This isn't a revolution against Christianity, it is an evolution of thoughts of ideas which are now saying what was believed needn't necessarily be true. I am worth it to seek the truth for myself. And we are. Humanity can do better than myths from thousands of years ago. We now have knowledge to shape our future for the better. If we are unafraid and if we are honest. Oppression of ideas won't work, oppression of people won't work. You're only delaying the inevitable.
The Protestant evangelical notion that a man can live an honorable, good, and loving life... and still spend eternity in the torments of the lake of fire if he never "accepts Jesus as his savior" (even if he never heard the name Jesus), while an evil man like Hitler can say the words "Jesus come into my heart" on his death bed and spend eternity walking the streets of gold - is as repulsive & downright evil a doctrine as there can be, because it makes God out to be pathologically unrighteous.
There's been a horrible misunderstanding! Christians speak a different dialect of English! There could even be varieties of dialect based on denomination! The dialects have clear differences in the terms that may include and are not limited to: knowledge, truth, reality, information, fact, evidence, and proof. In advocation of freedom, we should not force our language onto them outside venues requiring a stringent policy, and we can give job opportunities for Christian - English translators!
Christians no longer have the dictatorial power they once had. The age of REASON has finally arrived, unbelievers and Atheists are on the rise. Evangelical Christians know it and are scared that the cards are turning!!!
Christianity-a death fetish cult where SM freaks torment kids and get off on a guy suffering nailed to a cross-FOR THEM. Degenerate. As bad as ISLAM and its martyr perversion-this old testament shit has had its day-time to grow up folks-stop crawling to myths and embrace your potential-this slavery crap leads nowhere but to a crippled retarded world of fear and child abuse.
Oorah Marines! Marine for Jesus<- I was hopping this guy would have put on a flight helmet and fly off in a jet, why was this filmed on an aircraft carrier?
This video expresses why the church is in a bad way- we are in the apostasy of the last last days. So why do people here mock God in their comments- this is proof that the bible speaks the Truth about "religion" which true Christians do not embrace. The Bible is our only measure- if its not in there- dont do it.
Almost every church I've visited in the last ten years is steeped to their eyeballs in babbling tongues madness. There is a deliberate refusal to look at the scriptures on the matter, the demand for the feeling experience is that powerful. It's very weird.
Interesting video. All the statements made here on the decline of Christianity are completely false because it insist that lack of devotion and submission to religious authority is some kind of sustaining virture. So what it actually says is that lack of religious slavery is the reason for decline, hoggwash. The real reason for the decline of Christianity is the fact that it minimizes human dignity, human freedom and human rights in favorite of it's
@Chuloloc egotism, moral stupidity, self-serving intentions and totalitarian ideals on how people should live like most religions and with a demeanor like that, it's bound to fall. The same with Islam. So the most accerate name for this video is "Christianity as a whole is killing itself because of it's corruption and stupidity." I think Chris Hermes has the better ieas. THERE IS NO GOD THAT IS GOOD, ONLY MAN IS GOOD. F--k religion.
GOOD. It is DEAD. ISLAM is dead. The one GOD TYRANT is over. These fake religions of CONTROL have tried to keep man from the truth, and now have been exposed as disgusting self serving fascists-THERE IS NO GOD BUT MAN.
One thing that is killing evangelicalism is the leaving of the church by intelligent people and guess who is left. We have the fundamentalist with their KJO doctrine on the left and the Calvinist with their once saved always saved sin all you want doctrine on the right.
We need to have true faith from the biblical perspective which is not following any of these systems of men. God is one, His word is alive. It does lead us into truth.
The Church is in fine shape, salvation occurring at unprecedented levels all across the globe. Pharisees however will always have a problem with what God is doing in the Earth. Having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof.
Personally i think it is just time to ignore people like this and render them obsolete.
@Califacience Atheism has doubled in the last twenty years....and it will only continue to increase while people become more enlightened and religious contradictions are exposed. Google "Least likely to believe in Religion" and see what you find. Religion has become *obsolete* and it is time for the age of logic and reason.
Unless you know Jesus, unless you have experienced the Holy Spirit, you will assume "religion" and its followers are part of a cult.
Many are, But Jesus IS the truth. Do not look at people and "religion".
And when you know GOD, not allah, not some statue of gold, JESUS CHRIST, that died for us to be set free, Until you come to know him, you will not understand because you are looking through your own eyes. Eyes that can only see what the world sees and look at our world and its people. Broken.
@lozzymagoo "Muslims don't believe in the Gods of Hinduism, Hindus don't believe in the God of Islam, and neither believe in the God of Christians and Jews. It seems that believers from all religions are quite capable of recognizing the lack of evidence for so many Gods...with the exception of their own. Those of us who don't believe in any Gods are simply pointing out that there is no need to make this exception."
Truth lies saved unsaved are not the same concerns Tares God will expose. Most preachers spend much time on I don't know if he is saved person.The Church is being stripped of its privilege?Stripped of power and purity? This is disgraceful admonition. Regardless of what any person may be doing my privilege, power, purity, comes from Christ Atonement ,and NEVER can be stripped.Prayer is not a liberty of gov't but of Christ and so is all privilege,purity and power. Disgusting to think otherwise
@polopowers1 Actually, prayer is completely ineffective. There have been numerous studies done, the largest of which was a decade long and involved devout believers praying for 1,800 heart surgery patients. The results clearly indicated that there were no beneficial effects derived from prayer. Atheism is growing because it is difficult to perpetuate religious beliefs in an age of logic, reason, and *Youtube*.
@CynicalSkeptic1 prayer by its nature is something that science is unable to study. any attempts at drawing conclusions by so-called studies will only reveal the hypocrisy and ignorance of those pretending to do scientific research. atheists are hypocrites. they claim to not believe in God, and yet spend countless hours and dollars to confirm their belief in atheism. and in so doing, they claim a monopoly, which they don't actually have, on logic and reason.
@CynicalSkeptic1 it would be nice to actually meet a genuine atheist, whose integrity doesn't require him to make outlandish and highly unfounded claims. the greatest minds in history have been more rational and logical and scientific as Bible-believing Christians than many of the so-called atheists who try to parade themselves as being more rational than those whose findings and experience has lead them to greater faith in God than in seeing it diminished.
@CynicalSkeptic1 to meet an atheist who has the honesty to recognize that there have been, and still are well founded men of science, philosophy, logic and of every other walk of life whose faith in God is clearly not the result of lack of reasoning ability, or lack of evidence; but who at the end of it all, can have the courage to state simply that they have determined to deny the existence of God; from which presupposition they interpret all findings in a way that supports that agenda.
@CynicalSkeptic1 what is even worse among atheists is for them to claim to have a monopoly on reason and science; yet they demonstrate how reliable that monopoly is simply on how poorly they demonstrate even the basic understandings of God. but truth be told: based on their own revelation of who they think God is, (though they deny his existence), i would be inclined to agree with them. that the God they have described is not to be found God in reality.
@CynicalSkeptic1 atheists have become in the end of it all, nothing more than fallacy masters. they are especially excellent with such fallacies as strawman logic-where they like to create a false definition of who God is, from which they then purport to prove the lack of evidence for God's existence based on the strawman definition of God. atheists are also great with red herring fallacies. especially when the evidence becomes so great, they are great at taking the argument down an unrelated
@CynicalSkeptic1 ..path. dare to challenge an atheist, according to formal logic, by grabbing the bull by the horns of their premises and axioms; but as soon as one dares to challenge such, one is quickly invalidated by ad hominen attacks. atheism as it seems is really nothing but a house of cards unprepared and unwilling to be challenged along the same lines of attack that it feels is its right and duty to level against those who are opposed.
@CynicalSkeptic1 atheism has been clever to try to pen itself as being that which is not a religion. yet that is exactly what it is. it is the religion of man; the religion of unbelief. it is the religion that actually returns to the age of myth, not unlike the myths of Aristotle's and Plato's day. where the gods as described in their pantheon has been matured to be named, not as gods, but as merely principles/rules/laws of the universe. gods which by definition were measured by their
@CynicalSkeptic1 principles/rules/laws of the universe. the difference, al beit, is that whereas Plato and Aristotle saw those laws governed by a personal, though somewhat impersonal, being; modern atheism, pretends to be evolved by removing this personal attribution to these laws; and thus creating an even greater myth: principles/rules/laws of the universe that simply exist in all their complexity without the effect of anything upon them-accidental complexity of chemistry, physics and biology
@CynicalSkeptic1 to believe, based on the observance of nature and the laws present throughout, that such complexity of laws have come into being by pure chance is really remarkable beyond words. and atheists declare they aren't people of faith. that is a laugh. not only are you a people of faith, you are actually a people whose faith is in stark contrast to the overwhelming reality of the observed universe around us. it takes a tremendous amount of stubbornness and determination
@CynicalSkeptic1 to insist that this grand, highly complex, intricately detailed universe has come to be simply as some cosmic accident. that very grandiose conclusion defies the very nature of science, logic and philosophy. for science to draw the conclusion that something just is because it is, is as unscientific as one could ever be. science by its basic nature seeks to find a cause for the effect of something. and as far as science can measure: it knows that nothing that is complex just is.
