follow that there is really no good or bad. I believe something is evil and you believe it is good; either one of us is wrong, or the said belief is neither good nor evil, only perceived differently by different people. Right?
gruvymon 1 month ago
@gruvymon Yes, that is correct. There is no absolute value for neither good nor bad.
Track607 1 month ago
@Track607
Maybe you misunderstand my point. My argument was not that there is no "absolute value" for good or bad. If you are a relativist, it means that there can be no good or bad. Good and bad can not really exist. There can be no such thing. Goodbye morality, goodbye ethics, they are a fable.
gruvymon 1 month ago
@gruvymon The terms "good" and "bad" are words we as humans use to describe things we like and dislike. That is all. As long as we like and dislike things, they will require a words and those seem adequate to me.
Track607 1 month ago
@Track607
It's an interesting perspective. I guess there's nothing inherently bad in something like genocide. It is only bad because humans "don't like" it. It makes me think that a nation who likes the idea of removing another race from the planet has pretty good grounds for the idea. I mean, under your definition, as long as they "like" the idea, it is good. Right?
gruvymon 1 month ago
@gruvymon Good to them. To you, in might be bad, even horrible. It's all subjective. But I doubt they think it is good; they simply see it as necessary because they display psychopathic tendencies. Which is to say, I do believe that there are things that all of humanity think are "bad". That is closest to an objective definition as can ever be achieved, I'm afraid.
Track607 1 month ago
@Track607
"I do believe that there are things that all of humanity think are "bad". Why? On what does "all of humanity" base this determination.
BTW - Poland, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan... I hardly think "all of humanity" thinks that genocide is bad. I wish it were true. But what if, hypothetically, "all of humanity" believed it was ok to eliminate a race based on a determination that they were weaker? Then what? And if you believe that could never happen, why not?
gruvymon 1 month ago
@gruvymon They would all think of something as bad because they would all dislike it. In regards to the countries you listed - isn't it the minority in them that caused this "genocide" you refer to? In which case, is it not obvious to you that that minority displays those same psychopathic tendencies I referred to, earlier?
Those people have no emotions; they are dead inside. They can't judge good or bad for anyone.
Track607 1 month ago
@Track607
You speak with great authority on the psychopathic condition of despots. You seem unaware that you are making my case for me. How do you know that what you call psychopathic is not actually a more perfected human state? If I believe that, am I absolutely wrong? Actually, I do agree with you that despots do not correctly judge right and wrong. I'm with you and the vast majority of humanity on this.
Interesting though that the vast majority of humanity also believes in God.
gruvymon 1 month ago
@gruvymon No, I'm well aware of your 'case'. You want to believe that 'good' and 'bad' have absolute definitions because the thought that genocide might be seen as 'good' terrifies you.
But the answer is simple, as I've explained. First off, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks the value of 'good' to be. That is the great part of it - the fact that its subjective means that only your version of it is correct for you and no one can ever tell you different
...
Track607 1 month ago
@gruvymon Second, the people who oppose your view of 'good' and 'bad' on the extreme scales, such as on matters of genocide, murder, rape, etc. are not fully within their mental means. Where as you are (for the most part) a conscious, caring individual, they are more like animals.
To me, that is all I need to feel good about the world.
And in regards to the belief in a deity, that stems from the same barbarism as rape - is it a delusion that those people need in order to go through their day.
Track607 1 month ago
What, this isn't a joke video?! Dennis, you lifted me up just so that you could tear me down..
He makes two points, a midst the irrational god praise:
1.) There is no morality without God/The Bible.
2.) There is no meaning without God/The Bible.
Both of those notions have been answered 100 times over but I'll give it in my words.
Track607 3 months ago
On meaning and morality: I don't see why it is necessary to have an objective or divine standard for meaning or morality. Both are man-made. Meaning requires an observer and does not exist as an inherent part of the universe. It is subjective by definition.
A state of nature is not immoral, it is amoral, because morality is also subjective. I don't see a man-made morality as inadequate. Why do we need divine or natural justification to determine how we should treat each other?
Ruspanic 3 months ago
Your claim, as I understand it, is that the universe cannot exist without an intelligent Creator. Why not? (That the Bible says so is not a logically satisfying answer). Try to explain why not.
"Well, you know... it's so complex - how could all this happen by chance?"
How could it? Well, if the complexity of "all this" is not the primordial state - it has built upon itself for many millennia. We can't know the beginning, but our lack of understanding doesn't mean it's impossible.
Ruspanic 3 months ago
@Ruspanic :
I think it's important for one who refuses the existence of God based on reason to avoid arguments like "doesn't mean it's impossible" when referring to a natural explanation for the origin of man. If you try, you will find many folks who believe in God because, to them, His existence is more probable than the alternative.
