Animals can experience guilt. Animals can manifest compassion. There are numerous examles. I disagree with your supposition that man's inner workings is at variance with evolution but not its inner workings, and 6000 years? I propose the inverse! A feeble slow, week, unhaired, unclawed could not be selected by evolution/Mother nature. But if inervened and mixed by another strain of evolution, from another place, Yes! Lodewyk, South Africa, sky @ wwturbine . com
I also disagree that neo-darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection can't explain the altruistic phenomena you mentioned. Or at least, if it can 'explain' *anything* it can explain those things. Evolutionary psychologists have got plenty of explanations.
I've never heard that idea about god putting the spirit into man 6000 yrs ago, and I don't know if it's valid or not, biblically speaking- but it seems a bit of a fudge, and I don't see what it could mean. I don't think that there's overwhelming evidence that neo-darwinian macro-evolution can occur and while I'm not a Christian I feel that neo-darwinism is more at home with materialism than any non-materialist worldview.
You're right, there seems nothing grammatically incorrect about that reading. Why I don't understand it, is that consciousness is the main thing that neo-darwinism - *even* were it true, fails to explain- and I see no reason to believe that animals aren't conscious. I also don't see that neo-darwinism would explain everything except a specifically human morality. So I don't know what the divine spark put into man after an evolutionary process could consist of.
@TrustinJC Homo Sapiens, I believe refer to "Thinking" man in Anthropology. It seems strange that Mitroconial DNA as wel as normal DNA refers to a origin around 200 000 too 400 000 years ago, but with new information not that impossible.Lodewyk sky @ wwturbine . com
bridging a gap from atheist to christians''?thats like allowing baal to be worshiped in a christian church.you see evolutionist most of them are atheist that goes with the territory.
@davymatheny "you see evolutionist most of them are atheist that goes with the territory."
You should tell that to the catholics, of which there are over a billion worldwide. The pope himself has instructed the catholic church to embrace evolution, albeit evolution which was "god guided". There is absolutely no requirement to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution as demonstrably true.
@unixhead101 you are correct on the catholic evolution scandal,agree.the thing is all atheist i met,they all seem to be on the evolution side.they have to explain the start of life and when they do it is always evolution and no creator.''if they was no God then they would be no atheist'',gary stearman.i am not hammering the atheist,i am just stating what i have notice.you notice the word heist is in the word atheist?or at-heist,or at the heist?lol.
@davymatheny The point I was making is that atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive, one is not dependent on the other. However you are correct (in my opinion) in thinking that the majority of atheists do accept evolution.
Indeed, if there were no god, there would be no atheists, as atheism is a response to claims of the existence of gods.
One thing I'd like to point out is that Evolution does not speak to the "start of life" it merely explains the diversity of life, as we know it.
@unixhead101 yea and that is one of the flaws of evolution is that it doesnt explain the start of life.however when i talk to most evolutionist they agree on the big bang that causes life.something from nothing and that we came from a muddy pool of water,lol.but i agree that most of the atheist has fallen into the evolution trap and into the big bang trap.
Ummm,."evening and the morning were" each day. We have scientific evidence that the sun comes up and the sun goes down within a 24hr period. God sees each day start every evening not at midnight. Jesus even quoted Himself from the old testament that He created everything in 6 days.God in Exodus and Deut. makes mention. Why do I know the Book of Enoch is not inspired? Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
There is no Old Earth Creationism nt biblical. If you go back and count years from Adam to Present day it'll be around 6000 years, there is also a plethora of evidence supporting young earth and rejecting Old Earth Creationism. To believe in an old earth and be a creationist is to say "i believe the bible, but not literally" Has God ever spoke in metaphors, NO he speaks literally and when he speaks its a big deal. (He Breathes Stars - Psalms 33:7) So who are we to question him.
@xxwhitearabxx There is no evidence of a young earth. Stop buying into Hovinds pseudo-science.
You can't be serious that God does not speak in metaphors. Every vision and every dream requires interpretation because God spoke to people in metaphors. The parables were metaphors as well. In Daniel, days represent years in his prophecy.
What do you think a time, times, and half a time means?
God gives plenty of evidence for what each individual account truly means.
@xxwhitearabxx So, the God Almighty that you believe in, who created ~10to the power 21 stars, most larger than our sun, could only operate in terms of your current level of intelligence, and that of all of us who lives in homes somewhat larger than swallows or weavers, but very much the same? Are you even able to appreciate and write the abovementioned numbers of stars, right or wrong, mathematically? And you dare to suppose to know the mind and time God had in mind? Lode: sky @ wwturbine . com
The book of "Enoch" is not inspired by God. If evolution is true, and the bible is in harmony with evolution, How can God created all what exist in six days? Neither the bible and evolution are in harmony, you are the one wrong mis-understanding the bible.
@xchris1800 The 6 days are days according to God, not man. It is explained in this way so that we would understand the importance of the sabboth and the fact that we are to keep it holy. It explains one of the 10 commandments that we would not fully understand without the story.
@TrustinJC " The 6 days are days according to God, not man." the bible says: "evening came and then morning it was the ... day" what are you talking about?, respect the context of the scripture, if you take one part here, and other over there, you get weird stuffs.
you wrong argument show your ignorance, God lives out of time, dont say "6 day according to God"
Evolution and bible are the opposite view of creation.
@xchris1800 Just because God is not bound by time does not degate the fact that he will describe unknowable lengths of time in the form of days so that we understand there were periods of time in which certain things happened. The story of creation shows us that there was an order and reason for things being formed in the way they were. Enoch tells us Adam and Eve were in the garden for only 5&1/2 hours. But this can not mean hours according to man.
Three weeks to look for giving me an "intelligent" answer, I am angry with you, because you pretend to be a Christian, I dont like that, first of all search more about your "inspired" book of Enoch, then talk to me with the real inspired word of God. Respect the bible!!!
@BulletInABottle The dislikes come from both atheist and Christian.
Both are stuck in long standing belief systems that state science and God are at war and can never be reconciled. So young earth creationists and atheists both dislike what I put forward.
I get the same response from Christians when I make videos stating that the bible does not include all of God's word.
WOAA You have the sun on day four but the plants on day three and by your reckoning plants went without the sun for a thousand years or more...comeon trust God's word and stop preaching this untruth..plus your adding to God's word with the Book of Enoch which is forbidden....Trust God at his word and stop teaching confusion...we do not need the Book of Enoch ..Your Faith is in Enoch ??? the bible says preach anything unto men than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
@TrustinJC Yes He designed them that way. And if you dont take creation literally as a six day creation then everytime God speaks you must question and see if its a metaphor. God DOESNT SPEAK IN METAPHORS it never happened in neither the old or new testament. Everything is always literal when he told Jonah go to Ninevah did he mean Jerusalem? No God is to be taken literally.
@xxwhitearabxx As I explained in the previous comment, God has chosen to speak over and over again in metaphors. He even instructed some prophets to become living metaphors.
enoch tells us that Adam and Eve were in the garden for only 5 & 1/2 hours. This obviously does not refer to hours according to human understanding.
Do some research into the Hebrew word that is translated into day. Use a concordance and seek to understand the Hebrew culture and meanings of words.
You are trying to combine the theory of evolution with the Bible which is heresy. The bible says "death came by sin" so there was no death before sin came into the world ...science perfectly agrees with the bible...you are calling God a liar by trying to combine truth with a lie...but Evolution is a complete lie wholly and without exception
Its funny to watch how Christians try to reinterprate the bible to make it agree with science.
The bible is a stone age book. The people who wrote it actually believed the Earth was flat! When are people going to realise that once they let go of the bible, the whole world makes so much more sense, even if you don't take the bible literally?
I'll give you credit for being far more reasonable than most Christians here on youtube, but I still think you believe in fairytales.
@TrustinJC I never said the bible says that earth is flat, I only said that the people who wrote it believed the earth to be flat. But if you really want a reference from the bible, there are too many to list. Many verses refer to "the four corners of the earth". Isaiah 40:22 refers to the "circle of the earth". Some verses in Job refer to the "edges of the earth". If these aren't references to a flat earth, then what are they?
@TrustinJC Of course there is reinterpretation of the bible. Why else would there be countless different interpretations the same stories, some taking it literally, some metaphorically, etc. To believe that your specific interpretation is correct, and that everyone else has been "deceived by the devil" is just pure arrogance and closedmindedness.
@TrustinJC No, I guarantee you that if you had a college education or equivalent understanding in any branch of science, whether it be biology or physics or something else, you would realise that reality becomes so much clearer without all of these fairytales and superstition clouding your mind.
Religion is merely a substitute people use to try to understand reality when they are lacking a true understanding that science gives us, or at least brings us much closer to a true understanding.
@joshie92 Not only does the Bible not claim the Earth is flat, it claims the Earth is round. Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" So it's better to study first and then speak publicly so that you avoid embarrassing your self.
