Answersinnature, good for you in taking your journey of discovery for the truth. I also had to journey away from christianity. Though life did not afford me time to do much scientific research (I moved out when I was 17), I knew enough about religion by then to know I wasn't buying it anymore. I felt pretty stupid for letting my parents shove it down my throat. You seem to be at a good start and you have my best wishes. I would never call you names or tell you you'll burn, just for using your b
go to the thinking Atheist site,and philhellen,and darkmatter2525,that'll teach you some thing,,but kudo's for all yer research to date,,there is alot of support omong the Atheist community,search them out...enjoy,,alll religion is nonsense..
You will get a lot of grief from your family as you move away from their religious views, which seems to be inevitable. Your sister was arrogant, but predictable. Your Asbergers is not the issue, it is your ability and willingness to rationally analyze the evidence and to accept the results of that analyses, which she will not do. It is not easy to stand up for ones right to freedom of (or from) religion when those we care about feel threaten if we make a different choice than they do.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
After 50 years of being a devoted christian, I decided to really study the bible. It's origins and what it really says. It says, God tortures his own son to save us from eternal torture that he will administer if we don't accept his torture of his own son as a demonstation of his love for us. REALLY? That doesn't make sense to the most gullible of us.
The only reason your Christian is because you were born in the US. If you were born a couple thousand miles in either direction you would be either Muslim,Buddhist,Hindu etc.. Doesnt that fact alone tell you religion is man made bullshit. Most people need to believe in something (a God) that takes care of them and loves them. Its a big step to accept the fact that the universe doesnt exist with us in mind. Enjoy the ride my friend you only get about 75 yrs. Make the most of it!
If god existed and he wanted us to follow some guidelines, why wouldn't he just tell us instead of having us guess which one of the 80 religions are true. Why would he have us read a re-re-re-re-re-re-written book of his word? He is god after all! Im sure if he created everything, he wouldn't have a problem making some way for us to sort through the bullshit besides "faith" (which I like to call Placebo)
I have aspergers also and this video rather hit home, i used to be a christan and am now an athiest and i had alot of the same problems, but i never thought of it that way
Interesting… It is hard to believe that your autism would have let you initially believe in religion and all that it entails. But I suppose childhood indoctrination is more pervasive than I thought. It is good to hear that you are now using critical thinking and/or reason.
"Heart knowledge" is merely Orwellian double-speak for the process of letting your emotions cloud, or otherwise inhibit, logic and the process of intellectual honesty.
Answers you doubts are well founded. The core issue between faith and science if you ask me is that conservative faith MUST be right and is completely inflexible. Where as the more open minded people of the world can change their views. Oh by the way I recommend the Tao of Pooh if you want to learn about Taoism.
you seem to be getting a lot of crap from people for questioning your religion, and you don't deserve it.
i hope that you gain peace and understanding from whatever path you decide to follow.
i also hope that you don't hold resentment towards the people who are harassing you on your youtube channel. they're not bad people. they're just trying to help you in the only way they think they're able to.
Great video. I came to the same conclusion. Most honest, thinking people seem to. Anyone who maintains their belief is probably doing it for reasons other than "truth seeking", most likely they are instead "comfort seeking". Christianity as a social outlet, etc. I, personally, have no use for false comforts. I desire the truth at any cost. Thanks!
The christian God most certainly cannot be true it is wrong on every level. It only adds so many more questions and makes things more complicated. Everyone has a different definition of GOD he is always moving. All I can say is that their is ZERO evidence for any supernatural forces. God is nothing but a man made construct, Its all speculation. You don't need anyone else to tell you what to believe.
I can hear your skin crackling, right now. I can smell your flesh being burned off of you as fire daemons sodomise you from the deep and fire waves come crashing into your body and burst you into flames.
Thanks for sharing your video. I thought it was very well done. We each find different things compelling. Just continue to remain intellectually honest with yourself. I am in complete agreement with you about fundamentalists. Religion becomes harmful when people confuse their beliefs with knowledge...when they hinder academia because they don't like the findings (and are unqualified to refute them). When it comes to knowledge about God, however, we're all at the same level. Nobody truly knows.
I started out much the same way and followed a path very similar to what you seem to be on now. It was hard. It was long. It was heartbreaking to let go of some of the core tenants which I once held that were filled with so much promise and hope. But it was in that hardship and in that heartache that I found a measure of peace and acceptance, not just of the world, but in myself. The truth set me free in ways I never knew possible.
Best of luck with your research. It might also be a good idea to do a little research on animistic bias/paranoia - and OCD/ROCPD. It may give you an understanding on how and why god belief and religion developed.
AnswersInNature, I'm very moved by your honesty and devotion to the truth. All I can say on this topic is that regardless of where you end up spiritually, these two traits are the best tools for discovering meaningful answers. I'll be following your progress, if you post videos on it, so you know that at least one person is watching what happens.
I have also been told that a friend of mine also with Aspergers has recently become atheist, or at least is no longer a christian. With your second half of the video, I wonder just how many of us out there that make up the non-believers as opposed to believers. Having listened to your statement about why those with Autism have trouble understanding such things, I'm seeing a definite true pattern.
It it nice to see someone else who has come out with being Aspergers. I stopped being a Christian when I was 6. The church was boring and I felt I could better spend my sundays watching cartoons or reading books. Or playing outside or even finishing up the rest of my homework if I even had any. It worked out fine in the end because my mother and roommate are also Atheist, though take interest in Buddhism. But in my mind, gods are on par with fantasy, cartoons and fiction.
Welcome to the fold of Honest, Intelligent, Skeptical, Curious and Thorough Reasoners.
They'll scold you, belittle you, barrage you. You'll question, doubt and wonder. You'll never hold any position as "True" again. Only a grasping of ideas yet to be disproved.
But in what people imagine to be a sea of turmoil you'll find the comfort of the stars in the night sky. Or the honesty in your mind - like they'll never feel.
You're awake now and free to walk all paths and roam all lands.
There is no such thing as heart-knowledge. The heart pumps blood and anyone who says different is not only full of shit, but I'm also glad they're not in the medical profession.
What they mean is having this emotional feeling of course. But what value is that? Emotions have their place of course, but they must be governed by reason.
At least I don't take people seriously if they go purely by whatever feels good. (In fact those people are DANGEROUS.)
As far as Apologetics goes, all of the arguments are horribly weak, be they teleological, cosmological, or ontological.
The worst is the ontological, but the most common one I have seen is the teleological, the argument from design. Check out Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" to see this argument masterfully torn asunder.
The cosmological argument is a little better, but is still easily routed. This is the stance of the Catholic Aquinas. The amazing atheist did a video on it.
I do not anticipate a positive response to my comments, but I would kindly ask that you would leave them on your video for those who are also struggling, but perhaps have not yet taken an open, public stance against Jesus Christ and His Church.
Although I am not able to make videos, I would like viewers to have some hope in researching the information below before they follow your lead.
I'm away for a week on business, and cannot easily respond to YouTube messages while traveling. Be well.