The classic example: It could happen that I play a game of poker with my friends and draw 4 aces every hand for two hours. Not impossible, but not likely.
gruvymon 1 month ago
@richardtheconquerer The 1000 years comes from the time the Messiah will reign on earth. The judgment won't come until after this. 'Salvation' is about being saved 'from' our sins, its consequences, 'for' eternal life here and after death. Christ died for our sins. If u don't believe it - if God doesn't make this known to u Himself - if it is only a salesman promoting his sale - u won't get forgiveness, will go to where u deserve to go when u die, and then be judged for your works then.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
Andrea Yates believed that she was a bad mother, and because of it her kids would got to hell forever. The Bible gives pictures of more than one place of the dead than hell. See Ezekiel 32 & Luke 16. These places as well as heaven are only temporary - see Revelations 20-22. The NT - Romans 11, says that the gifts and promises of God are irrevocable - the promises to Dennis' people still hold true. The Gospel is still good news. The death and resurrection bring salvation from sin to believers.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
Is he trying to convert anyone here? No. He was simply pointing out the verse he believes is the most important in the Bible. Y'all sensitive atheists are so confused.
yooonmi 4 months ago 2
The amazing immaturity of the atheist comments here (and everywhere else on YT0 only proves their lack of any intelligence.
LordWhorfinX2 4 months ago
Love it Dennis! Well done!
bw01a 4 months ago
People only started looking out for the weaker once religion lost most of its meaning in the modern world. Hence the creation of many NGOs, most of which have very, very little to do with Genesis 1.1. only sprung up in the past 70 years (more or less)
alexewinkler 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the truth is...
Life is a beautiful coincidence.
the coincidence so hard to believe that
"we made god".
yellowmango30 4 months ago 3
@richardtheconquerer Agape love is about giving and giving and giving and giving, and when you can't give anymore, to keep on giving. Eros is about sex, phileo is about friendship, storge is about parent-child love. If anything, the "inequality" works entirely in the woman's favor. The little book of Ephesians is a good read, because it encapsulates Christianity in 6 pages. Each verse is better understood when seen in the context of the whole.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 lol yeah ok. Defend these passages next: Exodus 21:7-11
Here's a cute one too: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 A man can randomly accuse his wife of not being a virgin and if she can't prove she is, she is stoned to death. If it turns out the man is lying, he is simply fined and has to stay married.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer My mistake. There's no need to defend God's Word. He can do it Himself. Don't believe it? That's really your problem. Blaspheme His name; slander His Word - then it becomes a bigger problem. The only reason any of us are alive is because He loves us. Don't know He exists? Don't know that it's even possible to know if the Bible is His Word? You have a few surprises coming. Don't believe me? My concern is that God doesn't remove from your life the blessing of life.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 Nice, I love it. Absolutely love it. You can't defend an absurd passage from the bible, so you rely on fear mongering. You are seriously a sad, sad human being.
Here's a thought: if a God did create you (which I DO believe some sort of god did, just not the silly, hyper-sensitive, immoral, ludicrous God who appears in the bible) why don't you use the BRAIN he gave you and think outside the box? Maybe, just maybe, some book that HUMANS wrote may not be the word of your creator.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Praise the Lord! Was afraid He pulled the plug on you. If I didn't get the rev from Him, why should I believe it? The Bible certainly doesn't fit with the values of our society today. But as I look around, I don't see the world becoming a better place, quite the contrary. When you say that the God of the Bible is "silly, hyper-sensitive, immoral, ludicrous," it is a seriously sad, sad thing for me to see. Deny what i know? Why?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 Thinking does not equal denying. Stop being so close minded.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer I think all the time. I even think seriously about what you write. There are theological views that make that imply God is a huge celestial monster who likes to make bad toys, some to clean up, some to destroy in fire. There exists now in Chritian theology a major problem with the "big picture." Is it a problem with what the Bible says? Or is it what we fail to read and apply to the mix? Prager mentions it. Perhaps you see it, too. What is the answer?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 Not really even sure what you're asking. What is the answer to what?
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Very interesting passages. I wonder if they were ever applied. Can u imagine if in our society people were stoned to death for fornication and adultery? Would there be anybody left? Over in John 8 a woman was caught in a adultery and brought before Jesus for judgment. Notice any differences in application of Scripture before and after the Babylon deportation?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 So are we picking and choosing what to believe in the bible now?
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Believe or practice? Why was a new covenant necessary?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 I'm not a bible scholar so you're going to need to be more specific about what you mean
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The big question is this: is life worth living for people who don't become Christians? If the answer is no, what does it say about the God of the Bible, about abortion being a very good idea, about the lady in Texas who killed her 4 kids? How does the Bible answer the question? How does the English word - hell - misrepresent the numerous ancient words? If the answer is no, isn't God a monster?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 "The big question is this: is life worth living for people who don't become Christians?"
