Er, because we have never witnessed a talking snake...and talking snake pets are NOT commonplace! Wow, some very twisted begging-the-question going on here!
Why is it so difficult to understand that words can spew from a snake, when one has no problem believing that a bird (parrot) still speaks in this day and age.
I stopped to watch this video. all you did was yell at your viewers and tell us we are wrong as you stated movies prove biblical 'facts'. Go piss up a rope you cowhead troglodyte! We should all get together and sue the Christian church system for their religious wars which have made the world hate. Our lives are in danger because of christian shit against other beliefs... We want restitution!
it's great to see so many people downthumbing this video and showing this idiot what we think of his archaic desert superstitions! Keep up the good work my fellow freethinkers!
1:43 "Why should that be a hard thing for you atheists"...to think satan can posses a snake and cause it to talk. is he joking? Does he seriously not see why rational people have a hard time believing that snakes can talk?wow this just goes to show that a person of faith has a mind who is willing to go without bound in accepting just about every absurd claim they hear
I don't understand your ability to remain free. Suspension of disbelief is fun at a movie.Your poor mind can't seem to handle reality once you leave the theatre or put down the book.
LOL - talking snake and he is against evolution. Quite dopey. Demons in a movie is proof - LOL. A moral proves there is an imaginary man up in the sky. The bible makes more sense. ROTFLOL. It just keeps getting better. Who created God? He doesn't realize the sun brings more energy to the world than we can possibly use. 30 seconds of the suns light could power the USA for one year. Satan. LOL. Booga Booga. Donkeys talk. fairy tales. Give me more. LOL. Welcome to the bronze age. Amen made it up.
The talking snake was part of gods plan to punish his own creation, he knew it was going to happen, but he still place the tree there knowing that adam/eve was going to betray him.
Plus they didnt have the knowlegde of good and evil, meaning they had no idea on what they were doing.
Congrats on the bible proving that its correct >.>, its like me saying im always right infact i am always right :P
Explain why your God in all his omniscient glory would create a being such as Satan KNOWING he would tempt Eve KNOWING that Eve would be tricked? and then punish those who don't love him?
So god intervened in Adam & Eve's lives by giving the devil the power to talk through a serpent? It sounds like god set Eve up. What kind of loving god would do that? It's as if I gave a pedophile my phone number and told him to call only when my child was the only one home to answer the phone. That's one sick lord you worship there. Glad your god is only imaginary.
Geerup...I have to Thank you for making my day.I have NEVER laughed so hard in my life.I think I'll subscribe to your channel so your accessible when I'm in the mood for comedy.lol.
I think you're probably just joking about this whole zealous religion thing.
after all, when all axiomatic assumptions are dropped, it simply reduces to a matter of personal, though unchangeable taste, regarding what view of the world to rely on.
any of them work and maintain their consistency for and in an individual that feels comfortable with it - so why argue?
Wow, you sounded semi rational in your other videos. This one takes the cake. Look, I'm the son of a preacher and I've seen and heard this bullshit all my life. You go from illogical to complete moron territory in no time at all.
I'd be glad to take you on and show you so many ways you are believing in an empty ideology and a non-existent entity. It would be child's play for me. You're just a run of the mill gullible mindslave. I've seen dozens of spiritual leeches just like you
We can all live by one UNIVERSAL rule: Any man that claims his word as absolute truth----is a phoney. We should listen to only those whom suggest things tentatively and are concious of the need never to insist upon the truth of anything---We should never...NEVER accept anyones insistence upon the truth of a THEORY that cannot be proven----To do so is to surrender your integrity as an entity of yourself. All Cults are destructive of mans integrity.
SATAN DECEIVED EVE THEN EVE DECEIVED ADAM ----- GET IT STRAIGHT EH ---- YOU SEEM TO ASSUME SATAN IS A "HE" BUT DON'T BE SO SURE ----- SATAN IS MOST LIKELY A SHE ---- YOU NEED TO RECLAIM YOUR BALLS SIR
Animals can talk it's not supernatural!!! Dogs and cats can imitate human sounds if they are taught the habit and if they are trained. When Animals speak the few words they can all they know is I am going to get a treat ore more attention for talking, but first you they need vocal cords like one person stated.
It doesn't say "Snake" it says "Serpent" (an entirely different word and an intirely different concept) and it must have walked upright and been able to talk because after the temptaton in the Garden it is cursed to forever "crawl upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." ... no passage of Scripture mentions a talking snake ... so much misunderstanding ... so much flagrant ignorance ... I LOL when people use stuff so far out of context and so incorrectally
I agree man. Also, the talking scorpions in the epic of gilgamesh must have been real too, with your retarded logic. In real life, animals cannot talk. Only in the imaginations of primitive myth makers. What makes your myth any better then the epic of gilgamesh? At least it has interesting characters.
Dude, you should think your logics over: "God makes more sense than billions of years of evolution."
Omg... the old testament is wrong and has been changed 1000s of times. And if you start to check out the new testament with a critical sight, you will see, that Jesus obviously said: "THE OLD TESTAMENT IS WRONG!"
@Eaglesfaninca I haven't seen that movie , but I hear good things.
If you or I found any evidence for creation , we would be shut up , just like Kent Hovind , and possibly thousands of other people who have something to say.
Why would we be shut up?
Because those so called "Scientists" do not want any more hypotheses , because they don't want to be wrong.
I suggest seeing the movie only because you will see my point. It is on youtube if you can't find it I can send you a link.
Kent Hovind had no proof. He even admitted himself Creation is not science it is faith and religion. He just justifies it by saying that evolution is a religion too that requires faith and has no proof.
Those theories weren't superstitions, they were phenomena that we couldn't yet explain. The important and crucial element is that they are all observed. Something superstitious like belief in god or evidence of creation is in fact not observed.
I know what you mean though. Superstitions need to be weeded out, while observed phenomena that we cannot currently explain deserve our full attention.
If you actually look at the "Flat" universe theory , by searching on google , and you see a documentary or article , you will see that scientists tried to test their theory with math.
Unfortunately , they come out with the wrong answer , but they accepted it , even though math cannot be wrong.
Not only that , the big bang accepts a paradox as truth , even though a paradox cannot be true.
The "feasibility" study is junk science. Impossible to prove. The premise alone is impossible. See, if you try to go with that "kind" bullshit, you actually defeat yourself. The only way that could work and end up with today is if you believe in 'hold your breath' SUPEREVOLUTION. See, YEC's believe in superevolution because they have to get from "kinds" to today's diversity just to explain Noah.
Basically, speciation events happen every couple minutes under that theory. Good luck with it.
@snoman99991 Here is wikipedia's version of history: Year | Population x1,000,000 1850 1262 1800 978 1750 791 1,000 310 1 200 500BC 100 DID YOU SEE THAT!? each 50 subtracted years probably looses 300 million people at average. But then 1 whole entire millennium passed and only gained 100,000,000 people? Looks like someone in a white coat has been lying to us .
But even then, you don't seem to get that the technological discovery rate for our species is currently exponential (which you should understand if you took any science classes at all in high school). The fact that we can treat the broad variety of diseases and disorders in the public today demonstrates this.
