0/11 how ironic, William Lane Craig say's Atkins thinks the universe was created from nothing.. clearly Atkins merely wanted listener's to eat 0/11 carbs
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I'll look into the possibility of getting this debate translated into Portuguese. Give a few days to contact some of the people who can make this happen. Once I hear something, I'll send you a message.
Craig looks kind, and Atkins looks mean. Your whole life really seems to reflect upon your face. Mark Twain was apparently a man of despair, and he appears to have hated G-d all his life.
...But haven't you noticed that Hollywood films try to make the Christians look mean and the atheists look kind?
I just watched the Avalos Craig debate 30 minutes ago and to tell you the truth the only point Hector even made that was correct was about the aramaic possibly.
Other than that Craig refuted most everything Avalos offfered and Avalos, instead of refuting Craigs actual arguments proceeded to attack Craig on other subject matter which if it were anyone else they would have had trouble. But I think Craig did very well.
Yeah, that's why you erased my comment refuting his gay arguments, making it look like I could come back with nothing, lying just like a good christian does.
What's that, intelligence, free thinking, openess? You are a good example of what religion produces, hate, fear, close-mindedness, ignorance, blindness, irrationality. RELIGION has caused the most destruction in this world, NOT atheism.
Insults, yes the intelligence flows freely. There you go with the new age crap again. No one is new age but you buddy, Jesus was a copy of Tammuz, which predates all your "debunkings". The real Jesus was cesarian, The Illuminati King. Your a NWO soldier.
Name five credentialed scholars who say, "The real Jesus was cesarian, The Illuminati King."
Next, bring up one topic at a time about tammuz so I can refute them. If you bring up more then one at a time that shows you are too scared to examine each single one of them.
Okay, let me get this straight, your all about the mainstream media being liars, all news coming from the same source, yet to prove something which is said to be hidden by mainstream scholars you go to MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS. Huh? All say that he was killed, but you don't believe the M.S. about anything else, but your precious Jesus, you can believe them about him? There are many scholars tying biblical figures with egyptian royalty, but thanks to people like you it's not well recieved.
What about the supposed 40 year gap between the death of "Jesus" & Mark? Why didn't anyone write about him? Where are the "scholars" that confirm Jesus's existence that are NOT part of the church related to the early spread of christianity.
Watch Ring of Power. Jesus is a fag NWO ruler. You follow his plan of 85% depopulation with your "revalation". You play right into his gay hands. Didn't he say denying the holy spirit is a unforgivable sin? Wouldn't that mean he worships Queen Semeramis a.k.a. Columbia, the same goddess of the freemasons & illuminati & all those fags?
You have never read the book of Revelation that was written by the apostle John which Justin Martyr acknowledges in the 2nd century and also polycarp in the 1st century who was martyred for his belief in Christ. You can't prove the Illuminati pre-dates 1776. All you have is subjective conjectur.
Secondly, 810 to 805 B.C. is Semeramis's date. Death of King Saul 1011BC 1 Samuel 31:, 1 Ch 10:1-14. The holy spirit is on the Old Testament.
You have just been smokes with your false beliefs.
HAHAHA Your going to use bible scriptures to answer things, then it's not a debate. THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK! Even the oldest version, Stone's Tanach/ Torah, says so on the first page. "Smoked"!
I brought up the verse that I records the event I was speaking of that pre-dates your false cult. Show me where it says it isn't a history book I have heard that claim being thrown around a few times. I would just like to see it and what the original language was conveying.
Secondly, I accept your challenge to debate God on my blog where we can make long opening statements. Rebuttals, and conclusions. We will set up the format tommorow.
Moreover you keep refering to "my cult" blah blah, you contradict Jesus's teaching with every post! Why would anyone want to follw someone when the end result is hate & fear, aren't we supposed to be promoting love? That's my problem with all religions, & if I belong to a cult, then it's the cult of love for your fellow man & the earth that gives us life. I don't need a sky daddy to tell me to do that! I dont need that to know there is more than what we see!
"Jesus is a fag NWO ruler...All you religious nuts are hypocritic liars, so full of shit they've gotten used to the smell. Fuck the... Your the one to feel sorry for man..."
Thats were your wrong, I'm not promoting any religion! All those comments are out of love for truth, sometimes truth is ugly & it hurts. Sorry. You are all hypocritical liars. I've never slaughtered someone for not believing what I believe. Nothing I said was violent, it's true, Jesus is a fag.
That's not the right way, but neither is yours. Why don't we both stop attacking & really try to move towards understanding, is that not what your god would want?
After I prove God exists we will then debate if Jesus is a copycat of other Gods and if there is evidence for a conspiracy of people who wrote the earliest manuscripts and started the early Christian movement recorded in acts.
Really, will we? Then will we debate if it rains skittles on Jupiter? Because both of us really have the same amount of evidence for either, unless you build I build a spaceship & a time machine. You can't completly refute it didn't happen, nor can't I completly prove it did. Conflicting evidence can be brought in, but how can we ever trust the sources of that info? The point is I don't care if I'm wrong, I welcome it. You don't.
Well wade you wouldn't even watch my whole film before getting angry. That means you DO care where the information leads and something deep within you is controling you. But there is a way where you do not have to hide, you don't have to be ashamed, you don't have to be lost. That way is Jesus Christ. I don't wish to fight with you wade.
Here is the thing. Something objective within me convincts my soul and I am lead to research and publish material. Examine it, is all I ask. Open your heart.
Well the first time I got angry is because you lied! It started out wiht half-truths, how is anyone to take that seriously. There is nothing in the film that I didn't know, especially something that would "lead me to what is controlling me". Aren't you the one's who say god works thru them? Isn't that what's controlling you? Doesn't that negate the "free will" your supposed god gave you?
And secondly God works though those who are called and chosen. This does not negate freewill because we can ignore what God convincts us to do. Or we can choose to do God's will.
If I remenber it was Jiddu Krishnamurti being the Theosophic christ, he left the society before he traveled, they even said the experiment went wrong. Okay so if this is what god wanted us to do, why has he not built it into his perfect plan already? Second, if freewill were free it would be free of outside influence, including gods. That would mean the enviroment doesn't affect our decision making at all. Is that what your saying?
Jiddu Krishnamurti was the proclaimed christ of theosophy for a while but he left. You are correct.
HOWEVER, Jones didn't lie. He was the Illumati christ and still spread his principles which were theosophical by nature. He was brought up with that. The fact zeitgeist had him in there is very significant taken together with all of the other proofs provided. He was the illuminati Christ. So Jones didn't lie.
The plan is recorded and is happening. We have a choice as individuals. Thats all.
WRONG. They said himself they didn't like his message. They preparede everyone to accept what the new christ says, but they didn't, because his message is in DIRECT conflict to want they wanted to do. He didn't want orginazations & societys, you know nothing of his teachings & especially A.J. The plan is recorded in the bible. We do have a choice.
The teaching is to persuade people to the result. But the teachings are the core. His teachings are theirs. He didnt want it to be forced on people and thats why zeitgeist used him. Because although he taught what they did, he distanced himself from the the people at the top. (like zeitgeist) He said" I have never denied it [being the World Teacher] I have only said it does not matter who or what I am but that they should examine what I say which does not mean that I have denied being the W.T"
I know he said that, you know, your something else. His teachings ARE NOT theirs! Give me one correlation between the idea of the theosophic society's beliefs in becoming gods & all that freemason nonsense & what J.K> taught. Now we're talking something I KNOW you have no fucking knowledge about, your ignorance spews forth in every statement.
Your ad hominems will not get you far in the light of truth. Theosophy teaches thousands of things. Anywhere from esoteric theology of the bible and what that means to any religion you can think of. lucfirs origin, expanding conciousness, contacting ascended masters, to enlightenment of the inner self etc etc.. The fact that he still considered himself the world teacher shows that he believed thoesophical values.They invented that position for the new age. He spoke against religion same as them
You show you have no idea what the fuck your talking about. At least I've read the binle somewhat, you are talking from as position of complete ignorance. He didn't consider himself the world teacher! They did! HE just said it doesn't matter, because it doesnt'.
You're outageous. I just quoted him saying he still does. He was brainwashed with their shit for many years. It was ingrained into his head. Like a robot he later went around talking to masses after being fed up about a one world government.
Youv'e never read the bible. You reffered me to the "non-king james version" which is non-existant.
It's non-existant, huh? There was no bible before king james? He didn't say he does, you playinmg his words to fit your agenda, just like a goo christian. You still haven't given me any correlation between his teaching & theosophy. If anything his ideas mostly resemble buddhism. I have read the bible, just not all of it. You have read ANY of J.K. so you don't know what your saying. How bout this, I'll go read new testament, you go read his speech "Truth is a Pathless Land"
If anyone is dispaying robotic tendancies, that be you. That's the problem with belief, I can learn about Jesus & J.K., read the bible, mason books, theosphic book, whatever, because my belief system is not questioned. So in theory, I can learn more of the mystery schools than you ever could, because I don't close off info that opposes my view. You guys are not trying to getr to truth, you want to bend it to your liking so you feel comfortable. I need no such security.
