Nice to see an uploader determined to respond to every comment :P. I can see you are very passionate in defending your faith, and with reasonable rebuttals too. If only I was as faithful I might be a better person.
I love how you keep saying The Big Bang Theory deals with spontaneous combustion, when it doesn't at all. The Big Bang Theory states that before the universe, there was no time, no physics, or anything, there was an infinitely dense particle of matter, so dense that it was about the size of an atom... so dense that all the energy in it burst outward and expanding creating our universe... its like a popcorn kernel expanding, too much pressure and then it opens up. it deals with pressure,not fire
"Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives."
@azmanabdula: re: "whenever there is a comment approval there is an agenda.. you should be ashamed.. listen to everyone or be biased!"
You make my "bias" for trolls sound so sinister! I moderate comments simply to curtail trolls from crowding out more productive discussions, however I also try make a point to (eventually) cover every issue brought up anyways to minimize bothersome email notifications about the same subject ad nauseam. (btw your point has already been previously discussed too..)
@azmanabdula: re: "..let trolls be trolls, hate gets you views!"
I highly doubt a significant number of people who already had found my video wouldn't watch it or read any of the comments simply because my comments are moderated. Unfortunately, my arguments are often distorted & misrepresented by atheists & other Christians alike, many of my arguments on this video in particular could easily get drowned out by both. Sorry, but I'm trying to educate people, not entertain them.
@sirskrill unforgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting it to hurt the other person. Jesus forgave us at the cross, so who are we not to forgive others. God bless you :)
A horoscope can be defined by a few Biblical standards as having an association with divining knowledge from spirits, but I believe guilt is determined largely on how much ignorance to the matter is involved before an accountability to sin can be properly factored in.
@SatensL0veChild: re: "HOW THE HELL did they find out about these apparent laws (on how a demon can enter you)?"
According to the Bible, Jesus was the first to show his disciples about how to cast out unclean spirits, & the only "law" one has to learn to avoid possession is to not doubt God. All "sin" ultimately boils down to unbelief in God. You can personally verify my conclusions, if you are interested in participating in an experiment similar to the one John Safran did in this video.
@BobCymber re: "This is complete bullshit. That pastor is an idiot." Do you have a better explanation for extreme cases of xenoglossy & manifestations of inhuman agility/feats of strength? When one can witness an exorcism that includes one or more of the above, plus consider all the supporting anecdotal testimony available, & apply reasonable scientific & psychological explanations giving proper perspective to help understand it, the case (for me & many others at least) draws pretty airtight..
@BobCymber: re: "I am glad that you are brainwashed into understanding it."
And I am glad to see another troll wanting to be made an example of on my video comment page, supporting their argument only with the ad lapidem logical fallacy. However, I would be much more glad to hear a logical and intellectually honest retort, so I don't have to just simply block another troll from wasting space that could otherwise be filled with productive and logical debates over a very interesting subject.
@VHSguitar919 re: "I've actually heard John Safran was Jewish, but maybe just of descent." John Safran vs God, Episode Three: "Despite being Jewish, Safran attempts to join a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in California"
Comments are moderated, and nearly 100% are approved. Thoughtful comments requiring a thoughtful response may experience a slight delay. Patience on pending approval and response time is appreciated.
@tranebobhendrix: re: "this exorcist's a psychopath. noone else thinking that?" I would imagine that (former) atheist John Safran, and crew, may beg to differ at least.. Do you by chance have a better explanation for his (and many others) unscripted reactions to having an exorcism? I doubt many firsthand witnesses to one, including myself, will take mass hypnosis, unexplainable xenoglossy, ect., as a good answer! "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein
You have no stated qualifications for making a legitimate psychological evaluation, and no reasonable explanation for any of the documented phenomena relating to the subject that I mentioned before. Yet, you persist past your lack of a proper retort to offer an argumentum ad lapidem, so the least I can do is give you a brownie point for minimum effort before I block you for trolling my video with unsupported accusations.
