The question I love to ask the religious: Okay so the bible is the word of God and all that? So if I were to write up a completely phony bible, some divine force would stop me?
Makes sense doesn't it? If I can write a fake bible and get away with it, that kinda hurts the whole thing.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that they will call someone immoral for swearing and talking loud, yet wanting that person to die in hell, or at least worshiping and praising the being who will send them there as a paragon of virtue is 100%?
I think some people don't get the point that if an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God existed there would be no evil in the world. Dosen't that make perfect sense or am I missing something?
@therookie93 Youre missing something The evil in the worl was brough on by the fallen angel Satan and his followers who awere other angels and they were cast into hell Hell is not for man but humans go there everyday watch the Angelica Testimonies
@dustinator4u2000 You're a couple months late and my views on God have changed since then but still, wouldn't God not want to create Satan if he could foreseen him as being evil?
Your logic is faulty as is your understanding of the Bible. God does not control us, he gives us freedom of choice! You are judging God by human standards and from the limited perspective of your non-eternal self.
I enjoyed this video, though I don't accept the premise that all Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. Most Christians who I know in real life, and most I have encountered on the internet, fully acknowledge that The Bible is a man-made book, 'inspired' by the events of... well, of Biblical times.
That's obviously still a fairly weak basis on which to create your world-view, but as we all know, much of religion is about cultural inheritance over the conversion abilities of holy texts.
you probably were. but even a person who was once a Christian should get his stories right. The Noah thing. If you 'were' a Christian at one point in your life you would know Noah told people for 120 years that there was going to be a flood. EVERYONE had a chance. He didn't listen. The rainbow was a promise that God won't do it again. He won't destroy the world by water. Now if all the people WENT on the ark it wouldn't of been bad now would it? If everyone listened no one would of died.
how can one who isn't a Christian understand the Bible? That logic is flawed in itself. It's like telling a physics professor that whatever he's reading is wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. Christian's obviously have a different view. the Bible is for everyone but a Christian will have a better understanding of it. Same way a physics professor will know more in some physics book. He reads it a lot and gains more understanding form it.
You aren't one now. The past is irrelevant. You were probably a Christian, a doctor many things but it's what you are now and what you do now I'm looking at.
"You can't change the past, but you can make decisions now that can effect your future."
"It's like telling a physics professor that whatever he's reading is wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong."
i disagree with that. there's a difference between criticizing something you dont understand and criticizing something youve researched and analyzed. if you went up to a physics professor and said "ive studied these books and disagree with these theorems for these valid reasons.".....then there's nothing wrong with that.
This doesn't make sense really. If you wanna prove that God is wrong, use example from the Bible of why that is so: not by philosophical logic, since God is the subject matter. Maybe some contradiction from his words.
In his video titled: "Intro to Philosophy 3: Knowledge #1", Stef is saying: "It is a contradiction to say 'I am certain that nothing is certain"; my answer to this is as follows:
How can you define "nothing is certain" in NOTHINGNESS, which is in this context here where you make this statement?
How do you, Stef, create a statement in NOTHINGNESS, or in nothing, whichever way you choose to call it?
The other one I was refering to, was Stef's assumption that our knowledge originate from the Ether since before we were born, and forgotten at birth, another one of Stef's un-dismissed theories, presented in his "Intro to Philosophy2: Reality". I understand that these 2 theories are rather dubious, so I wouldn't want to stir Stef's judgement towards me, but I just want to point out that his philosophy lectures are not flawless, a requirement for his anarchism political theories to work, right?
I've sent you messages, I am wondering if you've got them (you know, technical difficulties and such); take your time, though, as long as you've got my messages.
When I make the sorts of arguments that you are making here, I catch more flack from fellow atheists than I do from Christians. I guess the latest fad amongst atheists is to be "understanding" and super Christian-friendly. This extends to defending the bullshit arguments put forth by Christians. I've been attacked by other atheists for "attacking people's belief system". Basically, an atheist will get attacked by other atheists if they dare to be an atheist. Go figure...