The answer is quite clearly yes. Does this void the questions you asked afterward?
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Most xtns believe we either go to heaven or hell. "Hell" is only a territory in the place of the dead. All these places including heaven are temporary. There has always been hope for the good - Isaiah 57,2. There was hope for the wicked in the OT if they repented - Ezekiel 18 & 33. Matthew 25 has 3 stories, the later 2 relevant to this: what about bad xtns? and the judgment likened to sheep & goats. It's hard to condense this all.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 You're really going off on a tangent here. I answered yes to your question, and now you're talking about good Christians versus bad ones. Let's start with this: life IS worth living for people who don't become Christians. Start with that thought and that thought only and respond to it directly how you feel about it.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Sorry about the tangent. Because at the resurrection of the dead non-Christians will be judged on the basis of their works, whether good or bad - yes, life is worth living for them if they do good; no, if they persevere in doing evil.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 So even under your belief system, it's pointless to become a Christian as long as you do good in your life, so why become a Christian?
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer When a person accepts Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, that person receives forgiveness of sins now, receives the righteousness of God put in him/her now, receives eternal life now - eternal life - knowing God as Father now, instead of as judge later. To live now in relationship to the Creator is the best life of all. He gives us His Holy Spirit who gives us the power, love, and wisdom to live for Christ.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 So, what's the difference? Better to be forgiven now in case I want to do awful things later? What if I know I'm always going to do good? What's the use in being a Christian?
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The judgment for good works won't come for at least a 1000 years. So when you die, u get to pay for your sins. Jesus said that "the way is broad and the gate is wide that leads to destruction and many enter it; narrow is the way and small the gate that leads to life, and only a few enter it." 800 yrs before Christ, Isaiah wrote "Those who follow godly paths will rest in peace when they die." Better be very good indeed to get to that place. The past is already against u.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 Where are you pulling this 1000 years number from? And what do you mean the past is already against me? You don't know anything about my life. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logic that being a Christian somehow "saves" you from something.
Take buying a car as a metaphor: should I buy a Nissan or a Ford? The Ford dealer tells me you'll "save" in the long run if you buy a Ford, but he can't tell me why or offer me any proof. Why exactly should I take his word for it?
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 Side note: why do Christians (and presumably other religions) capitalize certain words? Like God, His Holy Spirit, His, Him, etc.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Out of respect for God.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 How is that respectful? Language was made up by humans.
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The 'respect' is from my desire to show respect to God for what He has done for me. In the Greek New Testament it is not done.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 What are your thoughts on my car dealer analogy?
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer I think it's a fair consideration. I'm not a Christian because somebody sold the idea to me. I don't believe in the Bible because it's a remarkable book. In both cases God "broke through the nether" and invaded my life about these issues. I'm not God. If I were you i would want His imput about Himself and His book. I might be lying or seriously mentally ill. I don't hope that God will do for u what He did for me. I hope He does something for u entirely unique.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 If God honestly and truly did this for you and has done this for others, I must ask: what is the purpose of the book?
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer To quote a good friend, "If the Bible is the Word of God, the better we understand it the better we understand God's mind on whatever He reveals." We as people have opinions and convictions about the data we receive during our lifetime. God has no opinions. His view is real. EVERYBODY underestimates God. The dimensions the Book addresses are beyond our earthly wisdom. Thru it, eternity opens up to us. There's no limit to what can be gained.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 Not sure you really answered my question here. You said God contacted you in some way, independent of the Bible, so I will ask again. If the book is irrelevant as it was written by humans and only claimed to be the words of God, WHAT is the purpose of the book? You (supposedly) had God reveal himself to you. I REALLY doubt his message was "hey, read that book, it's totally rad and it's what I want"
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Why would God use 40 different prophets over a 1500 year period to speak first to the Jews and then to all mankind? For one thing, to make Himself accurately known. Second, to make known to mankind who we are. Third, to make known what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, what is good and evil. Forth, and the main point: to prepare humanity for the Incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh to become the sacrifice for sin that is needed in order for us to know Him.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 If he wanted to make himself accurately known, he did a very poor job given there are hundreds of different religions who all believe somewhat different things.
2nd, you're still not getting the issue. You said yourself that God made some sort of direct contact with you. Whatever it was, according to you, he has the power to do this. THEREFORE, there is NO purpose to a written book when God himself can contact any human at any time whenever he pleases.
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Not true (about the "NO purpose" part, or the "accurately known" part). You'd do well to read it, if for no other reason than to get some idea about what you're talking about. Up till now I've enjoyed your thinking. But this part doesn't do you justice. You need more knowledge of the Book. Otherwise, you are simply imposing your thinking on it, which if it fit would make sense, but it doesn't.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 I have read it
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 and the not accurately known part IS true Are you not acknowledging that there are hundreds of different religions? Do you really mean to tell me that's not confusing his word?