I can be skeptic at times, and I'm a Christian. lol But I saw this once before and have never doubted it was real. I just don't like Bob, and think HE has probably many demons that HE needs to be delivered from! I don't like how he does it and it doesn't seem to have a biblical foundation....
@tall32guy: re: "I just don't like Bob, and think HE has probably many demons that HE needs to be delivered from!", & "..(Bob's ministry) doesn't seem to have a biblical foundation." Matt 12:26 "And if Satan drives out Satan.. how then will his kingdom last?" [28] "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come.." Anyone I have ever witnessed helping people deliver spirits has at least one stronghold in themselves.. for only One can be truly perfect...
@Godspittbull OK since you wanna slam me up with Scripture and be that way, that's fine because two can play that game. ;) Matt. 7:21-23 "Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name *cast out demons*, and in your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness". Unless I'm a moron, this passage says obviously to me that just because someone casts out demons in (cont'd)
@tall32guy: re: "..since you wanna slam me up with Scripture and be that way.." That is true only if you have to continue to take it personally, btw I do not mind *polite* reciprocation.. 2Tim 3:16 "All scripture.. is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
My previous point was that we ALL are "lawless".. Romans 3:20 "..wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin." (cont..)
(cont..) [21-24] "And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, for there is *no difference*, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God, being declared righteous freely by His grace through redemption in Christ Jesus."
Rom 8:1 "There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.."
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us. “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for *whoever is not against us is for us*. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will *certainly not lose his reward*.”
"Jesus instructed.. not to stop anyone from acting in His name..[if lacking] proper credentials.. I don’t want you to think this makes it okay.. to start your own denomination.. because.. that.. would be.. for your own glory, &.. wouldn’t be a valid ministry. ..if the church finds a lay person conducting.. ministry where there is a need & no one else to meet it, they should not stop [them, &] instead.. include him. Whoever is not against Jesus is for Him." kencollinsDOTcom/question-43.htm
@Godspittbull ...Jesus name, does NOT mean they are "of Him" or that they're going to get into Heaven. I know that He's sovereign and may allow some that do that into the Kingdom, but, still all I know is what that passage says.
@tall32guy: re: "..does NOT mean they are "of Him" or that they're going to get into Heaven." Maybe eventually, a case for non-eternal hell: "Rendering 'aion' to indicate (eternal hell) in (Matthew 25:46) would result in the *contradictory phrase* 'end of eternity' (duh), so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[6]
@mtllica1991: re: "'Odin is a very big Demon' o.O Are you kidding me?...this guy is a moron!" Judging anyone in the absolute as a moron, simply because they are attempting to relate a symbolic connection to a spirit's name, could also easily be judged as moronic..
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein
@GraveWhisperer: re: "hitler wasnt german he was austrian-so the preacher should get his facts straight" Splitting hairs? Ok then, Austria lost its independence to Bavaria (i.e. part of Germany) in 745. During the following centuries, Bavarian (i.e German) settlers went down the Danube and up the Alps, a process through which Austria was to become the mostly German-speaking country it is today.
@PowerfulSplicer: If there is no God, what defies the law of conservation of energy to allow for creation of energy at the beginning of the universe? Perpetual motion (string theories, multiverses) are equally impossible too (entropy, Maxwell's Demon), so a non-corporeal Supreme Creator is fundamentally necessary to avoid the universe defying absolute laws, & being scientifically impossible.
@Godspittbull so the proof of god is that matter and energy require a initial force... that only shows the need for an initiating force, not for a god and certainly not for yahweh. Despite what anybody tells you, nobody knows what happened at the beginning of the known universe. All science can do right now is create theories based on the scant evidence.
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "nobody knows what happened at the beginning of the known universe." It either involved spontaneous combustion (ex. big bang), &/or perpetual motion without a catalyst (string theory, multiverses), which are both physically impossible, especially by accident. A non-corporeal Supreme Creator, whoever or whatever It is, however, at least gives the (near) perpetual motion of our universe a necessary initial catalyst.