No, Stef stated that a christian 'believes that the bible is the work of a perfectly moral all-knowing and all-powerfull being.' I just try to put this statement into perspective. The notion of an all powerfull god just isn't given with the content of the bible. God became all-powerfull in the middle ages.
You claim to have studied philosophy and history. Then you should know that the idea of an all powerfull God dates from the middle ages, at around the time of William Ockham. So the belief in an all powerfull being is not given with the bible or with the teachings of JC, but it is an cultural and historical product.
Also, why do you think your definition of christians is the only right one? Don't you think it's possible to be a freethinker and to be inspired by the bible simultaneously?
Only reason leads to virtue? Theodore Kaczynski, to name just a one, was an intelligent and reasonable man but he wasn't exactly what you call virtuous. How would you explain that?
Opinion?Self engrandisment of one's importance? Get off it. Your opinion is shit. There can be no organized opinions. Opinions by their very nature cannot be organized. Take your head out your arse and get some oxygen.(do you ever transcribe what you're saying or reread what you wrote?
Oh yeah? How would you feel if everything you say would be labeled as "nonsense", "your ideas are just some 'organized opinions'", or that "you lack logical consistency in your statements"? Would you be able to get your points across? That was my original question to Stef. For example; Heraclitus says: 'We step and do not step into the same rivers'
You could dismiss this as nonsense, organized opinion, etc. Or you could say: "Yeah, that's a true statement; that makes sense to me,
Heraclitus is dead. 2,500 years dead. He didn't step in a river he fell drunken into a sewer.(Talk about stinking drunk!) 0=0 Otherwise computers would not work. Stop arguing with the jesusnuts and go fishing.
Belief System? Regimented Guess. The bible is not a book. It is an ax. Shaped and sharpened to any purpose that suits the holders situation. The koran is just another ax with a slightly different handle.
When do we have the right to dismiss an argument and how we must do it, in order to call it: "Nonsense" or "It lacks of logical consistencies", or some other such label?
Otherways, couldn't we just add this label to anything we like?
We we do it, would't it require at least an explanation? What would make it any different if you just call it "nonsense" from saying "I don't know"?
It seems rather more tactfull to say "I don't buy it", or "it needs peer review" or "it's not being accepted in the scientifical comunity", than to dismiss it as nonsense?
Really? I spend half an hour talking about how the Bible orders Christians to kill me, and you are concerned about whether or not *I* am polite? With all due respect, that is completely mental.
If your going to spend a half an hour talking about your opinions. You should reply to some who took a half an hour to watch and listen. Or are you saying your half an hour is more valuable than their half an hour.
Stef is making a rather BOLD statement: min 37:00 watch?v=t-G7D1Wbqcg Intro to Philosophy 2: Reality
"there is no point in questioning, because those that understand don't have to ask, and those that ask will never understand ". I mean, Stef's ethics videos are based upon this very philosophy. This sounds rather odd, to me.
What is this supposed to mean? That if I don't understand something its pointless to ask? also, min 30 about Phaedo - Plato
I am sorry for the confusion, Stef; my questions were not adressed just regarding the points you've made in this video, (to which I totally agree), I was talking in general, more or less about your past videos, where you would dismiss something as being "nonsese" or "that it lacks logical consistencies" or "they are just organized thoughts not philosophy
while, in your video "Phil.2 Reality" you quote Plato in Phaedra, when he says "we have our knowledge since we were born
If there are "organized thoughts" then a god cannot exist. Because that would be free will and would be independent of the will of a god. God the ultimate CEO : Takes all the Blame, Accepts all the responsibility, and retires in paradise with lifetime health insuance and a ton of money!
I had a feeling that if I don't post my message precisely the way I intend to, its going to get a feed-back off topic...