@joshie92 You do not know what your talking about..Isaiah states Isa 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth," and this was wrttien thousand of years before the flat earthers were proposing their flat earth theory ..so even Christians knew the earth was round while everybody was saying it was flat..try reading the bible before you speak about it
@waderyu Last time I checked, "circle" does not mean "round". A circle is a flat 2 dimensional shape. I don't know where you pulled the word "round" from, but anyway, all round means is some sort of curvature, whether of a 2D or 3D object. If God, who is all knowing and all powerful, apparently wrote the bible, you would think he would be a bit clearer and more specific about what he meant, maybe using the word "sphere" or "ball shaped". Try learn some basic geometry before you speak.
@waderyu Also, you ignored what I said about the verses in Job which talk about the "edges of the earth". I don't know about you, but I can't imagine any spherical object having edges.
If Death passed upon the earth with sin. And there was no sin before the fall of man. Then there is no death before the fall. There is no Death before sin. THERE IS NO EVOLUTION BEFORE THE FALL. The World was created in 6 days. If you question that you question the Bible. Where is your authority?
What a lode of crap! Science in no way supports christianity!
You can't argue with an atheist by quoting from the bible, a book of fiction. You might as well quote from 'The Three Little Pigs'.
Also, if you knew even a little about evolution you would know that evolution does explain morals and empathy. In simple terms: Members of a population that go around killing other members of that population tend not to live long enough to pass on their genes while members with greater empathy do.
Christanity has to much primative , bronze age bullshit in it. If you want to get science & religion together. You will have to update the Bible. Because of the narrow, dogmatic beliefs of christians, that going to be hard to do. You will have to prove your inspire by god. just using basic common scence you can improve the bible, cant prove your talking to god though
The writings of Enoch are not canonical. We are told to keep the Sabbath day, and that is tied to the Sabbath of creation (Exodus 20:8-11). We cannot keep a Sabbath that lasts for "ages." The days of Genesis were days like ours, otherwise Ex. 20:8-11 makes NO sense, sir. You are in error. The use of simile in 2 Peter 3:8 cannot be used to say that the days were "ages." That is bad hermeneutics. And there are many flaws in evolutionary science. You need to research this.
There are many ways to reach the conclusion that you should love thy neighbor rather than harming thy neighbor (or becoming callously indifferent to their suffering).
Some ways, admittedly, are more reliable than others.
But what matters is that you get there, that you reach the right conclusion.
I don't understand why anyone objects to someone else having an "incorrect" interpretation of the Bible. Most atheists on YouTube believe in freedom of thought and expression. Most Christians on YouTube believe in religious liberty. They're the same thing. Freedom.
What evidence for "god"? Which "god"? This doesn't make any sense.
Of course there is conflict between science and religion. With the Bible for a start the scientific evidence makes nonsense of the stories in Genesis.
Evolution can absolutely explain ALL of those things, you just don't understand evolution. You think you understand evolution but you don't. Even though evolution is not the science of love it does explain why love occurs, or pain, or any emotion and feeling.
Ridiculous. There are countless pastors and priests who have given up their beliefs and become atheists for no other reason than the realization that their religion and god is a fairytale. Lifelong atheists such as myself cannot in any way distinguish between god, leprechauns and fairies, except in the way that it affects other people. Sir, clearly you know nothing of atheism; as such your analysis on the subject is wholly without merit.
What is it the evangelicals call people like this? Cafeteria Christians? Seems fitting (although in my estimation all Christians fit this description).
Dude, ancient hearsay written by bronze age sheepherders and iron age peasants are as much evidence for invisible sky fairies as the Harry Potter books are evidence for flying broomsticks.
In order for me to deny the evidence for your (gnostic Christian) flavor of the supernatural, you first have to actually PRESENT evidence for the supernatural.
acording to the bible yes but not acording to the hebrew and greek scriptures, acording to the scriptures there is no hell.
i dont deny its existance, i know it doesnt exzist, so did the early church, b 4 300 ad
becuse they understood that eternaty was limited in duration, it is your tradition that voids the words of god, "as in adam all die even so in christ shall all be made alive" "christ the saviour of all men espically of believers" "christ, the first frut then those that are his........
If you believe hell no longer exists because eternity is limited in duration, then this must also be true of heaven.
It is time that ceases to exist, not eternity.
The Hebrews understood that hell existed long before Christ came on the scene. It was the corrupt Pharisees and Saduccees who came out of Babylon as the religious leaders that changed the doctrine of Hell. This happened when they stopped using the writings of Enoch and others that supported the doctrine of hell.
Jesus and the apostles refered more to the writings of Enoch than any other book.
And hell is mentioned in the writings in great detail. The story Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus lines up exactly with how Enoch described the third level of hell.
It's real. And people who teach false doctrines and are not lead by the Holy Spirit will end up there.
If you are going to teach, you best be sure you are teaching sound doctrine.
Since you brought the verse up, I would think you'd know where to find it.
But here it is.
Rom 5: 15-19 (NLT) But there is a great difference between Adams sin and Gods gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is Gods wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.
16 And the result of Gods gracious gift is very different from the result of that one mans sin. For Adams sin led to condemnation, but Gods free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is Gods wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Yes, Adams one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christs one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.
19 Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.
You see? It says "for all who recieve it"
Also keep in mind that Paul was writing to believers.
If we reject Christ, we reject his gift. If we reject his gift, there is no salvation.
I'm always willing to listen to and to follow good, sound teaching. But you talk of having an understanding of scripture and hell when you clearly do not.
You've fallen victim to the new age teachings that have taken the bible and Christianity hostage.
Universalism, unitarianism, radical grace, and annihilation are all examples of the new, and horribly false teachings found in churches and on youtube.
the problem with you is that you will bend the meaning of your book any which way to fit anything you like, if we definitively proved tomorrow that the moon was cheese you would find that somewhere in your book. you don't get your truths from the book, you give your truths to the book. if your truths change you will just find a way to adapt the new truths to the book.
I believe in God, but I have doubts a lot of the time, I beg God sometimes to please talk to me or send me a sign to strengthen my faith :l But I haven't got one. Can you please explain to me what i'm doing wrong :(
Just ask Him and focus on deliberately receiving His Holy Spirit. His words will never contradict the Word, and He communicates in a place where your heart, mind, and understanding are all one.
1194DavidLotro, in Affectionate Love, realize the "name" you call, is the one you get [Acts 4:12]. 'God' is the Hebrew "name" of the Babylonian false deity: Fortune, a common Teutonic term for personal OBJECT of religious worship; formally applied to super-human beings of HEATHEN MYTH; on conversion to Christianity, term then referred to Supreme Being. 'God' is an IDOL! Yahuwshua is Yahweh - accept no substitutes!
according to the bible, the lord helps those who helps themselves. Soooooo.... Go work hard and get a good paying job. God will provide money for you.
So you`re saying it is more believable that a man in the sky made nothing explode then nothing exploded by itself? By the way if you turn out to be right then Chuck Norris is your god. I`m saying that because I have come upon an old scripture from the depths of the internets which state the following. "In the beginning there was nothing. Then Chuck Norris came and round-house-kicked that nothing in the face and said "Get a job". And that`s how the universe was born."
Is that really the best you can offer? How is it that you have no clue how foolish you look and sound when you merely insult rather than engage in discussion.
Where I am in error, for example, might be a good place to start.
I don't, by the way, consider insults to be fightingwoids. I simply consider them a sign of ignorance.
Excellent video. I am constantly bothered by Christian attempts to deny undeniable scientific facts. Keep up the good work! Of course, science clearly contradicts the order of events found in Genesis; regardless, I must applaud you for your honesty.
I think you wrong about the earth being billions of years old. rather, I do not ignore the evidence. I believe the scientific evidence is very clear that the earth is less than 6,000 years old. I do not think someone who believes in evolution is damned to hell for having that belief, but I just disagree. I agree that true science does not contradict the Scripture.I also believe that 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch are both Scripture.I believe in creationism and geocentrism.Modern science is very flawed.
I've never seen a geocentric model of the solar system/universe that takes gravity (and observations you can make with a backyard telescope) into consideration. Do you know of one?
gravity? i don't see how gravity has anything to do with it. gravity exists whether or not the earth is moving. something also to take into consideration, even in the heliocentric model, the sun is moving. however, all the various bodies remain consistent in their pattern being pulled along by the sun as it moves. you can do the research. the sun does indeed move, in both the heliocentric and geocentric theory, both will agree to that.
are you asking this to try and demonstrate heliocentrism as superior because it deals with gravity? or are you just curious if there is any difference in how gravity works in the various systems? the answer is, there is no difference in how gravity works when you compare the systems of heliocentrism and geocentrism.
I guess what you're saying is that the Earth is stationary and what appears (in the heliocentric system) as rotation is actually the universe revolving around us once per day. So just a change of perspective? Am I right to assume that's what you believe?
i believe the universe is moving around us once a day.however, what you think of the universe is different than of what i think.for example, you think that for the sun and the rest of the universe to revolve once a day, would require it to travel faster than the speed of light.i don't believe this is what is happening.the sun and the rest of the universe is much closer than you actually think.i'm not sure the entire universe revolves daily, though i believe the entire galaxy is revolving daily.