You just said "non-king james" which can reffer to any of the modern translations. If you were reffering to pre-king james versions you have the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate.
Yes, read the bible in it's context and seek the commentaries for any questions. As for that imperfect human "J.K", I already noted similarities. He was their Christ. He spoke against religion, he spoke of inner conciousness, looking at the world as your body and mind, and he thought of himself as a world teacher
Inner conciousness? You are spouting crap from a wiki page, don't act. Yep, he spoke out against religion, institutions, oranizations, GOVERMENTS. IF he was for world goverment, why did he always say we don't need government? You still talking from a position of ignorance, I've already said I'm open to learn everything, you still NOT!
The fact is zeitgeist had the illuminati Christ/theosophist speaking as an authority in their film. You admit he spoke against religion same as theosophists and lucis trust. Theres a similarity.You deny he spoke of inner conciosuness but thats what looking at yoru body and mind as the world is...
So the fact remains. Zeitgeist plugged a former Illuminati Christ/theosophist in their film who spread theosophical values and proclaimed himself as the world teacher. Zeitgeist did that for a reason
You can spout lies all you want, doesn't change things. He spoke out against EVERYTHING! He spoke out against the lucis trust! He said C.W. Ledbetter was evil! Your taking looking at your mody & mind as the world as something from your twisted world view that springs from christianity. NO FACT REMAINS! IF anything, zeitgeist put him in there because he stood up against the powers that be, he disavowed tradition. You can lie all you want, doesn't change what he taught. READ HIS BOOKS!
That doesn't change the fact that he was a new ager with theosophical principles. Te fact that you defend this piece of shit wade..
zeitgeist was caught red handed and the only reason they used his clip and not another theosophist is so that they could still spread their principles but when caught say, HE LEFT THEOSOPHY WE AREN'T CONNECTED TO THEOSOPHY. Not going to work. People are smarter than that.
Oh, & you knew that King James was a pedophile right? Also the guy that helped him the most with translation was a rosicrucian? So if you do follow the K.J. version, your following a pedophillic freemason.
Can you give me evidence for the two claims you made because my friend just did a series refuting the lies about King James that were invented by the elite to fool people like you.
So provide evidence for the 3 claims:
-pedofile
-translater=rosicrucian
-freemason (show freemasonry was corrupt in the 16th century)
Oh sure, I have kid's testimonial that they were molested, also a manson list of the 16th century. Freemasonry has been using symbols that originate from the beginning of man, babylonian symbols. They have been acting in secret for years, yet you say it's not been corrutped before Adam Weishup? Good works do not need to be hidden in the dark. Tell me the vid's name, I'll watch. I don't get how you can understand the monarchy's evil & yet still hold K.J. in high regard.
Give me the link t the testimony and the list and show that they are corrupt. Noting adopted symbols is not evidence of corruption or origin. That is evidence of adoption of symbols.
Your position consists of conjecture. I don't deal with that type of evidence. Let'se see the meat and potatoes.
You made the claim, lets hear it. If I found evidence that the Illuminati pre-dated 1776 I would speak about it. But there is none. You still didn;t provide evidence for your claims about K.J.
I said they were corrupt, didn't say they called themselves illuminati. Conjecture, isn't that what all this conspiracy starts from anyways? You change your stance to fit your views still. You love the monarchy so much, why do you care about one world religion & goverment, that's what you want, 1 world under a monarch, 1 world under Jesus. You are a hypocrite.
Right, just like he tells people to slaughter non-believers. I agree with al ot his supposed messages, but it's that aspect that direct opposes ALL his teachings. No god who truly loves you would punish you for using the intellect he supposedly gave you, even if that intellect led you to disbelieve his existence. No god who created all humans would then separate them into Christian, Jew, Muslim & make them fight over THE SAME THING.
People were attacked because of their insane wickedness, idolatry, and atrocity. That is why God commanded certain places to be attacked. That was his riteouse judgement. But because he loved us even though we kept going against the truth and acting horrible he "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross. Philippians 2:7-8
Why would he attack them for doing things he already has been allowing since before his supposed apperance to man? Why would he give the capabilties, then punish for using them? If he wanted things a certain way ,why didn't he just make it that way, he's all powerful right? If he loved us, why did he allow eve to be decieved, why did he lie about eating the fruit? Eve did not die. Why did he refer to "our" image when making man? Why would a deity refer to himself in the plural?
He allows people to choose because of free will. God doesn't wan't little robots. But despite the fact that we are capable of choosing wrong he willingly suffered for us the worst death so that if we then accept his obviouse existence that has survived through all these years in the bible, we can have fellowship with him. That is love.
As for him supposedly lying about the death. Before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death on the earth. But since they sinned they could die. They did die.
Okay, he allows people to chose. That's why he "hardened" pharoah"s heart many times to not let the hebrews go. If god works thru anyone at anytime, how is that free will? Why did he even create wrong, if all things comew from him wrong would too. Why would he build a system set up for failure if he so perfect? & I didn't say they didn't die, I said she didn't die when she ate the fruit, like god said. He lied. You still didn't say anything about the way he refers to himself in the plural.
He hardened Pharoah's heart after he had 10 years to change and didn't. Pharoa chose his had to sleep in the bed he made. He created everything right but with a free will. His creation then chose to be imperfect themselves. In order to show the greatest act of love in Jesus Christs' crcufixion. God never said as soon as they eat they will die. But if they eat they will die. Future tense. and before they ate there was no death in the world. When they ate they brought death and sin into the world.
Still no response of him refering to himself in the plural. Im waiting....1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Who is "our"? Why would a being that punishes worship of many gods refer to himself as MANY GODS?!?!?
Uh uh, your not being fair, give me an answer. You don't have one, you need to go think? You said you don't worship semeramis, yet you believe in the trinity, which is directy derived from the Nimrod/Tammuz/Semeramis idea.
"The Hindus, Greeks, and Romans had a threegod triad, but those did not come close to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The members of their divine triads were not coequal and coeternal. Neither did they share the same nature and essence. They also did not have a perfect unity among them. These religions may be called tritheistic...but not Trinitarian. They did not have one God of three persons."
-Williams, Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International, p. 78
All of this is semantics man, you call it something similar but different, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a friggin duck. You can quote some christian biased researcher all you want, the similarities are still there for anyone to see. Perfect unity? How do you know this or that guy, can you read cuneiform? Did you have to go read up to argue against me? You got nothing man.
You see, even if I'm right, I'm not trying to debunk you, I'm not attacking, I want peace, I want the barriers to be broken down so we can unite against our real enemy. Your not doing any of that, you WANT chaos, so your version of order can come out of it, so your no better than freemansons, illuminati, whatever you want to call them.
Wow, Im almost out the door and I come back to see if you respected my wishes of not loading the page with assertions until i return so I can reponde fairly. So I come back now and see you can't even do that. You have to throw 3 more paragraphs of assertions at me.
This shows you are scared to go one topic at a time. I will respond to all of your trash just wait.
I've unblocked you as well, send me vids on your position, send me info. You can directly message me anytime. No one is afraid, no one is your enemy here man. Put down those walls.
"There is no reason to seek for sources or types of doctrine of the Trinity outside of Christianity or of the Bible, though in the eighteenth century efforts were made to derive the Christian dogma from Babylonian triad. There could be no serious question of borrowing. The development, of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is historically clear, and its motives are equally well known, being almost exclusively due to Christology." New SchaffHerzog Encyclopedia Trinity, Doctrine of the p18
Of course there's no reason to seek if you don't want to believe it! This proves NOTHING. You still have not explained why a god who hates pagans & punishes people for believing in many gods refer to himself as "our","us", or anything plural, especially that early, before any talk of a son or holy spirit. Your avoiding the real question.
I posted a trinity debate on my channel recently. It does speak of he son being devine in messianic prophecy in the old testament. Isaiah 9:6 calls the son "Mighty God" Hebrew "el gibbor"
The very same title that Isaiah calls the father in chapter 10. This is old testament.
Also the spirit is in the old testament. Isaiah 63:10 the spirit has emotions. The prophet David in 2 Samuel 23:2-3 says the spirit spoke to him. He then says Yahway spoke to him, identifying the spirit as God.
That is still later than Genesis 1:29. Your ducking the question. All that could have been said after fact. The one of the earliest references of him talking about himself, & he say "our". You don't have an answer, you just refer me to more scriptures & discussion. I think your the one who's been debunked.
Well you don't believe in prophets of this God so according to you even if it was just 1 year later that wouldn't clear up Genesis. Isaiah learned from Moses. All the prophets did. That is where Torah comes from. Isaiah was a true prophet also. I have you the answer. Our is plural. That fit's with the trinity. Tell me what in the bible makes the prural mean multiple God's and not the triunity of God. I will then post many olf testament verses saying there is only one God refuting you.
It doesn't matter how many you post, if it says it that early, it negates the rest. It says our, that's plural. Do you need to study english? I can read something & say it's true later, so no, I don't believe any "propohets". They said our image, that's plural. I don't know how else to explain it, you can deny the english language too, doesn't make it true.
I asked you since it is plural and we believe that is consistant with the trinity, can you show that it is not and that David and the NT were wrong? Can you show that it reffered to a multiplicity of different God's? I would love to see you name them.
