This is the problem with the Bible (and any literature), it is open to interpretation and meanings can be changed or lost in translation. I admire the work and research you've put into this but I just don't see the point in try to decipher the intended meaning from a book that has been proved wrong in several areas; and even when correct the information is extremely vague and useless because there are no formulas or equations.
Why not just treat it like any other literary piece?
I did NOT bring up the topic of the Earth being flat -- YOU did, Gordon. You stated that the BIble says the Earth is a CIRCLE.
You were taken to task for this ignorant comment and it looks like you're STILL nowhere near acknowledging you've been duplicitous about this matter all along -- in fact, you're just piling lies on top of lies.
Do you really think Jesus would approve of your blatant dishonesty, if he wasn't an imaginary character from an old story book?
very simular complaint I've discused with others on youtube. snakes don't eat dirt. I asked them if they have ever heard the fraze used in a race eat my dust. It just denotes a change of position. Good video Brother.
@iiiwideopen Yeah I have heard that one as well. There are so many things critics can try to pick apart. They often do this to avoid the larger issues. This is not the case for all, some have been taught how to debate and others are simply misinformed. But I believe the majority are smart enough to realize how ridiculous some of these arguments are
@gordonbobby1 'They often do this to avoid the larger issues.'
The 'larger issue' confronting you people is that Jesus DID NOT EXIST. We know this for a fact, as there are NO records, artifacts or documentation of him from his supposed lifetime. He is not mentioned by anyone until many decades after his 'death'.
@DocReasonable taking into consideration natural selection, it would seem to me that the people that wrote the book would have been long sense removed from the face of the planet. being as brainless as you claim. But low and behold not only are the Jewish people still here today but one of them (from the not so distant past) was named Albert Einstein. That is remarkable adaptation. Or maybe a miracle.
@DocReasonableLOL. Good thing for me they make velcro for shoe laces. And with my limited intellect I'm finding it hard to understand why you would be so upset over a supposed imaginary character.
What would you suggest to do with all us brainless morons?
@iiiwideopen 'why you would be so upset over a supposed imaginary character.'
I'm not. I'm just cannot abide the 'brainless morons' like you who believe in such garbage, and live by it's intolerant values, passing judgment over the rest of us.
@DocReasonable I never passed judgment on you. I don't even know you.
Do you mean values such as people should not murder, cheat on their spouse, steel, lie, respect parents. I see how this could be upsetting. Mybe I should stop teaching my children these principles.
What morals has the Bible taught you? That children should be murdered for disobeying their parents, people who work on the Sabbath shall be stoned to death, slavery, rape and incest are good, stupidity is desirable, disease is your own fault, babies and kids die in earthquakes because they deserve it, mindlessly obey the Leader or burn forever in hell...
Plenty more of course, but nearly out of room. And we know that serial killers are ALWAYS hardcore Christians. Odd...
@DocReasonable Richard Ramirez was a christain, Jeffrey Dalmer, Charles Manson were all christains? not the last time I checked. But besides that to just address a few of the problems you mention modern statistics, not religeously influenced has found that up to 80 percent of the hospitalizations today are due to lifestyle. and the bible never says that all desease is your own fault. Jesus response about a blind man was that it was not is in or his parents. continued
@iiiwideopen The Bible never says that slavery, rape, and incest are good. Infact the laws found in Exodus and Leviticus outlaw kidnapping, mistreating servants, and sets them free after a few years. This was unheard of at the time. outlawed incest is outlawed as well. rape is a capital punishment,disobedient children had to be taken to court before being executed, nobody ever fallowed through with, it took the power out of the parents hands to execute their children. continued.
@iiiwideopen in fact killing your own child was pretty common back then among the other tribe and nations. infact that was outlawed for a parent to take the law into their own hands. But apparently you have some serious understudied understanding of what the text is saying. There is a wise saying "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Jeffrey Dahmer was the son of a Born Again fundamentalist father. His christian home life led him to feel he could not acknowledge his homosexuality to his fundamentalist father, and instead he developed an intense hatred of himself and of other gay men.
Charles Manson believed himself to be Jesus Christ. Can't get more christian than that.
@DocReasonable Being raised in a home claiming to be christian does not make one a christain. Doing the things that Jesus did makes you a christian. i.e. feeding the hungry, help heal people. .claiming to be Chirst makes you anti christ. anti means substitute in Greek. everything that Richard Ramirez did was related to satanic practice. not christain practice. not christains. Jesus talked about the weak and the weeds growing tegether. Never did He comand to do the things that these men did.