Maybe you're a troll just spewing nonsense for a response, but it seems to me that by your own admission there can be nothing farther than 2 and a half billion miles from earth at the equator. All them stars within 3.7 light hours? I doubt it fella.
i'd have to double check the science, but i really doubt that the size of the universe is as big as it is being made out to be. i would question how they determine so well the distance of stars and such. i would be impressed if i were shown a well developed way of calculating the distance of galactic bodies. i want to see the science. if science can truly support heliocentrism, then of course i should accept it. however, of what i've seen, nothing has yet convinced me.
you haven not seen the science because it's so painfully simple, are you familiar with trigonometry? are you aware that it works in 3 dimensions? are you aware that those 3 dimension exist on earth? BAM just with that we can prove that the universe is very large, on top of that we have relativity, red shift, etc. which just makes it larger. im sure there's other ways, but those are just the simple ones off the top of my head.
all I'm going to say or ask I guess is why you give any validity to a book that is not part of our holy Bible? If you believe, like most Christian's do, that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then why is this book of Enoch not included? The Bible does not support evolution, if we were to know of the age of darkness etc then God would have relayed that to us in the creation account, creation and evolution don't go together. I don't understand y you combat with athiest/agnostic people.
Also, I'm not trying to say that ppl with honest questions about God and life shouldn't be answered. I've been answering some for a friend of mine. Either way don't wste your time on people who don't appreciate the truth. Matthew 7:6 is a great verse for these type of people. "Do not give dogs what is sacred:do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." A great verse. I also debated athiest and came 2 learn its useless
While it is rare, I have had a few atheist tell me that my vids have given them a new perspective and respect for Christianity. Some have begun to realize that God is real, and that false teachings had kept them from believing in God.
We can never know the far reaching effect that our words have on people.
A seed planted today may be watered by someone 5 yrs from now. So we may think the seed feel on hard ground, when in fact it just required time to germinate.
any number of people can take a bunch of documents and put them together and declare it as the one and only truth. but, does that make their claim valid? no. the people who compiled "the" bible had biases against other books of Scripture. Should we trust God's truth, which guides us to what is authentic, or the flawed and faulty biases of men, who independent of God declared their own canon?
@carlsonap16 I'm not sure what your trying to say here? I mean I do. I posted the comment 2 weeks ago, never really heard of enoch's book, but I looked into, and I don't know what to think of it, it supports the bible in different aspects, but I still don't knw. as for the bible, I trust that God was watching over and made sure that his word got out, I don't disagree that these people didn't include some books, but I believe God's word is still in there, I like enoch, but I don't know....
in king josiah's day, they had lost the Scriptures, but then they found them. if the Bible says Scripture can be lost, then certainly that could happen with us.2 kings 22.God has given us free will.you could use the same argument and say that God would never allow false teachers to come into the church, but he clearly does. God allows that for the same reason he allows people to not have all of God's word.whos right?protestants,catholics,orthodox?
and, did you know that syrian christians do not accept five books of your 66 books?2 peter, 2 john, 3 john, jude, and revelation. so, how do you know the protestant bible is the truth? what if the syrian bible is? if you understood how the bible was supposedly compiled,you will see it was not guided by the holy spirit but was guided by misguided men. in the book of jude,Enoch is quoted directly as an authoritative and Scriptural source.i shall create a video discussing bible at certain time.
Evolution has PROVED that Adam & Eve could never have existed. The fossil record is way WAY complete enough to show that. And we know that a genetic diversity bottleneck implied in this version of creation would quickly lead to extinction through inbreeding.
So if Adam & Eve is a fairytale then there was no Original Sin & that means the reason for Jesus' existence is fake. He could have existed but not as a scapegoat to forgive our sins.
But the things that Enoch says can't be supported, it's just like scripture. This all sounds like religion doing its slippery soap routine where interpretation can get it out of any fix.
There is in fact a HUGE incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity
i think your getting Archus & Adoil confused with Jesus. but if you have read the lost books then you know that when the fallen angels came here they mixed the species of animals and mixed them with man with their magic science. it sounds science fiction but once we realize that the fallen angels are aliens it all makes sense. they were all destroyed in the flood. when Genesis says Noah was pure in his generations it means that there wasn't animal DNA in his bloodline.
i don't think you understood what Dawkins was trying to say about altruism and kindness potentially being a mis-firing of evolutionary instincts, because then you go on to say "evolution can't explain these things" when Dawkins just laid out a perfectly reasonable explaination...
hard to explain the whole theory in a youtube comment, Dawkins explains it very well in a few videos on here. In a nutshell, autruistic behaviours have value in a society, and natural selection selects them. Now that society has changed from close knit tribes to big cities/communities, these behaviours are still present in our nature, although the direct benefits we receive from them (reciprocation of good deeds from others, primarily) are not necessarily there.
You are talking about the kind of deeds done in a social or cultural setting where you can expect to run into the person again. Family and community are explained.
But doing good for strangers is different. giving up your treasures and giving to stangers goes against natural selection.
Dawkins calls it a misfire. This is because these deeds are done without expectation of benefits. And it goes against evolution.
ok, it sounds like you understand the concept, but you're still missing one key point. Mis-firings of evolution happen all over the place, constantly. It generally happens when an animal changes environments. Look at any housecat. They get their food from a bowl, yet they can't resist to act on the hunter instincts of their ancestors. Cats have a biological program in their DNA to chase and kill small living things. This is useful in the wild, but not it's new environment, among humans.
This is not a misfire of evolution. This is simply the result of what happens when humans try to change an animal by domesticating it. I'm afraid this does not explain anything.
yes it does. the "result of domesticating an animal" is exactly what we're talking about here. taking a species out of it's environment and having tendencies from the old environment stick around is the misfiring we're talking about. I can't believe you're not understanding this simple point, it's so obvious.
Showing empathy, compassion, and doing good for strangers is not something that is condusive to survival of the fittest. In fact, doing so would have turned ugly for the ones who did this because they never knew where their next meal might come from. Do you not understand that these are negative traits for survival of the fittest, and therefore should never have occured?
As you have said. These traits of being nice to strangers would be weeded out if there were an advantage to those who refrained from it. This is my very point. For this was indeed the case for early man. So doing nice things for strangers should never have survived as a trait in humans.
Even Dawkins understands this. And it is why he calls it a misfire.
another example (which Dawkins gives) is how we feel sexual lust regardless of whether or not we are intending to procreate. We still feel it even if we are intentionally using contraception, and even if we are hoping and praying we DON'T reproduce. This has NO EFFECT on the biological program in our DNA that says "breed with a human of the opposite sex that possesses good parental qualities" (i.e. not too old or young or unfit to have children)
another example (which Dawkins gives) is how we feel sexual lust regardless of
whether or not we are intending to procreate... This has NO EFFECT on the biological program in our DNA that says"breed with a human of the opposite sex.
Actually, there are studies showing that people today are having less sex than people who lived in the 50's. and homosexual relationships have dramatically increased.
what does people having more or less sex have to do with contraception affecting sexual lust? your response made no sense. My point is that the use of contraception doesn't effect the DESIRE to procreate, even if it's impossible. I never said anything about whether this should increase or decrease the amount of sex people have. I think you are very confused.
Dawkins said the use of contraceptives would not reduce lust. You expanded on this saying that contraceptives will not reduce the desire for procreation.
I'm saying that the stats disagree. More people are living gay lifestyles, so no procreation. And people are having less sex, so less procreation.
So my point is that Dawkins is making assumptions on this point, as he so often does.
ok, i guess i understand what you're saying, but you're still missing the point. The point isn't that using contraception could gradually cause people to feel less sexual lust, that's a ridiculous notion. The point is that an individual will still act on their Darwinian impulses regardless of whether or not they are receiving the benefit they were designed for. I really don't see how you can dispute that, it's clear as day in the examples I've given.
Why is that a ridiculous notion? I know of people who won't have sex if they have to wear condoms. They'd rather pass in such cases. And the stats show that people are having less sex.
Regarding Darwinian impulses:
But that's exactly my point. People who do good for strangers are acting contrary to Darwinian impulses. Empathy for strangers could have had only a negative impact in mans early days. So those traits should have been weeded out.
Your statistics that show that people have less sex could be driven by a huge number of practical factors, and don't necessarily have any connection to the amount of lust people feel. I would imagine homosexuality seems to be more common now because it has become more socially acceptable in the last 50 years. There is no reason to assume that the use of contraception has caused people to have less sex, you could argue it's because of a number of different factors.
Yes. I agree with you on this point. But we don't know for sure. There are probably a number of factors. It is not, however ridiculous to say that continued use of contraceptives could be a contributing factor. And this just goes to show shawdy research and unsubstantiated theory on Dawkins part. The condom comparison used by the poster child of atheism and evolution was foolish.