@CynicalSkeptic1 for the reality of your own logic where you concluded the reason for atheism's growth being about the difficulty of perpetuating religious beliefs, etc. that is an example of flawed logic. a virus that takes over a body doesn't mean that is a good thing. disease which sweeps across a continent to take the lives of millions is not to be measure as a beneficial. where sin abounds in the world, you can rest assured it is not the signs of enlightenment.
@CynicalSkeptic1 where wickedness at all levels appears to be growing an exponential rate, it is but a sure indication that the full wrath of God is fast approaching. as in the days of Abraham when he was told that he would not give him the promised land yet, because the sins of the Amalekite were not yet full. like a cup that is being filled up, this world is fast approaching that day when its cup will be full. on that day, that cup, when it is full, will be poured out.
@CynicalSkeptic1 where you celebrate the growth of atheism as a good thing is but an indictment against this land when men by wisdom deny God. it is what Jesus said when he spoke of that light that is in men as being darkness, and how great that darkness must be. when men call evil good and good evil, what else can be done for such whose minds and hearts have become so defiled and useless, that even in the presence of wisdom, loving death it still kicks and screams against life.
@HermitintheRain Sir, to be honest, I would have responded to your posts in detail, but since you actually sent me 13, YES THIRTEEN, separate completely-filled posts of effluvium about religious garbage...I feel absolutely no need to respond. Instead of attempting to refute my arguments...your long-winded verbose preaching simply resulted in my deleting the remainder of your messages. If you expect your responses to be read in the future then cover valid points and be MUCH more succinct.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Evangelists are always like that. If you know some you will notice that they are different from other types of christians. If you ask a catholic about politics he will have his own opinion, but not evangelists. They will all think the same.
It's just a sect of brainwashing and praying on the weak. Lots of the followers are just mentally weak or ill. He's a good example.
@ivanlagrossemoule I just think it is truly pathetic how so many ignore reality. Since you sent me that post and I looked at his abundance of drivel again...I decided to send him some evidence to consider. I am certain that he will either ignore it or euphemistically interpret the information...but it doesn't matter...at least he is actually being exposed to facts and evidence. =)
@HermitintheRain Since you apparently deny reality. I just thought that I would give you some facts and evidence to assimilate. If you feel the need to respond then don't give me Bible verses. I was a Christian for twenty years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten...so I don't need to hear more of your religious 'information'. If you have valid points which refute my information then post them. If you respond with 13 more comments about garbage..I will ignore them.
@HermitintheRain Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
@HermitintheRain James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
@HermitintheRain In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@HermitintheRain Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate.
@HermitintheRain The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
@HermitintheRain Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
@HermitintheRain "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
@HermitintheRain We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
@HermitintheRain Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
@HermitintheRain OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
@HermitintheRain Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
@HermitintheRain As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning. I have a large amount of additional evidence that I can post if you would still like to continue debating the validity of evolution. Evolution is a fact...there is no way to dispute it. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
First, you say that we can't prove macroevolution because it takes so long, then you say that a scientific theory must stand up against attempts to prove it false. That takes macro-e from theory to hypothesis at best, and wishful thinking at worst.
It has been repeatedly proven that there are limits to changes that a living thing can take before it becomes either sterile, unable to live on its own, or just can't change further.
@pat34lee Sir, evolution is a fact. If you read my fifteen (approximately) posts and still insist that it is speculation....then that is your right....but ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear.
@goatmilk222 Amen. But still, Pope John Paul II once said that religion should free science from moral error, and science should purify religion of superstition. All these concepts atheists and evangelicals put in conflict (Religion vs. Science, Faith vs. Reason, Creation vs. Evolution, etc.) are really meant to work together. Either one without the other is a ridiculous and illogical idea. But the two together make up the yin-yang-style pair meant to bring wisdom to mankind.
@spartacandream Nice mindset. Blind faith is never good. When one blind man leads another, they both fall into a ditch. To distinguish the true God from false requires a path of logic a bit too long to state in 274 characters. Basically, the only possible way the universe could have been created is by a sentient, all-powerful Force, which is God. Socrates disproved polytheism through rhetoric, and one would think that it would be hard to fake the miracles of Jesus with 1st-century technology.
@jparkss15 I hate to break it to you, but humans with sufficient enough technology, could create a universe by creating a black hole. At least in theory.Omni-(insert here) not necessary.
It's easy to use logical arguements to argue for the existence of God, so long as they assume the only way something can come about is through God, which assumes far too much too soon. The universe had no creator, neither does life. Defintiely not a sentient one
@spartacandream When I say "universe", I'm not speaking literally. What we're really talking about is more like "existence", that is, the multiverse and extra-spatial dimmensions. Sorry about that.
Also, I mentioned earlier that one should not be close-minded in debating. Hypocrisy is not how I roll.
Thirdly, your second paragraph is not constructive. You are just agressively stating your beliefs, not challenging mine. You've changed this to a "Nuh-uh!"-"Yeah-uh!" debate.
@jparkss15 I see what you're saying, the multiverse and not the universe. It's all good, I have the same habit, and only recently have i overcome it. We don't know nearly enough about the multiverse to say whether it could've, should, or whatever, have a beginning. So how do we know it necessitates a creator?
Me either. Though I am indeed openminded, I do ask critical questions, and I'm not so openminded that my brains fall out, its just open enough for new ideas.
@spartacandream If I ever see you in person, I will buy you a beer for that open-minded analogy. Nice one.
All I'm saying is, I believe in a Force. This Force exists outside of time, so it does not need a "beginning". It is sentient, because what it created is orderly and non-random. The entire multiverse is balanced. This Force is existence itself. How is existence created? Man cannot know. The question is impossible to answer.
Is this Force the God of Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob? I say, yes.
@jparkss15 If you ever meet me in person, please don't buy me a beer, I don't drink ;D
Order is created through natural laws, if we're thinking of the same type of order. Those natural laws aren't sentient, and how do we know they require sentience to exist?
How can we know such a power exists, if we can't know it? And how do we know it's beyond our grasp?
@spartacandream Suit yourself. I'll buy you a bottled water or an ice cream cake or something.
These "natural laws" are also the creations of God. God created the concept of gravity, time, friction, evolution, you name it. It is through these that God creates and maintains order.
We can know God exists by His revelation to us (see "Bible"). Basically, we know He exists because He told us.
Lastly, it is simply impossible to understand. Can you explain how God can create something from nothing?
@jparkss15 How do we know the natural laws are constant? How do we know they had a beginning? How do we know they had to be God? Clearly, the Bible doesn't meention the creation of friction, gravity, nor evolution. It mentions the creation of time as it relates to the creation of the jewish calendar, but nothing more.
More importantly, how do we know the Bible is the word of God, his revelation, and not just the compilation of earlier texts by pious devotee humans as it seems?
@spartacandream I already explained how the creation stories are only poetic already, so I won't repeat myself. Also, the Bible was written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's not really a zap-there's-the-bible type deal here, and I admit that.
@jparkss15 Furthermore, to the point of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. How do we know they existed? By what proof can we tell if the Bible is accurate? Where does it say they encountered a force? The Bible in Genesis describes their God as a physical being.
@spartacandream Where does it say He is a physical being? This is where most people run into trouble with believing in God: the "Old Man in the Sky" literal interpretation. How could God have appeared to Moses (also in Genesis) as fire in a bush if he were a flesh-and-blood being? Descriptions of God as physical are normally just metaphorical.
@jparkss15 I didn't claim he was exactly like us, it's clear that many ancient cultures saw their gods as immune to being burned alive. I will give it to you that some parts of the BIble do describe him as being quasi-metaphysical (NT comes to mind), but that's because of hellenistic influence.
There are plenty of places where he's described as anthropomorphic, among the places are the creation of man, where man is made in god's image.
@spartacandream Oh, boy. Creation of man. I LOVE clarifying this. This part of the Bible is symbolic, to make it easier for the ancient Israelites to understand. Can you imagine explaining evolution and abiogenesis to a bunch of Bronze Age nomads? They would've just stoned you.
Also, would you mind giving me time to respond to all your comments before responding to one of mine? I can't keep up. I don't type that fast.
@jparkss15 O take your time responding. I'm responding as soon as I have an answer, you can take as long as you'd like to respond. Didn't mean to make you think I was hurrying you.
Symbolic of what? We were made in the likeness of God. The Bible describes it the same way it describes woman being created in the likeness of man, being human/humanlike. So how is it to be taken?
Why would it get them stoned? Why do you think that?
By "likeness" they mean mental likeness. Like how He gave us free will, sentience, etc.
By "image... of God" I think they mean "image predetermined by God". Or maybe it was meant to mean the same as "likeness", but got screwed up in the translation.
@jparkss15 We weren't created with sentience if you've seen the Garden of Eden story, Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked until they ate from that tree.
The image of god in hebrew, can only mean 2 things, we were made perfect like god, or we were made to look like him. I've read the hebrew. Obviously, we weren't perfect, so what does that leave us with?
@jparkss15 Actually, my second paragraph was constructive if you read it well enough. My point was that, in order to make a logical arguement for the existence of God, andf for it to work, you can't assume things. For example, you can't assume there needs to be a creator for something to exist complete with the attributes you've ascribed to it, without putting forth the evidence to say why and substantiate it. Occams razor shaves sentience, and omnipotence right off.
@spartacandream So it is. I missed that. And again with the witty metaphors. Nice, and I don't mean that sarcastically. They're great.