@DocReasonable Once again wrong done in the name of Christianity does not make Christianity false. Neither does good done in the name of Atheism make it true and vice versa. You know this brother. Can we justify what Hitler did? Of course not. He claimed Catholicism in one hand then also high occultism and in the other views of natural selection. I wont do as some do here but I will say that this does not prove anything about Christianity nor Evolution/Atheism.
All serial killers are the result of fundamentalist religious upbringings. Heard of Ed Gein in Wisconsin, 1950s? His mother raised him on the horror stories of the OT and the NT Book of Revelation, dealing with murder and divine retribution.
All of the Nazis were Christians, exterminating Jews as commanded in the Bible. Look at all the Google images of Hitler and other Nazis in church. In a Berlin church, there's an image of Stormtroopers following Christ on the pulpit.
@DocReasonable A lot of horrible things have been done by atheist but this in my mind says nothing of atheism itself, nor should wrong done by "professed" Christians have any influence on your views of Christianity. I think we should agree on this. Now your issues with scripture are much more understandable to me but the argument of serial killers being Christians just doesn't do it for me.
@DocReasonable Dahmer may have been Christian at one point but I quote, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. From his own lips doc. His denial of God led him to believe he did not need to be accountable for his actions. This is not Gods fault or religions, his parents obviously did not show true Christian characters
What is a 'true' Christian? It's someone who follows Christ, Gordon. Christ said things like:
'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Luke 19 27
'In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power' 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
@DocReasonable Honestly Doc? Christ whole ministry was about love. You know that. Now whether or not you believe him to be the Son of God or God himself is a debatable issue. You are taking Luke 19:27 out of context. Read it. He was finish telling a parable then making a point.. Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; these were also Jesus words
Gordon, sure Jesus said a few seemingly 'nice' things, but why do you ignore all the horrible things he ALSO said? It proves that the Bible was made up by different people with different stories that don't match up!
'Jesus' promises that any town that does not obey him will perish like Sodom and Gomorrah - -only WORSE. (Mat 10 14-15)
@DocReasonable I believe that the destruction of the wicked is a necessary thing. However God says, " Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? While God will do what is necessary he takes no pleasure in it.
Gordon, slow down there!! Why is it 'wicked' to not believe in and obey Jesus Christ and the Jewish Old Testament?? Why do we deserve to die for that?
That is EXACTLY the same mentality the Nazi Christians of Europe brought to bear when they rounded up and murdered the Jews and Gypsies -- death to unbelievers in Christ!
Gordon, THIS is why I protest against your intolerant, murderous 'faith'.
@DocReasonable Once again you misunderstand . think of it this way, sin is a disease it brings death. God must put an end to sin so that it never rises again. He does not want to destroy you its sin he is coming to destroy so he is asking you to let go of sin so that you may live. He loves you and died for you. To think a message like this teaches intolerance is a gross misrepresentation of what it truly is. The only thing that is not tolerated are those things he wants to free us from.
@DocReasonable Well define sin? As an atheist the idea of sin isnt even an issue for you am I correct? I am very tolerant. I respect you and your views and realize it is not my job to change your mind. I can only share what I believe to be the truth and the Holy Spirit does the convicting. I do not look down upon those who dont believe as I do, I simply feel compelled to share the Good News. That we have hope and that we can if we chose to live eternally in a place where pain,suffering no more..
Gordon, you are correct that sin is only a Biblical concept. However, we do not need the Bible to know right from wrong -- in fact we are better off without it, as the messages it presents are so ambiguous.
Remember, the majority of the world's population does NOT believe in Jesus, and manages to be moral. In fact, you discount the entire Catholic Church, therefore the number of 'true christians' in your own estimate is actually very small.
@DocReasonable Well true Christians are few in number but honestly I dont know peoples hearts only God does. I do believe there are many sincere Catholics and others. I was speaking of the organization and not necessarily all its members. I believe there are many people who live upright moral lives who may have never even heard of Jesus. I would also point out that my best friend as a child was an atheist and his family lived more like Christians than most Christians I know.
The 'Jesus darkness' was NOT recorded by the two greatest contemporary scientists of the time, Seneca and Pliny the Elder. These writers attempted to record all known contemporary geological and astronomical phenomenon, which makes their omission of this event a serious deterrent to regarding it as historical. It is also not mentioned by Josephus, who certainly would have noted it.
@DocReasonable Well I do not have an answer regarding that. I will certainly look into it further but I do believe that Jesus was a true historical figure. I also believe he was crucified. Now to the issue of whether or not he Was who he claimed to be, well I can understand there is room for debate in that matter. Would you agree he was a historical figure or do you honestly believe he did not exist at all?
No, I don't believe Jesus was an historical figure as there is simply no corroborating evidence. I should point out that I always DID assume he was an historical figure until I actually started to research the matter and could only conclude that there was no such man.