Let me try to phrase this in a better way. Dawkin's is NOT saying that sexual lust could not gradually decline as a result of contraception, he's merely saying that it doesn't IMMEADIATLY DISAPPEAR in the individual as soon as it's benefit is taken away. Make sense? I think we're both in agreement here, we're just arguing about 2 different things. It is plausible that lust could decline in the future, but this is not the point. It still exists in the INDIVIDUAL, for the time being, that's all.
I really have to disagree with your point about empathy for strangers being contrary to our Darwinian impulses. Genes for altruistic behavior help grow societies and help further a species in numerous ways. Why do you think there are 6 billion humans on the planet right now? Because we've created societies! Animals do this too, dogs, chimps, etc. Altruistic behavior adds value to individuals by adding value to their society.
I agree, those things do serve a purpose in conditions where we have expectation of running into people who we help. But strangers is an entirely different story. Even Dawkins recognises this. And this is why he calls it a misfire. And your explaination does not explain guilt. It does not explain why we have a concience that we struggle with. It does not explain why one person has deep feelings of empathy while another person is completely void of it, whereas creation does.
I feel like we're going over and over the same thing here. Darwinian impulses don't say "be nice to people who can later reciprocate your kindness" they are much less specific, they say "be nice to other humans, because they MIGHT reciprocate your kindness." this is why we feel steadily LESS empathy for creatures that look less and less like us. You might feel something for a dog, because it is a mammal with human like features, but it is unlikely you would feel the same thing for a spider.
think about what you're saying here, you're suggesting that the moment a species changes into a new environment, (humans into big cities, cat's into human homes, etc.) that it should IMMEDIATELY change all of it's tendencies and instincts to fit the new environment, or else it is "going against natural selection". Natural selection acts very VERY slowly in comparison to human life span. We lived in close knit communities very recently ago.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that doing good for strangers or our enemies does not line up with evolution. Empathy for strangers does not line up.
you really don't understand evolution if you think these misfirings don't occur. I know you desperately want to "Trust in JC", but until you understand how evolution really works, you really shouldn't try to debunk it. Richard Dawkin's "the greatest show on earth" would be a great start for you. I can send you an e-copy if you want.
I understand that you and Dawkins are grasping at straws. when evolution can't explain something you stretch and stretch you hypothosis, and you twist reality until it fits your model rather than change your model to fit reality.
You have now invented a catch all phrase (misfire) to explain things in your evolution theory which can't be explained.
It is possible natural selection could "weed out" these tenancies to be nice to others or to complete strangers, but only if doing so offered a survival advantage to those who refrained from it. Since altruistic behavior generally POSITIVELY affects human civilization, I don't really see this happening. Hope this all makes sense.
Perhaps this will help: Survival of the fittest doesn't just mean survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the fittest community. Communities that practice generosity and helpfulness to all,strangers included, are stronger than those that don't because they grow from adding friends and build better alliances with other communities.
Remember, a stranger is just a friend you haven't gotten to know yet.
Religious bigotry sickens me, I used to be a Christian but I had questions & of course they never got answered.
I dont understand why people perceive atheists as evil, dont people know atheists have morals even the same morals Christians believe & live by...its not like I (an atheist) is suppressing my heathen ways on my Christian boyfriend...
True. God says the animals we abuse will be used to convict us come judgement day.
The reason there are so many mistakes with our understanding of evolution is because faith has been removed from it. People of faith have denied evolution and people who believe in evolution deny faith. Because of this there is a misunderstanding of evolution.
I'd like to elaborate... If I'm right, the liars in the church will be the ones who actually pull the people of faith further away from the evidence of truth (science). The lies the Bible speak of are from both sides of the table, when when the truth is we both need each other. Then God will nod his head and say, "My children have learned"... (I do not claim to know what God will say, only what He has said)
all feelings are just plain chemical reactions. When u think you feel in love..that "burn" you feel in your chest is just chemical substances. The same happens when you feel pleasure while having sex, helps on the reproduction cycle. And the same happens when you help someone, help your kid, etc. those are too chemical reactions that help for the survival..."telling" you this is good. Thus evolutionary behaviour in action.
You keep giving examples of doing good for family. Even Dawkins understands and admits there is a big difference between doing good for a family member and doing good for strangers. Dawkins admits that doing good for strangers flys in the face of evolution. This is why he calls it a misfire.
you are stark raving mad
cotton9386 1 month ago
Animals can experience guilt. Animals can manifest compassion. There are numerous examles. I disagree with your supposition that man's inner workings is at variance with evolution but not its inner workings, and 6000 years? I propose the inverse! A feeble slow, week, unhaired, unclawed could not be selected by evolution/Mother nature. But if inervened and mixed by another strain of evolution, from another place, Yes! Lodewyk, South Africa, sky @ wwturbine . com
wwturbine 9 months ago
Even if science and christianity do not contradict each other, which they do, christianity contradicts itself enough to make it invalid.
TheAnubisDrake 11 months ago
I also disagree that neo-darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection can't explain the altruistic phenomena you mentioned. Or at least, if it can 'explain' *anything* it can explain those things. Evolutionary psychologists have got plenty of explanations.
gerontodon 11 months ago
I've never heard that idea about god putting the spirit into man 6000 yrs ago, and I don't know if it's valid or not, biblically speaking- but it seems a bit of a fudge, and I don't see what it could mean. I don't think that there's overwhelming evidence that neo-darwinian macro-evolution can occur and while I'm not a Christian I feel that neo-darwinism is more at home with materialism than any non-materialist worldview.
gerontodon 11 months ago
@gerontodon There is nothing materialistic in my teaching.
Genesis reads: let us make man in our image.
Why is it that people to take this to mean that this is talking about the first homosapien to be created?
God was saying that they should make man (who already existed) into their image.
Even being born again and made into new creatures is speaking of a evolutionary step in our spiritual being.
TrustinJC 11 months ago
@TrustinJC
You're right, there seems nothing grammatically incorrect about that reading. Why I don't understand it, is that consciousness is the main thing that neo-darwinism - *even* were it true, fails to explain- and I see no reason to believe that animals aren't conscious. I also don't see that neo-darwinism would explain everything except a specifically human morality. So I don't know what the divine spark put into man after an evolutionary process could consist of.
gerontodon 11 months ago
@TrustinJC Homo Sapiens, I believe refer to "Thinking" man in Anthropology. It seems strange that Mitroconial DNA as wel as normal DNA refers to a origin around 200 000 too 400 000 years ago, but with new information not that impossible.Lodewyk sky @ wwturbine . com
wwturbine 9 months ago
"Atheists deny the evidence of god that is placed before them" You sir, are talking out of your arse!
Show me what this evidence is? Show me incontravertible proof that YOUR god exists, and I'll convert in a heartbeat.
I'll give you a hint here, "look at the trees, and read the bible", isn't going to cut it!
unixhead101 1 year ago
bridging a gap from atheist to christians''?thats like allowing baal to be worshiped in a christian church.you see evolutionist most of them are atheist that goes with the territory.
davymatheny 1 year ago
@davymatheny "you see evolutionist most of them are atheist that goes with the territory."
You should tell that to the catholics, of which there are over a billion worldwide. The pope himself has instructed the catholic church to embrace evolution, albeit evolution which was "god guided". There is absolutely no requirement to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution as demonstrably true.
unixhead101 1 year ago
@unixhead101 you are correct on the catholic evolution scandal,agree.the thing is all atheist i met,they all seem to be on the evolution side.they have to explain the start of life and when they do it is always evolution and no creator.''if they was no God then they would be no atheist'',gary stearman.i am not hammering the atheist,i am just stating what i have notice.you notice the word heist is in the word atheist?or at-heist,or at the heist?lol.
davymatheny 1 year ago
@davymatheny The point I was making is that atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive, one is not dependent on the other. However you are correct (in my opinion) in thinking that the majority of atheists do accept evolution.
Indeed, if there were no god, there would be no atheists, as atheism is a response to claims of the existence of gods.
One thing I'd like to point out is that Evolution does not speak to the "start of life" it merely explains the diversity of life, as we know it.
unixhead101 1 year ago
@unixhead101 yea and that is one of the flaws of evolution is that it doesnt explain the start of life.however when i talk to most evolutionist they agree on the big bang that causes life.something from nothing and that we came from a muddy pool of water,lol.but i agree that most of the atheist has fallen into the evolution trap and into the big bang trap.
davymatheny 1 year ago
stop teaching lies !!! Read Scripture and stop adding to it
waderyu 1 year ago
Ummm,."evening and the morning were" each day. We have scientific evidence that the sun comes up and the sun goes down within a 24hr period. God sees each day start every evening not at midnight. Jesus even quoted Himself from the old testament that He created everything in 6 days.God in Exodus and Deut. makes mention. Why do I know the Book of Enoch is not inspired? Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
videotubes1970 1 year ago
There is no Old Earth Creationism nt biblical. If you go back and count years from Adam to Present day it'll be around 6000 years, there is also a plethora of evidence supporting young earth and rejecting Old Earth Creationism. To believe in an old earth and be a creationist is to say "i believe the bible, but not literally" Has God ever spoke in metaphors, NO he speaks literally and when he speaks its a big deal. (He Breathes Stars - Psalms 33:7) So who are we to question him.
xxwhitearabxx 1 year ago
@xxwhitearabxx There is no evidence of a young earth. Stop buying into Hovinds pseudo-science.