@Godspittbull no, a supreme creator only throws the energy dilemma back a few paces, no matter how many gods or causes you inject, the initial energy is the same. as it turns out, recent studies and formulas suggest that the net energy of the universe is zero, which makes a creator who adds energy unnecessary and impossible . unfortunately, these studies are in their infancy and are not near satisfactory but they do a helluva lot better job of providing information than 'god did it'
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "..recent studies & formulas suggest that the net energy of the universe is zero, which makes a Creator who adds energy unnecessary & impossible." So, you did not catch the fact that your hypothesis involves perpetual motion of the universe without a catalyst, which is just as impossible as spontaneous combustion, at least according to the laws of physics..
"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing.. I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." - Roger Penrose
@Godspittbull I did catch that. And yes, perpetual motion and spontaneous combustion are impossible according to the laws of physics in our universe. The fact is, science can currently tell us very little, if anything at all, about physical laws prior to or in the earliest stages of the universe. I notice you did not catch your problem, that any issues with the impossibility of the formation of the universe are thrown into an infinite regression once you put a god behind the cause.
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "The *fact* is, science can currently tell us.. little, if anything.. about physical laws prior to or in the earliest stages of the universe." So, you believe that the majority of the most current widely held opinions in theoretical science actually think that the laws of conservation of energy & entropy did not apply, or were changed somehow, before &/or at the beginning of the universe? Please source your "fact", if you can.. (cont..)
(cont..) re: "..issues with the impossibility of the formation of the universe are thrown into an infinite regression once you put a (non-corporeal Supreme Creator) behind the cause. " In a regress argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, my justification has the required support, because of the fact that the universe exists in defiance of the laws of conservation of energy & entropy. Unless of course you have credible evidence to the contrary..
@Godspittbull Ha, I love the cosmological argument. Its so beautifully contradictory and yet it still remains popular ever since Aquinas.
Everything has a cause - except this one thing which doesnt have a cause, right. Of course even if it were true that the universe was caused, it doesnt mean god exists. If we ever found out it could very well prove that there was no god at all. Also, I dont know why you are applying the laws of our universe where they may not belong. Go read some S Hawking.
@spacecowboy95: re: "Ha, I love the cosmological argument.." Ha, and I equally love "believers" in a universe caused by spontaneous combustion, &/or perpetual motion without a catalyst! I admire your "faith" ;-) re: "I dont know why you are applying the laws of our universe where they *may* not belong." If you wish to be specific, I have discussed this topic many times before, and if you have any specific questions, I can elaborate. Btw, how far did you make it through A Brief History of Time?
@spacecowboy95: So, you have never heard of a cosmological model that involves spontaneous combustion of the universe?! Try the BB theory!! Btw: If you completely dismiss a non-corporeal Supreme Creator hypothesis/theory (yes I have more proof to qualify "theory", btw..) as "more creationist b.s.", that sounds like you're having to rely on a reversal of the ad populum fallacy! (cont..)
(cont..) re: "..there may be a catalyst, a first cause, a prime movement etc. Doesnt prove God." It does prove a non-corporeal catalyst is necessary, unless of course you have a source detailing how perpetual motion w/o a catalyst is possible, defying the law of entropy, and solving Maxwell's Demon! Do you know of any other theory explaining the universe that doesn't involve spontaneous combustion &/or perpetual motion w/o a catalyst? They ALL do! But One has a non-corporeal solution.. (cont..)
(cont..) re: "Ive read BHOT, you should do the same." I have. It seems you may have read it too fast though, for you presume, despite his own quotes, that: "Hawkings is an atheist btw." The following quote, as well as several other quotes in BHOT, are far more typical of an agnostic/deistic view: "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it." - Stephen Hawking, BHOT, p. 122
"Argumentum ad Hitlerum" is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion (i.e. you stating a non-corporeal Supreme Creator hypothesis is just "more creationist b.s.") is suggested based solely on something's origin (i.e. lumping my theory in with other Creationist theories) rather than its current meaning or context (my strictly scientific approach). This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation (mine is scientifically justified, and doesn't rely solely on mysticism) (cont..)