Hilariously enough, you can see in your own data that there is an exponential growth in viable births starting from a low birth per capita to a high one we have today.
Flood myths would make sense. Bear with me here. Maybe ALL of modern religion has common ancestors? Or perhaps there really was a year when there were very heavy rains, nearly across the globe.
The problem is that nobody would have survived that flood if it were global, and the distribution of population on Earth does not fit the Ark model AT ALL. Not even close, let alone the dozens of other disciplines agreeing with that statement.
@snoman99991 If you actually took the time and did research , you would realize that you are wrong.
On wikipedia , they have a chart that shows the population records from 70,000 years ago , to now
In the 1700s population recording became important. Because of lack of importance before the 1700s , everything before then is a guess entirely based upon the evidence from famines or wars.
I have to caution you against using Wikipedia as a primary source. It's better than it has been, but the method you've used in explaining your source is unbelievably stupid.
Are you trying to tell me that population growth should not be explained by technology? Because your data CLEARLY shows that the more technological our society becomes, the higher the rate of viable pregnancies.
All of which are good models for agreeing with the scientific viewpoint.
Man and Dinosaur never lived together. The creatures depicted in SOME pottery are not necessarily dinosaurs, and without fossils that are dated more recently than 65 MILLION years ago nobody can take that seriously as factual evidence.
The bible says that the earth is a disk. It also says that the moon is a light, when that is clearly false. How about creating light before even creating the sun or stars?
Sorry, the bible is just flat out wrong. In all accounts. Really.
worldwide flood myths are just that, they're myths. so is the one in the bible. pottery like the ica stones have been known fakes for decades, and the bible has no science in it
But the turth is , scientists have been getting it wrong.
Countless quantum physisists and biologists are throwing out equations and formulas , because something can't contradict their current findings.
A scientist on this documentery I watched , had said that they calculated a certain number , and it contradicted their beliefs , so they threw it out , and they stuck with the idea that the universe is flat.
I'm not even joking. Richard Dawkins was on it. "How scientists know God isn't real"
When I went to see a museum , I was allowed to touch the "Transitional fossils" , but I wasn't allowed to touch a pipe or a bone that came from a few thousand years ago.
That is one of my main reasons I don't believe we evolved from apes , or that the world came from a "big bang" or expansion of space.
Common sense would dictate that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Using the nature of God as a starting point means you have both put your religion above your common sense and formed a circular argument.
More proof that God is a 'get out of logic free' card for many people.
Your argument only changes the weirdness to... why did God punish the snake and all of it's descendants if it were being completely dominated by Satan? From nonsense to a point against God's morality. Moral of this story? Don't mess with God, or He'll... rip the limbs off of an innocent bystander you manipulated and dominated to do your dirty work.
What's with your 'Mommy and Daddy hydrogen atom' crap? -_-'
Geerup, you have brought up an interesting point. The Bible contains supernatural events. You go on to mention Fables, and Scary movies as depicting supernatural events. I don't believe in the supernatural because from my life experience the supernatural is not real. So what evidence has convinced you that the supernatural is real?
Goodness me, what sort of simpleton is this guy GEERUP? Does he really believe the tripe that he spouts, does he expect anyone, let alone a religionist, to believe this childhood nonsense?
When people like this man are listened to by the sheeple of the world then it's time to worry about the future of mankind, this guy is no different from Muslim fundies spouting their brand of crap. It's all crap, just a different label on the tin.
The natural created the supernatural, the supernatural did not make the natural. The supernatural is natural fantasy. Therefore, there is no such thing as the supernatural anymore than there are Mermaids swimming in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The supernatural God of the bible is just another natural projection of the superstitious mind of the ignorant humans who invented him.
Well then maybe you can ask Jesus to use his super powers to take you back into time and see if a snake spoke human language to two people hanging out in a magical fruit garden eh? Go for it. Call on Jesus now !
You speak of scientists mootives to lie. Why then do they all tell the same lie? If a scientist had PROOF against evolution he/she would be more famous/rich/ (Lust?) than ANY scientist who finds proof FOR evolution.
@Eaglesfaninca Scientists can't get famous by spreading something that can be dissproven.
because atheists don't believe in creation , and because most scientists are atheists , what is a better way to fulfill a motive , than to lie about something , and have no possible way of being wrong?
Okay now you are getting into crazy conspiracy theories. You are saying that scientists are atheists who became scietists just to pretend they disproved GOD. You are mentally unhinged. Have a nice day.
It's kind of difficult to debate with people like you who don't have a rational working brain. So I'm just at a loss for words for retarded brain damaged fundies like you pal. Try growing a rational thinking brain, then maybe we can debate.
Way to go GEERUP, the Bible must be read litterally and when we encounter a metaphor or an allegory, understand that it still conveys a litteral truth, for example, when John the Baptist said here is the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world, he was not saying that Jesus was a litteral lamb but used the word Lamb as a type for sacrifice meaning that Jesus was the blameless sacrifice for the sins of mankind, the long awaited Messiah
Why are we so hell-bent on making it satan's fault. The bible never said it was satan. I thought it was crystal clear? it should have said it was satan if it was. And Satan has only spoke threw things that had the capability for speech, never once did he grant something the ability of speech. Or else we'd be having a lot more accounts of talking animals
I can't believe you have to ask why evil spirits possessing snakes is odd to people. For me it's because it seems like something out of a fantasy horror flick, like that movie.......um..you know......uh........Damn! I just can't seem to think of an example,but you know what I mean.
i get it, geerup. it's supernatural, so let's just accept it. the flood is supernatural, so let's just accept it. people turning into salt, people made to suddenly speak other languages, bodies of water parting, people made out of dirt and ribs... it's all supernatural, so, as atheists, let's just stop ridiculing it all and accept it. instant christian, imo.
so did this snake have one sad speech impediment or what? no lips, thin, forked tongue, very large mouth cavity, and teeth not optimal for speaking? oh wait, did i mention that snakes have no vocal chords? oops sorry.. it's all supernatural. ok i believe it now.
gave her think that maybe there are my be a spiritual dimension to this rather than a wooden literal vocal cord required dimension? being that Satan is a fallen angel he has angelic powers which he can utilize in order to deceive his intended audience.
@GEERUP also how is it so hard for people like you to understand that you are deluded brainwashed morons and that your 2000 year old book has no meaning in sane peoples minds so if you don't mind set down your little fable and enter the real world you idiotic prick
It doesn't say that Satan had anything to do with the snake. Also, snakes have no vocal chords, so even a possessed snake would be incapable of sound, let alone speech.
The rest of your argument can be filed under "God of the gaps".
@PaulBarte If you were god you could not create a spiritual creature designed to interact with the physical world but not being able to produce sound?
@Xendrius I have no idea. All I know is what it says in the book of Genesis. It says a serpent talked to Eve. It doesn't say "Satan" or "A demon". You can't write your own version.