I used IE 8 Beta, and for some reason it behaves strangely inside the "Post Comment" area, I couldn't delete, copy and such and I lost 2 messages, as well.I now emulated IE8 Beta back to IE7
Anyway, what I really meant to say here, rocketlonscher, was not "organized thoughts" but "organized opinions". Maybe you can follow-up with this? Thanks
There is no such thing as a true Christian. I like JC, though. He had good ideas. Most of his statements seem to have supported anarchism. Plus, I think he was often sarcastic.
stefbot, maybe the way he's depicted is not perfectly accurate (no kidding) but I used to believe he was fictional too. Then I did some research a little more thoroughly and discovered that The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist didn't do very sound research at all. Read the works of Freemasons Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. They don't claim to be "Christians" but they've conducted many years of research related to the life of Yeshua ben Yusef and they are very much worth reading.
For something to violate the principle of noncontradiction, it would have to both violate and adhere to the principle of noncontradiction (simultaneously). I'm not sure that's possible.
Take out the spaces, and it shows quite clearly how Luke 19.27 is a call for the death of non-Christians as much as it is a call for the punishment of non-proselytizing Christians.
And he's quoting a ruler, and as he is want to be the LORD, it can easily be applied to himself.
Great video, Stef, however I still have an issue regarding Armies and Religions. I look at both cases as being useful only in a situation where there is at least one of them. Lets say there were no religions whatsoever. Wouldn't then, some religion be created by some, so they would want to come out as "better than the rest"? Similar for Armies, once there is 1 army there will emerge other armies as a defense against this army. I haven't seen this issue yet so I thought I would bring it in here.
Why do you assume that God would tell the truth? Maybe in his wisdom he decided that we humans need myths, lies and fairy tales. All you've proven is that if there is a God and if the bible is the word of God, then he decided to lie to us.
So with his wisdom he decided to tell us that atheists, disobedient children, homosexuals, and people with different religions should be put to death? because we needed it?
This has been flagged as spam show
John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
07:20 I don't follow your example here?
RichieJohnSauls 1 year ago
The citation of the shibboleth passage is incorrect. Judges only goes to chapter 21. The shibboleth passage occurs at Judges 12:5-6
QuantumMaths 1 year ago
Well, the kill homosexuals is misunderstood. It's supposed to mean kill sodomites. But of course Homoseuality and sodomy are CLEARLY the same thing.
It's still a stupid line from the bible nonetheless.
dmgirl3000 1 year ago
The question I love to ask the religious: Okay so the bible is the word of God and all that? So if I were to write up a completely phony bible, some divine force would stop me?
Makes sense doesn't it? If I can write a fake bible and get away with it, that kinda hurts the whole thing.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 2
@lordthawkeye
To which the response you'll most likely get is "well, you'll just get yours in hell".
Or some variant.
vspqbd 1 year ago 2
@vspqbd Even then, my fake bible is still in distribution.
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@lordthawkeye John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that they will call someone immoral for swearing and talking loud, yet wanting that person to die in hell, or at least worshiping and praising the being who will send them there as a paragon of virtue is 100%?
I smell BS.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surhotchaperchlorome John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
Hey, Stef, have you ever seen this happen when during a debate/discussion with a religious person about religion:
The person arguing against it gets irritated and swears, and so the religious person uses emotional blackmail on him and calls him immoral for it?
It's happened to me, and it burns me up.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surhotchaperchlorome John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
I think some people don't get the point that if an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God existed there would be no evil in the world. Dosen't that make perfect sense or am I missing something?
therookie93 1 year ago
@therookie93 Youre missing something The evil in the worl was brough on by the fallen angel Satan and his followers who awere other angels and they were cast into hell Hell is not for man but humans go there everyday watch the Angelica Testimonies
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
@dustinator4u2000 You're a couple months late and my views on God have changed since then but still, wouldn't God not want to create Satan if he could foreseen him as being evil?
therookie93 9 months ago
Comment removed
blackbite50 3 weeks ago
@dustinator4u2000 So you say.