You can't be serious that God does not speak in metaphors. Every vision and every dream requires interpretation because God spoke to people in metaphors. The parables were metaphors as well. In Daniel, days represent years in his prophecy.
What do you think a time, times, and half a time means?
God gives plenty of evidence for what each individual account truly means.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
@xxwhitearabxx So, the God Almighty that you believe in, who created ~10to the power 21 stars, most larger than our sun, could only operate in terms of your current level of intelligence, and that of all of us who lives in homes somewhat larger than swallows or weavers, but very much the same? Are you even able to appreciate and write the abovementioned numbers of stars, right or wrong, mathematically? And you dare to suppose to know the mind and time God had in mind? Lode: sky @ wwturbine . com
wwturbine 9 months ago
The book of "Enoch" is not inspired by God. If evolution is true, and the bible is in harmony with evolution, How can God created all what exist in six days? Neither the bible and evolution are in harmony, you are the one wrong mis-understanding the bible.
xchris1800 1 year ago
@xchris1800 The 6 days are days according to God, not man. It is explained in this way so that we would understand the importance of the sabboth and the fact that we are to keep it holy. It explains one of the 10 commandments that we would not fully understand without the story.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
@TrustinJC " The 6 days are days according to God, not man." the bible says: "evening came and then morning it was the ... day" what are you talking about?, respect the context of the scripture, if you take one part here, and other over there, you get weird stuffs.
you wrong argument show your ignorance, God lives out of time, dont say "6 day according to God"
Evolution and bible are the opposite view of creation.
xchris1800 1 year ago
@xchris1800 Just because God is not bound by time does not degate the fact that he will describe unknowable lengths of time in the form of days so that we understand there were periods of time in which certain things happened. The story of creation shows us that there was an order and reason for things being formed in the way they were. Enoch tells us Adam and Eve were in the garden for only 5&1/2 hours. But this can not mean hours according to man.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
@TrustinJC
Three weeks to look for giving me an "intelligent" answer, I am angry with you, because you pretend to be a Christian, I dont like that, first of all search more about your "inspired" book of Enoch, then talk to me with the real inspired word of God. Respect the bible!!!
xchris1800 1 year ago
You start bringing in the writings of Enoch - outside of the cannon of scripture.... yeah you sir Lavern, heretic!
bradmorris67 1 year ago
Why the dislikes for the video????
BulletInABottle 1 year ago
@BulletInABottle The dislikes come from both atheist and Christian.
Both are stuck in long standing belief systems that state science and God are at war and can never be reconciled. So young earth creationists and atheists both dislike what I put forward.
I get the same response from Christians when I make videos stating that the bible does not include all of God's word.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
WOAA You have the sun on day four but the plants on day three and by your reckoning plants went without the sun for a thousand years or more...comeon trust God's word and stop preaching this untruth..plus your adding to God's word with the Book of Enoch which is forbidden....Trust God at his word and stop teaching confusion...we do not need the Book of Enoch ..Your Faith is in Enoch ??? the bible says preach anything unto men than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
waderyu 1 year ago
@waderyu I am not adding with the writings of Enoch. It is you who take away by denying inspired writings.
You preach something other than the apostles by denying the books they considered inspired.
My faith is not in Enoch, just as your faith should not be in Paul, or Peter or Jude.
Are you saying God had to have a sun in order for plants to grow?
TrustinJC 1 year ago
@TrustinJC Yes He designed them that way. And if you dont take creation literally as a six day creation then everytime God speaks you must question and see if its a metaphor. God DOESNT SPEAK IN METAPHORS it never happened in neither the old or new testament. Everything is always literal when he told Jonah go to Ninevah did he mean Jerusalem? No God is to be taken literally.
xxwhitearabxx 1 year ago
@xxwhitearabxx As I explained in the previous comment, God has chosen to speak over and over again in metaphors. He even instructed some prophets to become living metaphors.
enoch tells us that Adam and Eve were in the garden for only 5 & 1/2 hours. This obviously does not refer to hours according to human understanding.
Do some research into the Hebrew word that is translated into day. Use a concordance and seek to understand the Hebrew culture and meanings of words.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
You are trying to combine the theory of evolution with the Bible which is heresy. The bible says "death came by sin" so there was no death before sin came into the world ...science perfectly agrees with the bible...you are calling God a liar by trying to combine truth with a lie...but Evolution is a complete lie wholly and without exception
waderyu 1 year ago
Progress.
MemeMachine1 1 year ago
Its funny to watch how Christians try to reinterprate the bible to make it agree with science.
The bible is a stone age book. The people who wrote it actually believed the Earth was flat! When are people going to realise that once they let go of the bible, the whole world makes so much more sense, even if you don't take the bible literally?
I'll give you credit for being far more reasonable than most Christians here on youtube, but I still think you believe in fairytales.
joshie92 1 year ago
@joshie92 Please show me where scripture suggests the world is flat. for there is no such thing.
There is no "reinterpretation" of scripture. There is simply shinning light where the devil has decieved many people.
The world makes far more sense once you understand the truth about God, creation, and our place in the universe.
TrustinJC 1 year ago
@TrustinJC I never said the bible says that earth is flat, I only said that the people who wrote it believed the earth to be flat. But if you really want a reference from the bible, there are too many to list. Many verses refer to "the four corners of the earth". Isaiah 40:22 refers to the "circle of the earth". Some verses in Job refer to the "edges of the earth". If these aren't references to a flat earth, then what are they?
joshie92 1 year ago
@TrustinJC Of course there is reinterpretation of the bible. Why else would there be countless different interpretations the same stories, some taking it literally, some metaphorically, etc. To believe that your specific interpretation is correct, and that everyone else has been "deceived by the devil" is just pure arrogance and closedmindedness.
joshie92 1 year ago
@TrustinJC No, I guarantee you that if you had a college education or equivalent understanding in any branch of science, whether it be biology or physics or something else, you would realise that reality becomes so much clearer without all of these fairytales and superstition clouding your mind.
Religion is merely a substitute people use to try to understand reality when they are lacking a true understanding that science gives us, or at least brings us much closer to a true understanding.
joshie92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshie92 Not only does the Bible not claim the Earth is flat, it claims the Earth is round. Job 26:7 "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" So it's better to study first and then speak publicly so that you avoid embarrassing your self.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@joshie92 You do not know what your talking about..Isaiah states Isa 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth," and this was wrttien thousand of years before the flat earthers were proposing their flat earth theory ..so even Christians knew the earth was round while everybody was saying it was flat..try reading the bible before you speak about it
waderyu 1 year ago
@waderyu Last time I checked, "circle" does not mean "round". A circle is a flat 2 dimensional shape. I don't know where you pulled the word "round" from, but anyway, all round means is some sort of curvature, whether of a 2D or 3D object. If God, who is all knowing and all powerful, apparently wrote the bible, you would think he would be a bit clearer and more specific about what he meant, maybe using the word "sphere" or "ball shaped". Try learn some basic geometry before you speak.
joshie92 1 year ago
@waderyu Also, you ignored what I said about the verses in Job which talk about the "edges of the earth". I don't know about you, but I can't imagine any spherical object having edges.
joshie92 1 year ago
@joshie92 when did Christians believe the Earth to be flat????
bradmorris67 1 year ago
evolution is not suppose to explain all the things you mentioned only how we came to be who we are
neoarcadezr 1 year ago
religion = ignorance
neoarcadezr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Death passed upon the earth with sin. And there was no sin before the fall of man. Then there is no death before the fall. There is no Death before sin. THERE IS NO EVOLUTION BEFORE THE FALL. The World was created in 6 days. If you question that you question the Bible. Where is your authority?
WaiSideOriginal 1 year ago
What a lode of crap! Science in no way supports christianity!
You can't argue with an atheist by quoting from the bible, a book of fiction. You might as well quote from 'The Three Little Pigs'.
Also, if you knew even a little about evolution you would know that evolution does explain morals and empathy. In simple terms: Members of a population that go around killing other members of that population tend not to live long enough to pass on their genes while members with greater empathy do.
squirrelrodent 1 year ago
What a lode of crap!
squirrelrodent 1 year ago
Christanity has to much primative , bronze age bullshit in it. If you want to get science & religion together. You will have to update the Bible. Because of the narrow, dogmatic beliefs of christians, that going to be hard to do. You will have to prove your inspire by god. just using basic common scence you can improve the bible, cant prove your talking to god though
flubno 1 year ago
The writings of Enoch are not canonical. We are told to keep the Sabbath day, and that is tied to the Sabbath of creation (Exodus 20:8-11). We cannot keep a Sabbath that lasts for "ages." The days of Genesis were days like ours, otherwise Ex. 20:8-11 makes NO sense, sir. You are in error. The use of simile in 2 Peter 3:8 cannot be used to say that the days were "ages." That is bad hermeneutics. And there are many flaws in evolutionary science. You need to research this.