"In this book we find the following six main chapters: "Of the number of the Canonical Books of Scripture," "Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the Scriptures," "Of the Authority of Scripture," "Of the Perspicuity of Scripture," "Of the Interpretation of Scripture," "Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Unwritten Traditions," as well as Whitaker's "Preface to the Controversies, Delivered to the Audience at Cambridge."
Thus, the apostle had given the Romans a "form of doctrine"; (Rom. 5:17); and to Timothy "a form of sound words; (2 Tim. 1:13); "a form of sound words," which contained "the principles of the doctrine of Christ," and the first principles of the oracles of God;" six whereof are distinctly mentioned, Heb. 5:12; 6:1,2.
Proves how deeply parents and ministers are obliged to this duty, what the duty is, and how it is best performed.
and by the apostles themselves and their immediate successors; and this in imitation of the Jews who had "a form of knowledge and of the truth in the law," (Rom. 2:20), out of which they instructed the ignorant, and taught babes.
Thus, the apostle had given the Romans a "form of doctrine"; (Rom. 5:17); and to Timothy "a form of sound words; (2 Tim. 1:13); "a form of sound words,"
By What Scriptural Rules May Catechising Be So Managed, As That It May Become Most Universally Profitable (1674, reprinted 1844), Thomas Lye, Pages: 34
Based on "Train up," or catechise, "a child in the way he should go," or in his way: "and When he is old, he will not depart from it" (Prov. 22:6).
Shows that there are several texts of Scripture from which the learned conclude that this mode of Catechising was used in the apostles' days,
Here is a quick question for you...since you stumbled over Numbers in your 15 minute a day "intellectually honest research".
What Jewish method did you use to interpret the text?
Methods of interpretation among Jewish interpreters: for example derash (aggadic interpretation), remez (allegory and philosophy), sod (mystical interpretation), gematria (meanings from the numerical value of the words), and notarikon (employing initial or final letters of words to discern hidden meanings).
@covenantervoice Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods. If I can get any truth from the first 5 books, much of it likely should not be interpreted literally.
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods."
I shared with you the Jewish methods of interpretation, but I did not say they were the proper form of interpretation for Christians. The Scriptures teach another form of interpretations which I do not believe properly are defined by Jewish interpreters as explained below. This is intelligent honest research in my view.
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal,.."
The literal method is an error used by modern fundamentalists. The Jewish methods are also not true and faithful methods to interpret Scripture, which is why I shared them with you to be intellectually honest.
In short, one should use the "literal sense" method when interpreting Scripture. This literal sense is not defined as that which appears at face value (or literally)--
--but rather the literal sense is that sense which the author (God) intends--that "intended meaning" which is taken from the words themselves, whether the words are to be taken strictly (literally) or figuratively. The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean.
@covenantervoice "The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean."
But how could we know what they are intended to mean? The method you describe could be used to interpret any book ever written as the words of a god. Only with a pre-existing conviction that a god exists can you ever come to the same conclusions as Whitaker - and that is being intellectually dishonest.
@CloserEnd wrote: "But how could we know what they are intended to mean?...Only with a pre-existing conviction that a god exists can you ever come to the same conclusions as Whitaker - and that is being intellectually dishonest."
I'm surprised by your question. It seemed to me that you were a proponent of reason and logic. The answer should be obvious to your question, but alludes your reasoning. To the contrary on the second...all men reject God at birth and MANY conclude like Whitaker.
@CloserEnd wrote: "But how could we know what they are intended to mean?"
I might have already responded...but since I am setting records at receiving more negative votes from my comments than anyone in YouTube history (not good if I were a politician), I'll respond again.
You learn the intended meaning by basic study, reading and re-reading over and over again. Since we live in an atheistic world...you can balance in your own life the learning of both sides and if what God says is true.
A good explanation of the literal sense in relation to allegory and other figures is found in William Whitaker's book entitled "A Disputation on Holy Scripture" pp. 403-410.
If you truly intend to intellectually be honest with yourself, I would suggest you at least consider all the available methods of interpretation. You were taught on literal method growing up, and none of the Jewish methods, nor perhaps the "literal sense", but this is where I would begin my search for truth.
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods. If I can get any truth from the first 5 books, much of it likely should not be interpreted literally."
You should be pleased with all your votes in the affirmative. It tells me many think like you, and while I don't find this necessarily helpful, I assume you would find it encouraging to be in the great majority on this site.
@covenantervoice The fact that literacy is rampant should count for something when someone other then a priest or religious leader can read and interpret for their self. A modern person has plenty enough knowledge to read and comprehend these texts. No more spoon feeding for the illiterate masses, just for the 90% of the lazy Christians who don't read their Bible very little or not at all. It's not Kabalah, it's reading. God says kill, God says keep virgins for yourself, that's what he meant.
@zacbouwens wrote: "A modern person has plenty enough knowledge to read and comprehend these texts. No more spoon feeding for the illiterate masses, just for the 90% of the lazy Christians who don't read their Bible very little or not at all."
To a large degree this is true. Not only do 90% of Christian fail to read Scripture, but like this guy in the video, they might only put in 15 minutes a day. This is not sufficient when one is born atheist and indoctrinated in atheism from birth.
@covenantervoice I agree with you, reading the entire Bible and understanding it are key before knowing what grounds anyone stands on. Atheists should read the whole thing if their going to argue over it, and Christians should definitely read their whole book and understand what their faith is based on.
@zacbouwens I'm an atheist because I read the bible and looked into it's history. The best way to turn christians atheist is for them to read the bible.
@alienlifeform11 I agree, but they would have to read and understand the parts that they would otherwise skim over or ignore. Christians usually ignore anything that would cause a cognitive dissonance in their thought process.
@covenantervoice I have another way of looking at any ancient text. It's called the historical critical approach. It's where you use the text as a juming off point to discern the historical voracity of the text. The methods of study particulary gematria (assigning words a number value) change the meaning of the actual text. They simply muddle up what the authors were trying to actually say by distracting them hidden meanings. What's next? The bible code?
@conantroy1 wrote: "It's called the historical critical approach. It's where you use the text as a juming off point to discern the historical voracity of the text."
It is unwise to use history to try to interpret the text. This is a common misconception where people try to use science or archeology to interpret Scripture, or prove the Scriptures right or wrong.
The only way to prove the Scriptures right or wrong is using the literal sense after the closing of the Canon.
@covenantervoice I will agree from the perspective that trying to interpret the theological ideals of scripture cannot be addressed using historical criticism. Unfortunatly, the Tanakh is also supposed to be a collection of history and laws set down for the followers of YHWH. To simply read it for it's theological purpose does not deal with the very real issues surrounding it's historical validity. To interpretit after the closing of the canon, removes the beliefs of those before it.
@conantroy1 wrote: "To interpret it after the closing of the canon, removes the beliefs of those before it."
The bible texts are historical in nature of course. Even prophetical allegorical or literal texts, interpreted in their literal sense (e.g., intended meaning), are history unfulfilled.