@PaulBarte The adam and eve story was simplifed so that the primitive people could get a glimpse of the fall of man, the fall invovled spiritual and gentical corruption by the fallen angels mention in genesis and the book of enoch.
@Xendrius Humans at that time were far from primitive, compared to say, 40,000 years ago. Just look at Asia at the time the OT was written. Look at Egypt. These people were not cavemen.
Ummm, yes , I do have a problem with a big fat supernatural sky-daddy possessing a snake and making it talk. I seriously believe that if you think this could happens just means you must have been a very slippery little baby and your mother kept dropping you on your head....
That makes sense. If you believe one supernatural claim , you may as well believe them all. Plus you can reject science and still enjoy computers and the all the other technology it brings. Your world view is convenient for you.
First off how do you make the seperation between your version of history and mythology? Because you believe in one story over another that means its real right. Another fail. "you have to have an intelligent being". Once again just an opinion. Way to not offer a single fact in your argument. BTW please take notice of that fact that most, if not all of your videos cant get above 4 stars. People are getting tired of your ramblings.
Well done GEERUP. You have passed my tests. You are a leader amongst men. I will contact you via Youtube for your next assigment as I Yahweh am your God.
umm...the bible is more of a storybook then a rel account of events....the entire bible is made up of many stories with a lesson hidden in them...there all mettafores for the real world
yeah we do see possesion in movies. and the bible. both not reality. a literal account of the bible falsifies itself after onlt the first few pages. dumb ass
You are talking about why we cant emagine satan talking through a snake cuz we see it in movies all the time? -.- We all know that if we watch a movie with talking animals that it is fake.. And that's why i cant believe that a REAL Talking snake has lived ..
its mighty bold of you to claim comprehension of things you will never understand. why don;t you try to come up with a new theory for gravity or somthing. you one I learnt in school isnt accepted anymore. swallow your pride and admit you dont own your world, and will never understand the universe.
have you ever really thought about what you rant about..would you like jesus deep inside you,i bet you would. have you ever jerked off? DO YOU LOOK AT PORN.. i bet your more a shemale guy right..lol..your just another scumbag. people like you hide behind the word of god to sin in peace
Geerup no ware in the Bible does it say that the snake was possesed by Satan. It simply describes the snake as the most clever beast in the garden. It wasen't possesed.
True. I don't get why people can't see that god punished the snake not because satan possesed it, but because the snake tricked adam and eve on its own.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The three little piggies was historical. I had no idea. If rebellion against God is a sin. Then an angel committed the first sin and brought sin into the world, how do you guys know another angel won't do that same thing again when your in heaven.
According to the Holy Bible, "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Deuteronomy 18:15).
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (John 1:45).
The Holy Bible reveals truth and testifies of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock of my Salvation, rationalanarchy.
Absent from the pages of Scripture, prolix atheist mantras about the nonexistence of God are meritless. According to the Holy Bible, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Timothy 3:16).
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).
Who publishes "The codified Bible," rationalanarchy? The Old and New Testament were complete centuries before Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea. That meeting, foundational though it was to subsequent denominationalism as a theme in history, did not generate one verse of Scripture, nor could it. Nicaea produced little more than imperial policy.
According to Psalm 12: 6ff, God Himself preserves His inspired words, and there is no mention of His needing a "codified" anything to do it.
Just as the term "Council of Nicaea" is found nowhere in the Scriptures, so the words "censoring," and "downthumbing" are also absent from the Scriptures. Such sketchy documentation about that meeting which remains extant, however, does not support the atheist sophistry that God does not exist.
As a matter of historical fact, all of the New Testament (like the Tanakh, i.e., the Old Testment in Hebrew) were complete centuries before Constantine's reign.
According to the Holy Bible, which antedated Constantine's reign by centuries, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2Thessalonians 2:8ff)
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, said, "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6).
Moreover, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Daniel 7:10).
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them" (Revelation 20:11).
According to the Holy Bible, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2Thessalonians 2:7)
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time" (1John 2:18).
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1John 2:22).
Just as a forum debate or opinion poll limited to an insane asylum's inmates will neither diagnose their condition nor determine their ultimate treatment, rationalanachy, neither will your straw men make your case credible.
Constantine and Nicea neither determined nor hindered the "compostition of the Bible," which was a fait accompli centuries before your alleged debate on the "canon of Scripture" may have happened. I concede that such a pompous activity impresses shallow infidels, however.
Because the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, rationalanarchy, the onus probandi of invalidating what you call "resorting to a book to prove itself" when that "book" happens to be the Holy Bible falls entirely on you. Your logical ability is evidently limited to accusing me of "logical fallacy" merely for quoting it. Your penchant for anarchy, however, has failed to make your case and will no doubt continue to do so.
Rome stands and HAS ALWAYS STOOD IN OPPOSITION TO THE HOLY BIBLE.
That the Lord might inspire and preserve only part of His Word in the Holy Bible defies reason and common sense just as it also contradicts God's Holiness along with His omnipotence and truthfulness, but that absurd logical fallacy has undergirded Papist man-made dogma for more than a millennium.
Rome has both subtracted from and added to the Scriptures and is therefore doubly accursed by God Himself.
The antique trivia that you cited, rationalanarchy, proves absolutely nothing relative to the "composition of the Bible" about which a derivative credo from Nicea has no bearing whatsoever.
The Lord Jesus Christ said, "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matthew 12:35).
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, said "... Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me " (Mark 7:6).
Moreover, rationalanarchy, "And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness" (Ezekiel 33:31).
As a matter of historical fact, there is no conclusive evidence that the "canon of Scripture" was even debated at Nicea. Who cares if it was, retionalanarchy?
Neither you, nor I, nor the members of that meeting effected the "composition of the Bible," which antedated Constantine's reign by centuries.
"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?" (Proverbs 26:18ff).
No one held a gun to your head when you composed and repeatedly posted your baseless assertions, and those acts are irrefutable evidence of your choice and volition.
Even as an infidels' ideologue manque, rationalanarchy, you evidently have limited potential. I therefore conclude that your best course for eternity follows:
Believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ today, and be saved by grace through faith in Him alone.
Your assertions lack a sound historical basis, rationalanarchy. James I of England and VI of Scotland was born, and died more than a millennium after the Romanist council to which you refer. So did the translators of the Authorized Version, and a meeting in 393 AD did not matter to them.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6ff).
Again, rationalanarchy, your assertions are erroneous.
Neither you nor the Rome's chief operatives (officially) even know what the Holy Bible is. The LXX (Septuagint) is so bogus that an authoritative recension is still in question--except perhaps among Vatican toadies.
The Vatican's favorite LXX, not surprisingly, is the manifestly corrupt Codex Vaticanus because it is the absolutely worst possible manuscript of anything that it can palm off as a basis for mistranslations of Scripture.
The Vatican's blasphemous pretensions to infallibility have influenced the illiterate to abject servility for centuries, but the Tanakh (Old Testament in Hebrew) likewise stands as a witness aginst the falsehood of the poppycock which you recently composed as Text Comments.
According to Psalm 12:6-7, GOD HIMSELF preserves his inspired words, not a gallery of Roman hirelings in 393.