@DocReasonable Ok. I do have a question for you and its an honest question that I hope you can answer for me. It is one of the reasons I believe i creation. How come salt water fish have a glomulerus when life is supposed to evolve from the sea? Im sure there is a scientific answer and I would definitely like to hear it. Also I will do my best to research and answer the objections to the historical Jesus issue.
@DocReasonable Ok the reason Is that salt water is about 3 times saltier than the fish itself so the glomulerus is actually a hindrance to most salt water fish. Fresh water fish however need the glomulerus to expel water as they are saltier than the surrounding water. So the question is why do most salt water fish have something that is ONLY really needed by fresh water fish if life evolved in the sea?
Gordon, how is that an argument FOR God? Why would he give sea fish a faulty design??
Salt water fish deliberately swallow water but they want to keep it inside while desalting what they keep and getting rid of the rest in concentrated urine to eject back into the sea. They also handle much of their salt pumping at the gills, so the kidneys don’t have as much to do as freshwater kidneys. Their glomeruli are smaller, less efficient, and sometimes even absent.
@DocReasonable Well Many reasons one because I think it agrees with the idea that there was catastrophe during the flood and conditions changed. I dont think God created something faulty I just believe as stated before that conditions changed and the sea was not as we now know it now. It seems that if fish were to have evolved that it would have been in fresh water rather than Salt water. Now I'm not sure if this disagrees with the evolutionary theory or not. That is why I asked.
Do you think there were no saltwater oceans before Noah's Flood?
Doesn't the fact that there are both fresh and saltwater fish mean that one developed from the other? Or do you consider them to be unrelated and created separately?
@DocReasonable Oh and when I said ALL dogs its entirely possible chihuahua come from foxes? I dont know But to me it seems salt water oceans did not exist as they do today prior to the Flood
Chihuahuas did not come from foxes. Dogs and wolves can interbreed with each other, but not with foxes.
No one ever said that dogs can become cats, that would be ANTI-evolution. But cats and dogs DO share a common ancestor, something along the lines of a stoat or ferret. It's also pretty easy to tell visually that dogs and bears are related.
What particular taxon do you say a 'kind' is? Is it a species, a genus, family, order, class?? I've never seen a creationist answer this.
@DocReasonable True on the fox thing. It was my futile attempt at humor. A kind is "The ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after its kind: the little owl, the fisher owl and the screech owl (Leviticus 11:16,17). " So I think your assessment was a correct one. A kind can only mate with like "kind" but it does appear that perhaps Kind is an even broader term. Now I will attempt to give a clearer answer in the future. But I do not believe a species gives rise to another.
@DocReasonable The Bible says they were made after their kind. For instance 2 wolves entered the Ark and ALL dogs come from them, however no matter how long you breed the dog it will never become a cat. I wrote more but my comment disappeared.
@DocReasonable No by adaptation I mean certain genes may be switched on or off at a given time due to environment. I dont believe that the genes change to create a separate species. Bears to whales for example.
Gordon, nobody says bears turn into whales. I don't think you have a clue what a 'species' is, either. Can you define the word, in your understanding?
Are you also telling me that ostriches can mate with owls as they re the same 'kind'?!?
Now, would you say that foxes, dogs and wolves are all of the same 'kind'? If they are, why can't foxes breed with the dogs and wolves? I mean they all LOOK very similar??
@DocReasonable Darwin said Bear turned into whales. No I dont think an ostrich can mate with an owl that is why I quoted the verse and said perhaps it is bigger than just animals which can mate. Very good question on the wolves and foxes thing. We see something very interesting. Some animals can breed yet not procreate. Such as horses and donkeys which in turn become mules. Or Lions and Tigers, etc... So What exactly a kind is I will have to think longer on how exactly to define.
@DocReasonable Oh yeah I almost forgot Species------ A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal... A group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common attributes and called by a common name.
Gordon, Darwin said that bears may EVENTUALLY evolve into something like a whale over millions of years, not overnight with no intermediaries. And look at all the various forms of marine mammals we have - -otters, seals, dugongs, walruses, manatees, dolphins, whales -- each one of these groups shows a different stage of development from land to sea animal. You'll note that all of them BREATHE AIR, despite living in the oceans.
Do you think that all whales are the same species?
@DocReasonable No I do not. But like I said perhaps kThe word kind in the Bible is broader than that. Nor do I believe all birds are the same species etc... That is why I mentioned noteable cross species breeding such as that with tigers and lions etc... however A tiger can not breed with a wolf. Nor a horse with a lets say a cow.