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 In fact, there's even LESS reason for you to read it because God contacted you personally, negating the purpose of reading the book.
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The reason why God spoke to me is, at that time, I prayed to Him morning and evening on my face for 6 months to find out from Him if the Bible is His Word. He answered me on Easter Sunday 1976 and said, "John, you're a foolish man if you don't believe all of My Word." I told Him I would believe it all. "To whom much is given, much is required." I have more responsibility before God about this than u do. U don't know God or if the Bible is His Word.
deQuercy321 3 months ago
@deQuercy321 I notice God didn't specifically say that the bible is his word. He just said you're foolish if you don't believe it.
Out of curiosity, what did he sound like? Did he have an accent of some sort? Did he sound angry/sad/happy?
richardtheconquerer 3 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Hey, just to correct you with love as a real Christain and not the fake ones that call the,selves one. God actually did specifically say that HE wrote the word. WHERE??? in the bible. Get a bible and read John 1:1 if you want prove. but here is what God said " In the Beginning was the Word and the Word with God, and the Word was God. The word meaning the Bible. He is the author of the bible. But also he spoke his Word to some people to write, which born came the bible. :)
mhmddleader 2 months ago
@mhmddleader I believe (don't remember though) that I was referring specifically to what God supposedly said to deQuercy321
But since you brought it up, what makes the Bible the word of God? Just because it says so? Don't all religions claim whatever their holy book is is the word of God? Why would God make things so confusing?
richardtheconquerer 1 month ago
@deQuercy321 Also I assume you mean Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 kids ten years ago. I don't see the connection of that to anything we're discussing.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The big question is this: is life worth living for people who don't become Christians?
deQuercy321 4 months ago
Dennis, here are a couple of good verses for you "But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." See Daniel 12.
"Those who follow godly paths will rest in peace when they die." From Isaiah 57
deQuercy321 4 months ago
MrGrayish, your life is about a quadrillion beautiful coincidences happening constantly. The problem lies when the beautiful ones get overwhelmed by the bad ones, and then......., total system failure. I like the 'beautiful' part.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
"In the natural world, hospitals aren't built" LOL yeah those damn animals won't build hospitals with all their tools and shit. Some jerks, those animals!
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
Why is everybody so afraid of nothingness after death. How can it be bad if it is nothing. Have you ever went to sleep and when you wake up you didn't remember any dream. What did you feel while you were sleeping? Nothing... was it bad? No!
vasilicabuculut 4 months ago
The only mistake Mr. Prager made here was that he used the word nature, as though there is a nature, and nature exists.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
Is the Bible the most influential book ever written? If so, is that a good thing? I mean, vengeful god destroys entire world because he's made (except he forgets to kill the fish).
Also, Genesis 1:1 is all the proof you need that the Bible is a load of crap
Craigipedia 4 months ago
I thought you might pick that verse, Dennis. I thought: John 3:16, Jeremiah 9: 23,24. But, before you said it, I thought Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:27 has to run close to it. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The significance of this verse is that every person I meet, young, old, male, female, beautiful, not-beautiful, intelligent, not-intelligent, etc. has eternal value, - because God made them with it.
deQuercy321 5 months ago
@deQuercy321 We have value because we're people, not because we're the magically vitalized mud sculptures of an invisible space wizard. Your god adds no value to human life.
BoredInfidel 5 months ago
@BoredInfidel Like it or not, God exists and reveals HImself. Why has He shut you out? You don't believe in Him - your choice. Don't like the way He permits evil, unrighteousness, injustice, suffering, hardship, death? We don't have a choice about it. I'm not kidding: God reveals Himself personally and powerfully beyond all other sensory experiences when He wants to. He does it all the time. Yet He is not personally obligated to do it at all. By grace alone - He acts.
deQuercy321 5 months ago
@deQuercy321 Like it or not, Superman exists and reveals HImself. Why has He shut you out? You don't believe in Him - your choice. Don't like the way He permits evil,? unrighteousness, injustice, suffering, hardship, death? We don't have a choice about it. I'm not kidding: Superman reveals Himself personally and powerfully beyond all other sensory experiences when He wants to. He does it all the time. Yet He is not personally obligated to do it at all. By grace alone - He acts.
You crazy fuck.