Go ahead. Then I will refute you. That was my point. I'm still waiting.
You BELIEVE, how do you know? The mere use of a plural form signifies multiplicity! Why would he be talking in that manner? Anyone can say after the fact it was in line with what you believe now, still doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't refer to himself in a plural sense that early in creation. Your not refuting anything, I don't have to name scholars that want to spout their biased opinion, one true god who tells you he's the ONLY god would not say "our".
"one true god who tells you he's the ONLY god would not say "our"."
That is subjective opinion and collides with the ancient documents themselves! The same line of prophets said the holy spirit and messiah (Jesus) were divine but that there is only one God. Then Jesus said "I and the Father are ONE"
So the prophets, new testament, the early church and billions of Christians all believe it is a Trinity and the plural signifies that. But YOU say it has to mean multiple God's.
Jesus says whatever, the "father" himself says "our image"! Why would he say our & go thru the trouble of asserting he's the only one. No one says there are gods that have names, that he was refering to specific named gods, the fact that he is not he to him, it us, our, we. It's not subjective, why would he say our, that's what I asked. Why would HE say that, not me or anyone else, HE said it.
Why? Because he was reffering to himself. He consists of a triune being. That is unlimited in power and revieled himself to us in 3 persons to help us. The father, the son, and the holy spirit. That is why he said "our" or "we" that is also why his name elohim is plural. He is a triune God. That is what the earliest Christians figured out from everything together. That has been the belief for thousands of years. God made us in his image yes. We are body spirit and mind. Three yet one.
Well, you've proven nothing. Elohim? Now your going to go the way of the mormon? Hopefully I've open your mind a little to the great science fiction story that is christianity, but some people just like to believe in fairy tales. Your's is no different than scientology trying to get rid of thetins. Live in the real world, man, not fairy tale land. No story is going to prepare you to handle life's challenges. Think about it.
Yahweh is NOT plural. Elohim and the references to "we" or "us" is a clear case of a royal speaking to his subjects. You never heard of the royal we? In other words, yahweh is the ONLY elohim. You christians have been trying so hard to be the smartest persons in the room, common sense is a foriegn concept to you. Why do you have such problems with the simplest of concepts Keith?
lol...too funny you are rebuking him for an error and at the same time making an additional error by ascribing plural of majesty which wasn't even in existence as a literary form until 4 century AD. No where in the OT or NT does scripture utilize plural of majesty as a literary device.
@KeithTruth This wasn't just a Christian view though. Long before Christ came, David and other Old Testament figures recognized this (as Jesus quoted, "the LORD said to my Lord" was David's recognition of multiple "sides" to God). There are other passages as well that show the doctrine of the Trinity even in the Old Testament.
I've heard of all that, still later than genesis, waiting for response....doesn't it say that amen is the name of our lord before he calls himself yahweh, i.e. Amon-Ra, the egyptian sun god? Still haven't answer my original question...
Maybe he wasn't but there is evidence he was since his group for many many years did. Also the fact that he connected with them again after they split says a lot.
I don't want chaos You defend the enemy you support people who want a one world goevrnment and abolishement of Christians. Go read Baileys and Blavatsky's books like I have. Listen to Lucis trust today on their radio show. Read Hubbards, Springmeiers, Spanglers and Randal N Baers work. Open your eyes.
Also zeitgeist IS for organization and order in the utopia lead by the freemasons so even if J.K. wasn't, ZEITEIST IS. I proved that exstensively in the film which I hope someday you will watch.
What you call prophecy is call a recorded plan that is being carried out deliberatly. Any prophecy could be said to happen BECAUSE of the prophecy, it fufills itself.
I thought about that before too. Think about this though. What if these later elite who don't believe in the real Jesus are doing things just to fulfill prophecy and have their way..but in all actuality they are really fulfulling the prophecy and the joke is on them?
What if they are unknowingly fulfilling it thinking they are in control? That is what is going on indeed. These imperfect decieved men who are possesed by demons as Randall N Bare notes, are kicking themselves in the shin.
That's all conjecture, exactly what you said you don't condone. More shaping your views to fit the situtaion. Either you can use conjecture in a arguement or not.
There is a difference between conjecture and a hypothesis when I propose a theory. What I proposed is my world view with respect to prophecy. The reason I chose that is because there is no evidence for your position that Illuminati pre-dates 1776 and engineered the prophecies just to fulfill them when they are all dead thousands of years later and rule the world.
The prophecies are coming true about one world government and false prophet and there is no evidence they made them.
That's all I'm really doing is proposing a theory as well, no? Now I remenber my orignal quarrel with you, I refuted you comment about J.K. & you commented on my vid saying "horrible". How is that not anything but personal attack? My very first comment was nothing derrogatory, you started with the pettiness, yet I continually try to come to understanding & peace despite your hate. Who is more in line with the teachings of jesus here?
You were saying Jesus was Illuminati as if it were fact and I then refuted your position about J.K. Jones didn't lie when he said he was the Illuminati christ. He was. After he left theosophy he still considred himself a world teacher even though that position was invented by theosophists. He also promotes his dislike of religion and he teaches inner conciousness part of the new age agenda to open your self up to aquarius.
So other then 2 seconds of the intro, anything else you disagree with?
Ahhh like I said, you can lie about his position all you want, you have read one single book, one talk by him, your beliefs won't let you be open. It was NOT "invented" by the theosophists! You can say it over & over Keith, until you read what the man says, your just spout ideas from a position of ignorance. He never spoke of aquarius, inner conciousness, none of that. It's like if I said Jesus taught that the world was flat, you know it's not true, but I can say it all I want right?
You claimed that he never spoke of the inner conciousness and light that theosophy believes is of lucifer the angelic entity. Well he wrote: "This Light in Oneself" and "Truth and Actuality: Conversations on Science and Consciousness"
And according to Jiddu Krishnamurti's biography on age of the sage he "He retained some connection with the theosophical movement, however, and continued an active career of lecturing and writing."
That refute's nothing, show me one line, one sentence, where he refers to lucifer. Give me one line where he refers to an inner conciuness apart from the regular. Give me one line out of a masonic book that directlty fits his views. I don't think you have the capacity to grasp what he spoke of, like most people didn't. If he was meant to change the world for the good of the elite, he did a horrible job.
Where do you think his ideas orginated from? Read Blavatsky's work about Christ hood what lucifer is and how to attain conciousness. then notice when J.K. speaks of "light" that is the light of lucifer. Decievers like him won't call it satan but thats what he groups believes. The same group who he retained onnection with after. Inner conciousness is conciosuness. It is in your mind. a few lectures form some lost theosophist can shape your mind
That's not a sentence where he refers to light in the same way, let alone one where he says lucifer. I've read some blavansky, & a friend of mine has read all of Isis Unvieled, & everything he's shown me has nothing to do with J.K.'s talks. You don't know what your talking about. They disagreed with everything he stood for. His ideas were directly opposing theirs, & you can say whatever you want Keith, unless you've READ his books, your just making shit up, twisting facts to fit your arguement.
I have shown from his biography that he RETAINED connection afer he left. He learned what the light and conciousness was from THEM.Theosophy invented that philosophy.They founded the new age.They are UN/NWO now.I mean it's pretty straight forward. The light is the light of satan.If you still want to accept that guys weird teachings go aheadBut he was the Illuminati theosophical christ and he retained connection with them even after he split.He just didn't agree with the orders end game
So because people use the same words, it means the same thing? So Jesus talking about the light could be satan as well by that way of thinking. It's not straight foward when THEY, not him, denied his teaching, THEY said he wasn't what they wanted, not me or him or anyone else. He didn't agree with the game PERIOD! I don't accept anyone's teachings, that's what he taught! Your still making assumtions & presuppositions.
I refuted the supposed non-connection. If you don't like my answers then thats ok. No one is forcing you to believe the truth. You can shut your eyes all you want.
Is there anything else other than 2 seconds of the intro? Any other objections to my film? I hopes so because I didn't even really talk about J.K.
No one said there was a non-connection to refute. You won't listen to anything I say, you know already, who's shutting their eyes to the truth? I told you my problem, I told you my objection, you've yet to respond to that either.
OKAY now were getting somewhere. THE MAIN thing I disagree wiht ALL you "real christians" in this truth movement is YOU GUYS are the only ones trying to separate it. We should all be united in the cause of freedom & truth, but because someone doesn't believe what you do, you are ready to cast them aside & regard them as the enemy, when they could be your greatest ally. You insist their is only one way despite their being many ways for freedom & truth, you close off all info that conflicts.
Nope, they have declaired war ohn us and I noted that in my film. They made us their enemy and we defend the bible and attack the new age lies. We are in the minority as true believers. We will probably be killed like Bill Cooper and John Todd or jailed like Springmeier. We wan't peace but they hate us and our lord so we have to defend Christ before his return. We have to expose the satanic nwo and to let people know that if they support the zeitgeist movement they are working against us.