No, 'kind' would go above the genus level if you think foxes and wolves are the same 'kind'. Look up 'taxonomy' online to give you an idea of zoological classifications.
Incidentally, tigers and lions cannot interbreed with cheetahs, but does that make them different 'kinds'? They're obviously all cats.
Why are bears and dogs different kinds? They look basically the same, only bears are bigger.
@DocReasonable Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
The last quote was from a secondary source I apologize. I use the KJV Bible as I believe it to be the most accurate. I really dont think Bears look like dogs myself. Perhaps? I live in an area with bears and have seen a few. would tigers and cheetahs be considered the same genus?
Gordon (or is it Bobby?) - -no, the cheetah and tiger are in separate genera, but all cats are in the same 'family' which is the level above genus. So it goes species > genus > family > order > class > phylum > kingdom.
Have a look at the cheetah entry on Wikipedia for a good idea of all this.
You know there used to be bear-dogs in America? Halfway between bears and dogs. Notice that bears and dogs have exactly the same kinds of noses and teeth, among many other similarities.
@DocReasonable From what I understand a Genesis kind is a classification all its own. As I look It really does not fit into any modern classifications.
@gordonbobby1 'From what I understand a Genesis kind is a classification all its own. As I look It really does not fit into any modern classifications. '
@DocReasonable But I dont think it is as it is too broad. Perhaps you should search the word in the Bible and you tell me what do you think the Bible writers meant by it?
@DocReasonable I would have to agree with you that the writers of the Bible did not understand genetics. They were inspired of God I believe but when it came to classification of animals etc... kind as I see it is a general term for like animals. I do believe they understood some very fundamental principles here however. And I hope to be able to give a more detailed answer on this in the near future.
Gordon, all the evidence points to the fact that the Bible authors were not very enlightened men and that the Bible is NOT the word of an omniscient God.
If it was, it would be full of amazing insight and wisdom, and it really is not. There's nothing clever in there, and in fact it's full of highly unethical stories of war, slavery, rape, revenge, pillage and killing -- at God's command.
@DocReasonable The flood was a global cataclysm not just a rain for 40 days. The Bible says that the waters of the deep bursted up etc... I believe it to be a huge event with volcanic activity earthquakes, and so on. I will send video links to further explain my position on this.
Gordon, I looked up Leviticus 11:16,17 and it does not say anything about ostriches or screech owls.
What ridiculous modern mistranslation are YOU reading? If that's just an example of the errors in it, I would hate to think what else they got wrong.
@DocReasonable Also I want to add that I believed in evolution myself for many years however this was never something I really considered until I became a creationist
@DocReasonable And the Nazis were following the Jesuits whose aim is not that of the Bible but to further the Roman Catholic Church, which the Bible identifies as the Anti-Christ. Now like I said before things done in the name of Christianity prove nothing. Neither does things done in the name of Atheism. As far as historical records of Jesus actually existing. Of course he existed
@DocReasonable Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.
One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138),
@DocReasonable ), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.
Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion::
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus,
@DocReasonable , in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*
In addition, the writings of opponents of Christianty such as Jews and Gnostics, confirm that Jesus was a real person. If they could, the best alternative for Christianity's enemies would have been to say Jesus never livedBut the evidence was too real and fresh--there were people still alive who knew Jesus or the Apostles. Their only alternative was to accept Jesus, but change his
This is the problem with the Bible (and any literature), it is open to interpretation and meanings can be changed or lost in translation. I admire the work and research you've put into this but I just don't see the point in try to decipher the intended meaning from a book that has been proved wrong in several areas; and even when correct the information is extremely vague and useless because there are no formulas or equations.
Why not just treat it like any other literary piece?
CowLunch 5 days ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 4 months ago
I did NOT bring up the topic of the Earth being flat -- YOU did, Gordon. You stated that the BIble says the Earth is a CIRCLE.
You were taken to task for this ignorant comment and it looks like you're STILL nowhere near acknowledging you've been duplicitous about this matter all along -- in fact, you're just piling lies on top of lies.
Do you really think Jesus would approve of your blatant dishonesty, if he wasn't an imaginary character from an old story book?
DocReasonable 4 months ago
very simular complaint I've discused with others on youtube. snakes don't eat dirt. I asked them if they have ever heard the fraze used in a race eat my dust. It just denotes a change of position. Good video Brother.
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen Yeah I have heard that one as well. There are so many things critics can try to pick apart. They often do this to avoid the larger issues. This is not the case for all, some have been taught how to debate and others are simply misinformed. But I believe the majority are smart enough to realize how ridiculous some of these arguments are
gordonbobby1 4 months ago
@gordonbobby1 'They often do this to avoid the larger issues.'