BoredInfidel 4 months ago 2
What a fool, you first need to establish the bible is more than a collection of absurd barbaric stories before I'll give it any import.
dlandon2000 5 months ago
@dlandon2000 The only need you have is for God to establish for you that the "collection of absurb barbaric stories" were given by Him. Why else believe them? I went to HIm, wanted to know about His book, and to my surprise - and when God acts personally for people "surprise" is the word to describe it - He told me I was a "fool" if I didn't believe it all. You're just a miracle away, Landon. How can we know these things unless God reveals them. Happily, He is very generous on that end.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
What a parochial know-nothing! There are about a hundred billion galaxies each containing a hundred billion stars. So our sun is a tiny, tiny speck of dust inside a speck of dust, which is our galaxy. The size of the earth is all but negligible in that context. "The heavens and the earth" was written by an ignorant bronze age man. If it had been a god, he would have known better.
weberbeat 5 months ago 3
@weberbeat Sad to hear that weber. If you would have known better you will follow gods steps to eternal life.
pumaboy77 3 months ago
@pumaboy77 Of course YOU know, what gods steps are. By gods steps, do you mean Matthew 15:4 or Mark 7:10? Please don't insult me with god's will, words or steps. How convenient, that they always coincide with YOUR will, etc.
You believers are the epitome of arrogance. An eternal life with your ilk: the horror! Delude yourself all you want, but don't shove it down other peoples throats. Had you been born in Afghanistan, you would tell me to follow Muhammed.
weberbeat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weberbeat
Yeah, but you're a dick.
ASeventhSign 2 months ago
I deny the Bible is the most influential book ever written. Seems to me that the Principia sparked a far more immediate and far reaching effect. The Bible made us build some churches and burn a bunch of people alive, the Principia allowed us to walk on the moon (among rather a lot else).
DavidMTRutten 5 months ago 3
"Nothing that follows makes any sense."
He got that right at least. Genesis is pure fiction from start to finish.
bernygagne 5 months ago 6
@bernygagne You sure about that?
aClockworkBoec 3 months ago
@aClockworkBoec As sure as I am of anything in this life. The evidence available is simply against it. Creation is a ridiculous myth, the flood is a fairy tale, the tower of Babel is a fanciful tale of how languages came to be. The whole thing reads like any of the countless myths humans have come up with over the millennia. I'm sure if you look at it critically you'll reach the same conclusion too. It's inescapable.
bernygagne 3 months ago
@bernygagne Actually, sedimentary rock layers that covers earth's surface are clear evidence of global flood.
If creation is ridiculous, then you must have some evidence that DNA molecule can be spontaneously created in chemical reaction.
aClockworkBoec 3 months ago
@aClockworkBoec Wrong. Categorically false. Read something other than that flood geology crap Gish came up with. The sedimentary layers have been laid down by local floods in some areas but there never was a global flood. The reality is that there are layers that take thousands of years to lay down underneath layers that take a few years. There is no way you would get that kind of sedimentation in a year-long global flood. There are too many things making a global flood an impossibility.
bernygagne 3 months ago
@bernygagne Local floods, you say? Really? In the middle of Europe, Africa, Asia, North and South America?
Actually, you think that the world today was the same as it was 5000 years ago. But it's not. Global flood shaped the world we see today. That's a fact.
aClockworkBoec 3 months ago
Wow! I'm not an atheist anymore! I'm totally convinced . . . not. Putz.
artoo45 5 months ago 6
@artoo45 "im not talking about evolution, that's not my argument here" listen to the video before you make ignorant comments.
Geeksandbeats 4 months ago
I think the natural cause is way out in front.
grenangle 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women can't talk in church
Ephesians 5:22-24 Husband is in charge of his wife
Prager loves the bible cause he's a man, I suppose
richardtheconquerer 5 months ago 18
@richardtheconquerer
Maybe he's' Jewish, and in that case, none of that applies to women, as women are treated as equals, and both men and women are discouraged from talking in synogouge? And a man is just the head of the family, but no where superior to the women, who is praised for her important work?
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@israelawareness1 He could be, but he talks about how great Christianity is on his radio show all the time. I'm not familiar with what Jewish people study but don't they read the Old Testament at least? Some pretty messed up stuff in that.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Yeah I just listen to some of his talk shows also, not familiar with what he believes in.
Judaism only believes in the Old Testament. You wrote the words "Corinthisans" and "Ephesians" as the names of books and they don't exist in the Old Testament (although I never heard of them either in the New Testament). Of course, a lot of stuff in both books is open to how you interpret it, and how you will work your society.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
From my knowledgeof Christianity, even if it does say that, women are still treated equally, so those 2 verses weren't to make them inferior or anything, just general rules and organization of a family, you know?
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@israelawareness1 Both are indeed in the New Testament. Yes, any writing is open to interpretation, but some of it I don't feel can be twisted too much. Even if all it meant was an "organization of a family" why would the man necessarily be in charge? Take this for example from Genesis 3:16 "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The Old Testament is kinda crazy in of itself. Seems like the punishment for anything is death.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
I can't speak for Christianity's interpretation, just that I know women are usually treated equally, but with Judaism, women are viewed as equals, and that verse is just for family structure, and the Torah (Old Testament) gives jobs to the husband, and jobs to the wife, so each play a vital role.