(cont..), typically transferring the negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the new claim on its own merit. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, and the tactic is often used to try and derail arguments. Btw, This was listed as part of your primary retort, if that is a Freudian slip meaning anything! I don't state it in the absolute, at least! (you: Hawking *IS* an atheist)
"So long as the universe had a beginning (i.e. spontaneous combustion), we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge (i.e. an infinite universe in perpetual motion, btw impossible according to the law of entropy, and the problem of Maxwell's Demon), it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?" - Stephen Hawking
@spacecowboy95: Sounds like Hawking (^^^) isn't stating any of his opinions in the absolute either way again, proving he's agnostic over atheist, as evidenced! Maybe you can learn from his example, and avoid the mistake of presuming he is an atheist again, stated and sourced only from your own subjective opinion, stated as a fact! Btw I have heard he gets upset when people call him an atheist. I would love to find & post the source for that again if you by chance cannot find it for yourself! ;-)
if your germen but you ancesters moved from germany before hitler would you still have to apoligize for being a deuchlander? i mean wtf
megakirbymon 4 weeks ago
Nice to see an uploader determined to respond to every comment :P. I can see you are very passionate in defending your faith, and with reasonable rebuttals too. If only I was as faithful I might be a better person.
Dethtube1 1 month ago
I love how you keep saying The Big Bang Theory deals with spontaneous combustion, when it doesn't at all. The Big Bang Theory states that before the universe, there was no time, no physics, or anything, there was an infinitely dense particle of matter, so dense that it was about the size of an atom... so dense that all the energy in it burst outward and expanding creating our universe... its like a popcorn kernel expanding, too much pressure and then it opens up. it deals with pressure,not fire
MrTVman100 1 month ago
@MrTVman100 re: "..you keep saying the BB Theory deals with spontaneous combustion, when it doesn't.."
Simply substitute "combustion" for "generation" or "creation" to clarify.
“Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing.." -Stephen Hawking
re: "The BB theory states.. there was no time, physics, or anything, (but somehow simultaneously) there was an infinitely dense particle of matter.."
Perhaps you missed the irony in your statement, maybe my hint will help.
Godspittbull 2 weeks ago
@MrTVman100 re: "[The beginning of the universe is] like a popcorn kernel expanding.. it deals with pressure, not fire [heat]."
Are you sure? A popcorn kernel needs heat to expand, just like many other things..
Godspittbull 2 weeks ago
"Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives."
- Leo Tolstoy
Godspittbull 2 weeks ago
All the haters are just naive and scared of things you cant understand or explain . so stop your hating
bhtnob 2 months ago
Like...I know this is laughable and ridiculous, but on another real level this is infuriating.
OCPios62 2 months ago
whats wrong with buddhism?!
MrSystematica 3 months ago
I forgive hitler? What the hell! Why would you get someone to say that?
paul071293 3 months ago
@paul071293: "I forgive hitler? What the hell! Why would you get someone to say that?"
Purifying negativity is a critical process for successfully dealing with unclean spirits.
"Love conquers all things.." - Virgil
Godspittbull 2 weeks ago
Lmao how does a person being Islamic have anything to do with suicide bombing. Haha that guys a dumb ass
JesusManPowerKick 4 months ago
Wow, John has real guts
EliteHorde 6 months ago
whenever there is a comment approval....
there is an agenda.....
and since when is censorship on youtube a good thing.....
you should be ashamed.....
listen to everyone...
or be biased!
azmanabdula 6 months ago
@azmanabdula: re: "whenever there is a comment approval there is an agenda.. you should be ashamed.. listen to everyone or be biased!"