CRoadwarrior 1 year ago
There are many ways to reach the conclusion that you should love thy neighbor rather than harming thy neighbor (or becoming callously indifferent to their suffering).
Some ways, admittedly, are more reliable than others.
But what matters is that you get there, that you reach the right conclusion.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
I don't understand why anyone objects to someone else having an "incorrect" interpretation of the Bible. Most atheists on YouTube believe in freedom of thought and expression. Most Christians on YouTube believe in religious liberty. They're the same thing. Freedom.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
I'm not even sure people should object to people fanatically clinging to an interpretation that is "incorrect".
What we all should be against is people using an incorrect interpretation to justify mass murder, as Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush did.
The decision to launch a Crusade / Jihad / "holy" war is about as unholy as you can get.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
What evidence for "god"? Which "god"? This doesn't make any sense.
Of course there is conflict between science and religion. With the Bible for a start the scientific evidence makes nonsense of the stories in Genesis.
dbes02 1 year ago
Evolution can absolutely explain ALL of those things, you just don't understand evolution. You think you understand evolution but you don't. Even though evolution is not the science of love it does explain why love occurs, or pain, or any emotion and feeling.
iclash 1 year ago
You sir, fail.
MHJDenmark 1 year ago
Ridiculous. There are countless pastors and priests who have given up their beliefs and become atheists for no other reason than the realization that their religion and god is a fairytale. Lifelong atheists such as myself cannot in any way distinguish between god, leprechauns and fairies, except in the way that it affects other people. Sir, clearly you know nothing of atheism; as such your analysis on the subject is wholly without merit.
websnarf 1 year ago
you make me laugh
ViniHendrix23 1 year ago
Comment removed
colvo115 1 year ago
Bridge the gap? You're kidding me. When you remove ghosts from your "evidence" then maybe we can talk.
scole665 2 years ago
What is it the evangelicals call people like this? Cafeteria Christians? Seems fitting (although in my estimation all Christians fit this description).
danziger81 2 years ago
Dude, ancient hearsay written by bronze age sheepherders and iron age peasants are as much evidence for invisible sky fairies as the Harry Potter books are evidence for flying broomsticks.
In order for me to deny the evidence for your (gnostic Christian) flavor of the supernatural, you first have to actually PRESENT evidence for the supernatural.
zorq2 2 years ago
TrustinJC, you commented me, asking me how things conflict.
The Bible says man was created by God.
Evidence supports that we evolved.
If the Bible were true, we should find modern human fossils as old as dinosaurs, yet we don't.
Also, if man was created like it is told in the Bible, why are we finding fossils of primitive humans?
Remains of a humanoid species unrelated to us, have been found a few months ago as well.
All of this conflicts with the Bible.
Hoonka 2 years ago
you talk for almost ten minutes and you manage to say nothing. that`s the true nature of christianity
Abitu11 2 years ago
I have to agree 100%
nojob60 2 years ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
hayjustin1990
There's no confusion whatsoever. Hell is real. It is eternal. and denying it's existence won't prevent anyone from going there.
You best grasp an understanding of ALL of God's word.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
acording to the bible yes but not acording to the hebrew and greek scriptures, acording to the scriptures there is no hell.
i dont deny its existance, i know it doesnt exzist, so did the early church, b 4 300 ad
becuse they understood that eternaty was limited in duration, it is your tradition that voids the words of god, "as in adam all die even so in christ shall all be made alive" "christ the saviour of all men espically of believers" "christ, the first frut then those that are his........
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
hay
If you believe hell no longer exists because eternity is limited in duration, then this must also be true of heaven.
It is time that ceases to exist, not eternity.
The Hebrews understood that hell existed long before Christ came on the scene. It was the corrupt Pharisees and Saduccees who came out of Babylon as the religious leaders that changed the doctrine of Hell. This happened when they stopped using the writings of Enoch and others that supported the doctrine of hell.
Con't
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Hay PT 2
Jesus and the apostles refered more to the writings of Enoch than any other book.
And hell is mentioned in the writings in great detail. The story Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus lines up exactly with how Enoch described the third level of hell.
It's real. And people who teach false doctrines and are not lead by the Holy Spirit will end up there.
If you are going to teach, you best be sure you are teaching sound doctrine.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
hay
Scripture doesn't say "all" will be made alive. It says "many" will be made alive.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
hay
Since you brought the verse up, I would think you'd know where to find it.
But here it is.
Rom 5: 15-19 (NLT) But there is a great difference between Adams sin and Gods gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is Gods wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.
Con't
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Hayjustin PT 2
16 And the result of Gods gracious gift is very different from the result of that one mans sin. For Adams sin led to condemnation, but Gods free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins. 17 For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is Gods wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
Con't
TrustinJC 2 years ago
hay PT 3
18 Yes, Adams one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christs one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.
19 Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.
You see? It says "for all who recieve it"
Also keep in mind that Paul was writing to believers.
If we reject Christ, we reject his gift. If we reject his gift, there is no salvation.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
hayjustin
I'm always willing to listen to and to follow good, sound teaching. But you talk of having an understanding of scripture and hell when you clearly do not.
You've fallen victim to the new age teachings that have taken the bible and Christianity hostage.
Universalism, unitarianism, radical grace, and annihilation are all examples of the new, and horribly false teachings found in churches and on youtube.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
VERSE WAR AGREED? (rules;) one statement only)
hay jc if you wont take one simple verse as fact with out qualifyers i cant help you ill give you the verse; (please give refrence)
romans 5:19 ;
thru the disobedience of-the one human missers were-down-stood the many thus, and thru the obedience of the one just-ones will-be-being-down-stood
(only 2 verses per person per turn),
romans; 5;20 where yet-moreizes the missing over-exceeds the grace." (only one question) can u follow the (rules)?
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
hay
No. I'm not going to follow any silly set of rules that will detract from the purpose of this vid and spoil the comment section for others.
I have made videos that speak directly to the issue of hell.
I will not get into a long drawn out debate of hell on this video.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
ok conversation over
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
the problem with you is that you will bend the meaning of your book any which way to fit anything you like, if we definitively proved tomorrow that the moon was cheese you would find that somewhere in your book. you don't get your truths from the book, you give your truths to the book. if your truths change you will just find a way to adapt the new truths to the book.
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
I believe in God, but I have doubts a lot of the time, I beg God sometimes to please talk to me or send me a sign to strengthen my faith :l But I haven't got one. Can you please explain to me what i'm doing wrong :(
1994DavidLotro 2 years ago
@1994DavidLotro Your talking to someone who isn't there, that's what your doing wrong.
bleach4life101 2 years ago
@bleach4life101 Not respectful.
MeltedPearls 2 years ago
@1994DavidLotro Receive the Holy Spirit, dear brother. You aren't doing anything wrong!
Just ask Him and focus on deliberately receiving His Holy Spirit. His words will never contradict the Word, and He communicates in a place where your heart, mind, and understanding are all one.
MeltedPearls 2 years ago
1194DavidLotro, in Affectionate Love, realize the "name" you call, is the one you get [Acts 4:12]. 'God' is the Hebrew "name" of the Babylonian false deity: Fortune, a common Teutonic term for personal OBJECT of religious worship; formally applied to super-human beings of HEATHEN MYTH; on conversion to Christianity, term then referred to Supreme Being. 'God' is an IDOL! Yahuwshua is Yahweh - accept no substitutes!
10yand5hand400t 1 year ago
according to the bible, the lord helps those who helps themselves. Soooooo.... Go work hard and get a good paying job. God will provide money for you.
Daclunator 1 year ago
Comment removed
colvo115 1 year ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
So you`re saying it is more believable that a man in the sky made nothing explode then nothing exploded by itself? By the way if you turn out to be right then Chuck Norris is your god. I`m saying that because I have come upon an old scripture from the depths of the internets which state the following. "In the beginning there was nothing. Then Chuck Norris came and round-house-kicked that nothing in the face and said "Get a job". And that`s how the universe was born."
Abitu11 2 years ago
Abitu11
Chuck Norris would disagree with that.
I've heard of those false teachings though. They were written about the same time as the writtings of the FSM.
But carbon dating puts them as being no older then 30 yrs, give or take a decade.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Comment removed
hayjustin1990 2 years ago
DAMN, you're a jackass.
Does it hurt to be so stupid?
themsfightinwoids 2 years ago
woids
Is that really the best you can offer? How is it that you have no clue how foolish you look and sound when you merely insult rather than engage in discussion.
Where I am in error, for example, might be a good place to start.
I don't, by the way, consider insults to be fightingwoids. I simply consider them a sign of ignorance.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Excellent video. I am constantly bothered by Christian attempts to deny undeniable scientific facts. Keep up the good work! Of course, science clearly contradicts the order of events found in Genesis; regardless, I must applaud you for your honesty.
agnosticsalvation 2 years ago
Of course they conflict, please stop spreading misinformation.