Er, because we have never witnessed a talking snake...and talking snake pets are NOT commonplace! Wow, some very twisted begging-the-question going on here!
getsupercharged 2 months ago
Why is it so difficult to understand that words can spew from a snake, when one has no problem believing that a bird (parrot) still speaks in this day and age.
veeveevenn 3 months ago
I stopped to watch this video. all you did was yell at your viewers and tell us we are wrong as you stated movies prove biblical 'facts'. Go piss up a rope you cowhead troglodyte! We should all get together and sue the Christian church system for their religious wars which have made the world hate. Our lives are in danger because of christian shit against other beliefs... We want restitution!
BUST0BIWAN 4 months ago
I have a friend who has a talking snake. I think he's a bit cranky though.
He says loads of funny shit about God too. Most people ignore him.
Uberlaser 6 months ago
it's great to see so many people downthumbing this video and showing this idiot what we think of his archaic desert superstitions! Keep up the good work my fellow freethinkers!
j0hnnytamb0rine 7 months ago
The snake had richard dawkins head on it and started talking bad about God.
NorthNorth2009 7 months ago
Comment removed
NorthNorth2009 7 months ago
1:43 "Why should that be a hard thing for you atheists"...to think satan can posses a snake and cause it to talk. is he joking? Does he seriously not see why rational people have a hard time believing that snakes can talk?wow this just goes to show that a person of faith has a mind who is willing to go without bound in accepting just about every absurd claim they hear
slovakmath 7 months ago
I don't understand your ability to remain free. Suspension of disbelief is fun at a movie.Your poor mind can't seem to handle reality once you leave the theatre or put down the book.
MaitreyaRocket 10 months ago
Its great to see so many atheists coming and watching these vids! Keep up the good work Geerup!
virtualguitarist 11 months ago
yawn
0TheBestMan 11 months ago
LOL - talking snake and he is against evolution. Quite dopey. Demons in a movie is proof - LOL. A moral proves there is an imaginary man up in the sky. The bible makes more sense. ROTFLOL. It just keeps getting better. Who created God? He doesn't realize the sun brings more energy to the world than we can possibly use. 30 seconds of the suns light could power the USA for one year. Satan. LOL. Booga Booga. Donkeys talk. fairy tales. Give me more. LOL. Welcome to the bronze age. Amen made it up.
fisherguzzi 1 year ago
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired before age 18"
-Albert Einstein
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
The talking snake was part of gods plan to punish his own creation, he knew it was going to happen, but he still place the tree there knowing that adam/eve was going to betray him.
Plus they didnt have the knowlegde of good and evil, meaning they had no idea on what they were doing.
Congrats on the bible proving that its correct >.>, its like me saying im always right infact i am always right :P
purepwn01 1 year ago
This guy is certifiably insane, check out his drunken diatribe about evolution. He belongs in a mental asylum.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
Yes, hello . , Insane Asylum ? Could be your lucky day.
evidenceonly 1 year ago
they didn't have demons in the old testament,which is odd. lol
vain911 1 year ago
Magic. Just say magic and we can laugh and move on.
LostSubsForever 1 year ago
Explain why your God in all his omniscient glory would create a being such as Satan KNOWING he would tempt Eve KNOWING that Eve would be tricked? and then punish those who don't love him?
RemsUnheardofArmy 1 year ago
Perfect description: when dealing with god you abandon common sense, congratulations, you nailed it. :)
ritoca06 1 year ago
So god intervened in Adam & Eve's lives by giving the devil the power to talk through a serpent? It sounds like god set Eve up. What kind of loving god would do that? It's as if I gave a pedophile my phone number and told him to call only when my child was the only one home to answer the phone. That's one sick lord you worship there. Glad your god is only imaginary.
Xenophile665 1 year ago
Does Geerup realise that The Exorcist is a work of fiction?
justinfrost 1 year ago
Very powerful speech!
Tomekwinxs 1 year ago
GEERUP. Did you know that common sence once told us that.....
heavier objects fell faster then lighter ones
no boat made of metal could possiblt float
and that no life could survive an enviornment where led could melt
but our common sence has ALWAYS been proven wrong. In science, we put evidence first and beliefs second.
P.S. Do you believe that bats are birds, whales are fish, rabbits chew cud, and pie=3.0 because that's what the Bible says?
oldblubblub 1 year ago
Geerup...I have to Thank you for making my day.I have NEVER laughed so hard in my life.I think I'll subscribe to your channel so your accessible when I'm in the mood for comedy.lol.
pdrtech45 1 year ago
I think you're probably just joking about this whole zealous religion thing.
after all, when all axiomatic assumptions are dropped, it simply reduces to a matter of personal, though unchangeable taste, regarding what view of the world to rely on.
any of them work and maintain their consistency for and in an individual that feels comfortable with it - so why argue?
cheers ;)
nerdman431 1 year ago
Since when did belief in the supernatural and mistaking words in a book for voices from the sky fall under the umbrella of common sense?
Sjarke98 1 year ago
Wow, you sounded semi rational in your other videos. This one takes the cake. Look, I'm the son of a preacher and I've seen and heard this bullshit all my life. You go from illogical to complete moron territory in no time at all.
I'd be glad to take you on and show you so many ways you are believing in an empty ideology and a non-existent entity. It would be child's play for me. You're just a run of the mill gullible mindslave. I've seen dozens of spiritual leeches just like you
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
@MrTruthAddict
Spiritual leeches?
Sorry, but you're in the wrong dept.; Vampires is downstairs, first on the right.....!
:)
DastardlyDawkins 1 year ago
We can all live by one UNIVERSAL rule: Any man that claims his word as absolute truth----is a phoney. We should listen to only those whom suggest things tentatively and are concious of the need never to insist upon the truth of anything---We should never...NEVER accept anyones insistence upon the truth of a THEORY that cannot be proven----To do so is to surrender your integrity as an entity of yourself. All Cults are destructive of mans integrity.
TheGreatDeciever55 1 year ago
Supernatural beings can basically do wtf they want.....not a hard concept to think it is hard for him to talk as a serpent.....
coolst0rybro 1 year ago
Man, this is freaky. This guy actually thinks that the Exorcist proves that there was a talking snake...
iLoveSalami 1 year ago
SATAN DECEIVED EVE THEN EVE DECEIVED ADAM ----- GET IT STRAIGHT EH ---- YOU SEEM TO ASSUME SATAN IS A "HE" BUT DON'T BE SO SURE ----- SATAN IS MOST LIKELY A SHE ---- YOU NEED TO RECLAIM YOUR BALLS SIR
MisterMassMurderer 1 year ago
GOD IS NOT "SUPERNATURAL", FRIEND, NO SUCH THING ---- GOD IS SUPER-TECHNOLOGICAL THO
MisterMassMurderer 1 year ago
@MisterMassMurderer
God is God, no human perception can inhibit Him.
Technology is nothing more than big kids building themselves toys to play with.....get it straight, wee man!