You make my "bias" for trolls sound so sinister! I moderate comments simply to curtail trolls from crowding out more productive discussions, however I also try make a point to (eventually) cover every issue brought up anyways to minimize bothersome email notifications about the same subject ad nauseam. (btw your point has already been previously discussed too..)
Godspittbull 2 weeks ago
@Godspittbull well you have to admit, this is the first i have ever heard back from a comment pending,
and so what, let trolls be trolls, hate gets you views!
people come to get angry, people come to defend, each one a view, why not have it like that?
the way i see it, comment sections that are censored become stagnant and boring : )
trust me, un-censor it, youll thank me in the future!
azmanabdula 2 weeks ago
@azmanabdula: re: "..let trolls be trolls, hate gets you views!"
I highly doubt a significant number of people who already had found my video wouldn't watch it or read any of the comments simply because my comments are moderated. Unfortunately, my arguments are often distorted & misrepresented by atheists & other Christians alike, many of my arguments on this video in particular could easily get drowned out by both. Sorry, but I'm trying to educate people, not entertain them.
Godspittbull 1 week ago
I've seen this happen first hand right in front of my eyes, this is very real
Awake4Truth 7 months ago
I saw this, and at first it was all "shits & giggles" * note he never made another show after this....
yootuubinatwerk 9 months ago
"On behalf of my ancestors, I forgive Hitler." That's the crazy shit I've ever heard!
sirskrill 1 year ago 15
@sirskrill unforgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting it to hurt the other person. Jesus forgave us at the cross, so who are we not to forgive others. God bless you :)
Awake4Truth 7 months ago
@Awake4Truth ever questioned it?
azmanabdula 6 months ago
Horoscopes! OMG!
smarty0004 1 year ago
@smarty0004: re: "Horoscopes! OMG!"
A horoscope can be defined by a few Biblical standards as having an association with divining knowledge from spirits, but I believe guilt is determined largely on how much ignorance to the matter is involved before an accountability to sin can be properly factored in.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
haha i love how its like there are laws on how a demon enters you and you must learn these laws
HOW THE HELL did they find out about these apparent laws? did a demon leave them behind one day?
SatensL0veChild 1 year ago
@SatensL0veChild: re: "HOW THE HELL did they find out about these apparent laws (on how a demon can enter you)?"
According to the Bible, Jesus was the first to show his disciples about how to cast out unclean spirits, & the only "law" one has to learn to avoid possession is to not doubt God. All "sin" ultimately boils down to unbelief in God. You can personally verify my conclusions, if you are interested in participating in an experiment similar to the one John Safran did in this video.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
This is complete bullshit. That pastor is an idiot.
BobCymber 1 year ago
@BobCymber re: "This is complete bullshit. That pastor is an idiot." Do you have a better explanation for extreme cases of xenoglossy & manifestations of inhuman agility/feats of strength? When one can witness an exorcism that includes one or more of the above, plus consider all the supporting anecdotal testimony available, & apply reasonable scientific & psychological explanations giving proper perspective to help understand it, the case (for me & many others at least) draws pretty airtight..
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull That's great. I am glad that you are brainwashed into understanding it.
BobCymber 1 year ago
@BobCymber: re: "I am glad that you are brainwashed into understanding it."
And I am glad to see another troll wanting to be made an example of on my video comment page, supporting their argument only with the ad lapidem logical fallacy. However, I would be much more glad to hear a logical and intellectually honest retort, so I don't have to just simply block another troll from wasting space that could otherwise be filled with productive and logical debates over a very interesting subject.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
I've actually heard John Safran was Jewish, but maybe just of descent.