And Torah doesn't really give too many punishments, the Oral Torah (Talmud) does, but not even that many are death. Only if you kill, commit adultery, idoltary, child sacrifice
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@israelawareness1 Adultery is a pretty measly crime to warrant death. Exodus 21:15 and 21:17 say if you strike or even just curse your parents, you're to be put to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says if your son is rebellious, he is to be put to death by stoning. Deuteronomy 13:12-15 says to chop people up with swords if they believe in different gods. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says if a girl lies about her virginity, she shall not only be killed, but stoned to death in front of her father. Classy.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
In a holy society like in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, adultery isn't a measley crime... And yes, that think about striking your parents, there's a lot more in depth to it, but it's basically telling kids not to hit their parents. Everything that you said - there's a lot of commentaries on it. And as I said before in the Talmud it says: A court which has killed 1 person in 70 years is a bad and corrupt court system. It was so rare to kill someoen back then.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Those are just a few. But let me give you a famous quote from the Talmud:
"A Supreme Court which gives the death penalty once in every 70 years is a bad Supreme Court." What that means is the Supreme Court had to do such a thorough investigation and try to give an alternative punishment, and also to make sure that people didn't do these sins in the first place. And in the modern world, with Israel a secular state, the court system isn't based on the Talmud.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@israelawareness1 (1)I don't really care about the court system. I'm quoting what is the supposed word of God. In the Bible, God says the punishment is death for this, this, this, etc. Then later on, it says it isn't, then it says it is again. I'm really not sure which was worse: the death for doing anything or the inconsistencies.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Lol nothing contradicts itself in the Bible... And every single world is written there for a meaning, there is no extra word, there are extensive studies on this. What you think is an inconsistency actually relates to something else and is meant to teach us something. The Talmud, and commentaries, deal with this.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Btw, do note that I'm only talking about Judaism, as I can't vouch for Christianity or Islam.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
This is one of the reasons I don't like to discuss these topics... Because the only real way to learn about this and realize it's not inconsisten is to actually look it up in that verse in a commentary or the Talmud (which isn't exactly somethin either that you can walk into not knowing anything and just read it). So I have no purpose here, I've made my points, if you really want to know something I won't be of any use, there are commentaries for that.
Have a nice day
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@israelawareness1 Can't you provide an Internet link to where the inconsistencies are explained? Cause there are tons of them. Some of which, TBH, are no big deal but just strange that they don't match up. For instance, saying one person is someone's father then in another verse, someone else is that person's father. There can't really be any hidden or alternative meaning in that. It's just a straight-forward mistake. But like I said, if you provide me a link, I'd be happy to read it.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
You can inbox me specific ones if you have questions (I'd rather clear up the comments here, detracts from the video). The most known commentary on the Torah and most simple one and explains why this is written here and that is written there and why not chronological order etc is known as Rashi, I can't find him online in English though, and if you want to know just the down and dirty law then there's the Sulchan Aruch. I can't find complete English online though.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Also, one of the things is that a popular translation book like Artscroll will have Rashi in English, but most other commentaries are left out, so you really have to know Hebrew if you want a full understanding and here what others have to say... Otherwise all i can tell you is nothing is inconsistent, and there are even explanataions for why this word was chosen and not that word and why this is here even though it seems extra it's really not... Etc. Interesting stuff.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer
Also, since the Talmud discusses courts and punishment a lot, they often explain these "inconsistencies" which is often, "This verse was referring to this type of crime as we know by the word ___," while "this verse referred to this type of crime as we know by the word ___." It's something dealt with in depth, but isn't ignored, and in the long run, there aren't any inconsistencies.
israelawareness1 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer The 1 Corinthians 14 passage definitely states that the church meeting was "man time." The passage even ends with "and this is the command of the Lord." But the Ephesians 5 passage gives instruction to the wife AND to the husband. The wife's responsibility: submit to and respect her husband. The husband's responsibililty? "love your wife as Christ loved the church" - love like a crucifixion.... The man is NOT commanded to dominate his wife. To each his/her own job.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 Right cause "submit to" really sounds like an equal relationship.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer Who has the hardest job: the woman or the man in the Ephesian's passage? Equality definitely isn't the priority, true.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer In your equal relationship system of marriage, does it work on a point system where each partner puts in a certain number of points? What happens if one of the partners begins to fall behind due to illness, pregnancy, child care, of something else? Is there any place for "love" in it?
The Hindus had a system a couple of centuries ago called "satee" (or setee). The woman was not allowed to live long after her husband, and when he died, she got to burn alive on the pyre.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
@deQuercy321 Searching your reply for a point and I'm not seeing one. I'll answer your questions though:
1) Neither really has a job
2) No, I wouldn't use a point system
3) What?