DastardlyDawkins 1 year ago
@DastardlyDawkins WHAT A MORON YOU ARE ----- GOD IS IN A FLYING SAUCER RIGHT NOW ---- TAKE BACK YOUR BALLS
MisterMassMurderer 1 year ago
@MisterMassMurderer
If God wanted to create another life form on some far off planet, then who are we to object, eh?
After all, it is His creation, He can do with it as He pleases, regardless of our comparitively infintile logic would suggest . :)
DastardlyDawkins 1 year ago
Snakes do talk , you morons.
Last time I saw one and yelled to my friends: "Look a snake!"
The snake said: "Pssst."
So I whispered : "Look a snake."
gotohellfast 1 year ago
Animals can talk it's not supernatural!!! Dogs and cats can imitate human sounds if they are taught the habit and if they are trained. When Animals speak the few words they can all they know is I am going to get a treat ore more attention for talking, but first you they need vocal cords like one person stated.
InnieMeenie 1 year ago
while is does the bible have superatural truth and not the koran?
cherrydog9 1 year ago
my goodness geerup is a fucking moron!!!
fellXhouseXranger 1 year ago
It doesn't say "Snake" it says "Serpent" (an entirely different word and an intirely different concept) and it must have walked upright and been able to talk because after the temptaton in the Garden it is cursed to forever "crawl upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." ... no passage of Scripture mentions a talking snake ... so much misunderstanding ... so much flagrant ignorance ... I LOL when people use stuff so far out of context and so incorrectally
hammerogod 1 year ago
I agree man. Also, the talking scorpions in the epic of gilgamesh must have been real too, with your retarded logic. In real life, animals cannot talk. Only in the imaginations of primitive myth makers. What makes your myth any better then the epic of gilgamesh? At least it has interesting characters.
shorty962 1 year ago
Gilgamesh bored the shit out of me, but so did Gone with the Wind ... go figure.
hammerogod 1 year ago
Hahaha! Just when you thought he could not get any worse.
Elimin8rA51 1 year ago
hahaha...wow...Understand Supernatural...lol...OK.. Fukin Quack.
FromOutsideTheBox 1 year ago
you are a fucking retard geerup
oddjob29 2 years ago 2
Psychos like Geerup remind me why I left the church. Thank god.
vozuluzov 2 years ago
But when I watch the Exorcist .. I realize that it's FAKE ALSO !!!!!!!!!! Your quite the entertainment package however.
coopersnoop 2 years ago
lol... i liked the video
Limbsy 2 years ago
God is not supernatural.....he's IMAGINARY!
utoad9 2 years ago
Dude, you should think your logics over: "God makes more sense than billions of years of evolution."
Omg... the old testament is wrong and has been changed 1000s of times. And if you start to check out the new testament with a critical sight, you will see, that Jesus obviously said: "THE OLD TESTAMENT IS WRONG!"
80Koe 2 years ago
@80Koe
Compare all of the Christian translations of the old testament to the Original Hebrew Hebrew bible.
There are practically no errors at all.
The bible was in the time of Print and press , so the New testament is even more accurate than Old testament.
alexross8 2 years ago
oh the snake was possessed. Now I get it, it all makes sense now. Its supernatural!
maxpolaris99 2 years ago
Ha ha ha, they dodge one question and create seven more = )
snoman99991 2 years ago
@6:50 "Out of the seed of woman. very specifically."
as opposed to...? What? The seed of man?
thetwentyteens 2 years ago
So how can you ever expect someone to present us with creation evidence , if we are just shut up like that?
alexross8 2 years ago
Hahahaha, "Expelled: No intellignce allowed"
Was a big budget for a "science" documentary, and it did not attempt any evidence.
the peer reviewed process is a self correcting method.
If you or I found evidence for creation we would be rich and famous. There are plentyu of motives to the contrary of what you said.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
@Eaglesfaninca I haven't seen that movie , but I hear good things.
If you or I found any evidence for creation , we would be shut up , just like Kent Hovind , and possibly thousands of other people who have something to say.
Why would we be shut up?
Because those so called "Scientists" do not want any more hypotheses , because they don't want to be wrong.
alexross8 2 years ago
I suggest seeing the movie only because you will see my point. It is on youtube if you can't find it I can send you a link.
Kent Hovind had no proof. He even admitted himself Creation is not science it is faith and religion. He just justifies it by saying that evolution is a religion too that requires faith and has no proof.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
aleX;
Creation evidence? Isn't that an oxymoron? Creationism isn't based on intelligence. It's superstition.
nogogma 2 years ago
@nogogma
"Creation evidence? Isn't that an oxymoron? Creationism isn't based on intelligence. It's superstition. "
Your point?
Gravity was superstition at one point.
The Theory of Evolution was superstition .
If superstitions can't be based on intelligence , then neither Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin were intelligent.
alexross8 2 years ago
Those theories weren't superstitions, they were phenomena that we couldn't yet explain. The important and crucial element is that they are all observed. Something superstitious like belief in god or evidence of creation is in fact not observed.
I know what you mean though. Superstitions need to be weeded out, while observed phenomena that we cannot currently explain deserve our full attention.
snoman99991 2 years ago
@snoman99991
Evidence..
Like the Noah's ark feasibility study?
Worldwide flood myths.
Potteries with dinosaurs on them.
Dinosaur fossil with organic material attached.
The bible being a pre-modern insight into the advancements of future technology.
And the fact that scientists have cut corners in equations , when the big bang was conceived.
Same for the "Flat" universe theory.
alexross8 2 years ago
@alexross8
If you actually look at the "Flat" universe theory , by searching on google , and you see a documentary or article , you will see that scientists tried to test their theory with math.
Unfortunately , they come out with the wrong answer , but they accepted it , even though math cannot be wrong.
Not only that , the big bang accepts a paradox as truth , even though a paradox cannot be true.
alexross8 2 years ago
The "feasibility" study is junk science. Impossible to prove. The premise alone is impossible. See, if you try to go with that "kind" bullshit, you actually defeat yourself. The only way that could work and end up with today is if you believe in 'hold your breath' SUPEREVOLUTION. See, YEC's believe in superevolution because they have to get from "kinds" to today's diversity just to explain Noah.
Basically, speciation events happen every couple minutes under that theory. Good luck with it.
snoman99991 2 years ago
alexross8 2 years ago
@alexross8
But even then, you don't seem to get that the technological discovery rate for our species is currently exponential (which you should understand if you took any science classes at all in high school). The fact that we can treat the broad variety of diseases and disorders in the public today demonstrates this.
Hilariously enough, you can see in your own data that there is an exponential growth in viable births starting from a low birth per capita to a high one we have today.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Flood myths would make sense. Bear with me here. Maybe ALL of modern religion has common ancestors? Or perhaps there really was a year when there were very heavy rains, nearly across the globe.
The problem is that nobody would have survived that flood if it were global, and the distribution of population on Earth does not fit the Ark model AT ALL. Not even close, let alone the dozens of other disciplines agreeing with that statement.
snoman99991 2 years ago
@snoman99991 If you actually took the time and did research , you would realize that you are wrong.