VHSguitar919 1 year ago
@VHSguitar919 re: "I've actually heard John Safran was Jewish, but maybe just of descent." John Safran vs God, Episode Three: "Despite being Jewish, Safran attempts to join a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in California"
en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God#Episode_three
Godspittbull 1 year ago
John Safran vs God COMPLETE (verified torrent, A/V 10-10, no ads/membership)
wwwDOTkickasstorrentsDOTcom/search/john-safran-vs-god/
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@VHSguitar919 he is jewish! he even said in the video "despite me being jewish" they are doing the exorcism..
suesswiehonig 3 weeks ago
Comments are moderated, and nearly 100% are approved. Thoughtful comments requiring a thoughtful response may experience a slight delay. Patience on pending approval and response time is appreciated.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
this exorcist's a psychopath. noone else thinking that?
tranebobhendrix 1 year ago 8
@tranebobhendrix: re: "this exorcist's a psychopath. noone else thinking that?" I would imagine that (former) atheist John Safran, and crew, may beg to differ at least.. Do you by chance have a better explanation for his (and many others) unscripted reactions to having an exorcism? I doubt many firsthand witnesses to one, including myself, will take mass hypnosis, unexplainable xenoglossy, ect., as a good answer! "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@tranebobhendrix He's completely insane.
AloProbitas 1 year ago
@AloProbitas: re: "(Bob Larson is) completely insane."
You have no stated qualifications for making a legitimate psychological evaluation, and no reasonable explanation for any of the documented phenomena relating to the subject that I mentioned before. Yet, you persist past your lack of a proper retort to offer an argumentum ad lapidem, so the least I can do is give you a brownie point for minimum effort before I block you for trolling my video with unsupported accusations.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
I can be skeptic at times, and I'm a Christian. lol But I saw this once before and have never doubted it was real. I just don't like Bob, and think HE has probably many demons that HE needs to be delivered from! I don't like how he does it and it doesn't seem to have a biblical foundation....
tall32guy 1 year ago
@tall32guy: re: "I just don't like Bob, and think HE has probably many demons that HE needs to be delivered from!", & "..(Bob's ministry) doesn't seem to have a biblical foundation." Matt 12:26 "And if Satan drives out Satan.. how then will his kingdom last?" [28] "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come.." Anyone I have ever witnessed helping people deliver spirits has at least one stronghold in themselves.. for only One can be truly perfect...
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull OK since you wanna slam me up with Scripture and be that way, that's fine because two can play that game. ;) Matt. 7:21-23 "Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name *cast out demons*, and in your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness". Unless I'm a moron, this passage says obviously to me that just because someone casts out demons in (cont'd)
tall32guy 1 year ago
@tall32guy: re: "..since you wanna slam me up with Scripture and be that way.." That is true only if you have to continue to take it personally, btw I do not mind *polite* reciprocation.. 2Tim 3:16 "All scripture.. is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
My previous point was that we ALL are "lawless".. Romans 3:20 "..wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin." (cont..)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
(cont..) [21-24] "And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, for there is *no difference*, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God, being declared righteous freely by His grace through redemption in Christ Jesus."
Rom 8:1 "There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus.."
Godspittbull 1 year ago
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us. “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for *whoever is not against us is for us*. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will *certainly not lose his reward*.”
—Mark 9:38-41, NIV
Godspittbull 1 year ago
"Jesus instructed.. not to stop anyone from acting in His name..[if lacking] proper credentials.. I don’t want you to think this makes it okay.. to start your own denomination.. because.. that.. would be.. for your own glory, &.. wouldn’t be a valid ministry. ..if the church finds a lay person conducting.. ministry where there is a need & no one else to meet it, they should not stop [them, &] instead.. include him. Whoever is not against Jesus is for Him." kencollinsDOTcom/question-43.htm
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull ...Jesus name, does NOT mean they are "of Him" or that they're going to get into Heaven. I know that He's sovereign and may allow some that do that into the Kingdom, but, still all I know is what that passage says.
tall32guy 1 year ago
@tall32guy: re: "..does NOT mean they are "of Him" or that they're going to get into Heaven." Maybe eventually, a case for non-eternal hell: "Rendering 'aion' to indicate (eternal hell) in (Matthew 25:46) would result in the *contradictory phrase* 'end of eternity' (duh), so the question arises whether it should ever be so.[6]
wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Young%27s_Literal_Translation#Eternity_or_age
Godspittbull 1 year ago
"Odin is a very big Demon" o.O Are you kidding me?...this guy is a moron!
mtllica1991 1 year ago
@mtllica1991: re: "'Odin is a very big Demon' o.O Are you kidding me?...this guy is a moron!" Judging anyone in the absolute as a moron, simply because they are attempting to relate a symbolic connection to a spirit's name, could also easily be judged as moronic..