Each generation is given sufficient information for faith in the creator God. Noah and Abraham had faith sufficient to be saved...as will those after the close of the canon in time and place in history.
@covenantervoice The problem is outside the bible, Abraham, Noah, and Moses don't show up at all. For such prominent men (according to the bible) I find that very unsual. In fact, there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus at all. And that's not just covering the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but their time in Egypt. Before you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It archaeology, it is. But the archaeology tells a different story. I recommend Israel Finkelstein as a good source
@conantroy1 wrote: "In fact, there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus at all."
Yes, I know. I've traveled in almost 40 countries, and have a massive historical library. I've read about this issue going back into documents during the inter-testimental period...but Finkelstein brings nothing to the argument which is new in my research.
I don't live my life as an atheist waiting for physical evidence to connect apes to man, or finches to evolution. You will need to shop elsewhere.
@covenantervoice I said nothing about evolution. That's a completly different subject. That' the problem most theists make. They take cosmolgy, bilogy, theology, history, and even philosohpy and treat them as thought they are all dealing with the same evidence. I don't live my life waiting for anything. I'm simply stating that the claims of the bible based on it's accuarcy of history is bunk. If you wish to continue shopping based on the claims of ignorant shepards, by all means continue.
@conantroy1 wrote: "I don't live my life waiting for anything. I'm simply stating that the claims of the bible based on it's accuarcy of history is bunk."
This is your own uneducated opinion on the matter...since you are blinded by proving all Scriptural witness testimony by physical proof. It is like rejecting that the sun is hot until you can personally fly there, and touch it with your own hands. Silly, but people think this way.
@covenantervoice What kind of proof would you prefer to use? I can only make claims about things I can reasonably demonstrate. You are basing your "belief" based on tesimonials of people who were not concerned about recording anything accurately. If someone today told you they were a prophet from God, would you believe them? Ofcourse not. Why believe it when people whom thought natural disasters were caused by an angry god when they make the same claims.
@conantroy1 There's an actual mental disease where on 25th Dec in Jeruselam soooo many people proclaim they are the reincarnation of jesus (no capital) they have to be locked up in mental wards. Maybe jesus has come back but if so he's in a cell and his magic hasn't busted him out yet.
@covenantervoice What witnesses? The first writings of Jebus were 30 years after his supposed death. Who are these eyewitnesses? The ones that disagree with each other?
@covenantervoice If god or jesus had said any of the BS that is in any of the "holy" books they would need absolutely no conversion or interpretation, they would be absolutely understandable by all people.
@AdamBomb669 wrote: "they would be absolutely understandable by all people."
Well now this is silly. The Scriptures say that God will provide to His people teachers to help them understand. "And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do." Exod.18:20
"Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred." Job 6:24.
At 7:03 he references Asperger's Disorder and claims he knows what it means, and that with this disease he is basically born a skeptic by natural evolution, and I'm sure it is something Apes and monkey's have as well if you were sit and talk with these primates. You see people, logic, faith and reason speaking with evolutionary facts in hand is the only way to be intellectually honest, and just to validate one must be born with Asperger's Disorder to be certainly a skeptic.
@covenantervoice When you comment on someone's video, you need to address the video maker in the second person, and not the 3rd. And Asperger's isn't a disease, and I know what it's all about, if you would do the research on it. A Christian never? Sounds like the no true Scotsman's fallacy.
@AnswersInNature wrote: "When you comment on someone's video, you need to address the video maker in the second person, and not the 3rd."
Over the past year posting I've learned that most video posters always argue their position with 3rd person general statements. You do that throughout your video. There is no reason to address you, but rather it is better to address your viewers who will be deceived by your uneducated commentary on Christianity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I could not help but laugh when at 8:49 when he goes about to disprove Christianity while studying history and states that the Eastern Orthodox Church he also disproved because they are made up of "man made traditions", and then he says, "after years of intellectually honest research"...bla bla bla.
Do you see what he is saying? He says he is studying history and all sorts of "scientific" research to prove man made traditions fill Christianity, and calling this "intellectually honest". Not.
@covenantervoice Did you do any intellectually honest research? And what counts to you as intellectually honest? Agreeing with what you already believe?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Did you do any intellectually honest research? And what counts to you as intellectually honest? Agreeing with what you already believe?"
Cute questions...but when one has an atheist presupposition and hatred for Christianity the time to respond is generally a waste of time. I suggest you keep doing your "intellectual" research. It sounds like you must have discovered something the past 4,000 years of researchers have overlooked.
@covenantervoice Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it.
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it."
I said, "when one has an atheist presupposition and hatred for Christianity". I said you have an atheist presupposition...you did not say it. Your video is a clear testimony you have no saving faith in Jesus Christ, and any other faith is atheism...per Scripture.
"Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition?"
Well man, welcome to wonderful world of being outside the Christian religion. Doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not, you are wrong by the very nature of not agreeing with Christianity. Once that is understood, projecting 'reasons' for why you're wrong is easy (but cannot be substantiated upon cross-examination as demonstrated with covenatervoice's response, "...the time to respond is generally a waste of time")
@covenantervoice Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it.
@TheAnubisDrake wrote: "And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it. AnswersInNature 1 week ago 10 For the Win."
On YouTube you are not going to get a neutral audience, but an atheist audience. It would be like going over to SermonAudio and claiming atheist religion is the most truthful...you will not receive 10 positive votes.
You can claim it on Youtube and get hundreds of votes. This site has an atheist presupposition, and many cheerleaders for the atheism.
@covenantervoice The difference between the two sites being that one kicks you off for having an atheist viewpoint and this one does not kick you off for having a creationist viewpoint. Creationists refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. Atheists on the other had presume that things are false until proven otherwise. I know plenty of creationists here on youtube that have millions of views, many thousands of subscribers. Over at SermonAudio atheists just get removed and deleted.
@TheAnubisDrake wrote: "Creationists refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. Atheists on the other had presume that things are false until proven otherwise."
Oh, contrary to the evidence. Christians are some of the world's best researchers, bar none. I find even those former atheists who have stepped over into Christian evidence (in face of loosing their jobs and being fired for universities) that are blown away why so much has been withheld from them in school and out.
@covenantervoice "Atheist presupposition"? You realize you were born an atheist, right? Religion must be taught, usually through childhood indoctrination. You seem to have a desire for people to hate Christianity so that you have something to attack them for. He never said he hated Christianity, he just said he's questioned it and found it lacking. Most people who questions it HONESTLY come to the same conclusion. If you don't come to his conclusion you probably have "must believe BS" syndrome.
@JoshwithaJ wrote: ""Atheist presupposition"? You realize you were born an atheist, right? Religion must be taught, usually through childhood indoctrination."
Yes, I would agree that man is born an atheist and does not believe in God. This is due to the inheritance by natural generation of original sin...another doctrine rejected by an atheist since they believe we come from tad poles and apes. But I agree with you.
Children are indoctrinated in this generation by atheism...yes I agree.