On wikipedia , they have a chart that shows the population records from 70,000 years ago , to now
In the 1700s population recording became important. Because of lack of importance before the 1700s , everything before then is a guess entirely based upon the evidence from famines or wars.
alexross8 2 years ago
@alexross8
I have to caution you against using Wikipedia as a primary source. It's better than it has been, but the method you've used in explaining your source is unbelievably stupid.
Are you trying to tell me that population growth should not be explained by technology? Because your data CLEARLY shows that the more technological our society becomes, the higher the rate of viable pregnancies.
All of which are good models for agreeing with the scientific viewpoint.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Man and Dinosaur never lived together. The creatures depicted in SOME pottery are not necessarily dinosaurs, and without fossils that are dated more recently than 65 MILLION years ago nobody can take that seriously as factual evidence.
The bible says that the earth is a disk. It also says that the moon is a light, when that is clearly false. How about creating light before even creating the sun or stars?
Sorry, the bible is just flat out wrong. In all accounts. Really.
snoman99991 2 years ago 2
@snoman99991
Dated how?
Are you referring to C14 Carbon dating?
The bible doesn't say the Earth is a disk.
The moon is a light.
The sun reflects light onto the moon , so it gives us light at night.
It's a nightlight.
alexross8 2 years ago
worldwide flood myths are just that, they're myths. so is the one in the bible. pottery like the ica stones have been known fakes for decades, and the bible has no science in it
oddjob29 2 years ago
is geerup becomming a deist? because every single "argument" that he's giving is more deistic than creationistic
klootzakisme 2 years ago
But the turth is , scientists have been getting it wrong.
Countless quantum physisists and biologists are throwing out equations and formulas , because something can't contradict their current findings.
A scientist on this documentery I watched , had said that they calculated a certain number , and it contradicted their beliefs , so they threw it out , and they stuck with the idea that the universe is flat.
I'm not even joking. Richard Dawkins was on it. "How scientists know God isn't real"
alexross8 2 years ago
"How scientists know God isn't real"
One doesn't have to be a scientist to know God isn't real. Just a small dose of common sense.
nogogma 2 years ago
When I went to see a museum , I was allowed to touch the "Transitional fossils" , but I wasn't allowed to touch a pipe or a bone that came from a few thousand years ago.
That is one of my main reasons I don't believe we evolved from apes , or that the world came from a "big bang" or expansion of space.
alexross8 2 years ago
If the snake was posessed, then how come god punished the snakes by taking off their legs?
hippydude89 2 years ago
Common sense would dictate that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Using the nature of God as a starting point means you have both put your religion above your common sense and formed a circular argument.
DroogieSteve 2 years ago
GEERUP AND FUCK OFF YOU TALKING sssssssssssworm
JESUStheATHEIST1 2 years ago
i have the exorcist on my movie dvd library file 2:06... this guy's a fucktard.
vividDrive 2 years ago
More proof that God is a 'get out of logic free' card for many people.
Your argument only changes the weirdness to... why did God punish the snake and all of it's descendants if it were being completely dominated by Satan? From nonsense to a point against God's morality. Moral of this story? Don't mess with God, or He'll... rip the limbs off of an innocent bystander you manipulated and dominated to do your dirty work.
What's with your 'Mommy and Daddy hydrogen atom' crap? -_-'
Tigranis 2 years ago
@Tigranis , so Satan couldn't walk around if he possessed a snake again.
C'mon , thats easy logic.
It may sound a little simple minded , but it takes even simple mind to think of that.
And you my friend , aren't that smart if you can't use your common sense.
alexross8 2 years ago
Geerup, you have brought up an interesting point. The Bible contains supernatural events. You go on to mention Fables, and Scary movies as depicting supernatural events. I don't believe in the supernatural because from my life experience the supernatural is not real. So what evidence has convinced you that the supernatural is real?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
Goodness me, what sort of simpleton is this guy GEERUP? Does he really believe the tripe that he spouts, does he expect anyone, let alone a religionist, to believe this childhood nonsense?
When people like this man are listened to by the sheeple of the world then it's time to worry about the future of mankind, this guy is no different from Muslim fundies spouting their brand of crap. It's all crap, just a different label on the tin.
Sarge084 2 years ago
The natural created the supernatural, the supernatural did not make the natural. The supernatural is natural fantasy. Therefore, there is no such thing as the supernatural anymore than there are Mermaids swimming in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The supernatural God of the bible is just another natural projection of the superstitious mind of the ignorant humans who invented him.
nogogma 2 years ago
@nogogma The big bang has all the same properties of any modern day religion.
It even has some scientific evidence to support it , but there is evidence to support creation.
The only way we can know if the big bang started it all , is to go back in time and watch it.
Thats why scientists made it up , so nobody could possibly dissprove it.
alexross8 2 years ago
alex;
Well then maybe you can ask Jesus to use his super powers to take you back into time and see if a snake spoke human language to two people hanging out in a magical fruit garden eh? Go for it. Call on Jesus now !
nogogma 2 years ago
@nogogma My opinion , or guess , is that scientists made it up , because there is a motive to.
Sure , People could have made up our religion too.
But to fabricate Christianity in a way that turns it into what it is today , would be remarkable.
Christianity comes from an extraordinary history , unlike the big bang.
alexross8 2 years ago
alex;
With a statement such as this there is only one conclusion about you:
You are without a doubt extremely deluded and retarded.
nogogma 2 years ago
@nogogma I'm not one to make those kinds of accusations , but the accuser is often the deluded and retarded one.
You aren't debating.
You are just arguing with sentances that aren't even relevant.
My argument , my last one , was that scientists have a motive to lie to us.
Money , fame , lust , they are all motives.
And the reason I don't think many fossils are real , is because most museums let me handle million year old fossils without warning or restraint.
alexross8 2 years ago
You speak of scientists mootives to lie. Why then do they all tell the same lie? If a scientist had PROOF against evolution he/she would be more famous/rich/ (Lust?) than ANY scientist who finds proof FOR evolution.
Your last argument falls apart.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
@Eaglesfaninca
You see , Evolution is indeed a truth.
It is natural selection , through adaptation.
The weak die , so the fittest survive.
The environment changes , and makes the fittest become the weakest , which makes the species of an animal take a turn for the better or for the worst.
That is a historical fact.
Whether or not animals come from a single ancestor , is the topic I am on.
alexross8 2 years ago
@Eaglesfaninca Scientists can't get famous by spreading something that can be dissproven.
because atheists don't believe in creation , and because most scientists are atheists , what is a better way to fulfill a motive , than to lie about something , and have no possible way of being wrong?
alexross8 2 years ago
Okay now you are getting into crazy conspiracy theories. You are saying that scientists are atheists who became scietists just to pretend they disproved GOD. You are mentally unhinged. Have a nice day.
Eaglesfaninca 2 years ago
@Eaglesfaninca NO , not all.
There are many devout scientists who study and research the claims that the other scientists make , without even questioning them.
There are many biologists and quantum physisists that work under the people who lie to us , and they are just as gullible as us.
It's not really a conspiracy theory if scientists have lied before.