Moving on, "assuming" makes an "ass" of "u" and "me". Let me try to show you my most basic logic here: As I said, what we call "God" is existence itself (Hence, "Yahweh", which means "I am who am".) How can the multiverse exist if existence does not exist? That question makes no sense. The only solution is that existence (God) does exist.
@jparkss15 Technically, its says "I will be what I will be", or something else, the sentance is actually quite obscure from what i understand. Also, Yahweh is described as being very interestingly anthropomorphic, so much so, that he weilds some very human traits. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that existence is so human
@spartacandream Understandable. Taking "I am who am" into consideration, God is merely implying His being existence. As for God's being "so human", it is really humans who are "so God". He gave us sentience. It's all a part of us being "made in His image and likeness".
@jparkss15 Also, Yahweh isn't described as existence itself. Though if you say that all existence is sentient and omnipotent, that's what I take issue with. Not with whether or not you call it Yahweh or Zeus, Amun or Satan even. What matters is that I don't understan how one could apply such attributes as necessary.
@spartacandream The reason I say existence is sentient is that what we can observe of our universe is orderly. Everything has a purpose. Such a complex system can only have been created by an omniscient being. And such a vast system can only have been created by an omnipotent force. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that the creator of the universe is an all-knowing, all-powerful sentient force.
@jparkss15 Does everything have a purpose? What purpose has the appendix? The tailbone of a human? Or perhaps I misunderstand you, but it doesn't seem like everything has a purpose. What about a lone rock left by a glacier on a hillside?
Certainly we can add purpose, like having the landscape there for its beauty. But that's us applying purpose to a purposeless thing.
And even if it were so, why does it require an all knowing being?
@spartacandream Classic question. The answer is no. God technically can't "do anything". For example, since evil is the absence of good, and He is goodness, He cannot do evil. Since God is existence, and an illogical answer cannot exist, God cannot contradict logic. God can surpass reason, but never contradict it. So, yes, omnipotence as you understand it is impossible.
@spartacandream I do. But, the transcriptions of the Bible from the original texts to Greek, then Latin, then German, then all other languages were not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the original writing. So in a modern English version of the Bible, I guess there could be some minor errors.
@jparkss15 If you read the oldest preserved text, you'd see why I don't think the holy spirit was it's inspiration. Unless by holy spirit, you mean in the gnostic sense, the judeochristian goddess sofia, which is the greek for wisdom, or hebrew chokmah.
Or perhaps you'd be referring to the weird plural form for god mentioned over and over? Christianity is tritheistic, at least the trinity form, and all tthe gods are male. Much in the same way that Hinduism is polytheistic, both are seen as 1
@jparkss15 So the polytheism expressed in the NT isn't necessarily at odds with the old testament on the surface no, but the trinity form, of having 3 "male" deities as the 3 persons is.
I've read the original hebrew. I've read how very different the masoretic and other ancient manuscripts of it can be from eachother. Definitely only inspired by God at most, but there are books inspired by Zeus, and no one believes in him anymore. Well almost no one.
@spartacandream For the same reason I said "universe" instead of "all of existence" way back up there. Force of habit. If something cannot happen (like destroying an indestructible object), then it is not possible for it to be "done". So, God is not literally omnipotent, but He can do all things.
@jparkss15 But that's just the thing, if he can do all things, that necessitates he be able to make something that he can't break, and then break it. The problem present is that being able to do everything is impossible. To something is to be limited, which is why omnipotence can't exist.
We both agreed your God isn't omnipotent, so yeah he can't do everything ("all things" by the way, is "everything", they're synonyms). If he can do all things, he's literally omnipotent
@spartacandream Look, I'm sick and tired of this. We can go back and forth for months with this, and neither of us is going to change sides. I'm not asking you to convert, I'm just asking you to recognize that, even if it is wrong, Christianity isn't so goatshit insane. Even if He wasn't God, Jesus was a guy who had his ethical act together.
Just recognize that, even if we are wrong, we are right in some ways. For as (cont.)
@jparkss15 Actually, speak for yourself. While it does reveal alot about your faith, that you won't switch sides if proven wrong, it proves that it's strong regardless of whether or not evidence heads you in another direction. If you provide enough evidence, whether your intentions are to convert me or not, I will admit you are right and I am wrong, or that more info is needed. However, until sufficient evidence is presented, I stand without belief in your "God hypothesis".
@jparkss15 I never once said Christianity was insane, I simply stated that I don't have any reason to see it as fact. Jesus may have been a real preacher, I don't know of much evidence that he actually existed, but who knows? The new testament was a group of books organized in the early middle ages by the council of nicaea. Those books themselves written long after Jesus' death
@spartacandream (cont. from previous) Jesus said in Luke's Gospel, "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also, and then buy him a bottled water or an icecream cake or something." (cont.)
It is simply disgusting that anyone who believes ancient myths without evidence would criticize anyone else who believes different myths, or has a different opinion about them.
You can't all be right. But you could all be wrong.
@WilbertK13 Or one of us could be right. And besides, Mr. Less-Holy-Than-Thou, atheism is a religion, pure and simple. It should be a lack of belief based on (I say "flawed") logic, but some have escalated it to be a belief in a lack.
@WilbertK13 "But in order to discern right from wrong you shouldn't assume that you're right."
Thank you, yes, that is something we should all keep in mind.
Regarding your remark on my remark, theism is more of a category than a single religion, but essentially, you are right. Atheism is definitely a religion. It is a belief in a lack, not a lack of belief.
@jparkss15 I think you missed my point. Theism is indeed a category of beliefs, not a specific set of beliefs. The same goes for atheism. Atheism is the set of beliefs that doesn't include gods. That doesn't tell you anything about the specific beliefs of an individual atheists. Therefore it's NOT a religion.
Just to be clear: a lot of buddhists don't believe in gods either. So they're atheists too. Would you consider buddhists and naturalists as belonging to the same religion?
Religious apologists can never win. Belief in something without sufficient evidence is non-logical. They always wind up having to try to convince rational minded people they must prove the nonexistence of god. Well, it's almost impossible to prove a negative, and the apologists know this. That's why in all logical systems it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove it true, not posit it and expect everyone else to prove it false.
@4me2cclearly But what if that evidence IS logic? Think this question through clearly: How could the universe have begun? The only answer is a Force which transcends "beginning": an extemporaneous, all-powerful, sentient Force. Some people call it God. Others willfully ignore this logic all together. If you really want to debate, you must examine the possibility that you are wrong.
“If you really want to debate, you must examine the possibility that you are wrong.”
Well said, and so true.
But on the subject of, where did it come from? Nothing? The same can be said of any god. It is the cause and effect argument.
I do not, nor do I pretend to know. Do you know? For certain?
When people ask ?s, that cannot be answered with absolute certainty, yet they pretend to know the answer for certain, I know that they have giving up on the search for a true answer.
@4me2cclearly I have to skip over lines 4-6 of your comment because of your typo.
Moving on, I do believe for certain, based on logic and personal faith, in a Creator Being. Do I KNOW for certain? No. Do I know for certain that, say, hydrogen has 1 electron? No. But I believe it, because it makes sense, and it's what Mr. Ferris told us. Do you know for certain that there isn't a God? Or do you just believe it because of (I say flawed) logic? I have found my answer. Where's yours?
@4me2cclearly The people of the Middle Ages thought they could "prove" God through science, and people believed them. For all you or I know, the chemists of the world could be tricking us in the same way.
"No. I do not, nor do I claim to." Then your beliefs are only as good to me as mine are to you.
And, coincidentally, I do believe in Bigfoot.
Finally, I won't let this debate escalate like I did with good ol'spartacandream way up there (cont.)
@4me2cclearly Since I can't post a url, just go to cracked.com, click "Topics", search "atheism", and click the article that starts with "10 Things...". It very clearly states my feelings for religious extremism of all kinds.
Evangelical Christianity is an abomination that is a teaching of demons. People are beginning to see that the true faith is Roman Catholic. The 'season of the Church' is returning to Rome and the sound doctrines of the Magesterium. II Tim 4:1-4 is an excellent indictment of the protestant heresy that has turned so many aside and into the myth of a 'personal relationship with Christ'. What is more personal than His body and blood?! Come back to Rome!
wow, there was a time as a born again catholic, evangelical, what a mess i was in, i waste 13 years of my life, i actually contemplated painting (red crosses) in florescent paint on roads to lead people to the lord.This biblical prediction is as molesters tell victims not to tell their parents, because they will blame them, and punish them predicting what will happen if they use their brain,the bible does the same thing know what will happen because they make excuses in advance, think....
Life's most important question: What happens after death? Jesus Christ said that every lie, lust, and hateful thought would be subject to justice. It makes sense: There is a totally righteous God who will not tolerate any injustice. Which of us is totally just? That is why we need the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Otherwise, we will be with every other wicked person in hell. God is just. I hope you will consider getting right w/ Christ tonight!
all churches are a cult, all religion because the rob people of their ability to think for them selves and use reason and logic. An example is when they support the Bush agenda and stress that the earth is 500 years old.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
AMEN! The closest doctrine to the Gospel of Christ by the standards set forth by this video is the Catholic doctrine. Built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, the gates of Hell did not prevail against it. We STILL believe in what Jesus said 2000 years ago! May His Holy Name always be praised!