Dude, NO one has declared war but you guys, I don't know how you can't see that. Questioning a belief is not a personal attack, that's where all theists are WORNG. You have made everyone your enemy, not the other way around. Everyone thinks their can be a peaceful resolution but YOU GUYS. No one "hates" your lord man, if you'd follow his teachings & live by his code, there would be no problems. BUT you all hypocrites who bend god's word to fit THEIR needs. You use it to divide & start wars.
I documented their words of them declaring war on in the film and at the end in the last video called "expanding on the new age infiltration" but listen I have to go to school and get my Bth.
Take care. We will continue this discussion later.
Sir Francis Bacon, helped K.J. and was a known rosicrucian. Aren't all those groups helped spread catholosicm, exactly what you say is the devil, right?
King James was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
He had enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself. No evidence for that assertion.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted.
It was the catholics who made up the lies about him.
That's what I'm talking about, mixing truths with lies to put your agenda across, you no better than fox news. You can even see on his wiki page that everything you said is a lie, let alone if you read ONE (I've read many, way before I knew anything of the NWO) of his books. For someone spouting sources & research, you sure don't use either.
What did you refute? He didn't deny it, he didn't confirm it! If you'd listen to one, just one of his talks, you'd see your so off base it's ridiclous. With the logic you present, the same could be said for Jesus, why should I listen or learn of him?
You have no idea what I am trying to explain to you. In one ear and out the other. The bible truly is right when it says unbelievers have scales over their eyes.
Your evil spirit that rises in you is evidence that a utopia would not work under people like you, other imperfect people/ theosophist.
Which one? The announcer? He was just a dork. Buckley? He always looked and acted catatonic. As you watch the rest of this series, it's clear the audience is made up of the kind of conservative stooges that frequented his talk show.
wade36 you are just a joke. You haven't offered anything and that is why I gave up on you.
Really what have you even argued with evidence? You made pathetic claims and assertions that do not warrent even a response. Honestly you are making yourself look stupid.
I don't waste my time on kids. I have to tend to my ministry, blog and emails of people who are asking about Christianity. I bring a lot of people to Christ and lead them away from your false beliefs.
"I have to tend to my ministry of leading people to slaughter by the NWO" I'm asking about Christianity! Here you go, save me. Here's your chance, preach to me, If your so forgiving, give me the run down.
Oh you gave up on me? Very "Christ-like" of you. All you religious nuts are hypocritic liars, so full of shit they've gotten used to the smell. Fuck the details, let's debate god, without all that Jesus & tammuz are irrelavant. You don't want to do that because it would negate all the petty details, and that's what people like you thrive on, you can't see the big picture. Your the one to feel sorry for man.
Let's debate God then. Come to my blog tommorow and I will make a blog for us to debate in the comments. I will email you tommorow when I am ready to begin. Cool?
Get ready to be smoked on "Does God exist"
We won't be arguing for Christianity or Jesus just for a God. A designer. Get ready.
In non- King James version of the bible, god told Moses to see him, but anyone else who went would be killed with arrows & stones. Also the "god" asks for silver, goat skins, ect., what omnipotent being wants that stuff? Designer always falls back on if there is one, something had it design it, right? You are the one's who assume everything came from nothing, not atheist. We just say we don't know, & neither do YOU!
Why can't you talk to me now, you need to "study"?
Secondly, it's 10:21 here and I will be going to sleep pretty soon. I don't need to study, I have been defending theism for a long time and I know the arguments.
So tommorow we will let the world know what the atheist response is to my arguments. We will both write our opening statements. Then we will have 45 minutes to responde to each opening statement. Then we will have one more rebuttal each and then give the opening statements. Does God exist.
What is this you make the rules? I have a time limit? Just like religion, trying to organize the truth. Just message me & I'll message you back, I'm not going to play some gay little game with you, talk to me like a human being, I know your not used to doing that.
This only lets us type 500 characters so I can't expand on my arguments properly. No time limits but one post at a time. Not overly long. Let's say 10,000 characters for the opening arguments. Then 5000 for the rebuttals. Then 5000 for the second rebuttals then 5000 for the closings.
Cool? Good. Hope to see you tommorow so I can prove God exists and defeat you.
That's the whole point man, I have been going about it the wrong way, making incendiary comments, but I just use them for shock value from time to time, especially on hard-headed people like you. You are looking for victory & to be the winner, not further understanding & bring harmony. You don't want to advance the knowledge of the nature of god, you just want to argue what you think is true already. But I will still participate.
Yahweh is a fag, Odin could kick his ass. Jesus is a pussy, Thor would whoop his ass. If ya gotta believe in a derivative of the babylonian Nimrod/Tammuz/Queen Semeramis( God/Jesus/Holy Spirit,Amon-Ra/Horus/Isis) then I'm going for the norse gods, because they are just as liable to exist as your god of the bible. Praise Odin!
I already know what you'll say, Dec. 25, ham, blah blah, the "Real Jesus" has nothing to do with those things, it's catholocism. The main idea, the only idea, is the idea of a savior dying for you, that's what they believed, that's what you believe. It's your need of a savior, your lack of psychological fortitute to think for yourself, your willingness to sumbit your "free will" to a god with a plan(how is that free will?) that's the problem,
How am I decieved, I don't believe in anything! Prove me wrong, I love it! Show me proof he wan't the illuminati king! Oh, the burden of proof is on me right, just like your saying there is a god. You have to prove there is a god, I don't have to disprove it. The difference, if I'm wrong, great, then I learned something, where as if your wrong, your poor little world view will come tumbling down, & you won't know how to face the world cuz you've been facing it with FAIRY TALES.
If we created God because we had a need for significance and purpose, where did that need come from, IF we came randomly, with no purpose, no design, no reason, no meaning, etc. Atheists make no sense.
"On the side of the devil, is Peter Atkins"
It seems as if William has written himself off after a matter of minutes...
ubernaffa 2 months ago
Is the recent debate with these too up yet?
CheekyVimto08 3 months ago
0/11 how ironic, William Lane Craig say's Atkins thinks the universe was created from nothing.. clearly Atkins merely wanted listener's to eat 0/11 carbs
ratergater 3 months ago
Peter Atkins is one of the great thinkers in modern times.
scar504 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Sweet Eloquent Evangelists, Ravi Zacherias is in the house!!! (Watch starting at 1:44)
theantihero420 6 months ago
-Does God Exist?
-I don't know, and you don't know either.
KevinVonKluger 9 months ago
"on the side of the devil"
lol i love you buckley
bellmotherwell 1 year ago
Yes
777AreY0uSure 1 year ago
Please u have translate this for portuguese if possible, i want see this so much
afumkk 1 year ago 2
@afumkk
Hi afumkk,
I'll look into the possibility of getting this debate translated into Portuguese. Give a few days to contact some of the people who can make this happen. Once I hear something, I'll send you a message.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4
Oh man.,...thank you so much
afumkk 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 stil not trtanslated into portuguese. so guess what? fuck you.
Bregowald 3 months ago
"He is an eloquent and learned advocate." Wasn't Buckley ever proven wrong. Sheesh.
jahchild1904 1 year ago
Craig looks kind, and Atkins looks mean. Your whole life really seems to reflect upon your face. Mark Twain was apparently a man of despair, and he appears to have hated G-d all his life.
...But haven't you noticed that Hollywood films try to make the Christians look mean and the atheists look kind?
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
Ravi is in the croud! w00t!
RefinersFire298 2 years ago 13
Comment removed
kevinvalsonjacob 5 months ago
@kevinvalsonjacob at 1:43 at the right
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
@RefinersFire298 at what time in the video ?
Badunkawank13 4 months ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins
@Badunkawank13 1:43
RefinersFire298 4 months ago
what`s the name of the moderator? i didnt catch his name, can somebody tell me?
gouki333 2 years ago
William F. Buckley
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"On the side of the devil..." LOL;
coolandcalculated 2 years ago 16
I love Buckley, may he rest in peace
Dhalsim06 2 years ago 3
Thanks for the upload my friend^^
HumanStrategy 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
Thanks for this, I love Peter Atkins!
Anab10sis 2 years ago
Why did WLC look middle eastern back in the 90's? I've always wondered that. Maybe he didn't look middle eastern but he looked completely different.
Vanmeter815 3 years ago
Domain of Man
wade36 3 years ago
those debates are always way to short
Deliratio 3 years ago
I just watched the Avalos Craig debate 30 minutes ago and to tell you the truth the only point Hector even made that was correct was about the aramaic possibly.
Other than that Craig refuted most everything Avalos offfered and Avalos, instead of refuting Craigs actual arguments proceeded to attack Craig on other subject matter which if it were anyone else they would have had trouble. But I think Craig did very well.
KeithTruth 3 years ago 8
Yeah, that's why you erased my comment refuting his gay arguments, making it look like I could come back with nothing, lying just like a good christian does.
wade36 3 years ago
you are a good example of what atheism produces.
Poor kid.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
What's that, intelligence, free thinking, openess? You are a good example of what religion produces, hate, fear, close-mindedness, ignorance, blindness, irrationality. RELIGION has caused the most destruction in this world, NOT atheism.
wade36 3 years ago
you're just a new age crackpot.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Insults, yes the intelligence flows freely. There you go with the new age crap again. No one is new age but you buddy, Jesus was a copy of Tammuz, which predates all your "debunkings". The real Jesus was cesarian, The Illuminati King. Your a NWO soldier.
wade36 3 years ago
Name five credentialed scholars who say, "The real Jesus was cesarian, The Illuminati King."