The 'larger issue' confronting you people is that Jesus DID NOT EXIST. We know this for a fact, as there are NO records, artifacts or documentation of him from his supposed lifetime. He is not mentioned by anyone until many decades after his 'death'.
This basically means that you are living a lie.
DocReasonable 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You've been told on another video -- maybe about 28 times -- that ROUND does not mean SPHERICAL.
Round just means circle-shaped, like a frisbee. The people who wrote the Bible were brainless CAVEMEN, OK?? They didn't know ANYTHING.
Why are you being so dishonest here Gordon?
DocReasonable 4 months ago
@DocReasonable taking into consideration natural selection, it would seem to me that the people that wrote the book would have been long sense removed from the face of the planet. being as brainless as you claim. But low and behold not only are the Jewish people still here today but one of them (from the not so distant past) was named Albert Einstein. That is remarkable adaptation. Or maybe a miracle.
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen
Human beings are largely protected from natural selection due to our complex societies and cultures.
That is how brainless morons like you have been able to survive into the 21st century.
A shame.
DocReasonable 4 months ago
@DocReasonableLOL. Good thing for me they make velcro for shoe laces. And with my limited intellect I'm finding it hard to understand why you would be so upset over a supposed imaginary character.
What would you suggest to do with all us brainless morons?
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen 'why you would be so upset over a supposed imaginary character.'
I'm not. I'm just cannot abide the 'brainless morons' like you who believe in such garbage, and live by it's intolerant values, passing judgment over the rest of us.
DocReasonable 4 months ago
@DocReasonable I never passed judgment on you. I don't even know you.
Do you mean values such as people should not murder, cheat on their spouse, steel, lie, respect parents. I see how this could be upsetting. Mybe I should stop teaching my children these principles.
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen
What morals has the Bible taught you? That children should be murdered for disobeying their parents, people who work on the Sabbath shall be stoned to death, slavery, rape and incest are good, stupidity is desirable, disease is your own fault, babies and kids die in earthquakes because they deserve it, mindlessly obey the Leader or burn forever in hell...
Plenty more of course, but nearly out of room. And we know that serial killers are ALWAYS hardcore Christians. Odd...
DocReasonable 4 months ago
@DocReasonable Richard Ramirez was a christain, Jeffrey Dalmer, Charles Manson were all christains? not the last time I checked. But besides that to just address a few of the problems you mention modern statistics, not religeously influenced has found that up to 80 percent of the hospitalizations today are due to lifestyle. and the bible never says that all desease is your own fault. Jesus response about a blind man was that it was not is in or his parents. continued
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen The Bible never says that slavery, rape, and incest are good. Infact the laws found in Exodus and Leviticus outlaw kidnapping, mistreating servants, and sets them free after a few years. This was unheard of at the time. outlawed incest is outlawed as well. rape is a capital punishment,disobedient children had to be taken to court before being executed, nobody ever fallowed through with, it took the power out of the parents hands to execute their children. continued.
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen in fact killing your own child was pretty common back then among the other tribe and nations. infact that was outlawed for a parent to take the law into their own hands. But apparently you have some serious understudied understanding of what the text is saying. There is a wise saying "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him."
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@iiiwideopen
Maybe you better check again.
Jeffrey Dahmer was the son of a Born Again fundamentalist father. His christian home life led him to feel he could not acknowledge his homosexuality to his fundamentalist father, and instead he developed an intense hatred of himself and of other gay men.
Charles Manson believed himself to be Jesus Christ. Can't get more christian than that.
Richard Ramirez was a staunch Catholic.
You're wrong on all counts.
DocReasonable 4 months ago
@DocReasonable Being raised in a home claiming to be christian does not make one a christain. Doing the things that Jesus did makes you a christian. i.e. feeding the hungry, help heal people. .claiming to be Chirst makes you anti christ. anti means substitute in Greek. everything that Richard Ramirez did was related to satanic practice. not christain practice. not christains. Jesus talked about the weak and the weeds growing tegether. Never did He comand to do the things that these men did.
iiiwideopen 4 months ago
@DocReasonable Once again wrong done in the name of Christianity does not make Christianity false. Neither does good done in the name of Atheism make it true and vice versa. You know this brother. Can we justify what Hitler did? Of course not. He claimed Catholicism in one hand then also high occultism and in the other views of natural selection. I wont do as some do here but I will say that this does not prove anything about Christianity nor Evolution/Atheism.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
All serial killers are the result of fundamentalist religious upbringings. Heard of Ed Gein in Wisconsin, 1950s? His mother raised him on the horror stories of the OT and the NT Book of Revelation, dealing with murder and divine retribution.