@covenantervoice "Children are indoctrinated in this generation by atheism...yes I agree." You purposefully misread my statement....but....if the above quotation is true (it too often isn't) we'll all be better off. A whole generation of new minds coming out from under a dark cloud of superstition and COMPLETE BULLSHIT! Sounds great!! OK, have fun with your trollin'.
@JoshwithaJ wrote: "if the above quotation is true (it too often isn't) we'll all be better off."
I see you are from Canada and favorited a video on your channel which likes that Soccer is the first only gay sport. Therefore, I assume you have a strong hatred for early Christian America and the old Christian common law instituted by England before Cromwell. If you are gay, I assume you must be delighted with the growing homosexualization of children and youths in schools.
@covenantervoice He was being honest with himself when it comes to religion. His title is honest, he admits that he has been having an issue with his religion. He doesn't claim to be Christian any more and that he has found issues with the religion. These are honest issues he's having. Your just being obstinate. God forbid someone have doubts and deconvert.
@zacbouwens wrote: "He doesn't claim to be Christian any more and that he has found issues with the religion....God forbid someone have doubts and deconvert."
A couple points. A true Christian cannot "claim to be a Christian any more" or to "deconvert". This is an old heresy.
He has a lot of positive votes from the comment below...so he can now choose his faith by political vote.
"When I went down this same path, I too more closely followed Taoism than anything else." 19 positive votes.
@covenantervoice that's right coven, because thinking is hard. Why study history and science when the bible answers all so neatly. I prefer blind faith over logic science and reason.
@eahazell wrote: "that's right coven, because thinking is hard. Why study history and science when the bible answers all so neatly. I prefer blind faith over logic science and reason."
@eahazell wrote: "Dude, I beseech you, try the Unitarian Universalist church again. We even have atheists. You can question, think and study and get honest answers."
I actually did try it once back 15 years ago when I was researching the many different denominations. They were about the most extremely confused people I met in discussing basic reasoning and logic skills. There critical thinking skills were very poor. Most were basically cult worshipers to a large degree. Would not go back.
I find it interesting that the author says at about 1:44 that being a Christian requires one to adopt 6 day creationism contrary to other "reason and evidence".
This presupposition is clear. He claims he is a Christian with doubt because he spent 15 minutes a day reading Scripture, and Numbers confused him about God, and "reason and evidence" disproves a literal 6-day creation.
People...this man is not a Christian...he is anti-Christian by Scripture. Most fundamentals are not Christians.
I find it interesting that the author says at about 1:44 that being a Christian requires one to adopt 6 day creationism contrary to other "reason and evidence".
This presupposition is clear. He claims he is a Christian with doubt because he spent 15 minutes a day reading Scripture, and Numbers confused him about God, and "reason and evidence" disproves a literal 6-day creation.
People...this man is not a Christian...he is anti-Christian by Scripture. Most fundamentals are not Christians.
@AronRa I find it funny how creationists seem to make arguments as though there were only two options. They seem to forget about the many other religions especialy those that do not have gods. They can't seem to wrap their mind around a simple argument such as even if you could prove the existence of a god that does not prove it is your god.
@AronRa I find the difference between eastern and western traditions fascinating. While the west seems to be largely based around theistic dogma and have a kind of underlying theme of "man is higher than nature", eastern traditions seem to sit very well with the natural world and more of a "unity" or coexistence with nature. In this regard, I dont really consider the eastern teachings "religions", but more like philosophies to be pondered over, at least in a thematic sense.
You can be a theist, and not a christian, being nonreligious and believing in god doesnt always lead to deism, as deism just makes one more assumption about god, that being that he removed himself from his creation. Where as theism in the general sense is just the belief in a deity. Of course both deism and theism are beliefs in personal gods but some forms of modern deism have just been beliefs in creative forces, but then again with that vague of a definition I could be considered a deist.
Interesting video. I experienced the same doubts not long after I graduated from high school, and began exploring other paths. I still haven't settled on anything in particular, but Buddhism is beginning to appeal to me greatly. Also, I had a counselor in the past who told me that I probably have asperger's, and, having done research (as has my mother), I (and she) have come to the conclusion that the counselor was most likely correct. Therefore, I understand what you're saying about that.
I really can't comment more on this than you have done yourself. You have shown the many flaws in your faith by yourself. Deism or pantheism are good philosophical progression points especially if you are having problems letting go of spirituality. Buddhism and Taoism are both interesting concepts. Read Osho's book "Buddha Zen Tao Tantra". The "Tao Te Ching" is also quite an interesting applied philosophy. Look at them all honestly. You will figure out the truth.
Cont. ... brain. Kudos dude!
jsrail 1 month ago
Answersinnature, good for you in taking your journey of discovery for the truth. I also had to journey away from christianity. Though life did not afford me time to do much scientific research (I moved out when I was 17), I knew enough about religion by then to know I wasn't buying it anymore. I felt pretty stupid for letting my parents shove it down my throat. You seem to be at a good start and you have my best wishes. I would never call you names or tell you you'll burn, just for using your b
jsrail 1 month ago
All you have to do is keep thinking about it and don't be worried if you end with "i don't know" This is both normal and to be expected.
stramster1 4 months ago
go to the thinking Atheist site,and philhellen,and darkmatter2525,that'll teach you some thing,,but kudo's for all yer research to date,,there is alot of support omong the Atheist community,search them out...enjoy,,alll religion is nonsense..
karlbuttler 5 months ago
You will get a lot of grief from your family as you move away from their religious views, which seems to be inevitable. Your sister was arrogant, but predictable. Your Asbergers is not the issue, it is your ability and willingness to rationally analyze the evidence and to accept the results of that analyses, which she will not do. It is not easy to stand up for ones right to freedom of (or from) religion when those we care about feel threaten if we make a different choice than they do.
curlew0609 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed in design or useless
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read my popular Internet articles: ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article that examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms and lack of sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
After 50 years of being a devoted christian, I decided to really study the bible. It's origins and what it really says. It says, God tortures his own son to save us from eternal torture that he will administer if we don't accept his torture of his own son as a demonstation of his love for us. REALLY? That doesn't make sense to the most gullible of us.
Jugivadi 6 months ago
I tried to read the Bible. It was clearly written by men who thought the earth was flat and the center of the solar system.
gregrutz 8 months ago
If satan planted all the evidence of evolution then by looking at dna we would have to conclude that satan must have created every living cell.