Next, bring up one topic at a time about tammuz so I can refute them. If you bring up more then one at a time that shows you are too scared to examine each single one of them.
Third, you are a decieved loser.
Thanks.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Okay, let me get this straight, your all about the mainstream media being liars, all news coming from the same source, yet to prove something which is said to be hidden by mainstream scholars you go to MAINSTREAM SCHOLARS. Huh? All say that he was killed, but you don't believe the M.S. about anything else, but your precious Jesus, you can believe them about him? There are many scholars tying biblical figures with egyptian royalty, but thanks to people like you it's not well recieved.
wade36 3 years ago
So in other words you can't even list five scholars who support your pathetic position.
I am done wasting my time with you. I don't have time for kids.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
What about the supposed 40 year gap between the death of "Jesus" & Mark? Why didn't anyone write about him? Where are the "scholars" that confirm Jesus's existence that are NOT part of the church related to the early spread of christianity.
wade36 3 years ago
i thought jesus was the king of the illuminati!
lol you crack me up.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Watch Ring of Power. Jesus is a fag NWO ruler. You follow his plan of 85% depopulation with your "revalation". You play right into his gay hands. Didn't he say denying the holy spirit is a unforgivable sin? Wouldn't that mean he worships Queen Semeramis a.k.a. Columbia, the same goddess of the freemasons & illuminati & all those fags?
wade36 3 years ago
You have never read the book of Revelation that was written by the apostle John which Justin Martyr acknowledges in the 2nd century and also polycarp in the 1st century who was martyred for his belief in Christ. You can't prove the Illuminati pre-dates 1776. All you have is subjective conjectur.
Secondly, 810 to 805 B.C. is Semeramis's date. Death of King Saul 1011BC 1 Samuel 31:, 1 Ch 10:1-14. The holy spirit is on the Old Testament.
You have just been smokes with your false beliefs.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
HAHAHA Your going to use bible scriptures to answer things, then it's not a debate. THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK! Even the oldest version, Stone's Tanach/ Torah, says so on the first page. "Smoked"!
wade36 3 years ago
I brought up the verse that I records the event I was speaking of that pre-dates your false cult. Show me where it says it isn't a history book I have heard that claim being thrown around a few times. I would just like to see it and what the original language was conveying.
Secondly, I accept your challenge to debate God on my blog where we can make long opening statements. Rebuttals, and conclusions. We will set up the format tommorow.
God Bless.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Moreover you keep refering to "my cult" blah blah, you contradict Jesus's teaching with every post! Why would anyone want to follw someone when the end result is hate & fear, aren't we supposed to be promoting love? That's my problem with all religions, & if I belong to a cult, then it's the cult of love for your fellow man & the earth that gives us life. I don't need a sky daddy to tell me to do that! I dont need that to know there is more than what we see!
wade36 3 years ago
'wade36 promoting his religion of "love".
"Jesus is a fag NWO ruler...All you religious nuts are hypocritic liars, so full of shit they've gotten used to the smell. Fuck the... Your the one to feel sorry for man..."
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Thats were your wrong, I'm not promoting any religion! All those comments are out of love for truth, sometimes truth is ugly & it hurts. Sorry. You are all hypocritical liars. I've never slaughtered someone for not believing what I believe. Nothing I said was violent, it's true, Jesus is a fag.
wade36 3 years ago
That's not the right way, but neither is yours. Why don't we both stop attacking & really try to move towards understanding, is that not what your god would want?
wade36 3 years ago
After I prove God exists we will then debate if Jesus is a copycat of other Gods and if there is evidence for a conspiracy of people who wrote the earliest manuscripts and started the early Christian movement recorded in acts.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Really, will we? Then will we debate if it rains skittles on Jupiter? Because both of us really have the same amount of evidence for either, unless you build I build a spaceship & a time machine. You can't completly refute it didn't happen, nor can't I completly prove it did. Conflicting evidence can be brought in, but how can we ever trust the sources of that info? The point is I don't care if I'm wrong, I welcome it. You don't.
wade36 3 years ago
Well wade you wouldn't even watch my whole film before getting angry. That means you DO care where the information leads and something deep within you is controling you. But there is a way where you do not have to hide, you don't have to be ashamed, you don't have to be lost. That way is Jesus Christ. I don't wish to fight with you wade.
Here is the thing. Something objective within me convincts my soul and I am lead to research and publish material. Examine it, is all I ask. Open your heart.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Well the first time I got angry is because you lied! It started out wiht half-truths, how is anyone to take that seriously. There is nothing in the film that I didn't know, especially something that would "lead me to what is controlling me". Aren't you the one's who say god works thru them? Isn't that what's controlling you? Doesn't that negate the "free will" your supposed god gave you?
wade36 3 years ago
what did I lie about, is the first question.
And secondly God works though those who are called and chosen. This does not negate freewill because we can ignore what God convincts us to do. Or we can choose to do God's will.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
If I remenber it was Jiddu Krishnamurti being the Theosophic christ, he left the society before he traveled, they even said the experiment went wrong. Okay so if this is what god wanted us to do, why has he not built it into his perfect plan already? Second, if freewill were free it would be free of outside influence, including gods. That would mean the enviroment doesn't affect our decision making at all. Is that what your saying?
wade36 3 years ago
Jiddu Krishnamurti was the proclaimed christ of theosophy for a while but he left. You are correct.
HOWEVER, Jones didn't lie. He was the Illumati christ and still spread his principles which were theosophical by nature. He was brought up with that. The fact zeitgeist had him in there is very significant taken together with all of the other proofs provided. He was the illuminati Christ. So Jones didn't lie.
The plan is recorded and is happening. We have a choice as individuals. Thats all.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
WRONG. They said himself they didn't like his message. They preparede everyone to accept what the new christ says, but they didn't, because his message is in DIRECT conflict to want they wanted to do. He didn't want orginazations & societys, you know nothing of his teachings & especially A.J. The plan is recorded in the bible. We do have a choice.
wade36 3 years ago
The teaching is to persuade people to the result. But the teachings are the core. His teachings are theirs. He didnt want it to be forced on people and thats why zeitgeist used him. Because although he taught what they did, he distanced himself from the the people at the top. (like zeitgeist) He said" I have never denied it [being the World Teacher] I have only said it does not matter who or what I am but that they should examine what I say which does not mean that I have denied being the W.T"
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I know he said that, you know, your something else. His teachings ARE NOT theirs! Give me one correlation between the idea of the theosophic society's beliefs in becoming gods & all that freemason nonsense & what J.K> taught. Now we're talking something I KNOW you have no fucking knowledge about, your ignorance spews forth in every statement.
wade36 3 years ago
Your ad hominems will not get you far in the light of truth. Theosophy teaches thousands of things. Anywhere from esoteric theology of the bible and what that means to any religion you can think of. lucfirs origin, expanding conciousness, contacting ascended masters, to enlightenment of the inner self etc etc.. The fact that he still considered himself the world teacher shows that he believed thoesophical values.They invented that position for the new age. He spoke against religion same as them
KeithTruth 3 years ago
You show you have no idea what the fuck your talking about. At least I've read the binle somewhat, you are talking from as position of complete ignorance. He didn't consider himself the world teacher! They did! HE just said it doesn't matter, because it doesnt'.
wade36 3 years ago
You're outageous. I just quoted him saying he still does. He was brainwashed with their shit for many years. It was ingrained into his head. Like a robot he later went around talking to masses after being fed up about a one world government.
Youv'e never read the bible. You reffered me to the "non-king james version" which is non-existant.
You asserted many things which have been refuted.
God Bless.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
It's non-existant, huh? There was no bible before king james? He didn't say he does, you playinmg his words to fit your agenda, just like a goo christian. You still haven't given me any correlation between his teaching & theosophy. If anything his ideas mostly resemble buddhism. I have read the bible, just not all of it. You have read ANY of J.K. so you don't know what your saying. How bout this, I'll go read new testament, you go read his speech "Truth is a Pathless Land"
wade36 3 years ago
If anyone is dispaying robotic tendancies, that be you. That's the problem with belief, I can learn about Jesus & J.K., read the bible, mason books, theosphic book, whatever, because my belief system is not questioned. So in theory, I can learn more of the mystery schools than you ever could, because I don't close off info that opposes my view. You guys are not trying to getr to truth, you want to bend it to your liking so you feel comfortable. I need no such security.
wade36 3 years ago
You just said "non-king james" which can reffer to any of the modern translations. If you were reffering to pre-king james versions you have the Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate.
Yes, read the bible in it's context and seek the commentaries for any questions. As for that imperfect human "J.K", I already noted similarities. He was their Christ. He spoke against religion, he spoke of inner conciousness, looking at the world as your body and mind, and he thought of himself as a world teacher
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Inner conciousness? You are spouting crap from a wiki page, don't act. Yep, he spoke out against religion, institutions, oranizations, GOVERMENTS. IF he was for world goverment, why did he always say we don't need government? You still talking from a position of ignorance, I've already said I'm open to learn everything, you still NOT!
wade36 3 years ago
The fact is zeitgeist had the illuminati Christ/theosophist speaking as an authority in their film. You admit he spoke against religion same as theosophists and lucis trust. Theres a similarity.You deny he spoke of inner conciosuness but thats what looking at yoru body and mind as the world is...