All of the Nazis were Christians, exterminating Jews as commanded in the Bible. Look at all the Google images of Hitler and other Nazis in church. In a Berlin church, there's an image of Stormtroopers following Christ on the pulpit.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable A lot of horrible things have been done by atheist but this in my mind says nothing of atheism itself, nor should wrong done by "professed" Christians have any influence on your views of Christianity. I think we should agree on this. Now your issues with scripture are much more understandable to me but the argument of serial killers being Christians just doesn't do it for me.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Dahmer may have been Christian at one point but I quote, “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. From his own lips doc. His denial of God led him to believe he did not need to be accountable for his actions. This is not Gods fault or religions, his parents obviously did not show true Christian characters
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
What is a 'true' Christian? It's someone who follows Christ, Gordon. Christ said things like:
'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' Luke 19 27
'In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power' 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Honestly Doc? Christ whole ministry was about love. You know that. Now whether or not you believe him to be the Son of God or God himself is a debatable issue. You are taking Luke 19:27 out of context. Read it. He was finish telling a parable then making a point.. Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; these were also Jesus words
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, sure Jesus said a few seemingly 'nice' things, but why do you ignore all the horrible things he ALSO said? It proves that the Bible was made up by different people with different stories that don't match up!
'Jesus' promises that any town that does not obey him will perish like Sodom and Gomorrah - -only WORSE. (Mat 10 14-15)
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1 'You are taking Luke 19:27 out of context. Read it. He was finish telling a parable then making a point..'
The point he was making was that HE would do the same to his enemies as the nobleman in the parable if HE was not obeyed!
If not, Gordon, what do YOU think his point was?
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable I believe that the destruction of the wicked is a necessary thing. However God says, " Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? While God will do what is necessary he takes no pleasure in it.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, slow down there!! Why is it 'wicked' to not believe in and obey Jesus Christ and the Jewish Old Testament?? Why do we deserve to die for that?
That is EXACTLY the same mentality the Nazi Christians of Europe brought to bear when they rounded up and murdered the Jews and Gypsies -- death to unbelievers in Christ!
Gordon, THIS is why I protest against your intolerant, murderous 'faith'.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Once again you misunderstand . think of it this way, sin is a disease it brings death. God must put an end to sin so that it never rises again. He does not want to destroy you its sin he is coming to destroy so he is asking you to let go of sin so that you may live. He loves you and died for you. To think a message like this teaches intolerance is a gross misrepresentation of what it truly is. The only thing that is not tolerated are those things he wants to free us from.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, it is NOT A SIN to disbelieve in Jesus Christ, OK? Nor does anyone deserve to DIE for that lack of belief.
You really are intolerant and judgmental but I guess that's what your doctrine teaches you.
I'll address your false claims about Pliny momentarily.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Well define sin? As an atheist the idea of sin isnt even an issue for you am I correct? I am very tolerant. I respect you and your views and realize it is not my job to change your mind. I can only share what I believe to be the truth and the Holy Spirit does the convicting. I do not look down upon those who dont believe as I do, I simply feel compelled to share the Good News. That we have hope and that we can if we chose to live eternally in a place where pain,suffering no more..
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, you are correct that sin is only a Biblical concept. However, we do not need the Bible to know right from wrong -- in fact we are better off without it, as the messages it presents are so ambiguous.
Remember, the majority of the world's population does NOT believe in Jesus, and manages to be moral. In fact, you discount the entire Catholic Church, therefore the number of 'true christians' in your own estimate is actually very small.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Well true Christians are few in number but honestly I dont know peoples hearts only God does. I do believe there are many sincere Catholics and others. I was speaking of the organization and not necessarily all its members. I believe there are many people who live upright moral lives who may have never even heard of Jesus. I would also point out that my best friend as a child was an atheist and his family lived more like Christians than most Christians I know.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Thallus was describing an eclipse, NOT Jesus.
The 'Jesus darkness' was NOT recorded by the two greatest contemporary scientists of the time, Seneca and Pliny the Elder. These writers attempted to record all known contemporary geological and astronomical phenomenon, which makes their omission of this event a serious deterrent to regarding it as historical. It is also not mentioned by Josephus, who certainly would have noted it.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Well I do not have an answer regarding that. I will certainly look into it further but I do believe that Jesus was a true historical figure. I also believe he was crucified. Now to the issue of whether or not he Was who he claimed to be, well I can understand there is room for debate in that matter. Would you agree he was a historical figure or do you honestly believe he did not exist at all?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
No, I don't believe Jesus was an historical figure as there is simply no corroborating evidence. I should point out that I always DID assume he was an historical figure until I actually started to research the matter and could only conclude that there was no such man.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Ok. I do have a question for you and its an honest question that I hope you can answer for me. It is one of the reasons I believe i creation. How come salt water fish have a glomulerus when life is supposed to evolve from the sea? Im sure there is a scientific answer and I would definitely like to hear it. Also I will do my best to research and answer the objections to the historical Jesus issue.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Why does it matter that salt water fish have a glomulerus? Please elaborate.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Ok the reason Is that salt water is about 3 times saltier than the fish itself so the glomulerus is actually a hindrance to most salt water fish. Fresh water fish however need the glomulerus to expel water as they are saltier than the surrounding water. So the question is why do most salt water fish have something that is ONLY really needed by fresh water fish if life evolved in the sea?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, how is that an argument FOR God? Why would he give sea fish a faulty design??