blackbite50 3 weeks ago
Sir,
Your logic is faulty as is your understanding of the Bible. God does not control us, he gives us freedom of choice! You are judging God by human standards and from the limited perspective of your non-eternal self.
licmareng 2 years ago
I can't find Judges 24 in the Bible?
ks100001 2 years ago
It's Judges 12:6 in the NAB! :)
ks100001 2 years ago
the ending is sweet thanks stef
therackjackets 3 years ago
RA in hebrew means EVIL (cf. the egyptian sun-god, the all-seeing eye etc.)
the concept of worship itself is vile. it equals self-denial and self-humiliation.
an entity that would demand or tolerate this would be evil.
cmoleon 3 years ago
I enjoyed this video, though I don't accept the premise that all Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. Most Christians who I know in real life, and most I have encountered on the internet, fully acknowledge that The Bible is a man-made book, 'inspired' by the events of... well, of Biblical times.
That's obviously still a fairly weak basis on which to create your world-view, but as we all know, much of religion is about cultural inheritance over the conversion abilities of holy texts.
Chameleon41 3 years ago
And with that said, the conclusion that a Christian cannot be a good person, no longer logically follows.
Chameleon41 3 years ago
What are you talking? You got it totaly wrong.
casajesus 3 years ago
fool
madpiehacker 3 years ago
He didn't listen= **They didn't listen**
BurningGudam07 3 years ago
you probably were. but even a person who was once a Christian should get his stories right. The Noah thing. If you 'were' a Christian at one point in your life you would know Noah told people for 120 years that there was going to be a flood. EVERYONE had a chance. He didn't listen. The rainbow was a promise that God won't do it again. He won't destroy the world by water. Now if all the people WENT on the ark it wouldn't of been bad now would it? If everyone listened no one would of died.
BurningGudam07 3 years ago
how can one who isn't a Christian understand the Bible? That logic is flawed in itself. It's like telling a physics professor that whatever he's reading is wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. Christian's obviously have a different view. the Bible is for everyone but a Christian will have a better understanding of it. Same way a physics professor will know more in some physics book. He reads it a lot and gains more understanding form it.
BurningGudam07 3 years ago
But -- why would you assume that I was never a Christian?
stefbot 3 years ago 3
You aren't one now. The past is irrelevant. You were probably a Christian, a doctor many things but it's what you are now and what you do now I'm looking at.
"You can't change the past, but you can make decisions now that can effect your future."
Quote by BurningGudam07
BurningGudam07 3 years ago
""You can't change the past, but you can make decisions now that can effect your future."
Quote by BurningGudam07"
did you just quote yourself?.....what a tool.
DylanRude 3 years ago
Nice video I'm with you even though I see religious pople are too.. you know.. to understand this or to even try to understand, cheers
motokeiru 3 years ago
"It's like telling a physics professor that whatever he's reading is wrong. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong."
i disagree with that. there's a difference between criticizing something you dont understand and criticizing something youve researched and analyzed. if you went up to a physics professor and said "ive studied these books and disagree with these theorems for these valid reasons.".....then there's nothing wrong with that.
DylanRude 3 years ago
@BurningGudam07 Read Luke 19:11-27 in full context Jesus doesn't condone murder.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
This doesn't make sense really. If you wanna prove that God is wrong, use example from the Bible of why that is so: not by philosophical logic, since God is the subject matter. Maybe some contradiction from his words.
BurningGudam07 3 years ago
Thanks for another great video Stef
GideonC7 3 years ago
Hmmm, another one of Stef's logical errors?
In his video titled: "Intro to Philosophy 3: Knowledge #1", Stef is saying: "It is a contradiction to say 'I am certain that nothing is certain"; my answer to this is as follows:
How can you define "nothing is certain" in NOTHINGNESS, which is in this context here where you make this statement?
How do you, Stef, create a statement in NOTHINGNESS, or in nothing, whichever way you choose to call it?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
The other one I was refering to, was Stef's assumption that our knowledge originate from the Ether since before we were born, and forgotten at birth, another one of Stef's un-dismissed theories, presented in his "Intro to Philosophy2: Reality". I understand that these 2 theories are rather dubious, so I wouldn't want to stir Stef's judgement towards me, but I just want to point out that his philosophy lectures are not flawless, a requirement for his anarchism political theories to work, right?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
In other words, since there is SOMETHING, we CANNOT say "nothing is certain" in the first place!! So there is no point in talking about
"I am certain that nothing is certain", since we already know that SOMETHING IS CERTAIN
adorianvlad 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean, but send me a message, we can have a debate, and you can correct my errors... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
O.K. Stef, thanks, I'll send you a message.
Cheers
adorianvlad 3 years ago
I've sent you messages, I am wondering if you've got them (you know, technical difficulties and such); take your time, though, as long as you've got my messages.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Stef, I've got no feed-back from you, just to
clarify, you were talking about an email type debate, right? Or, perhaps audio debate? I am not quite sure.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
When I make the sorts of arguments that you are making here, I catch more flack from fellow atheists than I do from Christians. I guess the latest fad amongst atheists is to be "understanding" and super Christian-friendly. This extends to defending the bullshit arguments put forth by Christians. I've been attacked by other atheists for "attacking people's belief system". Basically, an atheist will get attacked by other atheists if they dare to be an atheist. Go figure...
D4Shawn 3 years ago 2
Welcome to the hell that is post-modern subjectivism.
"Everyone is right because there is no truth!"
I think people who believe this would have to be categorized as agnostic, not atheist.
nexalacer 3 years ago 4
Tell me about it...
"God is right for you, but he's not right for me (just like my glasses are a different prescription than yours)."
a.k.a. "God isn't real, but neither is anything else."
Sometimes it makes you want to just give up.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
No, Stef stated that a christian 'believes that the bible is the work of a perfectly moral all-knowing and all-powerfull being.' I just try to put this statement into perspective. The notion of an all powerfull god just isn't given with the content of the bible. God became all-powerfull in the middle ages.
kvonribbenburg 3 years ago
@nexalacer there is one truth John 14:6John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
@dustinator4u2000 Assumeing you believe in said father and said Jeasus and said bible.
blackbite50 3 weeks ago
You claim to have studied philosophy and history. Then you should know that the idea of an all powerfull God dates from the middle ages, at around the time of William Ockham. So the belief in an all powerfull being is not given with the bible or with the teachings of JC, but it is an cultural and historical product.
Also, why do you think your definition of christians is the only right one? Don't you think it's possible to be a freethinker and to be inspired by the bible simultaneously?
kvonribbenburg 3 years ago
Only reason leads to virtue? Theodore Kaczynski, to name just a one, was an intelligent and reasonable man but he wasn't exactly what you call virtuous. How would you explain that?
kvonribbenburg 3 years ago
You think the unabomber was reasonable? Oka~y..... I'm gonna remind myself to keep as far away from you as possible...
nexalacer 3 years ago 2
Opinion?Self engrandisment of one's importance? Get off it. Your opinion is shit. There can be no organized opinions. Opinions by their very nature cannot be organized. Take your head out your arse and get some oxygen.(do you ever transcribe what you're saying or reread what you wrote?
rocketlonscher 3 years ago
Oh yeah? How would you feel if everything you say would be labeled as "nonsense", "your ideas are just some 'organized opinions'", or that "you lack logical consistency in your statements"? Would you be able to get your points across? That was my original question to Stef. For example; Heraclitus says: 'We step and do not step into the same rivers'
You could dismiss this as nonsense, organized opinion, etc. Or you could say: "Yeah, that's a true statement; that makes sense to me,
1 = 0, here"
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Heraclitus is dead. 2,500 years dead. He didn't step in a river he fell drunken into a sewer.(Talk about stinking drunk!) 0=0 Otherwise computers would not work. Stop arguing with the jesusnuts and go fishing.
rocketlonscher 3 years ago
rocketlonscher
when you are fishing, what are you thinking about?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Having fresh fish for dinner.
rocketlonscher 3 years ago
deja vu
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Belief System? Regimented Guess. The bible is not a book. It is an ax. Shaped and sharpened to any purpose that suits the holders situation. The koran is just another ax with a slightly different handle.
rocketlonscher 3 years ago
Awesome vid.