So the fact remains. Zeitgeist plugged a former Illuminati Christ/theosophist in their film who spread theosophical values and proclaimed himself as the world teacher. Zeitgeist did that for a reason
KeithTruth 3 years ago
You can spout lies all you want, doesn't change things. He spoke out against EVERYTHING! He spoke out against the lucis trust! He said C.W. Ledbetter was evil! Your taking looking at your mody & mind as the world as something from your twisted world view that springs from christianity. NO FACT REMAINS! IF anything, zeitgeist put him in there because he stood up against the powers that be, he disavowed tradition. You can lie all you want, doesn't change what he taught. READ HIS BOOKS!
wade36 3 years ago
That doesn't change the fact that he was a new ager with theosophical principles. Te fact that you defend this piece of shit wade..
zeitgeist was caught red handed and the only reason they used his clip and not another theosophist is so that they could still spread their principles but when caught say, HE LEFT THEOSOPHY WE AREN'T CONNECTED TO THEOSOPHY. Not going to work. People are smarter than that.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Oh, & you knew that King James was a pedophile right? Also the guy that helped him the most with translation was a rosicrucian? So if you do follow the K.J. version, your following a pedophillic freemason.
wade36 3 years ago
Can you give me evidence for the two claims you made because my friend just did a series refuting the lies about King James that were invented by the elite to fool people like you.
So provide evidence for the 3 claims:
-pedofile
-translater=rosicrucian
-freemason (show freemasonry was corrupt in the 16th century)
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Oh sure, I have kid's testimonial that they were molested, also a manson list of the 16th century. Freemasonry has been using symbols that originate from the beginning of man, babylonian symbols. They have been acting in secret for years, yet you say it's not been corrutped before Adam Weishup? Good works do not need to be hidden in the dark. Tell me the vid's name, I'll watch. I don't get how you can understand the monarchy's evil & yet still hold K.J. in high regard.
wade36 3 years ago
Give me the link t the testimony and the list and show that they are corrupt. Noting adopted symbols is not evidence of corruption or origin. That is evidence of adoption of symbols.
Your position consists of conjecture. I don't deal with that type of evidence. Let'se see the meat and potatoes.
You made the claim, lets hear it. If I found evidence that the Illuminati pre-dated 1776 I would speak about it. But there is none. You still didn;t provide evidence for your claims about K.J.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I said they were corrupt, didn't say they called themselves illuminati. Conjecture, isn't that what all this conspiracy starts from anyways? You change your stance to fit your views still. You love the monarchy so much, why do you care about one world religion & goverment, that's what you want, 1 world under a monarch, 1 world under Jesus. You are a hypocrite.
wade36 3 years ago
the prophecies int he bible tell Christians to refuse any worldy system of world government.
Only when Christ returns from heaven in the clouds ands every knee bows will his kingdom be established.
"At that time, if anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!' or 'There he is!', don't believe it, Matthew 24:23
We will not be fooled brother. Come to Christ who contains the truth.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Right, just like he tells people to slaughter non-believers. I agree with al ot his supposed messages, but it's that aspect that direct opposes ALL his teachings. No god who truly loves you would punish you for using the intellect he supposedly gave you, even if that intellect led you to disbelieve his existence. No god who created all humans would then separate them into Christian, Jew, Muslim & make them fight over THE SAME THING.
wade36 3 years ago
People were attacked because of their insane wickedness, idolatry, and atrocity. That is why God commanded certain places to be attacked. That was his riteouse judgement. But because he loved us even though we kept going against the truth and acting horrible he "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross. Philippians 2:7-8
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Why would he attack them for doing things he already has been allowing since before his supposed apperance to man? Why would he give the capabilties, then punish for using them? If he wanted things a certain way ,why didn't he just make it that way, he's all powerful right? If he loved us, why did he allow eve to be decieved, why did he lie about eating the fruit? Eve did not die. Why did he refer to "our" image when making man? Why would a deity refer to himself in the plural?
wade36 3 years ago
He allows people to choose because of free will. God doesn't wan't little robots. But despite the fact that we are capable of choosing wrong he willingly suffered for us the worst death so that if we then accept his obviouse existence that has survived through all these years in the bible, we can have fellowship with him. That is love.
As for him supposedly lying about the death. Before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death on the earth. But since they sinned they could die. They did die.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Okay, he allows people to chose. That's why he "hardened" pharoah"s heart many times to not let the hebrews go. If god works thru anyone at anytime, how is that free will? Why did he even create wrong, if all things comew from him wrong would too. Why would he build a system set up for failure if he so perfect? & I didn't say they didn't die, I said she didn't die when she ate the fruit, like god said. He lied. You still didn't say anything about the way he refers to himself in the plural.
wade36 3 years ago
He hardened Pharoah's heart after he had 10 years to change and didn't. Pharoa chose his had to sleep in the bed he made. He created everything right but with a free will. His creation then chose to be imperfect themselves. In order to show the greatest act of love in Jesus Christs' crcufixion. God never said as soon as they eat they will die. But if they eat they will die. Future tense. and before they ate there was no death in the world. When they ate they brought death and sin into the world.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Still no response of him refering to himself in the plural. Im waiting....1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Who is "our"? Why would a being that punishes worship of many gods refer to himself as MANY GODS?!?!?
wade36 3 years ago
Yes the prural is what we believe. The trinity so no more responding until I get back so I can respond to you.
Be fair. Ok take care.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Uh uh, your not being fair, give me an answer. You don't have one, you need to go think? You said you don't worship semeramis, yet you believe in the trinity, which is directy derived from the Nimrod/Tammuz/Semeramis idea.
wade36 3 years ago
"The Hindus, Greeks, and Romans had a threegod triad, but those did not come close to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The members of their divine triads were not coequal and coeternal. Neither did they share the same nature and essence. They also did not have a perfect unity among them. These religions may be called tritheistic...but not Trinitarian. They did not have one God of three persons."
-Williams, Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International, p. 78
Scholars disagree.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
All of this is semantics man, you call it something similar but different, but if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a friggin duck. You can quote some christian biased researcher all you want, the similarities are still there for anyone to see. Perfect unity? How do you know this or that guy, can you read cuneiform? Did you have to go read up to argue against me? You got nothing man.
wade36 3 years ago
You see, even if I'm right, I'm not trying to debunk you, I'm not attacking, I want peace, I want the barriers to be broken down so we can unite against our real enemy. Your not doing any of that, you WANT chaos, so your version of order can come out of it, so your no better than freemansons, illuminati, whatever you want to call them.
wade36 3 years ago
Wow, Im almost out the door and I come back to see if you respected my wishes of not loading the page with assertions until i return so I can reponde fairly. So I come back now and see you can't even do that. You have to throw 3 more paragraphs of assertions at me.
This shows you are scared to go one topic at a time. I will respond to all of your trash just wait.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I'm not scared, I'll wait.
wade36 3 years ago
I've unblocked you as well, send me vids on your position, send me info. You can directly message me anytime. No one is afraid, no one is your enemy here man. Put down those walls.
wade36 3 years ago
"There is no reason to seek for sources or types of doctrine of the Trinity outside of Christianity or of the Bible, though in the eighteenth century efforts were made to derive the Christian dogma from Babylonian triad. There could be no serious question of borrowing. The development, of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is historically clear, and its motives are equally well known, being almost exclusively due to Christology." New SchaffHerzog Encyclopedia Trinity, Doctrine of the p18
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Of course there's no reason to seek if you don't want to believe it! This proves NOTHING. You still have not explained why a god who hates pagans & punishes people for believing in many gods refer to himself as "our","us", or anything plural, especially that early, before any talk of a son or holy spirit. Your avoiding the real question.
wade36 3 years ago
I posted a trinity debate on my channel recently. It does speak of he son being devine in messianic prophecy in the old testament. Isaiah 9:6 calls the son "Mighty God" Hebrew "el gibbor"
The very same title that Isaiah calls the father in chapter 10. This is old testament.
Also the spirit is in the old testament. Isaiah 63:10 the spirit has emotions. The prophet David in 2 Samuel 23:2-3 says the spirit spoke to him. He then says Yahway spoke to him, identifying the spirit as God.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That is still later than Genesis 1:29. Your ducking the question. All that could have been said after fact. The one of the earliest references of him talking about himself, & he say "our". You don't have an answer, you just refer me to more scriptures & discussion. I think your the one who's been debunked.
wade36 3 years ago
Well you don't believe in prophets of this God so according to you even if it was just 1 year later that wouldn't clear up Genesis. Isaiah learned from Moses. All the prophets did. That is where Torah comes from. Isaiah was a true prophet also. I have you the answer. Our is plural. That fit's with the trinity. Tell me what in the bible makes the prural mean multiple God's and not the triunity of God. I will then post many olf testament verses saying there is only one God refuting you.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
It doesn't matter how many you post, if it says it that early, it negates the rest. It says our, that's plural. Do you need to study english? I can read something & say it's true later, so no, I don't believe any "propohets". They said our image, that's plural. I don't know how else to explain it, you can deny the english language too, doesn't make it true.
wade36 3 years ago 2
Your must have selective reading/hearing.