4) Yes
5) That's a neat story about the Hindus. Not sure what it has to do with anything.
richardtheconquerer 4 months ago
@richardtheconquerer In the Ephesians 5 passage the people of God are commanded to "be filled with the Spirit, - a command, and then several adjoining commands by participles in the Greek, to be submitted one to the other (men and women). The man is to be the head of the wife (not the sperm donor as in most cultures). But then he is commanded to love his wife with agape love, not eros love, not phileo love, not storge love. He is essentially called to love his wife like a slave. She's not.
deQuercy321 4 months ago
Humans are the only species to make war, ergo, nature is bad and humans are good!
mzsharful 5 months ago
"No one, not even the most devoted atheist, denies that the Bible is the most influential book ever written." I deny that. Therefore that comment is demonstrably false. /video
JQisAwesome 5 months ago 4
And the human mind is "Glorious!" As it invented the "Idea of God". I don't pity Atheists. I pity Rich people who suffer from the sin of greed. Their empty shallow lives drain others. Do something altruistic and stop trying to make other people believe your thing.
Mikecores 6 months ago
and here is the truth again:
"If you could reason with religious people, there'd BE no religious people!" -House M.D.
Mikecores 6 months ago 2
@AnilKnows well done for repeating history's mistakes and hating someone for a belief that has no impact on your life. y'all have a good war now, ya hear? I'll just be sat here in my christianity chair having a civilised discussion on theology with my atheist friends.
theShamus 6 months ago
Heh. I rest my case.
lebarosky 6 months ago
@AnilKnows Heh. I rest my case.
lebarosky 6 months ago
I disagree with atheists because I believe they displace hatred of religion into denial of God's existence. I believe that secular humanism is a horrible doctrine in a literal sense: it creates horror. It is the basis of the ideological wars of the 20th century, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Fundamentally, the idea of atheism is nothing more than the glorification of the human mind as the measure of all things. Try to respond without using expletives and crude personal attacks.
lebarosky 6 months ago
Life is a beautiful coincidence.
MrGrayish 6 months ago 12
@MrGrayish Something that has no meaning is not something I would call "beautiful".
tomdenman 3 months ago
That is definitely an argument, and I generally agree with everything Mr. Prager says, however, in this case, you could go to just about ANY verse in the Torah or the Christian Bible, and make a case for THAT verse being the most important. Every person has to find his own verse that is significant to him. This one is Dennis's verse. But it is not the most important verse in the entire Torah.
AviHoffmanMagic 7 months ago
This video would describe a good Anti-Transcendentalist.
revolverA 7 months ago
Is a human being, who believes there is a Creator but doesn't follow any religion, considered an atheist? Because I am disgusted to the marrow of my bones of all religions that have caused millions of people to die! You don't have to go to churches, mosques, or donate money to some lazy religious fucks who make living by exploiting people's faith and fears, to go to a better place, people! Just always be good to everyone around you, regardless of faith, race, or gender, thats all you have to do!
tsalyuge 7 months ago
can we just all agree to live good happy lives with or without God? ;(
dubyawhy 8 months ago
@deadlyshoelace What would you suggest one should spend thier lives doing then ? In order to avoid disapointment
Pomiferous 8 months ago
Dennis,
While you think you're spreading good with your videos, you're actually spreading blind faith, which is the exact opposite of curiosity and rationality which makes us strive to make a better world.
Not asking "Why?" and simply accepting a "Because" is to me the most dangerous trait in human history since it gives rise to people who will use it for their own purposes (See the Muslim Ayatollah, the Christian Pope and the Jewish Rabbis).
I suggest everyone to read Richard Dawkins books.
Zivlet 8 months ago
@Zivlet It's odd your list did not include any secular totalitarians.I would suppose the followers of Mao,Stalin and Pol Pot thought of themselves as highly rational.
Pomiferous 8 months ago
@Pomiferous Throughout the history, there were many crazy and dangerous people from both ends, religious and secular, and I disapprove of them all. But it doesn't make religious zealots any better just because there are different kind of zealots, other than religious ones.
As a guideline, I wouldn't blindly follow anyone without first thinking if what I'm following is worthy to me.
If you to hear a different opinion other than your own, i suggest you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
Zivlet 8 months ago
@Zivlet Ziv-I'm trying to decipher your statement and for the sake of general conversation.You must find Prager "unworthy" of your attention in order to be promoting Richard Dawkins during one of his presentations.Or, am I just too blind and zealous to see a more elevated intention.
Pomiferous 7 months ago
couldn't have said it better, myself
KAHANAwasRIGHT 8 months ago
ha ha I guessed Genesis 1:1!!!
crazyfool8839 8 months ago
So, heavens & earth were created by an imaginary being. It's a very special being: unlike the other imaginary beings that preceded it, we imagine this one is "outside nature" and has a grand purpose for creating nature (and us), which is, um... unknown / incomprehensible. (But it's for our sake!)