In fact , scientists are actually fired for having any ties with Creation or religion for that matter.
alexross8 2 years ago
Hey alex; You definitely need to grow a brain in your head pal. You might as well make a sign with the words inscribed on it that read:
'''I am an ignoramus ''''
nogogma 2 years ago
@nogogma
More insults?
Quite typical of a person that has no ability to debate.
Your insults make you right and me wrong?
alexross8 2 years ago
Hey alex;
It's kind of difficult to debate with people like you who don't have a rational working brain. So I'm just at a loss for words for retarded brain damaged fundies like you pal. Try growing a rational thinking brain, then maybe we can debate.
nogogma 2 years ago
Way to go GEERUP, the Bible must be read litterally and when we encounter a metaphor or an allegory, understand that it still conveys a litteral truth, for example, when John the Baptist said here is the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world, he was not saying that Jesus was a litteral lamb but used the word Lamb as a type for sacrifice meaning that Jesus was the blameless sacrifice for the sins of mankind, the long awaited Messiah
Serge1965 2 years ago 2
your brain is possessed by air.
psythefry 2 years ago
Why are we so hell-bent on making it satan's fault. The bible never said it was satan. I thought it was crystal clear? it should have said it was satan if it was. And Satan has only spoke threw things that had the capability for speech, never once did he grant something the ability of speech. Or else we'd be having a lot more accounts of talking animals
atreestump 2 years ago
Perhaps the serpent was used as a metaphor? Foreshadowing the islamic word for Alla?
KresTKroVee 2 years ago
I can't believe you have to ask why evil spirits possessing snakes is odd to people. For me it's because it seems like something out of a fantasy horror flick, like that movie.......um..you know......uh........Damn! I just can't seem to think of an example,but you know what I mean.
Neweddy24 2 years ago
i get it, geerup. it's supernatural, so let's just accept it. the flood is supernatural, so let's just accept it. people turning into salt, people made to suddenly speak other languages, bodies of water parting, people made out of dirt and ribs... it's all supernatural, so, as atheists, let's just stop ridiculing it all and accept it. instant christian, imo.
m00ph00 2 years ago
so did this snake have one sad speech impediment or what? no lips, thin, forked tongue, very large mouth cavity, and teeth not optimal for speaking? oh wait, did i mention that snakes have no vocal chords? oops sorry.. it's all supernatural. ok i believe it now.
m00ph00 2 years ago 4
gave her think that maybe there are my be a spiritual dimension to this rather than a wooden literal vocal cord required dimension? being that Satan is a fallen angel he has angelic powers which he can utilize in order to deceive his intended audience.
GEERUP 2 years ago
@GEERUP hey if when you die you go to heaven can you just go jump off a bridge so that no one has to listen to your shit
crazygeek777 2 years ago
@GEERUP also how is it so hard for people like you to understand that you are deluded brainwashed morons and that your 2000 year old book has no meaning in sane peoples minds so if you don't mind set down your little fable and enter the real world you idiotic prick
crazygeek777 2 years ago
@GEERUP you know YOU NEED SOMETHING TO CREATE GOD TO YOU DUMBASS
crazygeek777 2 years ago
@GEERUP The serpent in the garden has nothing to do with Satan, according to Genesis.
Eron2828 2 years ago
@GEERUP LOL, uh okay. Wow, you're pretty good at pulling these things out of your ass on cue.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
It doesn't say that Satan had anything to do with the snake. Also, snakes have no vocal chords, so even a possessed snake would be incapable of sound, let alone speech.
The rest of your argument can be filed under "God of the gaps".
PaulBarte 2 years ago 5
@PaulBarte Demons talk to people without mouths, they create sound using zero physical objects.
Xendrius 1 year ago
@Xendrius Sound cannot exist without matter. That's why in space no one can hear you scream.
PaulBarte 1 year ago
@PaulBarte If you were god you could not create a spiritual creature designed to interact with the physical world but not being able to produce sound?
Xendrius 1 year ago
@Xendrius I have no idea. All I know is what it says in the book of Genesis. It says a serpent talked to Eve. It doesn't say "Satan" or "A demon". You can't write your own version.
PaulBarte 1 year ago
@PaulBarte The adam and eve story was simplifed so that the primitive people could get a glimpse of the fall of man, the fall invovled spiritual and gentical corruption by the fallen angels mention in genesis and the book of enoch.
Xendrius 1 year ago
@Xendrius Humans at that time were far from primitive, compared to say, 40,000 years ago. Just look at Asia at the time the OT was written. Look at Egypt. These people were not cavemen.
PaulBarte 1 year ago
Ummm, yes , I do have a problem with a big fat supernatural sky-daddy possessing a snake and making it talk. I seriously believe that if you think this could happens just means you must have been a very slippery little baby and your mother kept dropping you on your head....
GawdOfThunder 2 years ago
That makes sense. If you believe one supernatural claim , you may as well believe them all. Plus you can reject science and still enjoy computers and the all the other technology it brings. Your world view is convenient for you.
MrBrainmold 2 years ago
First off how do you make the seperation between your version of history and mythology? Because you believe in one story over another that means its real right. Another fail. "you have to have an intelligent being". Once again just an opinion. Way to not offer a single fact in your argument. BTW please take notice of that fact that most, if not all of your videos cant get above 4 stars. People are getting tired of your ramblings.
shythawk 2 years ago
Cthulhu > God
The only way god can kill Cthulhu is if he has a shotgun and a skateboard, and even then, it ends as a draw.
JTrizzleFizzle 2 years ago
Well done GEERUP. You have passed my tests. You are a leader amongst men. I will contact you via Youtube for your next assigment as I Yahweh am your God.
shagster1970 2 years ago 3
its not to far off now.about 2 yrs ??or so
galegregory97comcast 2 years ago
umm...the bible is more of a storybook then a rel account of events....the entire bible is made up of many stories with a lesson hidden in them...there all mettafores for the real world
melculrapid 2 years ago
adam and eve didnt go. "SHIT a talking snake!"?
robsmithford 2 years ago
yeah we do see possesion in movies. and the bible. both not reality. a literal account of the bible falsifies itself after onlt the first few pages. dumb ass
robsmithford 2 years ago
"If you take all supernatural occurances out of the bible you've got nothing more than a cardboard box"
Now can you see how flawed the bible is? It came out of your own mouth.
breadwinnner 2 years ago
Comment removed
athlete117 2 years ago
Comment removed
athlete117 2 years ago
You are talking about why we cant emagine satan talking through a snake cuz we see it in movies all the time? -.- We all know that if we watch a movie with talking animals that it is fake.. And that's why i cant believe that a REAL Talking snake has lived ..
Kukzzzz 2 years ago
its mighty bold of you to claim comprehension of things you will never understand. why don;t you try to come up with a new theory for gravity or somthing. you one I learnt in school isnt accepted anymore. swallow your pride and admit you dont own your world, and will never understand the universe.