I asked you since it is plural and we believe that is consistant with the trinity, can you show that it is not and that David and the NT were wrong? Can you show that it reffered to a multiplicity of different God's? I would love to see you name them.
Go ahead. Then I will refute you. That was my point. I'm still waiting.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
You BELIEVE, how do you know? The mere use of a plural form signifies multiplicity! Why would he be talking in that manner? Anyone can say after the fact it was in line with what you believe now, still doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't refer to himself in a plural sense that early in creation. Your not refuting anything, I don't have to name scholars that want to spout their biased opinion, one true god who tells you he's the ONLY god would not say "our".
wade36 3 years ago
"one true god who tells you he's the ONLY god would not say "our"."
That is subjective opinion and collides with the ancient documents themselves! The same line of prophets said the holy spirit and messiah (Jesus) were divine but that there is only one God. Then Jesus said "I and the Father are ONE"
So the prophets, new testament, the early church and billions of Christians all believe it is a Trinity and the plural signifies that. But YOU say it has to mean multiple God's.
Name them.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Jesus says whatever, the "father" himself says "our image"! Why would he say our & go thru the trouble of asserting he's the only one. No one says there are gods that have names, that he was refering to specific named gods, the fact that he is not he to him, it us, our, we. It's not subjective, why would he say our, that's what I asked. Why would HE say that, not me or anyone else, HE said it.
wade36 3 years ago 2
Why? Because he was reffering to himself. He consists of a triune being. That is unlimited in power and revieled himself to us in 3 persons to help us. The father, the son, and the holy spirit. That is why he said "our" or "we" that is also why his name elohim is plural. He is a triune God. That is what the earliest Christians figured out from everything together. That has been the belief for thousands of years. God made us in his image yes. We are body spirit and mind. Three yet one.
KeithTruth 3 years ago 6
Well, you've proven nothing. Elohim? Now your going to go the way of the mormon? Hopefully I've open your mind a little to the great science fiction story that is christianity, but some people just like to believe in fairy tales. Your's is no different than scientology trying to get rid of thetins. Live in the real world, man, not fairy tale land. No story is going to prepare you to handle life's challenges. Think about it.
wade36 3 years ago
Yahweh is NOT plural. Elohim and the references to "we" or "us" is a clear case of a royal speaking to his subjects. You never heard of the royal we? In other words, yahweh is the ONLY elohim. You christians have been trying so hard to be the smartest persons in the room, common sense is a foriegn concept to you. Why do you have such problems with the simplest of concepts Keith?
mynameislegend68005 2 years ago
lol...too funny you are rebuking him for an error and at the same time making an additional error by ascribing plural of majesty which wasn't even in existence as a literary form until 4 century AD. No where in the OT or NT does scripture utilize plural of majesty as a literary device.
scooner67 2 years ago
Nah nah nah you aint know nuthin. Stop messin aroung go back to school will ya?
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
@KeithTruth This wasn't just a Christian view though. Long before Christ came, David and other Old Testament figures recognized this (as Jesus quoted, "the LORD said to my Lord" was David's recognition of multiple "sides" to God). There are other passages as well that show the doctrine of the Trinity even in the Old Testament.
jahchild1904 1 year ago
@KeithTruth Wow nice wisdom!
TrunkMonkey3000 1 year ago
I've heard of all that, still later than genesis, waiting for response....doesn't it say that amen is the name of our lord before he calls himself yahweh, i.e. Amon-Ra, the egyptian sun god? Still haven't answer my original question...
wade36 3 years ago
No etemyologists say amen comes from amon-Ra. That is like saying the greek word paraclete turned into our word parot. It's a stupid argument.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I know none say that.
wade36 3 years ago
Just like you saying J.K. must have refered to lucifer anytime he used the word light.
wade36 3 years ago
Maybe he wasn't but there is evidence he was since his group for many many years did. Also the fact that he connected with them again after they split says a lot.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
What evidence, name it. Connected? Saying he's connected is like saying we're connected for having a conversation.
wade36 3 years ago
I read his biography from an extensive website about him.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
You still have never read any of his books, so you can't make assumtions about his teachings then.
wade36 3 years ago
I don't want chaos You defend the enemy you support people who want a one world goevrnment and abolishement of Christians. Go read Baileys and Blavatsky's books like I have. Listen to Lucis trust today on their radio show. Read Hubbards, Springmeiers, Spanglers and Randal N Baers work. Open your eyes.
Also zeitgeist IS for organization and order in the utopia lead by the freemasons so even if J.K. wasn't, ZEITEIST IS. I proved that exstensively in the film which I hope someday you will watch.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Well we weren't debating zeitgeist, we're we? It was J.K., & you were wrong, so admit it.
wade36 3 years ago
Nope. I was right all along.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Dude, you need to grow up. I forget your only 19. Go see a little more of the world than the bible.
wade36 3 years ago
What you call prophecy is call a recorded plan that is being carried out deliberatly. Any prophecy could be said to happen BECAUSE of the prophecy, it fufills itself.
wade36 3 years ago
I thought about that before too. Think about this though. What if these later elite who don't believe in the real Jesus are doing things just to fulfill prophecy and have their way..but in all actuality they are really fulfulling the prophecy and the joke is on them?
What if they are unknowingly fulfilling it thinking they are in control? That is what is going on indeed. These imperfect decieved men who are possesed by demons as Randall N Bare notes, are kicking themselves in the shin.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That's all conjecture, exactly what you said you don't condone. More shaping your views to fit the situtaion. Either you can use conjecture in a arguement or not.
wade36 3 years ago
There is a difference between conjecture and a hypothesis when I propose a theory. What I proposed is my world view with respect to prophecy. The reason I chose that is because there is no evidence for your position that Illuminati pre-dates 1776 and engineered the prophecies just to fulfill them when they are all dead thousands of years later and rule the world.
The prophecies are coming true about one world government and false prophet and there is no evidence they made them.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That's all I'm really doing is proposing a theory as well, no? Now I remenber my orignal quarrel with you, I refuted you comment about J.K. & you commented on my vid saying "horrible". How is that not anything but personal attack? My very first comment was nothing derrogatory, you started with the pettiness, yet I continually try to come to understanding & peace despite your hate. Who is more in line with the teachings of jesus here?
wade36 3 years ago
You were saying Jesus was Illuminati as if it were fact and I then refuted your position about J.K. Jones didn't lie when he said he was the Illuminati christ. He was. After he left theosophy he still considred himself a world teacher even though that position was invented by theosophists. He also promotes his dislike of religion and he teaches inner conciousness part of the new age agenda to open your self up to aquarius.
So other then 2 seconds of the intro, anything else you disagree with?
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Ahhh like I said, you can lie about his position all you want, you have read one single book, one talk by him, your beliefs won't let you be open. It was NOT "invented" by the theosophists! You can say it over & over Keith, until you read what the man says, your just spout ideas from a position of ignorance. He never spoke of aquarius, inner conciousness, none of that. It's like if I said Jesus taught that the world was flat, you know it's not true, but I can say it all I want right?
wade36 3 years ago
You claimed that he never spoke of the inner conciousness and light that theosophy believes is of lucifer the angelic entity. Well he wrote: "This Light in Oneself" and "Truth and Actuality: Conversations on Science and Consciousness"
And according to Jiddu Krishnamurti's biography on age of the sage he "He retained some connection with the theosophical movement, however, and continued an active career of lecturing and writing."
You have been refuted.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That refute's nothing, show me one line, one sentence, where he refers to lucifer. Give me one line where he refers to an inner conciuness apart from the regular. Give me one line out of a masonic book that directlty fits his views. I don't think you have the capacity to grasp what he spoke of, like most people didn't. If he was meant to change the world for the good of the elite, he did a horrible job.
wade36 3 years ago
Where do you think his ideas orginated from? Read Blavatsky's work about Christ hood what lucifer is and how to attain conciousness. then notice when J.K. speaks of "light" that is the light of lucifer. Decievers like him won't call it satan but thats what he groups believes. The same group who he retained onnection with after. Inner conciousness is conciosuness. It is in your mind. a few lectures form some lost theosophist can shape your mind
listen I have some things to take of today peace
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That's not a sentence where he refers to light in the same way, let alone one where he says lucifer. I've read some blavansky, & a friend of mine has read all of Isis Unvieled, & everything he's shown me has nothing to do with J.K.'s talks. You don't know what your talking about. They disagreed with everything he stood for. His ideas were directly opposing theirs, & you can say whatever you want Keith, unless you've READ his books, your just making shit up, twisting facts to fit your arguement.
wade36 3 years ago
I have shown from his biography that he RETAINED connection afer he left. He learned what the light and conciousness was from THEM.Theosophy invented that philosophy.They founded the new age.They are UN/NWO now.I mean it's pretty straight forward. The light is the light of satan.If you still want to accept that guys weird teachings go aheadBut he was the Illuminati theosophical christ and he retained connection with them even after he split.He just didn't agree with the orders end game
KeithTruth 3 years ago
So because people use the same words, it means the same thing? So Jesus talking about the light could be satan as well by that way of thinking. It's not straight foward when THEY, not him, denied his teaching, THEY said he wasn't what they wanted, not me or him or anyone else. He didn't agree with the game PERIOD! I don't accept anyone's teachings, that's what he taught! Your still making assumtions & presuppositions.
wade36 3 years ago
I refuted your supposed non-connection crap.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I refuted the supposed non-connection. If you don't like my answers then thats ok. No one is forcing you to believe the truth. You can shut your eyes all you want.