Hoonka 2 years ago
Hoonka
How are they in conflict?
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Some will believe and some will deny.
timestandingstill 2 years ago
I think you wrong about the earth being billions of years old. rather, I do not ignore the evidence. I believe the scientific evidence is very clear that the earth is less than 6,000 years old. I do not think someone who believes in evolution is damned to hell for having that belief, but I just disagree. I agree that true science does not contradict the Scripture.I also believe that 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch are both Scripture.I believe in creationism and geocentrism.Modern science is very flawed.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
@carlsonap16
How is it that you believe modern science to be more flawed than geocentrism and creationism. Science has proven both of those theories wrong.
meggedya08 2 years ago
@carlsonap16
I've never seen a geocentric model of the solar system/universe that takes gravity (and observations you can make with a backyard telescope) into consideration. Do you know of one?
RobnJake 2 years ago
gravity? i don't see how gravity has anything to do with it. gravity exists whether or not the earth is moving. something also to take into consideration, even in the heliocentric model, the sun is moving. however, all the various bodies remain consistent in their pattern being pulled along by the sun as it moves. you can do the research. the sun does indeed move, in both the heliocentric and geocentric theory, both will agree to that.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
i'll take that as a "no"
RobnJake 2 years ago
are you asking this to try and demonstrate heliocentrism as superior because it deals with gravity? or are you just curious if there is any difference in how gravity works in the various systems? the answer is, there is no difference in how gravity works when you compare the systems of heliocentrism and geocentrism.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
I guess what you're saying is that the Earth is stationary and what appears (in the heliocentric system) as rotation is actually the universe revolving around us once per day. So just a change of perspective? Am I right to assume that's what you believe?
RobnJake 2 years ago
i believe the universe is moving around us once a day.however, what you think of the universe is different than of what i think.for example, you think that for the sun and the rest of the universe to revolve once a day, would require it to travel faster than the speed of light.i don't believe this is what is happening.the sun and the rest of the universe is much closer than you actually think.i'm not sure the entire universe revolves daily, though i believe the entire galaxy is revolving daily.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
@carlsonap16
Maybe you're a troll just spewing nonsense for a response, but it seems to me that by your own admission there can be nothing farther than 2 and a half billion miles from earth at the equator. All them stars within 3.7 light hours? I doubt it fella.
RobnJake 2 years ago
i'd have to double check the science, but i really doubt that the size of the universe is as big as it is being made out to be. i would question how they determine so well the distance of stars and such. i would be impressed if i were shown a well developed way of calculating the distance of galactic bodies. i want to see the science. if science can truly support heliocentrism, then of course i should accept it. however, of what i've seen, nothing has yet convinced me.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
you haven not seen the science because it's so painfully simple, are you familiar with trigonometry? are you aware that it works in 3 dimensions? are you aware that those 3 dimension exist on earth? BAM just with that we can prove that the universe is very large, on top of that we have relativity, red shift, etc. which just makes it larger. im sure there's other ways, but those are just the simple ones off the top of my head.
bradmanthethird 2 years ago
all I'm going to say or ask I guess is why you give any validity to a book that is not part of our holy Bible? If you believe, like most Christian's do, that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then why is this book of Enoch not included? The Bible does not support evolution, if we were to know of the age of darkness etc then God would have relayed that to us in the creation account, creation and evolution don't go together. I don't understand y you combat with athiest/agnostic people.
Jesussavestheday2day 2 years ago
Also, I'm not trying to say that ppl with honest questions about God and life shouldn't be answered. I've been answering some for a friend of mine. Either way don't wste your time on people who don't appreciate the truth. Matthew 7:6 is a great verse for these type of people. "Do not give dogs what is sacred:do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." A great verse. I also debated athiest and came 2 learn its useless
Jesussavestheday2day 2 years ago
Jeussaves
While it is rare, I have had a few atheist tell me that my vids have given them a new perspective and respect for Christianity. Some have begun to realize that God is real, and that false teachings had kept them from believing in God.
We can never know the far reaching effect that our words have on people.
A seed planted today may be watered by someone 5 yrs from now. So we may think the seed feel on hard ground, when in fact it just required time to germinate.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Jesussaves
I have made an entire series of vids explaining why Enoh is inspired scripture.
Do you honestly believe that God revealed everything there is to know about creation in the story of Genesis?
It's not a matter of combating atheist/agnostic people. It is a matter of revealing truth to everyone.
And in this regard, many christians have been decieved and need their eyes opened.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
any number of people can take a bunch of documents and put them together and declare it as the one and only truth. but, does that make their claim valid? no. the people who compiled "the" bible had biases against other books of Scripture. Should we trust God's truth, which guides us to what is authentic, or the flawed and faulty biases of men, who independent of God declared their own canon?
carlsonap16 2 years ago
@carlsonap16 I'm not sure what your trying to say here? I mean I do. I posted the comment 2 weeks ago, never really heard of enoch's book, but I looked into, and I don't know what to think of it, it supports the bible in different aspects, but I still don't knw. as for the bible, I trust that God was watching over and made sure that his word got out, I don't disagree that these people didn't include some books, but I believe God's word is still in there, I like enoch, but I don't know....
Jesussavestheday2day 2 years ago
in king josiah's day, they had lost the Scriptures, but then they found them. if the Bible says Scripture can be lost, then certainly that could happen with us.2 kings 22.God has given us free will.you could use the same argument and say that God would never allow false teachers to come into the church, but he clearly does. God allows that for the same reason he allows people to not have all of God's word.whos right?protestants,catholics,orthodox?
carlsonap16 2 years ago
and, did you know that syrian christians do not accept five books of your 66 books?2 peter, 2 john, 3 john, jude, and revelation. so, how do you know the protestant bible is the truth? what if the syrian bible is? if you understood how the bible was supposedly compiled,you will see it was not guided by the holy spirit but was guided by misguided men. in the book of jude,Enoch is quoted directly as an authoritative and Scriptural source.i shall create a video discussing bible at certain time.
carlsonap16 2 years ago
that story of creation reminds me a lot of the Vedas.
ultimategoobah 2 years ago
Evolution has PROVED that Adam & Eve could never have existed. The fossil record is way WAY complete enough to show that. And we know that a genetic diversity bottleneck implied in this version of creation would quickly lead to extinction through inbreeding.
So if Adam & Eve is a fairytale then there was no Original Sin & that means the reason for Jesus' existence is fake. He could have existed but not as a scapegoat to forgive our sins.
No wonder they're fighting Evolution!
warren52nz 2 years ago
But the things that Enoch says can't be supported, it's just like scripture. This all sounds like religion doing its slippery soap routine where interpretation can get it out of any fix.
There is in fact a HUGE incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity
(cont)
warren52nz 2 years ago
i think your getting Archus & Adoil confused with Jesus. but if you have read the lost books then you know that when the fallen angels came here they mixed the species of animals and mixed them with man with their magic science. it sounds science fiction but once we realize that the fallen angels are aliens it all makes sense. they were all destroyed in the flood. when Genesis says Noah was pure in his generations it means that there wasn't animal DNA in his bloodline.
lancelo96 2 years ago
i don't think you understood what Dawkins was trying to say about altruism and kindness potentially being a mis-firing of evolutionary instincts, because then you go on to say "evolution can't explain these things" when Dawkins just laid out a perfectly reasonable explaination...
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Please explain how the misfire explaination is an acceptable, rational and reasonable one?
For you know full well that if a creationist suggested anything resembling that kind of explaination, they would have been laughed at by atheists.
Admit it. There is no reasonable explaination.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
hard to explain the whole theory in a youtube comment, Dawkins explains it very well in a few videos on here. In a nutshell, autruistic behaviours have value in a society, and natural selection selects them. Now that society has changed from close knit tribes to big cities/communities, these behaviours are still present in our nature, although the direct benefits we receive from them (reciprocation of good deeds from others, primarily) are not necessarily there.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
You are talking about the kind of deeds done in a social or cultural setting where you can expect to run into the person again. Family and community are explained.
But doing good for strangers is different. giving up your treasures and giving to stangers goes against natural selection.
Dawkins calls it a misfire. This is because these deeds are done without expectation of benefits. And it goes against evolution.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
ok, it sounds like you understand the concept, but you're still missing one key point. Mis-firings of evolution happen all over the place, constantly. It generally happens when an animal changes environments. Look at any housecat. They get their food from a bowl, yet they can't resist to act on the hunter instincts of their ancestors. Cats have a biological program in their DNA to chase and kill small living things. This is useful in the wild, but not it's new environment, among humans.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
This is not a misfire of evolution. This is simply the result of what happens when humans try to change an animal by domesticating it. I'm afraid this does not explain anything.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
yes it does. the "result of domesticating an animal" is exactly what we're talking about here. taking a species out of it's environment and having tendencies from the old environment stick around is the misfiring we're talking about. I can't believe you're not understanding this simple point, it's so obvious.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Let me try this one more time.
Showing empathy, compassion, and doing good for strangers is not something that is condusive to survival of the fittest. In fact, doing so would have turned ugly for the ones who did this because they never knew where their next meal might come from. Do you not understand that these are negative traits for survival of the fittest, and therefore should never have occured?
Con't
TrustinJC 2 years ago
mattdistad Pt 2
As you have said. These traits of being nice to strangers would be weeded out if there were an advantage to those who refrained from it. This is my very point. For this was indeed the case for early man. So doing nice things for strangers should never have survived as a trait in humans.
Even Dawkins understands this. And it is why he calls it a misfire.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
another example (which Dawkins gives) is how we feel sexual lust regardless of whether or not we are intending to procreate. We still feel it even if we are intentionally using contraception, and even if we are hoping and praying we DON'T reproduce. This has NO EFFECT on the biological program in our DNA that says "breed with a human of the opposite sex that possesses good parental qualities" (i.e. not too old or young or unfit to have children)
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistand
How do you or Dawkins know what the long term effects of mass use of contraceptives will have on the population in the long term?
TrustinJC 2 years ago
we don't know, nor did i say we do. where did you get that from?
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
you said:
another example (which Dawkins gives) is how we feel sexual lust regardless of
whether or not we are intending to procreate... This has NO EFFECT on the biological program in our DNA that says"breed with a human of the opposite sex.
Actually, there are studies showing that people today are having less sex than people who lived in the 50's. and homosexual relationships have dramatically increased.
So perhaps you and Dawkins have spoken too soon.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
what does people having more or less sex have to do with contraception affecting sexual lust? your response made no sense. My point is that the use of contraception doesn't effect the DESIRE to procreate, even if it's impossible. I never said anything about whether this should increase or decrease the amount of sex people have. I think you are very confused.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Dawkins said the use of contraceptives would not reduce lust. You expanded on this saying that contraceptives will not reduce the desire for procreation.
I'm saying that the stats disagree. More people are living gay lifestyles, so no procreation. And people are having less sex, so less procreation.
So my point is that Dawkins is making assumptions on this point, as he so often does.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
ok, i guess i understand what you're saying, but you're still missing the point. The point isn't that using contraception could gradually cause people to feel less sexual lust, that's a ridiculous notion. The point is that an individual will still act on their Darwinian impulses regardless of whether or not they are receiving the benefit they were designed for. I really don't see how you can dispute that, it's clear as day in the examples I've given.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Why is that a ridiculous notion? I know of people who won't have sex if they have to wear condoms. They'd rather pass in such cases. And the stats show that people are having less sex.
Regarding Darwinian impulses:
But that's exactly my point. People who do good for strangers are acting contrary to Darwinian impulses. Empathy for strangers could have had only a negative impact in mans early days. So those traits should have been weeded out.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Your statistics that show that people have less sex could be driven by a huge number of practical factors, and don't necessarily have any connection to the amount of lust people feel. I would imagine homosexuality seems to be more common now because it has become more socially acceptable in the last 50 years. There is no reason to assume that the use of contraception has caused people to have less sex, you could argue it's because of a number of different factors.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Yes. I agree with you on this point. But we don't know for sure. There are probably a number of factors. It is not, however ridiculous to say that continued use of contraceptives could be a contributing factor. And this just goes to show shawdy research and unsubstantiated theory on Dawkins part. The condom comparison used by the poster child of atheism and evolution was foolish.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Let me try to phrase this in a better way. Dawkin's is NOT saying that sexual lust could not gradually decline as a result of contraception, he's merely saying that it doesn't IMMEADIATLY DISAPPEAR in the individual as soon as it's benefit is taken away. Make sense? I think we're both in agreement here, we're just arguing about 2 different things. It is plausible that lust could decline in the future, but this is not the point. It still exists in the INDIVIDUAL, for the time being, that's all.
mattdistad 2 years ago
I really have to disagree with your point about empathy for strangers being contrary to our Darwinian impulses. Genes for altruistic behavior help grow societies and help further a species in numerous ways. Why do you think there are 6 billion humans on the planet right now? Because we've created societies! Animals do this too, dogs, chimps, etc. Altruistic behavior adds value to individuals by adding value to their society.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
I agree, those things do serve a purpose in conditions where we have expectation of running into people who we help. But strangers is an entirely different story. Even Dawkins recognises this. And this is why he calls it a misfire. And your explaination does not explain guilt. It does not explain why we have a concience that we struggle with. It does not explain why one person has deep feelings of empathy while another person is completely void of it, whereas creation does.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
I feel like we're going over and over the same thing here. Darwinian impulses don't say "be nice to people who can later reciprocate your kindness" they are much less specific, they say "be nice to other humans, because they MIGHT reciprocate your kindness." this is why we feel steadily LESS empathy for creatures that look less and less like us. You might feel something for a dog, because it is a mammal with human like features, but it is unlikely you would feel the same thing for a spider.
mattdistad 2 years ago
Having empathy negative? On whom? Why does the same not apply today or does it?
And where are your stats to show people are having less sex and would rather pass on sex than wear a condom?
You make a lot of noise on your videos but I never seem to see any proof.
FRIENDOFMANKIND 2 years ago
think about what you're saying here, you're suggesting that the moment a species changes into a new environment, (humans into big cities, cat's into human homes, etc.) that it should IMMEDIATELY change all of it's tendencies and instincts to fit the new environment, or else it is "going against natural selection". Natural selection acts very VERY slowly in comparison to human life span. We lived in close knit communities very recently ago.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that doing good for strangers or our enemies does not line up with evolution. Empathy for strangers does not line up.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
you really don't understand evolution if you think these misfirings don't occur. I know you desperately want to "Trust in JC", but until you understand how evolution really works, you really shouldn't try to debunk it. Richard Dawkin's "the greatest show on earth" would be a great start for you. I can send you an e-copy if you want.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
I understand that you and Dawkins are grasping at straws. when evolution can't explain something you stretch and stretch you hypothosis, and you twist reality until it fits your model rather than change your model to fit reality.
You have now invented a catch all phrase (misfire) to explain things in your evolution theory which can't be explained.
It's actually very very sad.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
It is possible natural selection could "weed out" these tenancies to be nice to others or to complete strangers, but only if doing so offered a survival advantage to those who refrained from it. Since altruistic behavior generally POSITIVELY affects human civilization, I don't really see this happening. Hope this all makes sense.
mattdistad 2 years ago
mattdistad
Nope. Makes no sense at all. It is illogical. And you would never accept such reasoning concerning God.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
Perhaps this will help: Survival of the fittest doesn't just mean survival of the fittest individual, but survival of the fittest community. Communities that practice generosity and helpfulness to all,strangers included, are stronger than those that don't because they grow from adding friends and build better alliances with other communities.
Remember, a stranger is just a friend you haven't gotten to know yet.
tiggster13 2 years ago
Religious bigotry sickens me, I used to be a Christian but I had questions & of course they never got answered.
I dont understand why people perceive atheists as evil, dont people know atheists have morals even the same morals Christians believe & live by...its not like I (an atheist) is suppressing my heathen ways on my Christian boyfriend...
kendraiscoolio 2 years ago
plus, we don't need threats of eternal punishment to behave, we just do it
nakedapedude 2 years ago
the problem is that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of any gods, none at all, let alone the judeo/christian god of the bible
your creation myth is no better or worse than any other culture's creation myth at any other time in man's history
why is your myth true but the aztecs or the egyptians or the maori myths aren't true?
nakedapedude 2 years ago
i agree i have thought that all my life.
kendraiscoolio 2 years ago
evolution teaches that animals have no soul .. but that is a lie .. God gets mad when you torture animals..
woyay 2 years ago
woyay
True. God says the animals we abuse will be used to convict us come judgement day.
The reason there are so many mistakes with our understanding of evolution is because faith has been removed from it. People of faith have denied evolution and people who believe in evolution deny faith. Because of this there is a misunderstanding of evolution.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
if the bible says that there are lies in the world what lies does it speak of then??
woyay 2 years ago
woyay
The bible also speaks of lies within the church, false prophets and wolfs.
TrustinJC 2 years ago
I'd like to elaborate... If I'm right, the liars in the church will be the ones who actually pull the people of faith further away from the evidence of truth (science). The lies the Bible speak of are from both sides of the table, when when the truth is we both need each other. Then God will nod his head and say, "My children have learned"... (I do not claim to know what God will say, only what He has said)
dnleo 2 years ago
all feelings are just plain chemical reactions. When u think you feel in love..that "burn" you feel in your chest is just chemical substances. The same happens when you feel pleasure while having sex, helps on the reproduction cycle. And the same happens when you help someone, help your kid, etc. those are too chemical reactions that help for the survival..."telling" you this is good. Thus evolutionary behaviour in action.
bencho8787 2 years ago
bencho
You keep giving examples of doing good for family. Even Dawkins understands and admits there is a big difference between doing good for a family member and doing good for strangers. Dawkins admits that doing good for strangers flys in the face of evolution. This is why he calls it a misfire.
TrustinJC 2 years ago