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein
Godspittbull 1 year ago
the german thing? hitler wasnt german he was austrian-so the preacher should get his facts straight
GraveWhisperer 1 year ago
@GraveWhisperer: re: "hitler wasnt german he was austrian-so the preacher should get his facts straight" Splitting hairs? Ok then, Austria lost its independence to Bavaria (i.e. part of Germany) in 745. During the following centuries, Bavarian (i.e German) settlers went down the Danube and up the Alps, a process through which Austria was to become the mostly German-speaking country it is today.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@lol97d: re: "RELIGIONS ARE BULLSHIT" Yes, organized religion is bullshit. And?
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull ooh fun! explain
PowerfulSplicer 1 year ago
@PowerfulSplicer: If there is no God, what defies the law of conservation of energy to allow for creation of energy at the beginning of the universe? Perpetual motion (string theories, multiverses) are equally impossible too (entropy, Maxwell's Demon), so a non-corporeal Supreme Creator is fundamentally necessary to avoid the universe defying absolute laws, & being scientifically impossible.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull so the proof of god is that matter and energy require a initial force... that only shows the need for an initiating force, not for a god and certainly not for yahweh. Despite what anybody tells you, nobody knows what happened at the beginning of the known universe. All science can do right now is create theories based on the scant evidence.
PowerfulSplicer 1 year ago
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "nobody knows what happened at the beginning of the known universe." It either involved spontaneous combustion (ex. big bang), &/or perpetual motion without a catalyst (string theory, multiverses), which are both physically impossible, especially by accident. A non-corporeal Supreme Creator, whoever or whatever It is, however, at least gives the (near) perpetual motion of our universe a necessary initial catalyst.
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull no, a supreme creator only throws the energy dilemma back a few paces, no matter how many gods or causes you inject, the initial energy is the same. as it turns out, recent studies and formulas suggest that the net energy of the universe is zero, which makes a creator who adds energy unnecessary and impossible . unfortunately, these studies are in their infancy and are not near satisfactory but they do a helluva lot better job of providing information than 'god did it'
PowerfulSplicer 1 year ago
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "..recent studies & formulas suggest that the net energy of the universe is zero, which makes a Creator who adds energy unnecessary & impossible." So, you did not catch the fact that your hypothesis involves perpetual motion of the universe without a catalyst, which is just as impossible as spontaneous combustion, at least according to the laws of physics..
Godspittbull 1 year ago
"There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along it's a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves in this thing.. I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment." - Roger Penrose
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull I did catch that. And yes, perpetual motion and spontaneous combustion are impossible according to the laws of physics in our universe. The fact is, science can currently tell us very little, if anything at all, about physical laws prior to or in the earliest stages of the universe. I notice you did not catch your problem, that any issues with the impossibility of the formation of the universe are thrown into an infinite regression once you put a god behind the cause.
PowerfulSplicer 1 year ago
@PowerfulSplicer: re: "The *fact* is, science can currently tell us.. little, if anything.. about physical laws prior to or in the earliest stages of the universe." So, you believe that the majority of the most current widely held opinions in theoretical science actually think that the laws of conservation of energy & entropy did not apply, or were changed somehow, before &/or at the beginning of the universe? Please source your "fact", if you can.. (cont..)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
(cont..) re: "..issues with the impossibility of the formation of the universe are thrown into an infinite regression once you put a (non-corporeal Supreme Creator) behind the cause. " In a regress argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, my justification has the required support, because of the fact that the universe exists in defiance of the laws of conservation of energy & entropy. Unless of course you have credible evidence to the contrary..