Is there anything else other than 2 seconds of the intro? Any other objections to my film? I hopes so because I didn't even really talk about J.K.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
No one said there was a non-connection to refute. You won't listen to anything I say, you know already, who's shutting their eyes to the truth? I told you my problem, I told you my objection, you've yet to respond to that either.
wade36 3 years ago
I listened but the vast majority of the time your answers are inadequate and self contradictory.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Mine are, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
wade36 3 years ago
OKAY now were getting somewhere. THE MAIN thing I disagree wiht ALL you "real christians" in this truth movement is YOU GUYS are the only ones trying to separate it. We should all be united in the cause of freedom & truth, but because someone doesn't believe what you do, you are ready to cast them aside & regard them as the enemy, when they could be your greatest ally. You insist their is only one way despite their being many ways for freedom & truth, you close off all info that conflicts.
wade36 3 years ago
Nope, they have declaired war ohn us and I noted that in my film. They made us their enemy and we defend the bible and attack the new age lies. We are in the minority as true believers. We will probably be killed like Bill Cooper and John Todd or jailed like Springmeier. We wan't peace but they hate us and our lord so we have to defend Christ before his return. We have to expose the satanic nwo and to let people know that if they support the zeitgeist movement they are working against us.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Dude, NO one has declared war but you guys, I don't know how you can't see that. Questioning a belief is not a personal attack, that's where all theists are WORNG. You have made everyone your enemy, not the other way around. Everyone thinks their can be a peaceful resolution but YOU GUYS. No one "hates" your lord man, if you'd follow his teachings & live by his code, there would be no problems. BUT you all hypocrites who bend god's word to fit THEIR needs. You use it to divide & start wars.
wade36 3 years ago
I documented their words of them declaring war on in the film and at the end in the last video called "expanding on the new age infiltration" but listen I have to go to school and get my Bth.
Take care. We will continue this discussion later.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Sir Francis Bacon, helped K.J. and was a known rosicrucian. Aren't all those groups helped spread catholosicm, exactly what you say is the devil, right?
wade36 3 years ago
King James was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
He had enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself. No evidence for that assertion.
I await your pathetic rebuttal
KeithTruth 3 years ago
King James even stated in his court he thought Jesus was in love with John. Your rebuttal.
wade36 3 years ago
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted.
It was the catholics who made up the lies about him.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That's what I'm talking about, mixing truths with lies to put your agenda across, you no better than fox news. You can even see on his wiki page that everything you said is a lie, let alone if you read ONE (I've read many, way before I knew anything of the NWO) of his books. For someone spouting sources & research, you sure don't use either.
wade36 3 years ago
I just refuted you so don't be so sure about my research abilities.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
What did you refute? He didn't deny it, he didn't confirm it! If you'd listen to one, just one of his talks, you'd see your so off base it's ridiclous. With the logic you present, the same could be said for Jesus, why should I listen or learn of him?
wade36 3 years ago
You have no idea what I am trying to explain to you. In one ear and out the other. The bible truly is right when it says unbelievers have scales over their eyes.
Your evil spirit that rises in you is evidence that a utopia would not work under people like you, other imperfect people/ theosophist.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
Damn, that guy is funny.
Gungfuwarrior 2 years ago 3
Which one? The announcer? He was just a dork. Buckley? He always looked and acted catatonic. As you watch the rest of this series, it's clear the audience is made up of the kind of conservative stooges that frequented his talk show.
mynameislegend68005 2 years ago
yes. they all harboured in NYC. right
pravaslavet 2 years ago
Yeah, you ain't got shit. You want to spout all this crap, but a real debate & you hide. Your a pussy just like Jesus.
wade36 3 years ago
wade36 you are just a joke. You haven't offered anything and that is why I gave up on you.
Really what have you even argued with evidence? You made pathetic claims and assertions that do not warrent even a response. Honestly you are making yourself look stupid.
I don't waste my time on kids. I have to tend to my ministry, blog and emails of people who are asking about Christianity. I bring a lot of people to Christ and lead them away from your false beliefs.
bye.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
"I have to tend to my ministry of leading people to slaughter by the NWO" I'm asking about Christianity! Here you go, save me. Here's your chance, preach to me, If your so forgiving, give me the run down.
wade36 3 years ago
Oh you gave up on me? Very "Christ-like" of you. All you religious nuts are hypocritic liars, so full of shit they've gotten used to the smell. Fuck the details, let's debate god, without all that Jesus & tammuz are irrelavant. You don't want to do that because it would negate all the petty details, and that's what people like you thrive on, you can't see the big picture. Your the one to feel sorry for man.
wade36 3 years ago
Let's debate God then. Come to my blog tommorow and I will make a blog for us to debate in the comments. I will email you tommorow when I am ready to begin. Cool?
Get ready to be smoked on "Does God exist"
We won't be arguing for Christianity or Jesus just for a God. A designer. Get ready.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
In non- King James version of the bible, god told Moses to see him, but anyone else who went would be killed with arrows & stones. Also the "god" asks for silver, goat skins, ect., what omnipotent being wants that stuff? Designer always falls back on if there is one, something had it design it, right? You are the one's who assume everything came from nothing, not atheist. We just say we don't know, & neither do YOU!
Why can't you talk to me now, you need to "study"?
wade36 3 years ago
non-King James bible? What is that?
Secondly, it's 10:21 here and I will be going to sleep pretty soon. I don't need to study, I have been defending theism for a long time and I know the arguments.
So tommorow we will let the world know what the atheist response is to my arguments. We will both write our opening statements. Then we will have 45 minutes to responde to each opening statement. Then we will have one more rebuttal each and then give the opening statements. Does God exist.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
What is this you make the rules? I have a time limit? Just like religion, trying to organize the truth. Just message me & I'll message you back, I'm not going to play some gay little game with you, talk to me like a human being, I know your not used to doing that.
wade36 3 years ago
This only lets us type 500 characters so I can't expand on my arguments properly. No time limits but one post at a time. Not overly long. Let's say 10,000 characters for the opening arguments. Then 5000 for the rebuttals. Then 5000 for the second rebuttals then 5000 for the closings.
Cool? Good. Hope to see you tommorow so I can prove God exists and defeat you.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
That's the whole point man, I have been going about it the wrong way, making incendiary comments, but I just use them for shock value from time to time, especially on hard-headed people like you. You are looking for victory & to be the winner, not further understanding & bring harmony. You don't want to advance the knowledge of the nature of god, you just want to argue what you think is true already. But I will still participate.
wade36 3 years ago
Yahweh is a fag, Odin could kick his ass. Jesus is a pussy, Thor would whoop his ass. If ya gotta believe in a derivative of the babylonian Nimrod/Tammuz/Queen Semeramis( God/Jesus/Holy Spirit,Amon-Ra/Horus/Isis) then I'm going for the norse gods, because they are just as liable to exist as your god of the bible. Praise Odin!
wade36 3 years ago
yep you are truly decieved.
poor kid.
KeithTruth 3 years ago
I already know what you'll say, Dec. 25, ham, blah blah, the "Real Jesus" has nothing to do with those things, it's catholocism. The main idea, the only idea, is the idea of a savior dying for you, that's what they believed, that's what you believe. It's your need of a savior, your lack of psychological fortitute to think for yourself, your willingness to sumbit your "free will" to a god with a plan(how is that free will?) that's the problem,
wade36 3 years ago
How am I decieved, I don't believe in anything! Prove me wrong, I love it! Show me proof he wan't the illuminati king! Oh, the burden of proof is on me right, just like your saying there is a god. You have to prove there is a god, I don't have to disprove it. The difference, if I'm wrong, great, then I learned something, where as if your wrong, your poor little world view will come tumbling down, & you won't know how to face the world cuz you've been facing it with FAIRY TALES.
wade36 3 years ago
A very interesting debate.
RJL738 3 years ago 8
If we created God because we had a need for significance and purpose, where did that need come from, IF we came randomly, with no purpose, no design, no reason, no meaning, etc. Atheists make no sense.
LoveStruckTonight 3 years ago
Dr. Ravi Zacharais is watching the debate as well :)
ZeitgeistDebunked 3 years ago 2
Yes he is. Guess who else is there? Michael Behe and Atheist Eddie Tabash
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Your channel is stupid dividing hate-mongering propaganda.
wade36 3 years ago
I was surprised to see William f. Buckley here. He's awesome.
christo815 3 years ago 2