Arikiel 1 year ago
The only reason your Christian is because you were born in the US. If you were born a couple thousand miles in either direction you would be either Muslim,Buddhist,Hindu etc.. Doesnt that fact alone tell you religion is man made bullshit. Most people need to believe in something (a God) that takes care of them and loves them. Its a big step to accept the fact that the universe doesnt exist with us in mind. Enjoy the ride my friend you only get about 75 yrs. Make the most of it!
mr1shogun 1 year ago
If god existed and he wanted us to follow some guidelines, why wouldn't he just tell us instead of having us guess which one of the 80 religions are true. Why would he have us read a re-re-re-re-re-re-written book of his word? He is god after all! Im sure if he created everything, he wouldn't have a problem making some way for us to sort through the bullshit besides "faith" (which I like to call Placebo)
sneedledout 1 year ago
I have aspergers also and this video rather hit home, i used to be a christan and am now an athiest and i had alot of the same problems, but i never thought of it that way
dothejew14 1 year ago
fuck those bible fuckers!!!!!1
enpaprobertvagyok 1 year ago
Interesting… It is hard to believe that your autism would have let you initially believe in religion and all that it entails. But I suppose childhood indoctrination is more pervasive than I thought. It is good to hear that you are now using critical thinking and/or reason.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 year ago
"Heart knowledge" is merely Orwellian double-speak for the process of letting your emotions cloud, or otherwise inhibit, logic and the process of intellectual honesty.
spamllpitdept 1 year ago
Answers you doubts are well founded. The core issue between faith and science if you ask me is that conservative faith MUST be right and is completely inflexible. Where as the more open minded people of the world can change their views. Oh by the way I recommend the Tao of Pooh if you want to learn about Taoism.
vashcat 1 year ago
you seem to be getting a lot of crap from people for questioning your religion, and you don't deserve it.
i hope that you gain peace and understanding from whatever path you decide to follow.
i also hope that you don't hold resentment towards the people who are harassing you on your youtube channel. they're not bad people. they're just trying to help you in the only way they think they're able to.
peace
sum1unxpected 1 year ago 5
No gods exist....nuff said...no need to compare bullshit...anyone who thinks they do is a fuckin willfully ignorant dipshit. Great vid by the way!
6stringsbrainfingers 1 year ago
fuk religion it only brings fear
3tangle3 1 year ago
Great video. I came to the same conclusion. Most honest, thinking people seem to. Anyone who maintains their belief is probably doing it for reasons other than "truth seeking", most likely they are instead "comfort seeking". Christianity as a social outlet, etc. I, personally, have no use for false comforts. I desire the truth at any cost. Thanks!
JoshwithaJ 1 year ago
Where did you get that graph of debt and government?
stevenweir76 1 year ago
The christian God most certainly cannot be true it is wrong on every level. It only adds so many more questions and makes things more complicated. Everyone has a different definition of GOD he is always moving. All I can say is that their is ZERO evidence for any supernatural forces. God is nothing but a man made construct, Its all speculation. You don't need anyone else to tell you what to believe.
DjetGlea 1 year ago
Keep up the rational skepticism, it will serve you well...I hope.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
I can hear your skin crackling, right now. I can smell your flesh being burned off of you as fire daemons sodomise you from the deep and fire waves come crashing into your body and burst you into flames.
GingerDemarque 1 year ago
@GingerDemarque: Things would probably be better if you didn't stand so close to the barbeque.
puncheex 1 year ago 2
Interesting vid i wish you luck where ever you journey takes you I am subing you i like your ideas great vid
fallbread 1 year ago
It's playing make-believe.
Faith = make-believe.
Elaborate imaginary friends that cause problems too.
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
I think you need to read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and walk away with whatever you feel best defines you as a thinking person.
JanusChristIsRisen 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing your video. I thought it was very well done. We each find different things compelling. Just continue to remain intellectually honest with yourself. I am in complete agreement with you about fundamentalists. Religion becomes harmful when people confuse their beliefs with knowledge...when they hinder academia because they don't like the findings (and are unqualified to refute them). When it comes to knowledge about God, however, we're all at the same level. Nobody truly knows.
DarkMatter2525 1 year ago 3
I started out much the same way and followed a path very similar to what you seem to be on now. It was hard. It was long. It was heartbreaking to let go of some of the core tenants which I once held that were filled with so much promise and hope. But it was in that hardship and in that heartache that I found a measure of peace and acceptance, not just of the world, but in myself. The truth set me free in ways I never knew possible.
I hope you find the same.
SeattleImori 1 year ago
Best of luck with your research. It might also be a good idea to do a little research on animistic bias/paranoia - and OCD/ROCPD. It may give you an understanding on how and why god belief and religion developed.
Ryedo40 1 year ago
AnswersInNature, I'm very moved by your honesty and devotion to the truth. All I can say on this topic is that regardless of where you end up spiritually, these two traits are the best tools for discovering meaningful answers. I'll be following your progress, if you post videos on it, so you know that at least one person is watching what happens.
Cheers.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
Cont-
I have also been told that a friend of mine also with Aspergers has recently become atheist, or at least is no longer a christian. With your second half of the video, I wonder just how many of us out there that make up the non-believers as opposed to believers. Having listened to your statement about why those with Autism have trouble understanding such things, I'm seeing a definite true pattern.
twilightguardian 1 year ago
It it nice to see someone else who has come out with being Aspergers. I stopped being a Christian when I was 6. The church was boring and I felt I could better spend my sundays watching cartoons or reading books. Or playing outside or even finishing up the rest of my homework if I even had any. It worked out fine in the end because my mother and roommate are also Atheist, though take interest in Buddhism. But in my mind, gods are on par with fantasy, cartoons and fiction.
twilightguardian 1 year ago
Welcome to the fold of Honest, Intelligent, Skeptical, Curious and Thorough Reasoners.
They'll scold you, belittle you, barrage you. You'll question, doubt and wonder. You'll never hold any position as "True" again. Only a grasping of ideas yet to be disproved.
But in what people imagine to be a sea of turmoil you'll find the comfort of the stars in the night sky. Or the honesty in your mind - like they'll never feel.
You're awake now and free to walk all paths and roam all lands.
Enjoy
ackmonra 1 year ago 3
@ackmonra I love your comment.
3li3z3r1 1 year ago
There is no such thing as heart-knowledge. The heart pumps blood and anyone who says different is not only full of shit, but I'm also glad they're not in the medical profession.
What they mean is having this emotional feeling of course. But what value is that? Emotions have their place of course, but they must be governed by reason.
At least I don't take people seriously if they go purely by whatever feels good. (In fact those people are DANGEROUS.)
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
As far as Apologetics goes, all of the arguments are horribly weak, be they teleological, cosmological, or ontological.
The worst is the ontological, but the most common one I have seen is the teleological, the argument from design. Check out Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" to see this argument masterfully torn asunder.
The cosmological argument is a little better, but is still easily routed. This is the stance of the Catholic Aquinas. The amazing atheist did a video on it.
RedRuuj 1 year ago
Comment removed
RedRuuj 1 year ago
It's funny. I see all of these different methods for reading the bible, but none of them are actually in the bible itself. So we know two things:
1. The bible was written by men (be it Moses, the apostles, or whoever)
2. The methods for interpreting the bible were also developed by men.
Anyone else see the problem here?
RedRuuj 1 year ago 3
I do not anticipate a positive response to my comments, but I would kindly ask that you would leave them on your video for those who are also struggling, but perhaps have not yet taken an open, public stance against Jesus Christ and His Church.
Although I am not able to make videos, I would like viewers to have some hope in researching the information below before they follow your lead.
I'm away for a week on business, and cannot easily respond to YouTube messages while traveling. Be well.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Disputation on Holy Scripture
"In this book we find the following six main chapters: "Of the number of the Canonical Books of Scripture," "Of the Authentic Edition and Versions of the Scriptures," "Of the Authority of Scripture," "Of the Perspicuity of Scripture," "Of the Interpretation of Scripture," "Of the Perfection of Scripture, against Unwritten Traditions," as well as Whitaker's "Preface to the Controversies, Delivered to the Audience at Cambridge."
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Continued...
Thus, the apostle had given the Romans a "form of doctrine"; (Rom. 5:17); and to Timothy "a form of sound words; (2 Tim. 1:13); "a form of sound words," which contained "the principles of the doctrine of Christ," and the first principles of the oracles of God;" six whereof are distinctly mentioned, Heb. 5:12; 6:1,2.
Proves how deeply parents and ministers are obliged to this duty, what the duty is, and how it is best performed.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Continued...
and by the apostles themselves and their immediate successors; and this in imitation of the Jews who had "a form of knowledge and of the truth in the law," (Rom. 2:20), out of which they instructed the ignorant, and taught babes.
Thus, the apostle had given the Romans a "form of doctrine"; (Rom. 5:17); and to Timothy "a form of sound words; (2 Tim. 1:13); "a form of sound words,"
Continued...
covenantervoice 1 year ago
By What Scriptural Rules May Catechising Be So Managed, As That It May Become Most Universally Profitable (1674, reprinted 1844), Thomas Lye, Pages: 34
Based on "Train up," or catechise, "a child in the way he should go," or in his way: "and When he is old, he will not depart from it" (Prov. 22:6).
Shows that there are several texts of Scripture from which the learned conclude that this mode of Catechising was used in the apostles' days,
Continued...
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Thanks so much for this vid. I have been feeling the same for the last year. I really look forward to watching more videos from this channel.
MargarettaL 1 year ago
Here is a quick question for you...since you stumbled over Numbers in your 15 minute a day "intellectually honest research".
What Jewish method did you use to interpret the text?
Methods of interpretation among Jewish interpreters: for example derash (aggadic interpretation), remez (allegory and philosophy), sod (mystical interpretation), gematria (meanings from the numerical value of the words), and notarikon (employing initial or final letters of words to discern hidden meanings).
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods. If I can get any truth from the first 5 books, much of it likely should not be interpreted literally.
AnswersInNature 1 year ago 17
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods."
I shared with you the Jewish methods of interpretation, but I did not say they were the proper form of interpretation for Christians. The Scriptures teach another form of interpretations which I do not believe properly are defined by Jewish interpreters as explained below. This is intelligent honest research in my view.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal,.."
The literal method is an error used by modern fundamentalists. The Jewish methods are also not true and faithful methods to interpret Scripture, which is why I shared them with you to be intellectually honest.
In short, one should use the "literal sense" method when interpreting Scripture. This literal sense is not defined as that which appears at face value (or literally)--
Continued...
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Continued...
--but rather the literal sense is that sense which the author (God) intends--that "intended meaning" which is taken from the words themselves, whether the words are to be taken strictly (literally) or figuratively. The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean.
Continued...
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice "The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean."
But how could we know what they are intended to mean? The method you describe could be used to interpret any book ever written as the words of a god. Only with a pre-existing conviction that a god exists can you ever come to the same conclusions as Whitaker - and that is being intellectually dishonest.
CloserEnd 1 year ago
@CloserEnd wrote: "But how could we know what they are intended to mean?...Only with a pre-existing conviction that a god exists can you ever come to the same conclusions as Whitaker - and that is being intellectually dishonest."
I'm surprised by your question. It seemed to me that you were a proponent of reason and logic. The answer should be obvious to your question, but alludes your reasoning. To the contrary on the second...all men reject God at birth and MANY conclude like Whitaker.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@CloserEnd wrote: "But how could we know what they are intended to mean?"
I might have already responded...but since I am setting records at receiving more negative votes from my comments than anyone in YouTube history (not good if I were a politician), I'll respond again.
You learn the intended meaning by basic study, reading and re-reading over and over again. Since we live in an atheistic world...you can balance in your own life the learning of both sides and if what God says is true.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Continued...
A good explanation of the literal sense in relation to allegory and other figures is found in William Whitaker's book entitled "A Disputation on Holy Scripture" pp. 403-410.
If you truly intend to intellectually be honest with yourself, I would suggest you at least consider all the available methods of interpretation. You were taught on literal method growing up, and none of the Jewish methods, nor perhaps the "literal sense", but this is where I would begin my search for truth.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Growing up fundamentalist, I was taught that the Bible was totally literal, and was never taught about any Jewish interpretation methods. If I can get any truth from the first 5 books, much of it likely should not be interpreted literally."
You should be pleased with all your votes in the affirmative. It tells me many think like you, and while I don't find this necessarily helpful, I assume you would find it encouraging to be in the great majority on this site.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice The fact that literacy is rampant should count for something when someone other then a priest or religious leader can read and interpret for their self. A modern person has plenty enough knowledge to read and comprehend these texts. No more spoon feeding for the illiterate masses, just for the 90% of the lazy Christians who don't read their Bible very little or not at all. It's not Kabalah, it's reading. God says kill, God says keep virgins for yourself, that's what he meant.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens wrote: "A modern person has plenty enough knowledge to read and comprehend these texts. No more spoon feeding for the illiterate masses, just for the 90% of the lazy Christians who don't read their Bible very little or not at all."
To a large degree this is true. Not only do 90% of Christian fail to read Scripture, but like this guy in the video, they might only put in 15 minutes a day. This is not sufficient when one is born atheist and indoctrinated in atheism from birth.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice I agree with you, reading the entire Bible and understanding it are key before knowing what grounds anyone stands on. Atheists should read the whole thing if their going to argue over it, and Christians should definitely read their whole book and understand what their faith is based on.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens I'm an atheist because I read the bible and looked into it's history. The best way to turn christians atheist is for them to read the bible.
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@alienlifeform11 I agree, but they would have to read and understand the parts that they would otherwise skim over or ignore. Christians usually ignore anything that would cause a cognitive dissonance in their thought process.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@covenantervoice I have another way of looking at any ancient text. It's called the historical critical approach. It's where you use the text as a juming off point to discern the historical voracity of the text. The methods of study particulary gematria (assigning words a number value) change the meaning of the actual text. They simply muddle up what the authors were trying to actually say by distracting them hidden meanings. What's next? The bible code?
conantroy1 1 year ago
@conantroy1 wrote: "It's called the historical critical approach. It's where you use the text as a juming off point to discern the historical voracity of the text."
It is unwise to use history to try to interpret the text. This is a common misconception where people try to use science or archeology to interpret Scripture, or prove the Scriptures right or wrong.
The only way to prove the Scriptures right or wrong is using the literal sense after the closing of the Canon.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice I will agree from the perspective that trying to interpret the theological ideals of scripture cannot be addressed using historical criticism. Unfortunatly, the Tanakh is also supposed to be a collection of history and laws set down for the followers of YHWH. To simply read it for it's theological purpose does not deal with the very real issues surrounding it's historical validity. To interpretit after the closing of the canon, removes the beliefs of those before it.
conantroy1 1 year ago
@conantroy1 wrote: "To interpret it after the closing of the canon, removes the beliefs of those before it."
The bible texts are historical in nature of course. Even prophetical allegorical or literal texts, interpreted in their literal sense (e.g., intended meaning), are history unfulfilled.
Each generation is given sufficient information for faith in the creator God. Noah and Abraham had faith sufficient to be saved...as will those after the close of the canon in time and place in history.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice The problem is outside the bible, Abraham, Noah, and Moses don't show up at all. For such prominent men (according to the bible) I find that very unsual. In fact, there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus at all. And that's not just covering the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but their time in Egypt. Before you say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It archaeology, it is. But the archaeology tells a different story. I recommend Israel Finkelstein as a good source
conantroy1 1 year ago
@conantroy1 wrote: "In fact, there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus at all."
Yes, I know. I've traveled in almost 40 countries, and have a massive historical library. I've read about this issue going back into documents during the inter-testimental period...but Finkelstein brings nothing to the argument which is new in my research.
I don't live my life as an atheist waiting for physical evidence to connect apes to man, or finches to evolution. You will need to shop elsewhere.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice I said nothing about evolution. That's a completly different subject. That' the problem most theists make. They take cosmolgy, bilogy, theology, history, and even philosohpy and treat them as thought they are all dealing with the same evidence. I don't live my life waiting for anything. I'm simply stating that the claims of the bible based on it's accuarcy of history is bunk. If you wish to continue shopping based on the claims of ignorant shepards, by all means continue.
conantroy1 1 year ago
@conantroy1 wrote: "I don't live my life waiting for anything. I'm simply stating that the claims of the bible based on it's accuarcy of history is bunk."
This is your own uneducated opinion on the matter...since you are blinded by proving all Scriptural witness testimony by physical proof. It is like rejecting that the sun is hot until you can personally fly there, and touch it with your own hands. Silly, but people think this way.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice What kind of proof would you prefer to use? I can only make claims about things I can reasonably demonstrate. You are basing your "belief" based on tesimonials of people who were not concerned about recording anything accurately. If someone today told you they were a prophet from God, would you believe them? Ofcourse not. Why believe it when people whom thought natural disasters were caused by an angry god when they make the same claims.
conantroy1 1 year ago
@conantroy1 There's an actual mental disease where on 25th Dec in Jeruselam soooo many people proclaim they are the reincarnation of jesus (no capital) they have to be locked up in mental wards. Maybe jesus has come back but if so he's in a cell and his magic hasn't busted him out yet.
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@covenantervoice What witnesses? The first writings of Jebus were 30 years after his supposed death. Who are these eyewitnesses? The ones that disagree with each other?
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@conantroy1 R'amen
alienlifeform11 1 year ago
@covenantervoice If god or jesus had said any of the BS that is in any of the "holy" books they would need absolutely no conversion or interpretation, they would be absolutely understandable by all people.
AdamBomb669 1 year ago
@AdamBomb669 wrote: "they would be absolutely understandable by all people."
Well now this is silly. The Scriptures say that God will provide to His people teachers to help them understand. "And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do." Exod.18:20
"Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred." Job 6:24.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
At 7:03 he references Asperger's Disorder and claims he knows what it means, and that with this disease he is basically born a skeptic by natural evolution, and I'm sure it is something Apes and monkey's have as well if you were sit and talk with these primates. You see people, logic, faith and reason speaking with evolutionary facts in hand is the only way to be intellectually honest, and just to validate one must be born with Asperger's Disorder to be certainly a skeptic.
A Christian? never.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice When you comment on someone's video, you need to address the video maker in the second person, and not the 3rd. And Asperger's isn't a disease, and I know what it's all about, if you would do the research on it. A Christian never? Sounds like the no true Scotsman's fallacy.
AnswersInNature 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature wrote: "When you comment on someone's video, you need to address the video maker in the second person, and not the 3rd."
Over the past year posting I've learned that most video posters always argue their position with 3rd person general statements. You do that throughout your video. There is no reason to address you, but rather it is better to address your viewers who will be deceived by your uneducated commentary on Christianity.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I could not help but laugh when at 8:49 when he goes about to disprove Christianity while studying history and states that the Eastern Orthodox Church he also disproved because they are made up of "man made traditions", and then he says, "after years of intellectually honest research"...bla bla bla.
Do you see what he is saying? He says he is studying history and all sorts of "scientific" research to prove man made traditions fill Christianity, and calling this "intellectually honest". Not.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice Did you do any intellectually honest research? And what counts to you as intellectually honest? Agreeing with what you already believe?
AnswersInNature 1 year ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Did you do any intellectually honest research? And what counts to you as intellectually honest? Agreeing with what you already believe?"
Cute questions...but when one has an atheist presupposition and hatred for Christianity the time to respond is generally a waste of time. I suggest you keep doing your "intellectual" research. It sounds like you must have discovered something the past 4,000 years of researchers have overlooked.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it.
AnswersInNature 1 year ago 23
@AnswersInNature wrote: "Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it."
I said, "when one has an atheist presupposition and hatred for Christianity". I said you have an atheist presupposition...you did not say it. Your video is a clear testimony you have no saving faith in Jesus Christ, and any other faith is atheism...per Scripture.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature Unfortunately, some people seem to think that questioning Christianity is the same as hating it.
Thank you for posting this. I'm glad to have watched your video, and wish you the best.
Makyui 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature
"Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition?"
Well man, welcome to wonderful world of being outside the Christian religion. Doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not, you are wrong by the very nature of not agreeing with Christianity. Once that is understood, projecting 'reasons' for why you're wrong is easy (but cannot be substantiated upon cross-examination as demonstrated with covenatervoice's response, "...the time to respond is generally a waste of time")
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@AnswersInNature
@covenantervoice Where did I say I had an atheist presupposition? I clearly said I was interested in deism, which is belief in a God without religion. And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it.
AnswersInNature 1 week ago 10
For the Win.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake wrote: "And I certainly do not hate Christianity, I'm simply questioning it. AnswersInNature 1 week ago 10 For the Win."
On YouTube you are not going to get a neutral audience, but an atheist audience. It would be like going over to SermonAudio and claiming atheist religion is the most truthful...you will not receive 10 positive votes.
You can claim it on Youtube and get hundreds of votes. This site has an atheist presupposition, and many cheerleaders for the atheism.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice The difference between the two sites being that one kicks you off for having an atheist viewpoint and this one does not kick you off for having a creationist viewpoint. Creationists refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. Atheists on the other had presume that things are false until proven otherwise. I know plenty of creationists here on youtube that have millions of views, many thousands of subscribers. Over at SermonAudio atheists just get removed and deleted.
TheAnubisDrake 1 year ago
@TheAnubisDrake wrote: "Creationists refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. Atheists on the other had presume that things are false until proven otherwise."