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull Ha, I love the cosmological argument. Its so beautifully contradictory and yet it still remains popular ever since Aquinas.
Everything has a cause - except this one thing which doesnt have a cause, right. Of course even if it were true that the universe was caused, it doesnt mean god exists. If we ever found out it could very well prove that there was no god at all. Also, I dont know why you are applying the laws of our universe where they may not belong. Go read some S Hawking.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95: re: "Ha, I love the cosmological argument.." Ha, and I equally love "believers" in a universe caused by spontaneous combustion, &/or perpetual motion without a catalyst! I admire your "faith" ;-) re: "I dont know why you are applying the laws of our universe where they *may* not belong." If you wish to be specific, I have discussed this topic many times before, and if you have any specific questions, I can elaborate. Btw, how far did you make it through A Brief History of Time?
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@Godspittbull Ive never heard a cosmological model which involves spontaneous combustion. Sounds like more creationist bullshit if you ask me.
Again, there may be a catalyst, a first cause, a prime movement etc.
Doesnt prove god.
Ive read BHOT, you should do the same. Hawkings is an atheist btw.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95: So, you have never heard of a cosmological model that involves spontaneous combustion of the universe?! Try the BB theory!! Btw: If you completely dismiss a non-corporeal Supreme Creator hypothesis/theory (yes I have more proof to qualify "theory", btw..) as "more creationist b.s.", that sounds like you're having to rely on a reversal of the ad populum fallacy! (cont..)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
(cont..) re: "..there may be a catalyst, a first cause, a prime movement etc. Doesnt prove God." It does prove a non-corporeal catalyst is necessary, unless of course you have a source detailing how perpetual motion w/o a catalyst is possible, defying the law of entropy, and solving Maxwell's Demon! Do you know of any other theory explaining the universe that doesn't involve spontaneous combustion &/or perpetual motion w/o a catalyst? They ALL do! But One has a non-corporeal solution.. (cont..)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
(cont..) re: "Ive read BHOT, you should do the same." I have. It seems you may have read it too fast though, for you presume, despite his own quotes, that: "Hawkings is an atheist btw." The following quote, as well as several other quotes in BHOT, are far more typical of an agnostic/deistic view: "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it." - Stephen Hawking, BHOT, p. 122
Godspittbull 1 year ago
"Argumentum ad Hitlerum" is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion (i.e. you stating a non-corporeal Supreme Creator hypothesis is just "more creationist b.s.") is suggested based solely on something's origin (i.e. lumping my theory in with other Creationist theories) rather than its current meaning or context (my strictly scientific approach). This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation (mine is scientifically justified, and doesn't rely solely on mysticism) (cont..)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
(cont..), typically transferring the negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the new claim on its own merit. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, and the tactic is often used to try and derail arguments. Btw, This was listed as part of your primary retort, if that is a Freudian slip meaning anything! I don't state it in the absolute, at least! (you: Hawking *IS* an atheist)
Godspittbull 1 year ago
"So long as the universe had a beginning (i.e. spontaneous combustion), we could suppose it had a Creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge (i.e. an infinite universe in perpetual motion, btw impossible according to the law of entropy, and the problem of Maxwell's Demon), it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?" - Stephen Hawking
Godspittbull 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95: Sounds like Hawking (^^^) isn't stating any of his opinions in the absolute either way again, proving he's agnostic over atheist, as evidenced! Maybe you can learn from his example, and avoid the mistake of presuming he is an atheist again, stated and sourced only from your own subjective opinion, stated as a fact! Btw I have heard he gets upset when people call him an atheist. I would love to find & post the source for that again if you by chance cannot find it for yourself! ;-)
Godspittbull 1 year ago