Salt water fish deliberately swallow water but they want to keep it inside while desalting what they keep and getting rid of the rest in concentrated urine to eject back into the sea. They also handle much of their salt pumping at the gills, so the kidneys don’t have as much to do as freshwater kidneys. Their glomeruli are smaller, less efficient, and sometimes even absent.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Well Many reasons one because I think it agrees with the idea that there was catastrophe during the flood and conditions changed. I dont think God created something faulty I just believe as stated before that conditions changed and the sea was not as we now know it now. It seems that if fish were to have evolved that it would have been in fresh water rather than Salt water. Now I'm not sure if this disagrees with the evolutionary theory or not. That is why I asked.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Do you think there were no saltwater oceans before Noah's Flood?
Doesn't the fact that there are both fresh and saltwater fish mean that one developed from the other? Or do you consider them to be unrelated and created separately?
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Oh and when I said ALL dogs its entirely possible chihuahua come from foxes? I dont know But to me it seems salt water oceans did not exist as they do today prior to the Flood
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Chihuahuas did not come from foxes. Dogs and wolves can interbreed with each other, but not with foxes.
No one ever said that dogs can become cats, that would be ANTI-evolution. But cats and dogs DO share a common ancestor, something along the lines of a stoat or ferret. It's also pretty easy to tell visually that dogs and bears are related.
What particular taxon do you say a 'kind' is? Is it a species, a genus, family, order, class?? I've never seen a creationist answer this.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable True on the fox thing. It was my futile attempt at humor. A kind is "The ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after its kind: the little owl, the fisher owl and the screech owl (Leviticus 11:16,17). " So I think your assessment was a correct one. A kind can only mate with like "kind" but it does appear that perhaps Kind is an even broader term. Now I will attempt to give a clearer answer in the future. But I do not believe a species gives rise to another.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable The Bible says they were made after their kind. For instance 2 wolves entered the Ark and ALL dogs come from them, however no matter how long you breed the dog it will never become a cat. I wrote more but my comment disappeared.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable I do believe in variety in the gene pool is what I am saying. And I do believe in adaptation within a species
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1 'I do believe in variety in the gene pool is what I am saying. And I do believe in adaptation within a species'
You don't think all fish are the same species do you?
In any case, adaption is exactly the same thing as evolution.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable No by adaptation I mean certain genes may be switched on or off at a given time due to environment. I dont believe that the genes change to create a separate species. Bears to whales for example.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, nobody says bears turn into whales. I don't think you have a clue what a 'species' is, either. Can you define the word, in your understanding?
Are you also telling me that ostriches can mate with owls as they re the same 'kind'?!?
Now, would you say that foxes, dogs and wolves are all of the same 'kind'? If they are, why can't foxes breed with the dogs and wolves? I mean they all LOOK very similar??
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Darwin said Bear turned into whales. No I dont think an ostrich can mate with an owl that is why I quoted the verse and said perhaps it is bigger than just animals which can mate. Very good question on the wolves and foxes thing. We see something very interesting. Some animals can breed yet not procreate. Such as horses and donkeys which in turn become mules. Or Lions and Tigers, etc... So What exactly a kind is I will have to think longer on how exactly to define.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable But as far as genes go some are dominant some are recessive etc.... So a finch is finch is a finch.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Oh yeah I almost forgot Species------ A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal... A group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common attributes and called by a common name.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, Darwin said that bears may EVENTUALLY evolve into something like a whale over millions of years, not overnight with no intermediaries. And look at all the various forms of marine mammals we have - -otters, seals, dugongs, walruses, manatees, dolphins, whales -- each one of these groups shows a different stage of development from land to sea animal. You'll note that all of them BREATHE AIR, despite living in the oceans.
Do you think that all whales are the same species?
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable No I do not. But like I said perhaps kThe word kind in the Bible is broader than that. Nor do I believe all birds are the same species etc... That is why I mentioned noteable cross species breeding such as that with tigers and lions etc... however A tiger can not breed with a wolf. Nor a horse with a lets say a cow.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable So kind and genus may be the correct pairing. Like I said though I will have to really think about that
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
No, 'kind' would go above the genus level if you think foxes and wolves are the same 'kind'. Look up 'taxonomy' online to give you an idea of zoological classifications.
Incidentally, tigers and lions cannot interbreed with cheetahs, but does that make them different 'kinds'? They're obviously all cats.
Why are bears and dogs different kinds? They look basically the same, only bears are bigger.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
The last quote was from a secondary source I apologize. I use the KJV Bible as I believe it to be the most accurate. I really dont think Bears look like dogs myself. Perhaps? I live in an area with bears and have seen a few. would tigers and cheetahs be considered the same genus?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon (or is it Bobby?) - -no, the cheetah and tiger are in separate genera, but all cats are in the same 'family' which is the level above genus. So it goes species > genus > family > order > class > phylum > kingdom.
Have a look at the cheetah entry on Wikipedia for a good idea of all this.
You know there used to be bear-dogs in America? Halfway between bears and dogs. Notice that bears and dogs have exactly the same kinds of noses and teeth, among many other similarities.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable are you speaking of dinohyus?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1 'are you speaking of dinohyus?'
No? In respect to what?
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable From what I understand a Genesis kind is a classification all its own. As I look It really does not fit into any modern classifications.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1 'From what I understand a Genesis kind is a classification all its own. As I look It really does not fit into any modern classifications. '
So why can't MAMMALIA (for example) be a 'kind'?
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable perhaps?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable But I dont think it is as it is too broad. Perhaps you should search the word in the Bible and you tell me what do you think the Bible writers meant by it?
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
The Bible meaning of 'kind' is really undefined. Which is why apologists can never define it.
I mean, they even have BATS as being the same 'kind' as birds. We now know that is entirely false.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable I would have to agree with you that the writers of the Bible did not understand genetics. They were inspired of God I believe but when it came to classification of animals etc... kind as I see it is a general term for like animals. I do believe they understood some very fundamental principles here however. And I hope to be able to give a more detailed answer on this in the near future.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, all the evidence points to the fact that the Bible authors were not very enlightened men and that the Bible is NOT the word of an omniscient God.
If it was, it would be full of amazing insight and wisdom, and it really is not. There's nothing clever in there, and in fact it's full of highly unethical stories of war, slavery, rape, revenge, pillage and killing -- at God's command.
A real God would not be petty and evil, like men.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, why would the rainwater of the flood make the oceans more salty? If anything, it would DILUTE the salt content.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable The flood was a global cataclysm not just a rain for 40 days. The Bible says that the waters of the deep bursted up etc... I believe it to be a huge event with volcanic activity earthquakes, and so on. I will send video links to further explain my position on this.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, highly qualified geophysicists, archaeologists, anthropologists and biologists say there was never a Global Flood.
Home-schooled (at best) preachers say there WAS a Global Flood.
I know who I'm going with on this....
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable I would like to respond to this one in a video or series of videos perhaps.
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gordonbobby1
Gordon, I looked up Leviticus 11:16,17 and it does not say anything about ostriches or screech owls.
What ridiculous modern mistranslation are YOU reading? If that's just an example of the errors in it, I would hate to think what else they got wrong.
DocReasonable 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Also I want to add that I believed in evolution myself for many years however this was never something I really considered until I became a creationist
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable And the Nazis were following the Jesuits whose aim is not that of the Bible but to further the Roman Catholic Church, which the Bible identifies as the Anti-Christ. Now like I said before things done in the name of Christianity prove nothing. Neither does things done in the name of Atheism. As far as historical records of Jesus actually existing. Of course he existed
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable Keep in mind that if all the documents we have from the first two centuries AD were collected and put on a bookshelf, they might take two feet of shelf space.
One of the best known references to Jesus is in Josephus's history titled Antiquities. (Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37 and died in AD 97).Other ancient writers who mention Christ are Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138),
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable ), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.
Writting in the year AD 221, Julius Africanus quotes from a history of the Eastern Mediterranean written in about AD 52 by Thallus. Julius Africanus writes concerning the time of Jesus' crucifixion::
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus,
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable , in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."*
In addition, the writings of opponents of Christianty such as Jews and Gnostics, confirm that Jesus was a real person. If they could, the best alternative for Christianity's enemies would have been to say Jesus never livedBut the evidence was too real and fresh--there were people still alive who knew Jesus or the Apostles. Their only alternative was to accept Jesus, but change his
gordonbobby1 3 months ago
@DocReasonable message
gordonbobby1 3 months ago