Oh, contrary to the evidence. Christians are some of the world's best researchers, bar none. I find even those former atheists who have stepped over into Christian evidence (in face of loosing their jobs and being fired for universities) that are blown away why so much has been withheld from them in school and out.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice "but when one has an atheist presupposition and hatred for Christianity the time to respond is generally a waste of time."
When one has a religious presupposition and hatred for reason, the time to respond is always a waste of time.
CloserEnd 1 year ago 2
@CloserEnd wrote: "When one has a religious presupposition and hatred for reason, the time to respond is always a waste of time."
Agreed.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@covenantervoice Why do you worship a God who tortures people for eternity?
Keitaro2011 1 year ago
@covenantervoice "Atheist presupposition"? You realize you were born an atheist, right? Religion must be taught, usually through childhood indoctrination. You seem to have a desire for people to hate Christianity so that you have something to attack them for. He never said he hated Christianity, he just said he's questioned it and found it lacking. Most people who questions it HONESTLY come to the same conclusion. If you don't come to his conclusion you probably have "must believe BS" syndrome.
JoshwithaJ 1 year ago
@JoshwithaJ wrote: ""Atheist presupposition"? You realize you were born an atheist, right? Religion must be taught, usually through childhood indoctrination."
Yes, I would agree that man is born an atheist and does not believe in God. This is due to the inheritance by natural generation of original sin...another doctrine rejected by an atheist since they believe we come from tad poles and apes. But I agree with you.
Children are indoctrinated in this generation by atheism...yes I agree.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice "Children are indoctrinated in this generation by atheism...yes I agree." You purposefully misread my statement....but....if the above quotation is true (it too often isn't) we'll all be better off. A whole generation of new minds coming out from under a dark cloud of superstition and COMPLETE BULLSHIT! Sounds great!! OK, have fun with your trollin'.
JoshwithaJ 1 year ago
@JoshwithaJ wrote: "if the above quotation is true (it too often isn't) we'll all be better off."
I see you are from Canada and favorited a video on your channel which likes that Soccer is the first only gay sport. Therefore, I assume you have a strong hatred for early Christian America and the old Christian common law instituted by England before Cromwell. If you are gay, I assume you must be delighted with the growing homosexualization of children and youths in schools.
Atheism is sad.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice Wow. Way to jump to conclusions. I only suspected it before, but now I'm quite sure you're a troll. Bye.
JoshwithaJ 1 year ago
@JoshwithaJ wrote: "Bye."
Bye.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice He was being honest with himself when it comes to religion. His title is honest, he admits that he has been having an issue with his religion. He doesn't claim to be Christian any more and that he has found issues with the religion. These are honest issues he's having. Your just being obstinate. God forbid someone have doubts and deconvert.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens wrote: "He doesn't claim to be Christian any more and that he has found issues with the religion....God forbid someone have doubts and deconvert."
A couple points. A true Christian cannot "claim to be a Christian any more" or to "deconvert". This is an old heresy.
He has a lot of positive votes from the comment below...so he can now choose his faith by political vote.
"When I went down this same path, I too more closely followed Taoism than anything else." 19 positive votes.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@covenantervoice that's right coven, because thinking is hard. Why study history and science when the bible answers all so neatly. I prefer blind faith over logic science and reason.
eahazell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eahazell wrote: "that's right coven, because thinking is hard. Why study history and science when the bible answers all so neatly. I prefer blind faith over logic science and reason."
Yes, I can see that.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
Dude, I beseech you, try the Unitarian Universalist church again. We even have atheists. You can question, think and study and get honest answers
eahazell 1 year ago
@eahazell wrote: "Dude, I beseech you, try the Unitarian Universalist church again. We even have atheists. You can question, think and study and get honest answers."
I actually did try it once back 15 years ago when I was researching the many different denominations. They were about the most extremely confused people I met in discussing basic reasoning and logic skills. There critical thinking skills were very poor. Most were basically cult worshipers to a large degree. Would not go back.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
@eahazell There is zero evidence for the existence of god... that could be a hint that he doesn't exist :)
cakeisnotanumber 1 year ago 2
I find it interesting that the author says at about 1:44 that being a Christian requires one to adopt 6 day creationism contrary to other "reason and evidence".
This presupposition is clear. He claims he is a Christian with doubt because he spent 15 minutes a day reading Scripture, and Numbers confused him about God, and "reason and evidence" disproves a literal 6-day creation.
People...this man is not a Christian...he is anti-Christian by Scripture. Most fundamentals are not Christians.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
I find it interesting that the author says at about 1:44 that being a Christian requires one to adopt 6 day creationism contrary to other "reason and evidence".
This presupposition is clear. He claims he is a Christian with doubt because he spent 15 minutes a day reading Scripture, and Numbers confused him about God, and "reason and evidence" disproves a literal 6-day creation.
People...this man is not a Christian...he is anti-Christian by Scripture. Most fundamentals are not Christians.
covenantervoice 1 year ago
When I went down this same path, I too more closely followed Taoism than anything else.
AronRa 1 year ago 21
@AronRa I find it funny how creationists seem to make arguments as though there were only two options. They seem to forget about the many other religions especialy those that do not have gods. They can't seem to wrap their mind around a simple argument such as even if you could prove the existence of a god that does not prove it is your god.
KaimLordren 1 year ago
@AronRa I find the difference between eastern and western traditions fascinating. While the west seems to be largely based around theistic dogma and have a kind of underlying theme of "man is higher than nature", eastern traditions seem to sit very well with the natural world and more of a "unity" or coexistence with nature. In this regard, I dont really consider the eastern teachings "religions", but more like philosophies to be pondered over, at least in a thematic sense.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@AronRa I thought I was the only one
bodinian 1 year ago
You can be a theist, and not a christian, being nonreligious and believing in god doesnt always lead to deism, as deism just makes one more assumption about god, that being that he removed himself from his creation. Where as theism in the general sense is just the belief in a deity. Of course both deism and theism are beliefs in personal gods but some forms of modern deism have just been beliefs in creative forces, but then again with that vague of a definition I could be considered a deist.
AbusiveAntitheist 1 year ago
Interesting video. I experienced the same doubts not long after I graduated from high school, and began exploring other paths. I still haven't settled on anything in particular, but Buddhism is beginning to appeal to me greatly. Also, I had a counselor in the past who told me that I probably have asperger's, and, having done research (as has my mother), I (and she) have come to the conclusion that the counselor was most likely correct. Therefore, I understand what you're saying about that.
graywolf369 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@graywolf369 only those who fear life...need religion
3tangle3 1 year ago
I really can't comment more on this than you have done yourself. You have shown the many flaws in your faith by yourself. Deism or pantheism are good philosophical progression points especially if you are having problems letting go of spirituality. Buddhism and Taoism are both interesting concepts. Read Osho's book "Buddha Zen Tao Tantra". The "Tao Te Ching" is also quite an interesting applied philosophy. Look at them all honestly. You will figure out the truth.
anubis2814 1 year ago