No way. The Catholic church is a cult. It assumes that Pope has got extra Biblical authority .The Catholic church teaches things which are directly against the plain teachings of the Bible .The Catholic church teaches catholics to pray to Mary and saints; make and use idols for worship, authorize priests to forgive sins on Christ behalf so on and so forth. All these resulted from false interpreatation of the Bible.
as i read these comments about christian nation status, it shames me to have to insult individuals who share views i had a few years back.. i was a fool for christ,,now i'm angry at myself and others who believe this nonsense, i became aware of memes and realize the crap they call god's word is nothing but a virus meme that infects you brain and makes you unable to talk about anything but imaginary friend, the more you talk and share the more convinced that it real, religions all control us
is this sarcastic,,, lol,,, at work,,,, as an exchristian, i find this display a bit to the witty side that could be trying to lure unsuspecting christians to the truth lies of christianity in all forms. It reminds me of my awakening, mine was related to ivestigating the true church, as it happens mythra was the inspiration for the one holy church, uprooted on the same vatican hill just prior to constantine uniting the fools of paganism to the new fools of paganism in the catholic church,
This has been a Christian country for 200 years. As a Christian country, we have been the greatest country in the world. As we have fallen away, our quality of life and freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all falling away. Open your eyes. As we slid from Christianity, we are also quickly falling from our place as the greatest country.
Our freedoms have decreased as this went on? Try telling that to someone who could be owned by someone else 200 years ago. If we began as a Christian country and slowly slid away from that, I consider it a bargain, given that this slide has granted freedom to the black man, and voting rights to all citizens of eligible age. Of course, a country without a national religion can hardly be considered to be a Christian country anyways, now can it?
Well, at least your username is appropriate. Thanks to Biblical Christianity, slavery and racism was called evil, even while so-called "Christians" defended those evils.
Given there a hundreds of Christian sects, I would urge you kids to get together; get your stories straight and come out swinging in the next go-round.
In the meantime, appreciate all of this ranting seems to be - more and more - like the babbling of loons.
Ever notice they talk but they do not say anything? Like stop war, Jesus said not to murder people. They act like they have truth when they do not say anything more than the TV evangecals, basically be good not saying what good is. send me money and God will make you rich.
Why would sending money to rich people get you in good with God?
As a longtime evangelical Christian I agree that the Bible has been banned in many churches and replaced with "application". We are beginning to see this evidenced in culture at a quick pace. America wont persecute persons who speak the truth from sound doctrine but they will legislate laws to have us jailed instead. This reality is already here and will separate the true Christians from the phonies. More people need to leave the apostate church and find basic Bible teaching for truth.
You Catholics have your own problems. But then whatever we Protestants say is by definition invalid to Catholics...since we refuse to bend the knee to Rome. Why listen to us Protestants? You're wastin' time - get back to your rosary.
" The church today has boudles credulity (..they'll believer virtually anything). And the result is, the modern Christian church is filled with bad decisions, faulty reasoning, superficial understanding, shallow knowledge and widespread ignorance."
Sounds like he's describing the church of yesterday as well...
From what I saw, Saddlecrack and Rick Warren are the purveyors of the very ignorance of which they complain. He hasn't the slightest idea as to why Rome is a false church and Confessional Protestants the True, Catholic, and Continuuing Church of old.
The Church isn't in trouble. It is as healthy and vibrant as ever.
Go find the nearest Orthodox Church and you'll agree! It is the ONLY Christian faith that hasn't distorted the Gospel or mangled the "Faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1.3).
I'm sorry, but I reviewed the doctrines of the Orthodox Church in America (assuming that's what you represent) and several key doctrines do not square with God's word at all.
The extent to which any so called church departs from God's word is the boundary of its error.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How do you know the earth is billions of years old? By reading a book "written" by men, all of whom were not there to see "the beginning"? The origin of the Universe can not be tested, therefore it is not science. It is a guess, a "faith" that there was no Creator and that matter is eternal, having always existed. Macro-evolution is a faith, believed by those whom are either ignorant of true science, or are willingly ignorant because the alternative (i.e. God) isn't acceptable. Read the Bible.
I've actually read my Bible, and I'm still not sure what it means. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Is Genesis 1.1 through 2.3 correct, or is it rather Genesis 2.4 through 2.9 that is the true Creation story? Perhaps this is why Latin was used in the Church for so very long... I have the feeling I'd get more wisdom out the text if it were in a language I didn't understand.
Since the Bible was written over 2000-3500 years ago, since it was written in a culture and time we know very little about, since it was written in languages we don't know, maybe that has something to do with why you don't understand it. Try applying techniques you would use on any historical document and see if it makes more sense. Or, find someone you trust who knows how to and learn from them to get started. It works. It makes sense, but not many will do this and it shows.
See my extended answer posted on TimCubUAkbar's channel explaining that there is no contradiction in the creation account in Genesis. I understand your frustration of reading the Bible and then realizing that you didn't understand most of it. First make sure you have received the free gift of salvation because with that you get the Holy Spirits help in teaching you truth. You need the assistance of a Bible teacher that uses expository verse by verse teaching skills that will answer questions.
@kv4n actually the bible was written by man but was guided by the holy spirit to write the bible.since when mans science superior to one who created all things?If mans so smart why cant he make his universe?
@beome Bart Ehrman, bible scholar, does not agree with you. He found the bible to be full of error and contradiction, and considers it the word of man, not the word of God.
Hey videolover428...SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! I was raised a Catholic but also have enough SENSE to know that Bible was "written" by MEN and the earth IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD...Like it or not.
Yes, they should learn to recognize the bigoted ant-science and deeply unethical crap they are propagating. They should study Karl Heinz Deschner's criminal history of christianity.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate your reply. But I happen to believe that the reason the Pharisees weren't baptized is because they themselves refused it. If they had turned to God, they would have been baptized along with everyone else. In a way, the reaction John (I couldn't find your verse, but i assume it was from John) gave was due to their own rejection, not an absence of love from the Baptist.
It will likely go the way of all other superstitions.
gug1970 5 months ago
Yeah, sure it is. Oh Boo Hoo.
dallaskenn 6 months ago
This isn't a revolution against Christianity, it is an evolution of thoughts of ideas which are now saying what was believed needn't necessarily be true. I am worth it to seek the truth for myself. And we are. Humanity can do better than myths from thousands of years ago. We now have knowledge to shape our future for the better. If we are unafraid and if we are honest. Oppression of ideas won't work, oppression of people won't work. You're only delaying the inevitable.
stevenweir76 6 months ago
The Protestant evangelical notion that a man can live an honorable, good, and loving life... and still spend eternity in the torments of the lake of fire if he never "accepts Jesus as his savior" (even if he never heard the name Jesus), while an evil man like Hitler can say the words "Jesus come into my heart" on his death bed and spend eternity walking the streets of gold - is as repulsive & downright evil a doctrine as there can be, because it makes God out to be pathologically unrighteous.
unclewalt56 6 months ago 5
There's been a horrible misunderstanding! Christians speak a different dialect of English! There could even be varieties of dialect based on denomination! The dialects have clear differences in the terms that may include and are not limited to: knowledge, truth, reality, information, fact, evidence, and proof. In advocation of freedom, we should not force our language onto them outside venues requiring a stringent policy, and we can give job opportunities for Christian - English translators!
Furoar 6 months ago
The Christian church has one option -Change or Die.
jimboedwardlee 6 months ago
Christians no longer have the dictatorial power they once had. The age of REASON has finally arrived, unbelievers and Atheists are on the rise. Evangelical Christians know it and are scared that the cards are turning!!!
marcohorowitz8 6 months ago
LOL apparently THE biggest issue with the church today is that it has found out how to wrongly be wrong....hilarious.
farcrypoop 7 months ago
Christianity-a death fetish cult where SM freaks torment kids and get off on a guy suffering nailed to a cross-FOR THEM. Degenerate. As bad as ISLAM and its martyr perversion-this old testament shit has had its day-time to grow up folks-stop crawling to myths and embrace your potential-this slavery crap leads nowhere but to a crippled retarded world of fear and child abuse.
MrChrisHermes 8 months ago
@MrChrisHermes Amen to that!
dallaskenn 6 months ago
Oorah Marines! Marine for Jesus<- I was hopping this guy would have put on a flight helmet and fly off in a jet, why was this filmed on an aircraft carrier?
Bahkti82 8 months ago
Oorah Marines! Marine for Jesus<-
Bahkti82 8 months ago
This video expresses why the church is in a bad way- we are in the apostasy of the last last days. So why do people here mock God in their comments- this is proof that the bible speaks the Truth about "religion" which true Christians do not embrace. The Bible is our only measure- if its not in there- dont do it.
awaitthegroom 8 months ago
Almost every church I've visited in the last ten years is steeped to their eyeballs in babbling tongues madness. There is a deliberate refusal to look at the scriptures on the matter, the demand for the feeling experience is that powerful. It's very weird.
SpeakaDaEnglish 8 months ago
Interesting video. All the statements made here on the decline of Christianity are completely false because it insist that lack of devotion and submission to religious authority is some kind of sustaining virture. So what it actually says is that lack of religious slavery is the reason for decline, hoggwash. The real reason for the decline of Christianity is the fact that it minimizes human dignity, human freedom and human rights in favorite of it's
Chuloloc 8 months ago
@Chuloloc egotism, moral stupidity, self-serving intentions and totalitarian ideals on how people should live like most religions and with a demeanor like that, it's bound to fall. The same with Islam. So the most accerate name for this video is "Christianity as a whole is killing itself because of it's corruption and stupidity." I think Chris Hermes has the better ieas. THERE IS NO GOD THAT IS GOOD, ONLY MAN IS GOOD. F--k religion.
Chuloloc 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
burn in hell forever or believe in Jesus
fuckmania07 8 months ago
GOOD. It is DEAD. ISLAM is dead. The one GOD TYRANT is over. These fake religions of CONTROL have tried to keep man from the truth, and now have been exposed as disgusting self serving fascists-THERE IS NO GOD BUT MAN.
MrChrisHermes 9 months ago 5
@MrChrisHermes great comment man!
treesapa 8 months ago
We are all atheists. I just lack belief in one more god than you!
T0X0PHILUS 11 months ago
One thing that is killing evangelicalism is the leaving of the church by intelligent people and guess who is left. We have the fundamentalist with their KJO doctrine on the left and the Calvinist with their once saved always saved sin all you want doctrine on the right.
We need to have true faith from the biblical perspective which is not following any of these systems of men. God is one, His word is alive. It does lead us into truth.
frnz444 1 year ago
The Church is in fine shape, salvation occurring at unprecedented levels all across the globe. Pharisees however will always have a problem with what God is doing in the Earth. Having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof.
Personally i think it is just time to ignore people like this and render them obsolete.
Califacience 1 year ago
@Califacience Atheism has doubled in the last twenty years....and it will only continue to increase while people become more enlightened and religious contradictions are exposed. Google "Least likely to believe in Religion" and see what you find. Religion has become *obsolete* and it is time for the age of logic and reason.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
Unless you know Jesus, unless you have experienced the Holy Spirit, you will assume "religion" and its followers are part of a cult.
Many are, But Jesus IS the truth. Do not look at people and "religion".
And when you know GOD, not allah, not some statue of gold, JESUS CHRIST, that died for us to be set free, Until you come to know him, you will not understand because you are looking through your own eyes. Eyes that can only see what the world sees and look at our world and its people. Broken.
lozzymagoo 1 year ago
@lozzymagoo "Muslims don't believe in the Gods of Hinduism, Hindus don't believe in the God of Islam, and neither believe in the God of Christians and Jews. It seems that believers from all religions are quite capable of recognizing the lack of evidence for so many Gods...with the exception of their own. Those of us who don't believe in any Gods are simply pointing out that there is no need to make this exception."
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1
lozzymagoo 1 year ago
Truth lies saved unsaved are not the same concerns Tares God will expose. Most preachers spend much time on I don't know if he is saved person.The Church is being stripped of its privilege?Stripped of power and purity? This is disgraceful admonition. Regardless of what any person may be doing my privilege, power, purity, comes from Christ Atonement ,and NEVER can be stripped.Prayer is not a liberty of gov't but of Christ and so is all privilege,purity and power. Disgusting to think otherwise
polopowers1 1 year ago
@polopowers1 Actually, prayer is completely ineffective. There have been numerous studies done, the largest of which was a decade long and involved devout believers praying for 1,800 heart surgery patients. The results clearly indicated that there were no beneficial effects derived from prayer. Atheism is growing because it is difficult to perpetuate religious beliefs in an age of logic, reason, and *Youtube*.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 prayer by its nature is something that science is unable to study. any attempts at drawing conclusions by so-called studies will only reveal the hypocrisy and ignorance of those pretending to do scientific research. atheists are hypocrites. they claim to not believe in God, and yet spend countless hours and dollars to confirm their belief in atheism. and in so doing, they claim a monopoly, which they don't actually have, on logic and reason.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 it would be nice to actually meet a genuine atheist, whose integrity doesn't require him to make outlandish and highly unfounded claims. the greatest minds in history have been more rational and logical and scientific as Bible-believing Christians than many of the so-called atheists who try to parade themselves as being more rational than those whose findings and experience has lead them to greater faith in God than in seeing it diminished.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 to meet an atheist who has the honesty to recognize that there have been, and still are well founded men of science, philosophy, logic and of every other walk of life whose faith in God is clearly not the result of lack of reasoning ability, or lack of evidence; but who at the end of it all, can have the courage to state simply that they have determined to deny the existence of God; from which presupposition they interpret all findings in a way that supports that agenda.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 what is even worse among atheists is for them to claim to have a monopoly on reason and science; yet they demonstrate how reliable that monopoly is simply on how poorly they demonstrate even the basic understandings of God. but truth be told: based on their own revelation of who they think God is, (though they deny his existence), i would be inclined to agree with them. that the God they have described is not to be found God in reality.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 atheists have become in the end of it all, nothing more than fallacy masters. they are especially excellent with such fallacies as strawman logic-where they like to create a false definition of who God is, from which they then purport to prove the lack of evidence for God's existence based on the strawman definition of God. atheists are also great with red herring fallacies. especially when the evidence becomes so great, they are great at taking the argument down an unrelated
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 ..path. dare to challenge an atheist, according to formal logic, by grabbing the bull by the horns of their premises and axioms; but as soon as one dares to challenge such, one is quickly invalidated by ad hominen attacks. atheism as it seems is really nothing but a house of cards unprepared and unwilling to be challenged along the same lines of attack that it feels is its right and duty to level against those who are opposed.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 atheism has been clever to try to pen itself as being that which is not a religion. yet that is exactly what it is. it is the religion of man; the religion of unbelief. it is the religion that actually returns to the age of myth, not unlike the myths of Aristotle's and Plato's day. where the gods as described in their pantheon has been matured to be named, not as gods, but as merely principles/rules/laws of the universe. gods which by definition were measured by their
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 principles/rules/laws of the universe. the difference, al beit, is that whereas Plato and Aristotle saw those laws governed by a personal, though somewhat impersonal, being; modern atheism, pretends to be evolved by removing this personal attribution to these laws; and thus creating an even greater myth: principles/rules/laws of the universe that simply exist in all their complexity without the effect of anything upon them-accidental complexity of chemistry, physics and biology
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 to believe, based on the observance of nature and the laws present throughout, that such complexity of laws have come into being by pure chance is really remarkable beyond words. and atheists declare they aren't people of faith. that is a laugh. not only are you a people of faith, you are actually a people whose faith is in stark contrast to the overwhelming reality of the observed universe around us. it takes a tremendous amount of stubbornness and determination
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 to insist that this grand, highly complex, intricately detailed universe has come to be simply as some cosmic accident. that very grandiose conclusion defies the very nature of science, logic and philosophy. for science to draw the conclusion that something just is because it is, is as unscientific as one could ever be. science by its basic nature seeks to find a cause for the effect of something. and as far as science can measure: it knows that nothing that is complex just is.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 for the reality of your own logic where you concluded the reason for atheism's growth being about the difficulty of perpetuating religious beliefs, etc. that is an example of flawed logic. a virus that takes over a body doesn't mean that is a good thing. disease which sweeps across a continent to take the lives of millions is not to be measure as a beneficial. where sin abounds in the world, you can rest assured it is not the signs of enlightenment.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 where wickedness at all levels appears to be growing an exponential rate, it is but a sure indication that the full wrath of God is fast approaching. as in the days of Abraham when he was told that he would not give him the promised land yet, because the sins of the Amalekite were not yet full. like a cup that is being filled up, this world is fast approaching that day when its cup will be full. on that day, that cup, when it is full, will be poured out.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 where you celebrate the growth of atheism as a good thing is but an indictment against this land when men by wisdom deny God. it is what Jesus said when he spoke of that light that is in men as being darkness, and how great that darkness must be. when men call evil good and good evil, what else can be done for such whose minds and hearts have become so defiled and useless, that even in the presence of wisdom, loving death it still kicks and screams against life.
HermitintheRain 11 months ago
@HermitintheRain Sir, to be honest, I would have responded to your posts in detail, but since you actually sent me 13, YES THIRTEEN, separate completely-filled posts of effluvium about religious garbage...I feel absolutely no need to respond. Instead of attempting to refute my arguments...your long-winded verbose preaching simply resulted in my deleting the remainder of your messages. If you expect your responses to be read in the future then cover valid points and be MUCH more succinct.
CynicalSkeptic1 11 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Evangelists are always like that. If you know some you will notice that they are different from other types of christians. If you ask a catholic about politics he will have his own opinion, but not evangelists. They will all think the same.
It's just a sect of brainwashing and praying on the weak. Lots of the followers are just mentally weak or ill. He's a good example.
ivanlagrossemoule 10 months ago
@ivanlagrossemoule I just think it is truly pathetic how so many ignore reality. Since you sent me that post and I looked at his abundance of drivel again...I decided to send him some evidence to consider. I am certain that he will either ignore it or euphemistically interpret the information...but it doesn't matter...at least he is actually being exposed to facts and evidence. =)
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Since you apparently deny reality. I just thought that I would give you some facts and evidence to assimilate. If you feel the need to respond then don't give me Bible verses. I was a Christian for twenty years and my parents sent me to Christian schools since kindergarten...so I don't need to hear more of your religious 'information'. If you have valid points which refute my information then post them. If you respond with 13 more comments about garbage..I will ignore them.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Evolution is agreed upon by the vast majority of relevant scientists (completely dwarfing any contradictory viewpoint)....and is also frequently utilized in numerous fields of scientific study. I will post a few (and I have many more) examples of exactly how evolution is ONLY rejected when it conflicts with religious bias.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HermitintheRain James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95–99% depending on the primate.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@HermitintheRain As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning. I have a large amount of additional evidence that I can post if you would still like to continue debating the validity of evolution. Evolution is a fact...there is no way to dispute it. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1
First, you say that we can't prove macroevolution because it takes so long, then you say that a scientific theory must stand up against attempts to prove it false. That takes macro-e from theory to hypothesis at best, and wishful thinking at worst.
It has been repeatedly proven that there are limits to changes that a living thing can take before it becomes either sterile, unable to live on its own, or just can't change further.
pat34lee 9 months ago
@pat34lee Sir, evolution is a fact. If you read my fifteen (approximately) posts and still insist that it is speculation....then that is your right....but ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear.
Good luck in your religion. Peace
CynicalSkeptic1 9 months ago
Here's my opinion: Christianity has been shot through the heart, and evangelicals are to blame. They give Jesus a bad name.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 it's the hypocrisy that gives us the bad name.
goatmilk222 1 year ago
@goatmilk222 Amen. But still, Pope John Paul II once said that religion should free science from moral error, and science should purify religion of superstition. All these concepts atheists and evangelicals put in conflict (Religion vs. Science, Faith vs. Reason, Creation vs. Evolution, etc.) are really meant to work together. Either one without the other is a ridiculous and illogical idea. But the two together make up the yin-yang-style pair meant to bring wisdom to mankind.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 So you're saying that both are trying to gain supremacy?
goatmilk222 1 year ago
@goatmilk222 Yes, exactly. Fundamentalists of all creeds (including atheism) are the bedrock of a society of total chaos.
jparkss15 1 year ago
While it's great that you want believers to not be crudulous, but you need to be to believein something without evidence.
How does one tell the true God and Holy text from the false?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Nice mindset. Blind faith is never good. When one blind man leads another, they both fall into a ditch. To distinguish the true God from false requires a path of logic a bit too long to state in 274 characters. Basically, the only possible way the universe could have been created is by a sentient, all-powerful Force, which is God. Socrates disproved polytheism through rhetoric, and one would think that it would be hard to fake the miracles of Jesus with 1st-century technology.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I hate to break it to you, but humans with sufficient enough technology, could create a universe by creating a black hole. At least in theory.Omni-(insert here) not necessary.
It's easy to use logical arguements to argue for the existence of God, so long as they assume the only way something can come about is through God, which assumes far too much too soon. The universe had no creator, neither does life. Defintiely not a sentient one
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream When I say "universe", I'm not speaking literally. What we're really talking about is more like "existence", that is, the multiverse and extra-spatial dimmensions. Sorry about that.
Also, I mentioned earlier that one should not be close-minded in debating. Hypocrisy is not how I roll.
Thirdly, your second paragraph is not constructive. You are just agressively stating your beliefs, not challenging mine. You've changed this to a "Nuh-uh!"-"Yeah-uh!" debate.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I see what you're saying, the multiverse and not the universe. It's all good, I have the same habit, and only recently have i overcome it. We don't know nearly enough about the multiverse to say whether it could've, should, or whatever, have a beginning. So how do we know it necessitates a creator?
Me either. Though I am indeed openminded, I do ask critical questions, and I'm not so openminded that my brains fall out, its just open enough for new ideas.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream If I ever see you in person, I will buy you a beer for that open-minded analogy. Nice one.
All I'm saying is, I believe in a Force. This Force exists outside of time, so it does not need a "beginning". It is sentient, because what it created is orderly and non-random. The entire multiverse is balanced. This Force is existence itself. How is existence created? Man cannot know. The question is impossible to answer.
Is this Force the God of Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob? I say, yes.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 If you ever meet me in person, please don't buy me a beer, I don't drink ;D
Order is created through natural laws, if we're thinking of the same type of order. Those natural laws aren't sentient, and how do we know they require sentience to exist?
How can we know such a power exists, if we can't know it? And how do we know it's beyond our grasp?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Suit yourself. I'll buy you a bottled water or an ice cream cake or something.
These "natural laws" are also the creations of God. God created the concept of gravity, time, friction, evolution, you name it. It is through these that God creates and maintains order.
We can know God exists by His revelation to us (see "Bible"). Basically, we know He exists because He told us.
Lastly, it is simply impossible to understand. Can you explain how God can create something from nothing?
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 How do we know the natural laws are constant? How do we know they had a beginning? How do we know they had to be God? Clearly, the Bible doesn't meention the creation of friction, gravity, nor evolution. It mentions the creation of time as it relates to the creation of the jewish calendar, but nothing more.
More importantly, how do we know the Bible is the word of God, his revelation, and not just the compilation of earlier texts by pious devotee humans as it seems?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I already explained how the creation stories are only poetic already, so I won't repeat myself. Also, the Bible was written by men and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's not really a zap-there's-the-bible type deal here, and I admit that.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Was it a revelation from god or just written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit? Take your pick.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Furthermore, to the point of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. How do we know they existed? By what proof can we tell if the Bible is accurate? Where does it say they encountered a force? The Bible in Genesis describes their God as a physical being.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Where does it say He is a physical being? This is where most people run into trouble with believing in God: the "Old Man in the Sky" literal interpretation. How could God have appeared to Moses (also in Genesis) as fire in a bush if he were a flesh-and-blood being? Descriptions of God as physical are normally just metaphorical.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I didn't claim he was exactly like us, it's clear that many ancient cultures saw their gods as immune to being burned alive. I will give it to you that some parts of the BIble do describe him as being quasi-metaphysical (NT comes to mind), but that's because of hellenistic influence.
There are plenty of places where he's described as anthropomorphic, among the places are the creation of man, where man is made in god's image.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Oh, boy. Creation of man. I LOVE clarifying this. This part of the Bible is symbolic, to make it easier for the ancient Israelites to understand. Can you imagine explaining evolution and abiogenesis to a bunch of Bronze Age nomads? They would've just stoned you.
Also, would you mind giving me time to respond to all your comments before responding to one of mine? I can't keep up. I don't type that fast.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 O take your time responding. I'm responding as soon as I have an answer, you can take as long as you'd like to respond. Didn't mean to make you think I was hurrying you.
Symbolic of what? We were made in the likeness of God. The Bible describes it the same way it describes woman being created in the likeness of man, being human/humanlike. So how is it to be taken?
Why would it get them stoned? Why do you think that?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Thank you for being so patient.
By "likeness" they mean mental likeness. Like how He gave us free will, sentience, etc.
By "image... of God" I think they mean "image predetermined by God". Or maybe it was meant to mean the same as "likeness", but got screwed up in the translation.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 We weren't created with sentience if you've seen the Garden of Eden story, Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked until they ate from that tree.
The image of god in hebrew, can only mean 2 things, we were made perfect like god, or we were made to look like him. I've read the hebrew. Obviously, we weren't perfect, so what does that leave us with?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Actually, my second paragraph was constructive if you read it well enough. My point was that, in order to make a logical arguement for the existence of God, andf for it to work, you can't assume things. For example, you can't assume there needs to be a creator for something to exist complete with the attributes you've ascribed to it, without putting forth the evidence to say why and substantiate it. Occams razor shaves sentience, and omnipotence right off.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream So it is. I missed that. And again with the witty metaphors. Nice, and I don't mean that sarcastically. They're great.
Moving on, "assuming" makes an "ass" of "u" and "me". Let me try to show you my most basic logic here: As I said, what we call "God" is existence itself (Hence, "Yahweh", which means "I am who am".) How can the multiverse exist if existence does not exist? That question makes no sense. The only solution is that existence (God) does exist.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Technically, its says "I will be what I will be", or something else, the sentance is actually quite obscure from what i understand. Also, Yahweh is described as being very interestingly anthropomorphic, so much so, that he weilds some very human traits. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that existence is so human
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Understandable. Taking "I am who am" into consideration, God is merely implying His being existence. As for God's being "so human", it is really humans who are "so God". He gave us sentience. It's all a part of us being "made in His image and likeness".
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Also, Yahweh isn't described as existence itself. Though if you say that all existence is sentient and omnipotent, that's what I take issue with. Not with whether or not you call it Yahweh or Zeus, Amun or Satan even. What matters is that I don't understan how one could apply such attributes as necessary.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream The reason I say existence is sentient is that what we can observe of our universe is orderly. Everything has a purpose. Such a complex system can only have been created by an omniscient being. And such a vast system can only have been created by an omnipotent force. Therefore, I reach the conclusion that the creator of the universe is an all-knowing, all-powerful sentient force.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Does everything have a purpose? What purpose has the appendix? The tailbone of a human? Or perhaps I misunderstand you, but it doesn't seem like everything has a purpose. What about a lone rock left by a glacier on a hillside?
Certainly we can add purpose, like having the landscape there for its beauty. But that's us applying purpose to a purposeless thing.