Well, that must put all our uncertainties to rest, if we can just ignore the fact that our various notions about this special imaginary being are inconsistent, incoherent, and violently irreconcilable.
ottotellick 8 months ago
@deadlyshoelace
Your statement that I'll be disappointed is irrational, because if you're correct, I won't exist after death. Pascal realized this in his famous wager. Christian theism is not irrational because it's based on a reliable, internally consistent revelation from God that adequately accounts for all we experience in life. All other belief systems fail in this respect. For example, you say you "think" I'll be disappointed, but your thoughts have no authority.
funhistory 8 months ago
@deadlyshoelace
The point of being in heaven is getting to spend eternity with someone lovable, as opposed to suffering for eternity. But that's not Prager's point, & that's not the meaning of life.
funhistory 8 months ago
"[G-d] never copulated with humans". Haha, one of the main reasons I'm not a Christian, since G-d apparently got Mary pregnant.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
@themonkeywrench
Scripture doesn't record God copulating with any human, including Mary. It was more like in-vivo fertilization for the purpose of Christ fulfilling the Kinsman Redeemer prophecies, not for God to experience the thrill of copulation as in the mythologies Prager was referring to. But even if God did it for the thrill, that would still be an irrational basis for not being a Christian. Do you have a reason that isn't irrational?
funhistory 8 months ago
@funhistory Point taken, though I disagree that if G-d got a thrill, it wouldn't matter. I'm mostly just very troubled by the fact that Jesus is G-d but is also a man. Where Jewish monotheism differed hugely from pagan religions was the way G-d was unequivocally not man; that He was high above man and was not a physical entity. There are many books and videos on the subject of how Jesus's is very very similar to many pagan myths, some of which were floating around at about the same time.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
@themonkeywrench
"He was high above man and was not a physical entity"--then you apparently have problems with some of God's other rare physical appearances as men (Genesis 18, 32; Exodus 33; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1).
funhistory 8 months ago
@funhistory I think there is a contradiction between the verses that say that you cannot look upon G-d or you will die, that G-d is simply spirit, that G-d doesn't have face or form, etc. if you look at it that way, so I see those as either metaphors or as G-d speaking through something physical, which is not how most Christians see Jesus.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
@themonkeywrench
There's no contradiction in the Bible though there are passages that people interpret that way (mostly due to poor translations) despite having the option to harmonize them. The one you mentioned involves mostly Ex 33, John 1, 1John 4. There's a clear, non-contradictory distinction between having a chat with God in God's presence (in covert forms like Abraham's guests & Moses' cloud) vs. seeing God the Father in full glory (whatever that is) vs. seeing God the Son (Jesus).
funhistory 8 months ago
@themonkeywrench
Another one you mentioned (& misrepresented) is "that G-d is simply spirit". John 4:24 states "God is a Spirit." Not simply! God is a Father & God is a Son from other verses. No contradictions. I am an engineer, I am an American, I am a Christian, etc., but I am still one human. I'm not aware of a verse that states God doesn't have a face or form at any time.
funhistory 8 months ago
@funhistory G-d of course has a presence in this world and can at many times be heard (which is in some sense worldly). The difference is that because of the Holy Trinity, G-d is not in a way simply present in Jesus, which you could write off. I don't know about you, but all my Catholic religion teachers said that G-d IS Jesus and Jesus IS G-d.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
@funhistory I was raised Catholic but never got any satisfactory answers to any of these problems and so could never bring myself to truly believe in Jesus. Furthermore I don't think that Jesus fully fulfilled the prophecies that would make him the Messiah, but there are more videos and articles about that, as I wouldn't be able to fit all the detail in these small comment spaces.
themonkeywrench 8 months ago
3:41 No !god never copulates with humans, only his spirit impregnates a woman so that some guy walking on seas will tell you to be happy .. no matter what is your religion if your a good and kind person u are that way cuz u choose to be that way ...Like every other book on a shelf the bible was written by a wise man just so he could pass his beliefs ... and so was the quran and the new harry potter book
jakartarl 9 months ago
LOL
If something too complicated for you to understand, it not means god created it.
It means you need study more about our world and aspire for knowledge, it means that the human brain could not understand all because after all we are just animal in this world, with gens, that meant to reproduce in this world, not more.
MrpuGsi 9 months ago
I want Dennis Prager to debate Christopher Hitchens!
ObjectiveBob 9 months ago
@ObjectiveBob Prager and Hitchens debating is already available here on YouTube.
Pomiferous 9 months ago
@Pomiferous
I've heard Prager debate Hitchens on Prager's radio program, and also in a rather informal debate with Dinesh D'souza. What I meant was I would like to see just the two of them go at it in a formal debate.
ObjectiveBob 9 months ago
I love Genesis 1:1--It is so clear and authoritative and absolute! Speak it often!
darylasmith 9 months ago
I love Genesis 1:1 and love to speak it often--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the ear