I just noticed that the number of views is currently....
666!
samsroomie 3 years ago
A question for Stef, please.
When do we have the right to dismiss an argument and how we must do it, in order to call it: "Nonsense" or "It lacks of logical consistencies", or some other such label?
Otherways, couldn't we just add this label to anything we like?
We we do it, would't it require at least an explanation? What would make it any different if you just call it "nonsense" from saying "I don't know"?
Thanks
adorianvlad 3 years ago
It seems rather more tactfull to say "I don't buy it", or "it needs peer review" or "it's not being accepted in the scientifical comunity", than to dismiss it as nonsense?
Is it just a way of being polite?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Really? I spend half an hour talking about how the Bible orders Christians to kill me, and you are concerned about whether or not *I* am polite? With all due respect, that is completely mental.
stefbot 3 years ago
If your going to spend a half an hour talking about your opinions. You should reply to some who took a half an hour to watch and listen. Or are you saying your half an hour is more valuable than their half an hour.
With all due respect that is just arrogance.
botuno 3 years ago
botuno,
in the video I've mentioned above,
Stef is making a rather BOLD statement: min 37:00 watch?v=t-G7D1Wbqcg Intro to Philosophy 2: Reality
"there is no point in questioning, because those that understand don't have to ask, and those that ask will never understand ". I mean, Stef's ethics videos are based upon this very philosophy. This sounds rather odd, to me.
What is this supposed to mean? That if I don't understand something its pointless to ask? also, min 30 about Phaedo - Plato
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Ooops, my bad! Forget about the min 37:00 statement; later on Stef denies this as a logical argument.
the min 30 statement, however, its still unclear to me
adorianvlad 3 years ago
I am sorry for the confusion, Stef; my questions were not adressed just regarding the points you've made in this video, (to which I totally agree), I was talking in general, more or less about your past videos, where you would dismiss something as being "nonsese" or "that it lacks logical consistencies" or "they are just organized thoughts not philosophy
while, in your video "Phil.2 Reality" you quote Plato in Phaedra, when he says "we have our knowledge since we were born
watch?v=t-G7D1Wbqcg
adorianvlad 3 years ago
but you don't seem to dismiss Plato's axiomatic view on the issue, without offering a valid explanation.
You just take it for granted, why not label it as "organized thoughts" in this case?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
If there are "organized thoughts" then a god cannot exist. Because that would be free will and would be independent of the will of a god. God the ultimate CEO : Takes all the Blame, Accepts all the responsibility, and retires in paradise with lifetime health insuance and a ton of money!
rocketlonscher 3 years ago
Oh, man,
I had a feeling that if I don't post my message precisely the way I intend to, its going to get a feed-back off topic...
I used IE 8 Beta, and for some reason it behaves strangely inside the "Post Comment" area, I couldn't delete, copy and such and I lost 2 messages, as well.I now emulated IE8 Beta back to IE7
Anyway, what I really meant to say here, rocketlonscher, was not "organized thoughts" but "organized opinions". Maybe you can follow-up with this? Thanks
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Thank God for evilbible dot com
fourtechniques 3 years ago 2
There is no such thing as a true Christian. I like JC, though. He had good ideas. Most of his statements seem to have supported anarchism. Plus, I think he was often sarcastic.
MarshalltheArtist 3 years ago
You do realize he's a fictional character, right?
stefbot 3 years ago 2
stefbot, maybe the way he's depicted is not perfectly accurate (no kidding) but I used to believe he was fictional too. Then I did some research a little more thoroughly and discovered that The God Who Wasn't There and Zeitgeist didn't do very sound research at all. Read the works of Freemasons Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. They don't claim to be "Christians" but they've conducted many years of research related to the life of Yeshua ben Yusef and they are very much worth reading.
MarshalltheArtist 3 years ago
John 14:6 (Contemporary English Version)
6"I am the way, the truth, and the life!" Jesus answered. "Without me, no one can go to the Father.
dustinator4u2000 9 months ago
This makes me so happy I could weep! Well said. It scratches that mental itch that I've been trying to scratch.
tecnoblix 3 years ago
oh well, I can dismiss my last messages, they seem to lack consistency as true statements.
nevermind
adorianvlad 3 years ago
I don't know if the following aspects fit this videos comment; doctrine of coincidentia oppositorum, the interpenetration, interdependence
and unification of opposites has long been one of the defining characteristics of mystical
(as opposed to philosophical) thought. Whereas mystics have often held that their
experience can only be described in terms that violate the "principle of noncontradiction,"
western philosophers have generally maintained that this contradictories are true as well.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
For example, the Dialetheism, as Heraclitus says: 'We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and we are not'
adorianvlad 3 years ago
For something to violate the principle of noncontradiction, it would have to both violate and adhere to the principle of noncontradiction (simultaneously). I'm not sure that's possible.
D4Shawn 3 years ago
D4, just above your message I mentioned dialetheism, the view that there are true contradictions
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Just a quick note. At 11:59 you have the wrong verses. The correct verses are Judges 12:5-6
Otherwise, good video.
Rorshak1313 3 years ago
Awesome, awesome video! The most thorough and logical explanation on this subject I've seen.
Thanks so much for making it.
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago 3
great great presentation ;)
LatinYoung20 3 years ago 5
Blah, anyway, I was asking why people keep bringing up Luke 19:27 when it's merely Jesus quoting an immoral man from a parable he's telling.
robshred66 3 years ago
I just looked up Luke 19:27 and you are correct.
However! it does not negate the other verses that state Jesus supported the old testament.
A4AgnstcFndmntlst 3 years ago
ww w.j esusneverexis ted.c om/ murderers.h tm# luke19
Take out the spaces, and it shows quite clearly how Luke 19.27 is a call for the death of non-Christians as much as it is a call for the punishment of non-proselytizing Christians.
And he's quoting a ruler, and as he is want to be the LORD, it can easily be applied to himself.
nexalacer 3 years ago
Yeah, now that I went back and read those previous passages, I see now. Man, I feel like a dumb shit.
robshred66 3 years ago
Skeptics point out Luke 19:27 because the indefensible murder is a metaphor for God's judgment.
LibertyIsNotGiven 3 years ago 2
Why is my comment not going through?
robshred66 3 years ago
Great video, Stef, however I still have an issue regarding Armies and Religions. I look at both cases as being useful only in a situation where there is at least one of them. Lets say there were no religions whatsoever. Wouldn't then, some religion be created by some, so they would want to come out as "better than the rest"? Similar for Armies, once there is 1 army there will emerge other armies as a defense against this army. I haven't seen this issue yet so I thought I would bring it in here.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Great video. Your clarity helps me be more effective when I discuss these things with others. Thank you.
RenovatedJon 3 years ago 3
That was AWESOME, Stef.
THANK YOU!!!!!
Adipatus 3 years ago 3
Why do you assume that God would tell the truth? Maybe in his wisdom he decided that we humans need myths, lies and fairy tales. All you've proven is that if there is a God and if the bible is the word of God, then he decided to lie to us.
Ape65 3 years ago
Maybe Zeus likes unicorns! Maybe Galadriel was really a man! Maybe maybe maybe!
stefbot 3 years ago
So with his wisdom he decided to tell us that atheists, disobedient children, homosexuals, and people with different religions should be put to death? because we needed it?
bobbincygna 3 years ago
Maybe atheists hold God in a higher regard than most Islamo-Judeo-Christians!
Adipatus 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First !!!!!
Adipatus 3 years ago