And even if it were so, why does it require an all knowing being?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Also, the very concept of omnipotence is impossible. Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big he can't lift it?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream Classic question. The answer is no. God technically can't "do anything". For example, since evil is the absence of good, and He is goodness, He cannot do evil. Since God is existence, and an illogical answer cannot exist, God cannot contradict logic. God can surpass reason, but never contradict it. So, yes, omnipotence as you understand it is impossible.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Do you believe the bible to be 100% true? Inerrant? And to be the word of God?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream I do. But, the transcriptions of the Bible from the original texts to Greek, then Latin, then German, then all other languages were not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the same way as the original writing. So in a modern English version of the Bible, I guess there could be some minor errors.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 If you read the oldest preserved text, you'd see why I don't think the holy spirit was it's inspiration. Unless by holy spirit, you mean in the gnostic sense, the judeochristian goddess sofia, which is the greek for wisdom, or hebrew chokmah.
Or perhaps you'd be referring to the weird plural form for god mentioned over and over? Christianity is tritheistic, at least the trinity form, and all tthe gods are male. Much in the same way that Hinduism is polytheistic, both are seen as 1
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 So the polytheism expressed in the NT isn't necessarily at odds with the old testament on the surface no, but the trinity form, of having 3 "male" deities as the 3 persons is.
I've read the original hebrew. I've read how very different the masoretic and other ancient manuscripts of it can be from eachother. Definitely only inspired by God at most, but there are books inspired by Zeus, and no one believes in him anymore. Well almost no one.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Also, just a question. If you agree that omnipotence is impossible, why did you claim that God was all powerful (i.e. omnipotent)?
spartacandream 1 year ago
@spartacandream For the same reason I said "universe" instead of "all of existence" way back up there. Force of habit. If something cannot happen (like destroying an indestructible object), then it is not possible for it to be "done". So, God is not literally omnipotent, but He can do all things.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 But that's just the thing, if he can do all things, that necessitates he be able to make something that he can't break, and then break it. The problem present is that being able to do everything is impossible. To something is to be limited, which is why omnipotence can't exist.
We both agreed your God isn't omnipotent, so yeah he can't do everything ("all things" by the way, is "everything", they're synonyms). If he can do all things, he's literally omnipotent
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 'Basically, the only possible way the universe could have been created is by a sentient, all-powerful Force, which is God.'
What makes you think that?
WilbertK13 1 year ago
@spartacandream Look, I'm sick and tired of this. We can go back and forth for months with this, and neither of us is going to change sides. I'm not asking you to convert, I'm just asking you to recognize that, even if it is wrong, Christianity isn't so goatshit insane. Even if He wasn't God, Jesus was a guy who had his ethical act together.
Just recognize that, even if we are wrong, we are right in some ways. For as (cont.)
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Actually, speak for yourself. While it does reveal alot about your faith, that you won't switch sides if proven wrong, it proves that it's strong regardless of whether or not evidence heads you in another direction. If you provide enough evidence, whether your intentions are to convert me or not, I will admit you are right and I am wrong, or that more info is needed. However, until sufficient evidence is presented, I stand without belief in your "God hypothesis".
spartacandream 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I never once said Christianity was insane, I simply stated that I don't have any reason to see it as fact. Jesus may have been a real preacher, I don't know of much evidence that he actually existed, but who knows? The new testament was a group of books organized in the early middle ages by the council of nicaea. Those books themselves written long after Jesus' death
spartacandream 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spartacandream (cont. from previous) Jesus said in Luke's Gospel, "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also, and then buy him a bottled water or an icecream cake or something." (cont.)
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I'd say reason is better for morality than religion
spartacandream 1 year ago
There are two words for this fake Christianity, "Utilitarian Christianity."
cubed07 1 year ago
The Clergy are the wolves and antichrists!
Pfsif 1 year ago
The bible proof of man's willingful ignorance
kingkong8974 1 year ago
It is simply disgusting that anyone who believes ancient myths without evidence would criticize anyone else who believes different myths, or has a different opinion about them.
You can't all be right. But you could all be wrong.
WilbertK13 1 year ago
@WilbertK13 Or one of us could be right. And besides, Mr. Less-Holy-Than-Thou, atheism is a religion, pure and simple. It should be a lack of belief based on (I say "flawed") logic, but some have escalated it to be a belief in a lack.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 Yes, one of you could be right. But in order to discern right from wrong you shouldn't assume that you're right.
Regarding the remark about atheism being a religion: atheism is as much a religion as theism is.
WilbertK13 1 year ago
@WilbertK13 "But in order to discern right from wrong you shouldn't assume that you're right."
Thank you, yes, that is something we should all keep in mind.
Regarding your remark on my remark, theism is more of a category than a single religion, but essentially, you are right. Atheism is definitely a religion. It is a belief in a lack, not a lack of belief.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@WilbertK13 Sorry, I already used that "belief in a lack" bit, didn't I? Oh well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking by it.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15 I think you missed my point. Theism is indeed a category of beliefs, not a specific set of beliefs. The same goes for atheism. Atheism is the set of beliefs that doesn't include gods. That doesn't tell you anything about the specific beliefs of an individual atheists. Therefore it's NOT a religion.
Just to be clear: a lot of buddhists don't believe in gods either. So they're atheists too. Would you consider buddhists and naturalists as belonging to the same religion?
WilbertK13 1 year ago
Religious apologists can never win. Belief in something without sufficient evidence is non-logical. They always wind up having to try to convince rational minded people they must prove the nonexistence of god. Well, it's almost impossible to prove a negative, and the apologists know this. That's why in all logical systems it's up to the proponents of a theory to prove it true, not posit it and expect everyone else to prove it false.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly But what if that evidence IS logic? Think this question through clearly: How could the universe have begun? The only answer is a Force which transcends "beginning": an extemporaneous, all-powerful, sentient Force. Some people call it God. Others willfully ignore this logic all together. If you really want to debate, you must examine the possibility that you are wrong.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15
“If you really want to debate, you must examine the possibility that you are wrong.”
Well said, and so true.
But on the subject of, where did it come from? Nothing? The same can be said of any god. It is the cause and effect argument.
I do not, nor do I pretend to know. Do you know? For certain?
When people ask ?s, that cannot be answered with absolute certainty, yet they pretend to know the answer for certain, I know that they have giving up on the search for a true answer.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly I have to skip over lines 4-6 of your comment because of your typo.
Moving on, I do believe for certain, based on logic and personal faith, in a Creator Being. Do I KNOW for certain? No. Do I know for certain that, say, hydrogen has 1 electron? No. But I believe it, because it makes sense, and it's what Mr. Ferris told us. Do you know for certain that there isn't a God? Or do you just believe it because of (I say flawed) logic? I have found my answer. Where's yours?
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15
Sorry for the typos. Was in a bit of a rush.
“Do I know for certain that, say, hydrogen has 1 electron? No. But I believe it, because it makes sense”
No.
See, we can test hydrogen, and prove it has 1 electron.
Can you do that with your god?
“Do you know for certain that there isn't a God? Or do you just believe it because of (I say flawed) logic?”
No. I do not, nor do I claim to.
I don’t believe in god, for the same reason, and way, I don’t believe in Bigfoot.
Peace
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly The people of the Middle Ages thought they could "prove" God through science, and people believed them. For all you or I know, the chemists of the world could be tricking us in the same way.
"No. I do not, nor do I claim to." Then your beliefs are only as good to me as mine are to you.
And, coincidentally, I do believe in Bigfoot.
Finally, I won't let this debate escalate like I did with good ol'spartacandream way up there (cont.)
jparkss15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jparkss15
“"No. I do not, nor do I claim to." “Then your beliefs are only as good to me as mine are to you.””
Exactly!
“And, coincidentally, I do believe in Bigfoot.”
LMAO!!! Love it!
“Finally, I won't let this debate escalate like I did with good ol'spartacandream way up there (cont.)”
That is good. I have enjoyed the discussion.
Peace my friend.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly Since I can't post a url, just go to cracked.com, click "Topics", search "atheism", and click the article that starts with "10 Things...". It very clearly states my feelings for religious extremism of all kinds.
Peace to you as well.
jparkss15 1 year ago
@jparkss15
I will save that, and get to it in just a bit. Thanks for stoping by my channel.
Peace my friend.
Ray
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
Evangelical Christianity is an abomination that is a teaching of demons. People are beginning to see that the true faith is Roman Catholic. The 'season of the Church' is returning to Rome and the sound doctrines of the Magesterium. II Tim 4:1-4 is an excellent indictment of the protestant heresy that has turned so many aside and into the myth of a 'personal relationship with Christ'. What is more personal than His body and blood?! Come back to Rome!
LothairOfLorraine 2 years ago
@LothairOfLorraine High five!
jparkss15 1 year ago
wow, there was a time as a born again catholic, evangelical, what a mess i was in, i waste 13 years of my life, i actually contemplated painting (red crosses) in florescent paint on roads to lead people to the lord.This biblical prediction is as molesters tell victims not to tell their parents, because they will blame them, and punish them predicting what will happen if they use their brain,the bible does the same thing know what will happen because they make excuses in advance, think....
blamekisser 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Life's most important question: What happens after death? Jesus Christ said that every lie, lust, and hateful thought would be subject to justice. It makes sense: There is a totally righteous God who will not tolerate any injustice. Which of us is totally just? That is why we need the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Otherwise, we will be with every other wicked person in hell. God is just. I hope you will consider getting right w/ Christ tonight!
shilohrenovation 2 years ago
@shilohrenovation
After death, you rot into the ground.
The end.
MrHomostain 1 year ago
all churches are a cult, all religion because the rob people of their ability to think for them selves and use reason and logic. An example is when they support the Bush agenda and stress that the earth is 500 years old.
TonyMarks2 2 years ago
@TonyMarks2
Spare us your rantings you 17 year old pseudo intellectual troll.
Califacience 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AMEN! The closest doctrine to the Gospel of Christ by the standards set forth by this video is the Catholic doctrine. Built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, the gates of Hell did not prevail against it. We STILL believe in what Jesus said 2000 years ago! May His Holy Name always be praised!
margottelint 2 years ago
No way. The Catholic church is a cult. It assumes that Pope has got extra Biblical authority .The Catholic church teaches things which are directly against the plain teachings of the Bible .The Catholic church teaches catholics to pray to Mary and saints; make and use idols for worship, authorize priests to forgive sins on Christ behalf so on and so forth. All these resulted from false interpreatation of the Bible.
Gavoora123 2 years ago
as i read these comments about christian nation status, it shames me to have to insult individuals who share views i had a few years back.. i was a fool for christ,,now i'm angry at myself and others who believe this nonsense, i became aware of memes and realize the crap they call god's word is nothing but a virus meme that infects you brain and makes you unable to talk about anything but imaginary friend, the more you talk and share the more convinced that it real, religions all control us
blamekisser 2 years ago
is this sarcastic,,, lol,,, at work,,,, as an exchristian, i find this display a bit to the witty side that could be trying to lure unsuspecting christians to the truth lies of christianity in all forms. It reminds me of my awakening, mine was related to ivestigating the true church, as it happens mythra was the inspiration for the one holy church, uprooted on the same vatican hill just prior to constantine uniting the fools of paganism to the new fools of paganism in the catholic church,
blamekisser 2 years ago
This has been a Christian country for 200 years. As a Christian country, we have been the greatest country in the world. As we have fallen away, our quality of life and freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are all falling away. Open your eyes. As we slid from Christianity, we are also quickly falling from our place as the greatest country.
polarbearcrisis 2 years ago
Our freedoms have decreased as this went on? Try telling that to someone who could be owned by someone else 200 years ago. If we began as a Christian country and slowly slid away from that, I consider it a bargain, given that this slide has granted freedom to the black man, and voting rights to all citizens of eligible age. Of course, a country without a national religion can hardly be considered to be a Christian country anyways, now can it?
Beskargam 2 years ago
you, are an idiot. you obviously know nothing about our history.
h3rbsman 2 years ago
'Evangelical Christianity Is Fighting For Its Life'
Good. Someone drive a stake through its evil and ignorant heart and finish off the horrible beast once and for all.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
Well, at least your username is appropriate. Thanks to Biblical Christianity, slavery and racism was called evil, even while so-called "Christians" defended those evils.
HeresyHunter1711 2 years ago
I have no idea what this means.
TheRadicalLiberal 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion is a heavy ball and chain around Humanitys ankle.
...and one day, in a not so distance future we will cut off that chain, and leave you behind to rust."
-Vogter2100
nolobede 2 years ago 3
ya like they did along time ago ,,,,oh that has never happed its still here by gods power
trdcld 2 years ago
Amen! Amen! Great video!
imhotep1 2 years ago
Given there a hundreds of Christian sects, I would urge you kids to get together; get your stories straight and come out swinging in the next go-round.
In the meantime, appreciate all of this ranting seems to be - more and more - like the babbling of loons.
nlperpave 2 years ago
Ever notice they talk but they do not say anything? Like stop war, Jesus said not to murder people. They act like they have truth when they do not say anything more than the TV evangecals, basically be good not saying what good is. send me money and God will make you rich.
Why would sending money to rich people get you in good with God?
Shadraster 2 years ago 4
Ah, I can see religion dying. But me I applaud it. I think it's a good thing that it is dying.
Other myths from the bronze age are no longer taken seriously, I say lets stop taking the remaining ones seriously too.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 3
As a longtime evangelical Christian I agree that the Bible has been banned in many churches and replaced with "application". We are beginning to see this evidenced in culture at a quick pace. America wont persecute persons who speak the truth from sound doctrine but they will legislate laws to have us jailed instead. This reality is already here and will separate the true Christians from the phonies. More people need to leave the apostate church and find basic Bible teaching for truth.
alleyhse 2 years ago
The evangelicals never did stray far from mother Rome did they?
GanEdenAustralia 2 years ago 3
You Catholics have your own problems. But then whatever we Protestants say is by definition invalid to Catholics...since we refuse to bend the knee to Rome. Why listen to us Protestants? You're wastin' time - get back to your rosary.
bharfarar 2 years ago
So creepy.
DENY THE FLESH
MORTIFY THE PLEASURES OF EARTH
Creepy.
peppythepanda 2 years ago 3
" The church today has boudles credulity (..they'll believer virtually anything). And the result is, the modern Christian church is filled with bad decisions, faulty reasoning, superficial understanding, shallow knowledge and widespread ignorance."
Sounds like he's describing the church of yesterday as well...
filorps 2 years ago 2
All true followers of Yeshua (Jesus) then they must get back to the HEBREW ROOTS!!
GanEdenAustralia 2 years ago
From what I saw, Saddlecrack and Rick Warren are the purveyors of the very ignorance of which they complain. He hasn't the slightest idea as to why Rome is a false church and Confessional Protestants the True, Catholic, and Continuuing Church of old.
veitchrobert 2 years ago
The Church isn't in trouble. It is as healthy and vibrant as ever.
Go find the nearest Orthodox Church and you'll agree! It is the ONLY Christian faith that hasn't distorted the Gospel or mangled the "Faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1.3).
mccroskerym 2 years ago
mccroskerym:
I'm sorry, but I reviewed the doctrines of the Orthodox Church in America (assuming that's what you represent) and several key doctrines do not square with God's word at all.
The extent to which any so called church departs from God's word is the boundary of its error.
868hbl5 2 years ago
Typo corrected:
The Church is in trouble. It is as wealthy and vibrant as ever.
There ya go!
GanEdenAustralia 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How do you know the earth is billions of years old? By reading a book "written" by men, all of whom were not there to see "the beginning"? The origin of the Universe can not be tested, therefore it is not science. It is a guess, a "faith" that there was no Creator and that matter is eternal, having always existed. Macro-evolution is a faith, believed by those whom are either ignorant of true science, or are willingly ignorant because the alternative (i.e. God) isn't acceptable. Read the Bible.
kv4n 2 years ago
I've actually read my Bible, and I'm still not sure what it means. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Is Genesis 1.1 through 2.3 correct, or is it rather Genesis 2.4 through 2.9 that is the true Creation story? Perhaps this is why Latin was used in the Church for so very long... I have the feeling I'd get more wisdom out the text if it were in a language I didn't understand.
TimCubUAkbar 2 years ago
Since the Bible was written over 2000-3500 years ago, since it was written in a culture and time we know very little about, since it was written in languages we don't know, maybe that has something to do with why you don't understand it. Try applying techniques you would use on any historical document and see if it makes more sense. Or, find someone you trust who knows how to and learn from them to get started. It works. It makes sense, but not many will do this and it shows.
TimeToFlush 2 years ago
See my extended answer posted on TimCubUAkbar's channel explaining that there is no contradiction in the creation account in Genesis. I understand your frustration of reading the Bible and then realizing that you didn't understand most of it. First make sure you have received the free gift of salvation because with that you get the Holy Spirits help in teaching you truth. You need the assistance of a Bible teacher that uses expository verse by verse teaching skills that will answer questions.
alleyhse 2 years ago
@kv4n actually the bible was written by man but was guided by the holy spirit to write the bible.since when mans science superior to one who created all things?If mans so smart why cant he make his universe?
beome 1 year ago
@beome Bart Ehrman, bible scholar, does not agree with you. He found the bible to be full of error and contradiction, and considers it the word of man, not the word of God.
k0smon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The extinction of evangelical Christianity is something I welcome.
skoookum 2 years ago 13
Hey videolover428...SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! I was raised a Catholic but also have enough SENSE to know that Bible was "written" by MEN and the earth IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD...Like it or not.
elfbride 2 years ago
Yes, they should learn to recognize the bigoted ant-science and deeply unethical crap they are propagating. They should study Karl Heinz Deschner's criminal history of christianity.
mjwipa 2 years ago
To Captain4876 -
Did the Baptist try to have a sense of unity w/pharisees at the River Jordan? No. He called them, "Sons of Snakes!" & refused to baptize them.
Not a "loving" gesture, huh? Can't imagine Joel Osteen doing such a thing.
Boiling hot water can't "unite" w/lukewarm liquid & remain hot. Lukewarm liquid must be scaulded w/fire before it's stable enough to be united with.
Otherwise, the boiling water's temp will be lowered, it won't kill germs & the disease will spread.
fruitofspirit 2 years ago
Thank you for your input, I appreciate your reply. But I happen to believe that the reason the Pharisees weren't baptized is because they themselves refused it. If they had turned to God, they would have been baptized along with everyone else. In a way, the reaction John (I couldn't find your verse, but i assume it was from John) gave was due to their own rejection, not an absence of love from the Baptist.
Captain4876 2 years ago