AndrewKH85 2 years ago
nm the name GEERUP,try to LISTENUP,damnit youre a fucking idiot...
blah,blah,blah,god this,god that,typical ignorance.
better yet
SHUTHEFUCKUP
TLSlayer 2 years ago 2
Yes, when you take Genesis literally, you are automatically discredited.
You really just seem angry.
JacobHooper 2 years ago 2
Psst... 1:40
maby you should re read Gen. because Satan is not even mentioned in the entier book of Gen.
yourmaster100 2 years ago 3
Prove the super natural, then we'll talk.
nhmllr725 2 years ago 8
have you ever really thought about what you rant about..would you like jesus deep inside you,i bet you would. have you ever jerked off? DO YOU LOOK AT PORN.. i bet your more a shemale guy right..lol..your just another scumbag. people like you hide behind the word of god to sin in peace
juijitsuchoke 2 years ago
Geerup no ware in the Bible does it say that the snake was possesed by Satan. It simply describes the snake as the most clever beast in the garden. It wasen't possesed.
Jesse2K12 2 years ago 3
Not only that, but Yaweh punishes snakes by making them crawl on their bellies and eat dust.
Verac1ty 2 years ago 2
True. I don't get why people can't see that god punished the snake not because satan possesed it, but because the snake tricked adam and eve on its own.
Jesse2K12 2 years ago
Atheist thinking:
Talking snake? No way
6 billion talking apes? No problem
catholicexodus 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You see,
when your engaging in the supernatural, Santa Claus is real, too.
In fact, anything you could possibly think up is real. Sprinkle some "God" on it, and your good to go, son.
fonna 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"We have Satan possessing a snake. Why should that be an odd thing for you unbelievers...?"
"I mean, you probably understand it because you probably have "The Exorcist" on your movie DVD library file."
Crazy.
PrayForMojo2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The three little piggies was historical. I had no idea. If rebellion against God is a sin. Then an angel committed the first sin and brought sin into the world, how do you guys know another angel won't do that same thing again when your in heaven.
MichaelSJLH 2 years ago
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
According to the Holy Bible, "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Deuteronomy 18:15).
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (John 1:45).
The Holy Bible reveals truth and testifies of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Rock of my Salvation, rationalanarchy.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Absent from the pages of Scripture, prolix atheist mantras about the nonexistence of God are meritless. According to the Holy Bible, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Timothy 3:16).
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Who publishes "The codified Bible," rationalanarchy? The Old and New Testament were complete centuries before Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea. That meeting, foundational though it was to subsequent denominationalism as a theme in history, did not generate one verse of Scripture, nor could it. Nicaea produced little more than imperial policy.
According to Psalm 12: 6ff, God Himself preserves His inspired words, and there is no mention of His needing a "codified" anything to do it.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Just as the term "Council of Nicaea" is found nowhere in the Scriptures, so the words "censoring," and "downthumbing" are also absent from the Scriptures. Such sketchy documentation about that meeting which remains extant, however, does not support the atheist sophistry that God does not exist.
As a matter of historical fact, all of the New Testament (like the Tanakh, i.e., the Old Testment in Hebrew) were complete centuries before Constantine's reign.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
According to the Holy Bible, which antedated Constantine's reign by centuries, "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" (2Thessalonians 2:8ff)
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, said, "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple" (Matthew 12:6).
Moreover, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Daniel 7:10).
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them" (Revelation 20:11).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
According to the Holy Bible, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way" (2Thessalonians 2:7)
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time" (1John 2:18).
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (1John 2:22).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Just as a forum debate or opinion poll limited to an insane asylum's inmates will neither diagnose their condition nor determine their ultimate treatment, rationalanachy, neither will your straw men make your case credible.
Constantine and Nicea neither determined nor hindered the "compostition of the Bible," which was a fait accompli centuries before your alleged debate on the "canon of Scripture" may have happened. I concede that such a pompous activity impresses shallow infidels, however.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Because the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible, rationalanarchy, the onus probandi of invalidating what you call "resorting to a book to prove itself" when that "book" happens to be the Holy Bible falls entirely on you. Your logical ability is evidently limited to accusing me of "logical fallacy" merely for quoting it. Your penchant for anarchy, however, has failed to make your case and will no doubt continue to do so.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Rome stands and HAS ALWAYS STOOD IN OPPOSITION TO THE HOLY BIBLE.
That the Lord might inspire and preserve only part of His Word in the Holy Bible defies reason and common sense just as it also contradicts God's Holiness along with His omnipotence and truthfulness, but that absurd logical fallacy has undergirded Papist man-made dogma for more than a millennium.
Rome has both subtracted from and added to the Scriptures and is therefore doubly accursed by God Himself.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
The antique trivia that you cited, rationalanarchy, proves absolutely nothing relative to the "composition of the Bible" about which a derivative credo from Nicea has no bearing whatsoever.
The Lord Jesus Christ said, "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things" (Matthew 12:35).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, said "... Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me " (Mark 7:6).
Moreover, rationalanarchy, "And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness" (Ezekiel 33:31).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
As a matter of historical fact, there is no conclusive evidence that the "canon of Scripture" was even debated at Nicea. Who cares if it was, retionalanarchy?
Neither you, nor I, nor the members of that meeting effected the "composition of the Bible," which antedated Constantine's reign by centuries.
"As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?" (Proverbs 26:18ff).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
If there were any doubt about your potential as an ideologue manque, rationalanarchy, your last Text Comment eliminated it.
That along with your previous asssertions speaks volumes about your atheist's bias against Christ, and I have no interest in flattering it.
Is there anything about the Lord Jesus Christ that you still need to know?
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
No one held a gun to your head when you composed and repeatedly posted your baseless assertions, and those acts are irrefutable evidence of your choice and volition.
Even as an infidels' ideologue manque, rationalanarchy, you evidently have limited potential. I therefore conclude that your best course for eternity follows:
Believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ today, and be saved by grace through faith in Him alone.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Your assertions lack a sound historical basis, rationalanarchy. James I of England and VI of Scotland was born, and died more than a millennium after the Romanist council to which you refer. So did the translators of the Authorized Version, and a meeting in 393 AD did not matter to them.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Psalm 12:6ff).
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Again, rationalanarchy, your assertions are erroneous.
Neither you nor the Rome's chief operatives (officially) even know what the Holy Bible is. The LXX (Septuagint) is so bogus that an authoritative recension is still in question--except perhaps among Vatican toadies.
The Vatican's favorite LXX, not surprisingly, is the manifestly corrupt Codex Vaticanus because it is the absolutely worst possible manuscript of anything that it can palm off as a basis for mistranslations of Scripture.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
Nothing makes me think that "God himself caused the representatives to the Council of Nicaea to vote as they did."
I have free will, rationalanarchy. What makes you think that you and other people do not?
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
The Vatican's blasphemous pretensions to infallibility have influenced the illiterate to abject servility for centuries, but the Tanakh (Old Testament in Hebrew) likewise stands as a witness aginst the falsehood of the poppycock which you recently composed as Text Comments.
According to Psalm 12:6-7, GOD HIMSELF preserves his inspired words, not a gallery of Roman hirelings in 393.
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago