welcome back, dummy. still reaching to pull shit out of yer ass. As compared to my video "Grows All Year Round In Texas" which is filled with verifiable facts
@VenomFangX In my view the explanations used in the bible may be based on the knowledge already existing at that time, not on God. Especially Ancient Greeks had quite suffisticated ideas and approaches on such issues as earth, cosmos etc. and that already from 6th c. BC. Considering the empire of Alexander it would be not unusual for this ideas to be spread. The "authors" of the bible could just have used this idea. It doesn't necessarily mean that God was the one who brought the explanation.
@s6y9l No, I dont believe humans evolved from algae. The first time you said that you made it obvious you don't know much about evolution so I didn't want to talk to you about it. There's a lot of irony when you said I blindly accept what I'm conditioned to believe, that would describe children brought up in a Christian upbringing, who fear to question their belief. I was Christian until I started to question things. And you don't have to be a creationist or evolutionist, think for yourself.
@MetalliCxZero I totally agree with you. That's why I said both science and religions are mind prisons. I do think for myself. As I said in my first post, i do not believe the linear mind of man can comprehend something without beginning or end. I was arguing against having any rigid belief system one way or the other. Anyways, peace.
@s6y9l Science isn't a mind prison, it's a specific method of thinking that prevents our own human biases from getting in the way of truth. Evaluating real life evidence instead of just thinking about things, and, in nearly all cases, trying as hard as you can to prove yourself wrong, not slanting everything to match what you originally thought.
@MrJakemckenna A more poetic way of saying it would be saying science uses the same approach Michelangelo used to create his marble statues. He didn't carve a statue. He cleared away the prison of stone around it. The statue was merely hidden away within the marble waiting to be revealed.
Science works along similar lines. It clears away things that don't work, whatever is left is the truth. Evolution, for example, still stands after 150 years as a result of science's failure to destroy it.
@Draslin Nice metaphor, though at the high level it gets a little bit more complex - when you can't actually observe what does and doesn't work directly (like inside a particle accelerator), you have to make guesses and then predictions and see if they work. Like string theory - totally accurate, fits all the evidence, but can't make any predictions about phenomena we haven't observed, so it's useless - at the moment. :)
@MrJakemckenna I'd say it holds at any level. Science is continually wearing away at the flaws of scientific theories. The stuff we accept as facts are the theories that have withstood every attempt to falsify the theory. By that standard Evolution is more certain than anything else we know. But yes, there is a lot we can't observe directly though we can at least indirectly observe it. Which is the main problem with string theory. You can't observe the strings yet. Meanwhile, interesting thought
@MrJakemckenna True. I'm only saying if you consider the bounty of physical evidence, the vast quantity of papers written and peer reviewed, as well as the many lines of research in unrelated fields that all independently confirm the theory of evolution, it certainly has to be in the top most percentile. Critically speaking I'd say we can be more certain about Evolution than we can be Gravity. By which of course I mean to say that if you doubt Evolution you might as well doubt Everything else.
@Draslin What?! Seriously? I was kinda with you up until the end there, although just because something's had more papers written about it doesn't mean it's more true, but; 'doubt evolution and you might as well doubt everything else' - if a piece of evidence came along that was actually in contradiction to evolution (creationists, read: we haven't found anything), then I would be very very happy, as it means there's new science! Same with gravity - newton's law worked, then einstein did better.
@MrJakemckenna One. True is really just a boolean, it is or it isn't, our certainty about whether or not something is true is the variable part. You can be very precise with the predictions made by gravity or quantum mechanics, but it seems to me that there are fewer ways in which said theories can be falsified. They are pretty solid mathematically. Evolution by comparison seems to me to be incredibly brittle in a falsifiable sense, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways could it easily fail.
@MrJakemckenna Two. It's the fact that something so brittle has stood up to so much testing and new evidence that I say its as certain as anything we know. More papers may not make it more true, but our certainty that it is true increases. Perhaps it's six and one half dozen of the other, and perhaps I'm a little biased as I keep up on the ID vs Evolution crap in the US. (I live in the bible belt.) At least, Gravity, Quantum Mechanics and Evolution are on equal terms.
@Draslin Alright, well in the scientific world, it's commonly accepted that Quantum Electrodynamics is the most established, most tested theory that we have about how the world works, whereas the exact dynamics of evolution can still be debated I think. Because it is solid mathematically, we can be certain about then, and then use them to analyse things like chemistry, which influence evolution. Physics is at the top of they pyramid of knowledge :)
@MrJakemckenna Well I know it makes the most absurdly precise predictions, and I've no doubt it's well established and tested. It still strikes me as weird though to say its MORE established and tested. It's a newer theory, with considerably fewer people qualified to speak with authority about it so in pure numbers and time it seems to me difficult to say its more certain. But I'll take your word for it. I'd still bet on Evolution, but admittedly I don't know enough about QM's history to say.
@s6y9l If you're going to choose to know nothing about evolution and really just live your life as a sheep who doesn't care about anything then I like what you say at the end.
@s6y9l Wow your extremely arrogant and utterly unintelligent. Evolution is a fact. Scientist have observed evolution and there is thousands of pieces of evidence that proof evolution is true. Denying evolution is like denying the fact that grass is green.
Also if you honestly think that the universe is 10,000 years old you dont even deserve to be called a human being. There is sooo much things that go against that statement and proof that it is COMPLETELY wrong.
God was not interested in teaching the ancient Jews science. That's not what the Scriptures were given for. Quite the contrary, we often see God using accommodating language while addressing the readers (and writers) of Scripture.
@FlatEarthers yea i understand what you are saying but somehow the term doesn't fit the time. not that you dont make sense but you give the ancient no credit for his times references.
@FlatEarthers have you ever seen the movie planet of the apes with mark wahlberg. well remember the part where Cesars dad(the bad monkey) his dad is dying and he is told to break the jar and take out what was inside.? well it was a gun but the reference used was, "it has the power of a thousand spears" the dad knew its capabilities but the only way to relate this knowledge was by what was familiar to him. he darn well knew it was wicked, but didnt know what to make of it.
@FlatEarthers in reference to the ancients it is somewhat similar. It is an unheard of term "sphere" if its round the only way to describe such a thing is by what you know. what you are familiar with.For example if i get lost and someone tells me there is an easier way, screww the easy way im going to look for what i know as a familiar landmark and go from there. What i know i will use as reference.
@deltaalphacharlie yep, you did... sorry for the late reply... if your curious I resonded to somebody else why.
I have 2 points for that. 1. The people of the time had spherical objects though... and 2. the design that the people had at the time for the Earth was flat. It ay just be me but I would assume a model made by the people at the time about the Bible would be more accurate than anything we could possibly think up.
@FlatEarthers I guess you totally ignored the part when he said that in Luke 17:34-36 says some will be working at night and some will be working during the day. Also ignored where in Psalm, 103:12 also states how God separates our sin as far from the east is from the west. Well, at the same time, you're trying your best to disprove the bible and trying to persuade the readers that the bible doesn't mean a certain thing by changing the meaning. That's why your channel is totally dedicated on it
@digga115 People who work in Steak N Shake work during the night, and some of them work during the day. Luke just means that people would have the ability to to work when the sun goes down. The East is as far from the West as it can get, so God separated our sin as far as possible. I'm not trying to disprove the Bible. I am trying my hardest to prove the Bible is 100% factual as literally read. My channel is dedicated to Truth, nothing else.
@FlatEarthers But what the bible says is when Jesus comes, some will be working during the night, and some will be working during the day. So honestly, it seems that the bible is implying all at one time more than the example that you gave, which was that the bible meant in different times.
@FlatEarthers That's totally fine, don't worry about it.
As we can see, this only means that one of us is interpreting it wrong. Jesus even stated he'll come as a thief at night, which is sudden. And in the verse we were talking about, it sounds more like he takes people all at once than him taking them one, later on that day, one.
And what are the evidence for the Earth to be flat?
@StockleyDan but consider this. the purpose of the bible is not to tell a tale about the beginning of the human race etc etc. Its aim is to tell the human being he has a problem a big one. He cant fix it but whats been done for him what it means for him thereafter. The bible is not concerned about the creation of the universe etc. only about its grnd subject the Christ and Gods glory.
To suspend something requires an object to be suspended from, seems to me that there is no such thing, instead, we have rotation that keeps the eart from plummeting towards the sun. Second is that, with heavens i don't think the writers of the bible intended the spatial dimensions, as those are expanding constantly. Space is what we observe and not the dimension itself, and therefore we can only see the consequences of the inflation, not the inflation itself.
Isiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" it clearly says "circle" and a circle is flat. Also the jews studies the books a LOT in the origional language and when it was written they agreed that it meant this *go to link*
h t t p:// wilstar. com/ evolution/ ancient_hebrew_earth. gif
@FlatEarthers it doesn't say it has the apperance of a circle, it says it IS a circle.
According to a spherical earther belief there is no actual north, west, east, or south. South will never become north, and east will never become west (and vice versa). The "equator" doesn't label the difference between north and south because you can be north while below where the "equator" is.
The Earth IS flat, and the Flat Earth Soceity is a Christian orginization.
@MrVirtualCoder seriously (sp?)? If you are being serious then it pains me to inform you that a circle is flat. The thing that is ball like is called a sphere.
(if you weren't being serious then sorry for the comment).
I disagree. Just because textbooks and a majority of the Scientific community hold up illusions to illustrate "theory"; That does not set the it in stone with the rest of thinkers. I do not support creationism completely. When God says he created everything after its kind, that he also created man and woman, I believe him. It is unwise to believe theories that have gaps as big as Evolution does. What I mean is; accepting it as fact. There are many missing pieces to that puzzle.
So this is a conspiricy? Tin foil hat wearing time? Come on. Think about what it would take, how many scientists would have to be in on it. Think of the possible Nobel Prizes that they would be passing up on if they could overturn Evolution with something else? The grants would be endless; the fame immense. And yet all of them are "[holding] up illusions?"
Something tells me that you are trying really hard to fit reality around your conclusion.
It would be easier for me to explain if we weren't sifting through context over a thread. I'm not trying to provoke a debate, what I meant when I said that was how people manage to confuse theory with factual data.
@XChromeboyX No need to "provoke a debate." If you would like a rational discussion about this or any other issue, simply PM me. If not, that is fine. I will only state that your post *appears* to convey the idea that theory is something less then facts. Theories explain facts, and in some ways, theories are more important than facts. Facts by themselves explain/predict nothing. Theories do. Still, it is a fact evolution happens. The theory explains how & why it does.
"in such a way that they could understand it in their own times..."
So, does that explain why it is so wrong? People back then had a poor grasp of things, and so the Bible put it in those poor terms? Indeed, it certainly does not "match perfectly" with cosmology, as a result of the above statement.
Isaiah 40:22 - There is no "above the circle of the Earth" unless the Earth is flat. Every direction away would be both above and below.
Job 26:7 - It is not suspended, nor "floats" It orbits. cont
Isaiah 42:5 - "Stretched" is past tense. If it was to mean that it was expanding, then one would have said, "and stretches them further out every day." Further, it is more likely to reference the old held belief about the night sky being a blanket pulled across the sky, but I digress.
Jeremiah 33:22 - Umm.. Look at the night sky and count the stars? Kind of tough. Almost countless, right? But one might, just like one might count all the stars in the universe which is finite, not countless. cont
Luke 17:34-36 - Pure fabrication on your part, as nothing about being in a field requires it being during the day. If you have to stretch this far to make the book fit, perhaps it doesn't?
Psalm 103:12 - Without there being a most eastern and a most western point (which would exist in a flat earth), the line makes no sense. Indeed, to take your own view ("at no point does the East become the West") then the line literally means nothing.
@RandomWOWhuntard No, Please do not listen to this guy he is just a liar..
Saying that evolution doesnt have any evidence, Shame on him! Sooner or later people will accept evolution to be true because it is a scientific FACT,
@grubashu Evolution is as much scientific fact as Astrology is confused with Astronomy. Or as it is routinely accepted world wide as some ridiculous science to some people. The majority that believe the rubbish aren't educated on the matter. I think being in love with the idea that "it seems so true" far exceeds the willingness to see it as it is. You might say the same about believing in God, but there is one difference; You can discover that he lives by seeking his face. Or follow majority.
« You can discover that he lives by seeking his face »
Which illustrates the exact problem of science vs. faith.
No "observation of god" or anything supernatural has ever been documented in such a way that it is independently verifiable, regardless of the personal belief of the observer.
The various scientific hypotheses and theories accepted in the scientific community and receiving broad support without, however, *are* substantiated by such independently verifiable evidence.
@XChromeboyX Ignorance of biology doesn't constitute evolution not being a fact. Evolution is a fact and is indeed the only empirical explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
It's people like you that make christians look bad, you're basically telling people that you have to be retarded of science to be follow god
Please educate yourself or stop associating yourself with jesus.
@InternetDiscipIe Thank you for that pompous insight. What I was actually doing was demonstrating how dangerous it is to follow majority or mainstream crowds. However, on the subject of Evolution; It might be a structure of clues comprised of ideas and large gaps of missing pieces, but it is not fact. Which is why it is still the subject of debate everywhere.
Now for the Jesus rebuttal. You have no right to tell anyone to stop associating themselves to him. Repent.
@XChromeboyX "Which is why it is still the subject of debate everywhere."
Except that it isn't.
The fact that Evolution happens is not debated in the scientific community. They debate on fringes of the idea, but the core ideas of Evolution are settled fact. The public arena is where the core ideas are debated, because Creationism has lost the fight in the scientific arena.
@balanceseeker Also: Astrology, rather people accept this or not, is the same as a religion. It teaches a stampede of chipperganda with a pricetag sometimes attached to it, to people naive enough to believe it. It also doesn't publish the authors of its never-ending story. You wouldn't know if your horoscope was written by criminal, computer, or an infinite list of other variables. And just like I have been pointing out about majority; nearly everyone, everywhere follow it.
@XChromeboyX True, but I do not get what you are trying to say here. So, Astrology is not something we can rely on. Doesn't that just prove my point about Dr. Behe's statement? Evolution fits the definition of scientific theory, a definition that must be watered down to include Intelligent Design, and such watering down leads to Astrology being a scientific theory as well. Hence, evolution is more scientific than astrology and ID.
@balanceseeker Eh. I see what you mean. Yeah, perhaps I've been misunderstood. Although, I'm not one to debate about ID. I think ID is certainly a personal experience meant to be traveled alone and discovered, it cannot be proven on any battlefield. And arguing about it would more likely harden someone about it than convert them to it. But yes, I'm not refuting at all that Evolution has any practical application in comparison to to Astrology which is practiced by religious, agnostics, atheists.
@XChromeboyX Except that it's not actually a subject of debate by those who know what they're talking about. The concept of a controversy regarding evolution was invented by fundamentalists to sell such garbage as a 6000 year old earth (and DVD's) Don't confuse the uneducated not understanding it for it not being fact.
@InternetDiscipThis is what I was talking about. I'll put it this way: There is NOT enough information to solidify Evolution into legitimized fact. And when people like you pretend that there is while pompously believing other people are "uneducated" for believing otherwise, it speaks volumes of your own capacity to think, and it also creates perspective enough to believe you have an agenda or bias. People should be docile enough to admit when they don't know something. Theory is not fact.
@XChromeboyX A theory, in the scientific sense, is quote, "the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject" (Chambers Dictionary). In this definition, gravity is theory but you don't find yourself floating off into space, do you? Evolution, whilst described as a "theory" has been observed and it is a FACT, just as gravity is a FACT. Why would scientists push a non factual hypothesis? What could it possibly benefit them, especially if found out to be wrong?
@ThomasTrue I'm not talking about it in it's category. I'm referring to the assumptions that are made in the absence of data. Example: All the materials that make up the big bang, which everything "came and evolved" from. But where did the materials come from that made up the big bang? I'm certain you agree that it's impossible for something to evolve from nothing. Don't even get me started on primate and fossil Evolution process, so many missing pieces to that it's ridiculous.
@ThomasTrue Part 2: To answer your question about who benefits and how. It's not just scientists. You and I both know this old world has a problem with religious people or beliefs because it scares them. Perhaps some sincerely wish others to simply know truth as the perceive it, but there are multitudes that fight against it simply out of spite and hatred. Those who have dedicated their life to seek out and ridicule people of faith. Bill Maher is an amusing example. So is VFX.
@ThomasTrue Part 3: Using gravity as an example was a bad idea by the way. I suppose that Evolution imposed upon us in such an astonishing manner as gravity does; it would be easier to observe, analyze, study and take us all to a fundamental conclusion. But since it doesn't, and a lot of what we have are ideas, imagination and speculation with beginnings, gaps and conclusions, It creates somewhat of a paradox when compared to something as invasive as gravity.
@XChromeboyX "Evolution is as much scientific fact as Astrology is confused with Astronomy."
That is probably not the best line to start a post. Dr. Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") stated that under his definition of what a scientific theory was, the definition that allow Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory, that Astrology would also be considered a scientific theory. He said that under oath in the Dover trial and was asked repeatedly to ensure that was what he meant. It was.
@RandomWOWhuntard To support his beliefs, (Christianity) Which has not a shred of evidence for it and christians have tried to find it for 2000 years and still fails..
They are a bunch of hypocritical, Brainwashed and close minded people.. Simply as that.
@RandomWOWhuntard While I found problems with every one of the passages he quoted and posted my problems with them in the comments here, don't believe me. Look it up yourself. Look up the passages yourself and compare them to what he is saying here. Make certain that the context is sound, that it isn't something allegorical instead of a factual claim, and then go research cosmology and see if it jives. Do not let someone else tell you what to believe.
He prayed for the sun to stand still over Gibeon as at high noon, and the moon to stand still in the valley of Aijalon. The Aijalon was a valley extending from Gibeon west and...
@rykoodasr Maybe you should consider reading it again or looking at the works of a few biblical scholars (Chuck Missler is my favourite) All I know is that I have been studying the Bible for years and every time I read a passage I've already read I discover something new. I once studied from a teenagers perspective and now my perspective has changed and so do my discoveries. If all that is important to you is the truth and you can put biases aside you will find it.
@JointHeirInChrist Thank you. I'll consider it. I don't have much time for reading anything outside of college right now, but I may look more into things in the future.
@rykoodasr We do believe that it started as a singularity "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth" from the mouth of God came that singularity. The age of the earth is an extremely complex subject and I can assure you that through copious amounts of study the Genesis account fits perfectly. Now let me ask you something... how does the concept "first there was nothing, then it exploded" not scream stupidity to you? For the sake of being open minded Google "Irreducible Complexity"
@JointHeirInChrist It does scream stupidity, and I don't know why you'd use it ;) Sorry, bad joke. But I don't think something came from nothing, nor does the big bang model state this. Simply put, we don't know what came before. Maybe it was a god, or the flying spaghetti monster, or even nothing; I don't know and wouldn't claim to know. But we have observed galaxies that are over 13 million light years away.
@rykoodasr So if you don't know, and scientists don't know then why is the official position of modern science that the universe couldn't have been created? Also please don't trivialise the belief in God to the level of intelligence of the belief in a flying spaghetti monster, there is clearly more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. Not to mention there are very competent scholars and scientist who believe in Creation, and none for the spaghetti monster.
@JointHeirInChrist Is it the modern position of science? I personally would say it is highly unlikely that the universe was created. I don't mean to trivialize the belief in a god, but you also have to consider that there are recognized religions such as Scientology that I think trivialize all religions. I was using FSM as an analogy. You mention there are scientists and scholars who believe in creation (and FSM IS creation); there are also Christians who believe in evolution.
@JointHeirInChrist I know all about the irreducible complexity argument and find it wholly unconvincing. There is a reason intelligent design lost its court case. Even if the intelligent design argument is completely true, it has nothing to do with the age of the universe. An evolved life form could have designed these irreducibly complex systems and planted them on Earth. Read up on Michael Behe (irreducible complexity); he actually argues for evolution if I remember correctly.
@rykoodasr That theory is completely speculative and contrary to the laws of life! how can a being evolve if not a single one of his cells could have evolved? As for the age of the Earth I absolutely believe it is around as old as modern science says it is from our perspective, yet I also 100% believe in the Genesis account, these things are a matter of understanding, it's a little complicated and hard to explain to someone who hasn't studied the Bible.
But only magnetic north and south change. We'll still recognize the north as the north and the south as the south. If we did switch them then the west would be the east!
Yes and it says God stoped the earth rotating and then rotated it forward again. Look at at my current work in static items at writing.com under name stillseeking, titles such as tips to heal the nations and the ego map, the sexual ego. I believe the Creationism and the Evolution Theories are both wrong. For one says nothing about the world more than 6000 years ago, and evolution is too slow to be real-- lucky cars arent made-evolved that slow or we'd all be still walking or riding horses.
The Architect of the Universe, Elohim, spoke to some very ancient men in a dream and gave them many so called modern astronomical facts, all verifiable and recorded within the Great Pyramids.. They knew the circumference of the earth, the distance from the earth to the sun, the mean length of the earth’s orbit around the sun and much more..
@InternetDiscipIe Incorrect. What it states is the devil ' showed ' Christ the kingdoms of the earth; telling us that one very powerful being - Satan - used his power to show him the kingdoms. Furthermore, in the context of the Bible, Jesus is God - therefore he is able to see things beyond human perception. When you quote the bible, you should first understand what you're reading before you incorrectly come to conclusions.
@desertTRUTH Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
So you're saying they went for a stroll and then Satan in a completely unrelated move showed using his powers all the kingdoms of the world. After Satan already taken Jesus to the highest temple of Jerusalem. And you don't think you're pushing it a bit.
Explain then "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in"
@edgarrsoares The whole episode begins with Christ going into exile, into the wilderness to begin with; it's clearly an event where he goes one-on-one vs the great tempter; in the process they symbolically go up onto the mountain top; but they both have perception to see every kingdom even from one location on a sphere. You wouldn't be able to see the ' splendor ' looking at kingdoms thousands of miles away on a flat earth, even if you could see them all. Right ?
@edgarrsoares He stretches out the heavens like a canopy; spreads em out like a tent; you're stating this clearly equals flat earth? You know the Bible talks about wolves in sheeps' clothing, humans soaring like eagles, and God's protective wings too right? But most intelligent folks know it's not referring to wolf seamstresses, flying humans, or calling God the big chicken.
@desertTRUTH No, what I'm saying is you can't use a phrase full of symbolism and then decide that part of it is scientific knowledge. Moreover what I'm saying is that ALL of the Bible is symbolic.
You surely can't use that phrase to state that the universe is expanding.
@edgarrsoares In 2008 presidential-candidate Barack Obama went to the Brandenburg Gate in Germany and delivered a speech; it was an event that was real-world - could be used to demonstrate some material measurements or scientific knowledge, but was quite symbolic too. Both can happen in one event. Both often happen in one event in the real-world.
@desertTRUTH I wasn't clear enough? You can't use a speech with symbolism to obtain scientific facts. The reason is simple, you can't distinguish between a symbol and a fact. And please don't tell me common sense, people died because the earth is not the center of the universe thing.
All Bible scholars up to Galileo though the earth was the center of the world and until 15th century Christian countries though the earth was flat. And these are facts, not interpretations of symbolic texts.
@edgarrsoares The point is going to some location like the Brandenburg Gate or up to a mountain top is the symbolic part; but the speech was about real world stuff; and Satan actually showed Christ the kingdoms. You can have both in one event. This whole discussion is regarding whether or not Satan and Jesus being able to see kingdoms from one location on earth -> means the Bible states the earth is flat; I clearly explained how the Bible is NOT stating earth is flat here.
@desertTRUTH So here it is not flat and in Mathew's the earth is a sphere. Although the text is not clear and although the people who wrote it believed the earth is flat.
@edgarrsoares You're misunderstanding me here, my friend. I'm not sure how else to explain it but I was only trying to explain how Matthew 4:8 isn't stating the earth is flat. We're getting confused with other issues here.
@edgarrsoares Yes we agree that the Bible isn't a detailed science text; it isn't supposed to tell us things that God allows us to examine and discover on our own.
I see some big picture outlines of nature in Genesis for example; but no extensive details. I certainly see no contradictions of science in the Bible either. We mostly agree here, my friend :)
@desertTRUTH Well yes, we agree to some extent. Then maybe we can also agree that this video attributes scientific knowledge to the Bible that can't be really confirmed and for that reason the video is useless.
@edgarrsoares Well yes you can, a Jewish scholar in the 1200's by the name of Nachmanides after studying the Genesis account he discovered that we live in 10 dimensions 4 of which are knowable and the other six are indiscernible to us. String theory only in the last 20 years has discovered that "we live in 10 dimensions 4 are knowable to us and the other 6 are curled into our existence and can only be seen through particle observation. not to mention the discovery of underwater current systems.
@JointHeirInChrist oh yeah, that. Scientists today believe there can be a lot more than just 10 dimensions, so Nachmanides must've been wrong. Bear in mind this theory isn't proven yet. Besides, those aren't at all the same dimensions Nachmanides talks about. He talks about the nature of God and so. Place them here if you want. I don't have them with me.
Not to discourage late findings but underwater currents are of general knowledge since probably the beginning of civilization.
@edgarrsoares Your statement was that you cant obtain scientific knowledge from the Bible and my statement was yes you can. The two examples I gave you are clear evidence of that. It's extremely speculative to suggest that early civilization had knowledge of underwater currents, what are you basing this on?
@JointHeirInChrist Well, I know about underwater currents ever since I was a child, you just need to swim in the sea to know about them. So, people might not know to what extend it influences navigation, but people know they exist. Besides, have you read Psalm 8:8? Can you really say that the paths of the seas are currents? As of my knowledge birds don't use underwater currents, do they?
Consider also that currents where used to navigate from Portugal to Brasil, prior to Maury's work.
@JointHeirInChrist Besides, to claim scientific knowledge you can't be ambiguous. Everything suggested to be scientific knowledge in the Bible has a more simple explanation so, in accordance to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the solution.
You can't go from stretch the heavens out to the universe is expanding.
@edgarrsoares Well yes I guess you can look at it that way, the Bible isn't a scientific text book. What I think VFX is trying to get across is that there isn't one thing in the Bible that contradicts science and if you are to take a deeper look at it you'll discover that the Bible has an Integrated system that does not contradict itself and had to be from outside our time domain. Do some study you'll find specific prophecies about factual events specifically outline hundreds of years in advance
@JointHeirInChrist Well... The Bible has good things but it is my understanding that it was written by men. If not, errors like Leviticus 11:20-23 (locusts, crickets and grasshoppers have six, not 4 legs) wouldn't exist.
@edgarrsoares You have clearly taken that scripture completely out of context you are referring to a figure of speech, these are used all through the scripture. And if the Bible was written by men how do you propose that Daniel knew in advance that Babylon would be taken over by Persia and Persia by Greece and Greece by Rome? It was penned by men but Divinely Inspired by God almighty. This is clearly evident when you study the word of God.
@JointHeirInChrist Out of context? How come? It's just the number of legs... My guess is that it's a typo... Maybe Daniel predicted all that. Maybe not. It's not like he is clear about it. Many are the prophets who did similar prophecies and not all where Christian(ish).
Moreover, what about the Ottoman and Islamic Empires? They too occupied Judah and Jerusalem before the 2nd comming of Christ.
@edgarrsoares In terms of medievel scholars examining science - who cares what un-enlightened people perceived in 1492; it's obvious God lets us figure lots of stuff out on our own; it makes life interesting. What's so complicated about this concept ?
Lot of the words and actions committed by supposedly church people in history contradict what the Bible teaches; it's them who are wrong, not the Bible.
@desertTRUTH then it's not science! you can read anything and in a kabbalah kind of way remove any significant you want! That is what you are doing! Picking something and saying "this is scientific but this is not". So, go pick another book, the book of the dead of the Egyptians, the lord of the rings, I don't care. With your method there is science revealed in all!
Who cares? Anybody who died in the name of religion! I care because there are people today in the dark ages yet!
@desertTRUTH Now you're doing more than taking liberty with interpretation, the passage says nothing that even resembles that.
It says he could see all kingdoms of earth from a high mountain. If you're wanting to inject magic anywhere in there, that's your personal comprehension, not the reality of the context.
@InternetDiscipIe Ever read the Bible or heard much about what it teaches? The biggest theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ is the Creator God and Satan is one extremely powerful being of the spirtual realm; therefore they can perceive things beyond human perception. You must read every form of literature IN CONTEXT of the obvious, clear, bigger themes. You are the one who is clearly missing the big theme of the Bible - which is easy to recognize. Magic - huh ?
@InternetDiscipIe One more thing on the going up to the mountain top and looking at kingdoms; even if the earth was considered to be flat - you still wouldn't be able to look thousands of miles in every direction to see every kingdom and all its splendor; right? So your interpretation still wouldn't square with what the text reads. It's obvious the text is referring to perception beyond human physical eyesight. You have to torture the text to see some reference to flat earth here.
@desertTRUTH 'It's obvious the text is referring to perception beyond human physical eyesight'
Nothing in the text itself indicates this. A flat earth is the only thing that makes sense if the text is literal. They know they can see across a flat plain.
@InternetDiscipIe Read the Bible to comprehend what you're referring to first. The devil isn't in physical form; he cannot walk onto a mountain top and look across a flat plain; he exists only in spiritual form, ok. Plus I explained how they still wouldn't be able to look thousands of miles in every direction too see every kindom and all its splendor. Your interpretation is ignorant of context and real-world physics.
This looks like a very fun video to have put together and edited, also I love it when religion and science tie in, people are always so science versus religion as polar opposites.
@VenomFangX I'm sorry to blow a hole in your minute-long fallacy, but it says 'stretched'. Now most everything else you said that proves they knew about cosmology can be figured out by looking up at night, like 'countless stars'. However, the universe is expanding now. it did not start and then stop. Your collection of bronze-age myths says he 'stretched them out' not 'is stretching them out' if god told them about cosmology why would he forget to mention that the universe is still expanding?
@edgarrsoares Wonderful suggestion. Please also include:
Life
God
Kind <== especially
Just as an aside to you creationist folks -- you may be able to make some headway with these notions if you're willing to define them and stick to it. Just bouncing between them like a ball-bearing in a pinball machine doesn't help your cause.
The terms you use matter (just like referencing a pinball machine makes me feel so old [sigh]).
@OceanTheViking you are funny! Next time use some sort of scientific method, you know, observe the evidence. Then you might find the debate already begun... or did it begun when you read it in a book, maybe?
Yes... I love how you avoid the "the earth rests on 4 pillars"... But that's only methaphorical isn't it? You make the bible mean what you want it to mean.
@Atheismlikestotroll6 No, i read the texts and interpet it from what it says. Which the unknowing people that wrote the bible actually belived in. That the world stod on 4 pillars, that lepreacy can be cured by bird blood etc.
Sinners go to hell... and a person who dies in their sins, no matter what believed, will go to hell. God has provided only way for you to be forgiven of your sins and that is through Jesus. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me. Was Jesus lying when he said this?
Another question, if you think there are many ways to heaven, then what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross?
The thing I am haviing difficulty with is that not all people were born into the same beliefs. If I were born somewhere outside the infuence of Western culture then I would have been taught something different from my parents, teachers etc. and I would not even have heard of Christ. Does this mean I must go to hell?
I can't believe that God would abandon so many millions of people.
"what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross?"
I would think about that very thing when I was a kid in church. It doesn't seem to add up to me. How does the horrible prolonged suffering and death of one part of God pay for the sins of all mankind? Why was the suffering of the thousands of others who were crucified have no value - shouldn't that at least have payed for their own transgressions?
@doireallyneed1 I think everybody does that, to some degree or other. I mean more like how they came about in the first place. Religion is man reaching out to God (our terms). Christianity is God reaching out to man (His terms).
One of God's terms is that you're a sinner in need of forgiveness. But many people get hung up on being called a sinner. Which leads (for those still theologically inclined) towards works-based religions that allow people to see themselves as righteous.
But what if you were born into some other faith and never heard of Jesus Christ? You would have no reason to doubt what your parents, teachers etc. have told you was the truth and go looking for something else, would you? There have been many billions of people who have lived and died without hearing the Good News - what will happen to their immortal soul?
GREAT POINT
pestmanpat 4 months ago
Hi Shawn, Thank you for approving my video response! My brother, You are awesome!!!!
carlswitzerfan 6 months ago
Phenomenal!!
carlswitzerfan 6 months ago
welcome back, dummy. still reaching to pull shit out of yer ass. As compared to my video "Grows All Year Round In Texas" which is filled with verifiable facts
tomthefolksinger 6 months ago
@VenomFangX In my view the explanations used in the bible may be based on the knowledge already existing at that time, not on God. Especially Ancient Greeks had quite suffisticated ideas and approaches on such issues as earth, cosmos etc. and that already from 6th c. BC. Considering the empire of Alexander it would be not unusual for this ideas to be spread. The "authors" of the bible could just have used this idea. It doesn't necessarily mean that God was the one who brought the explanation.
Schockokekschen 6 months ago
@s6y9l No, I dont believe humans evolved from algae. The first time you said that you made it obvious you don't know much about evolution so I didn't want to talk to you about it. There's a lot of irony when you said I blindly accept what I'm conditioned to believe, that would describe children brought up in a Christian upbringing, who fear to question their belief. I was Christian until I started to question things. And you don't have to be a creationist or evolutionist, think for yourself.
MetalliCxZero 6 months ago
@MetalliCxZero I totally agree with you. That's why I said both science and religions are mind prisons. I do think for myself. As I said in my first post, i do not believe the linear mind of man can comprehend something without beginning or end. I was arguing against having any rigid belief system one way or the other. Anyways, peace.
s6y9l 6 months ago
@s6y9l Science isn't a mind prison, it's a specific method of thinking that prevents our own human biases from getting in the way of truth. Evaluating real life evidence instead of just thinking about things, and, in nearly all cases, trying as hard as you can to prove yourself wrong, not slanting everything to match what you originally thought.
MrJakemckenna 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna A more poetic way of saying it would be saying science uses the same approach Michelangelo used to create his marble statues. He didn't carve a statue. He cleared away the prison of stone around it. The statue was merely hidden away within the marble waiting to be revealed.
Science works along similar lines. It clears away things that don't work, whatever is left is the truth. Evolution, for example, still stands after 150 years as a result of science's failure to destroy it.
Draslin 6 months ago
@Draslin Nice metaphor, though at the high level it gets a little bit more complex - when you can't actually observe what does and doesn't work directly (like inside a particle accelerator), you have to make guesses and then predictions and see if they work. Like string theory - totally accurate, fits all the evidence, but can't make any predictions about phenomena we haven't observed, so it's useless - at the moment. :)
MrJakemckenna 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna I'd say it holds at any level. Science is continually wearing away at the flaws of scientific theories. The stuff we accept as facts are the theories that have withstood every attempt to falsify the theory. By that standard Evolution is more certain than anything else we know. But yes, there is a lot we can't observe directly though we can at least indirectly observe it. Which is the main problem with string theory. You can't observe the strings yet. Meanwhile, interesting thought
Draslin 6 months ago
@Draslin Nice definition.
SmervinMervin24 6 months ago
@Draslin Well, I wouldn't say that - gravity's a bit more certain than evolution. And quantum theory :D
yeah, I am a physicist, not a biologist :P
MrJakemckenna 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna True. I'm only saying if you consider the bounty of physical evidence, the vast quantity of papers written and peer reviewed, as well as the many lines of research in unrelated fields that all independently confirm the theory of evolution, it certainly has to be in the top most percentile. Critically speaking I'd say we can be more certain about Evolution than we can be Gravity. By which of course I mean to say that if you doubt Evolution you might as well doubt Everything else.
Draslin 6 months ago
@Draslin What?! Seriously? I was kinda with you up until the end there, although just because something's had more papers written about it doesn't mean it's more true, but; 'doubt evolution and you might as well doubt everything else' - if a piece of evidence came along that was actually in contradiction to evolution (creationists, read: we haven't found anything), then I would be very very happy, as it means there's new science! Same with gravity - newton's law worked, then einstein did better.
MrJakemckenna 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna One. True is really just a boolean, it is or it isn't, our certainty about whether or not something is true is the variable part. You can be very precise with the predictions made by gravity or quantum mechanics, but it seems to me that there are fewer ways in which said theories can be falsified. They are pretty solid mathematically. Evolution by comparison seems to me to be incredibly brittle in a falsifiable sense, there are dozens if not hundreds of ways could it easily fail.
Draslin 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna Two. It's the fact that something so brittle has stood up to so much testing and new evidence that I say its as certain as anything we know. More papers may not make it more true, but our certainty that it is true increases. Perhaps it's six and one half dozen of the other, and perhaps I'm a little biased as I keep up on the ID vs Evolution crap in the US. (I live in the bible belt.) At least, Gravity, Quantum Mechanics and Evolution are on equal terms.
Draslin 6 months ago
@Draslin Alright, well in the scientific world, it's commonly accepted that Quantum Electrodynamics is the most established, most tested theory that we have about how the world works, whereas the exact dynamics of evolution can still be debated I think. Because it is solid mathematically, we can be certain about then, and then use them to analyse things like chemistry, which influence evolution. Physics is at the top of they pyramid of knowledge :)
MrJakemckenna 6 months ago
@MrJakemckenna Well I know it makes the most absurdly precise predictions, and I've no doubt it's well established and tested. It still strikes me as weird though to say its MORE established and tested. It's a newer theory, with considerably fewer people qualified to speak with authority about it so in pure numbers and time it seems to me difficult to say its more certain. But I'll take your word for it. I'd still bet on Evolution, but admittedly I don't know enough about QM's history to say.
Draslin 6 months ago
@s6y9l If you're going to choose to know nothing about evolution and really just live your life as a sheep who doesn't care about anything then I like what you say at the end.
MetalliCxZero 6 months ago
@s6y9l agggghhhhh Evolution doesn't say animals evolve in the face of death, just that ones better fit for survival are more likely to reproduce.
MetalliCxZero 6 months ago
@s6y9l Wow your extremely arrogant and utterly unintelligent. Evolution is a fact. Scientist have observed evolution and there is thousands of pieces of evidence that proof evolution is true. Denying evolution is like denying the fact that grass is green.
Also if you honestly think that the universe is 10,000 years old you dont even deserve to be called a human being. There is sooo much things that go against that statement and proof that it is COMPLETELY wrong.
MW2Addiction 6 months ago
God was not interested in teaching the ancient Jews science. That's not what the Scriptures were given for. Quite the contrary, we often see God using accommodating language while addressing the readers (and writers) of Scripture.
AgApE010 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers yea i understand what you are saying but somehow the term doesn't fit the time. not that you dont make sense but you give the ancient no credit for his times references.
deltaalphacharlie 6 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie Can you explain either better or in a different way?
FlatEarthers 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers have you ever seen the movie planet of the apes with mark wahlberg. well remember the part where Cesars dad(the bad monkey) his dad is dying and he is told to break the jar and take out what was inside.? well it was a gun but the reference used was, "it has the power of a thousand spears" the dad knew its capabilities but the only way to relate this knowledge was by what was familiar to him. he darn well knew it was wicked, but didnt know what to make of it.
deltaalphacharlie 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers in reference to the ancients it is somewhat similar. It is an unheard of term "sphere" if its round the only way to describe such a thing is by what you know. what you are familiar with.For example if i get lost and someone tells me there is an easier way, screww the easy way im going to look for what i know as a familiar landmark and go from there. What i know i will use as reference.
deltaalphacharlie 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers hope i made it understandable.
deltaalphacharlie 6 months ago
@deltaalphacharlie yep, you did... sorry for the late reply... if your curious I resonded to somebody else why.
I have 2 points for that. 1. The people of the time had spherical objects though... and 2. the design that the people had at the time for the Earth was flat. It ay just be me but I would assume a model made by the people at the time about the Bible would be more accurate than anything we could possibly think up.
FlatEarthers 5 months ago
The Hebrew word which has been translated to "circle" also means "sphere" or the like.
eagleeye2102 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers I guess you totally ignored the part when he said that in Luke 17:34-36 says some will be working at night and some will be working during the day. Also ignored where in Psalm, 103:12 also states how God separates our sin as far from the east is from the west. Well, at the same time, you're trying your best to disprove the bible and trying to persuade the readers that the bible doesn't mean a certain thing by changing the meaning. That's why your channel is totally dedicated on it
digga115 6 months ago
@digga115 People who work in Steak N Shake work during the night, and some of them work during the day. Luke just means that people would have the ability to to work when the sun goes down. The East is as far from the West as it can get, so God separated our sin as far as possible. I'm not trying to disprove the Bible. I am trying my hardest to prove the Bible is 100% factual as literally read. My channel is dedicated to Truth, nothing else.
FlatEarthers 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers Yeah, I just realized that. I was actually proud of the fact that you were.
digga115 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers But what the bible says is when Jesus comes, some will be working during the night, and some will be working during the day. So honestly, it seems that the bible is implying all at one time more than the example that you gave, which was that the bible meant in different times.
digga115 6 months ago
@digga115 Sorry for taking so long to respond... occationially it takes me a while to find a suitable place to get on.
It would also logicialy be assumed that Jesus will be here for longer than 1 day... so some will work in the day, some will work at night =3
FlatEarthers 5 months ago
@FlatEarthers That's totally fine, don't worry about it.
As we can see, this only means that one of us is interpreting it wrong. Jesus even stated he'll come as a thief at night, which is sudden. And in the verse we were talking about, it sounds more like he takes people all at once than him taking them one, later on that day, one.
And what are the evidence for the Earth to be flat?
digga115 5 months ago
@FlatEarthers WOW! someone's picky
Mr1994Rmh 6 months ago
1.Genesis says the earth came first before the sun and it even had water on it in this cold dark state before the sun.
2. It says plants and fruit trees came before the sun somehow.
3. It says the sun and moon were lights made for day and night. The moon is not a light but a reflective surface of the sun's light.
The first page of the Bible sets off so many logic alarms it's scary. Only a fool could believe this ancient coward vomit.
StockleyDan 6 months ago
@StockleyDan but consider this. the purpose of the bible is not to tell a tale about the beginning of the human race etc etc. Its aim is to tell the human being he has a problem a big one. He cant fix it but whats been done for him what it means for him thereafter. The bible is not concerned about the creation of the universe etc. only about its grnd subject the Christ and Gods glory.
deltaalphacharlie 6 months ago
To suspend something requires an object to be suspended from, seems to me that there is no such thing, instead, we have rotation that keeps the eart from plummeting towards the sun. Second is that, with heavens i don't think the writers of the bible intended the spatial dimensions, as those are expanding constantly. Space is what we observe and not the dimension itself, and therefore we can only see the consequences of the inflation, not the inflation itself.
jantjeislol 6 months ago
Isiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in" it clearly says "circle" and a circle is flat. Also the jews studies the books a LOT in the origional language and when it was written they agreed that it meant this *go to link*
h t t p:// wilstar. com/ evolution/ ancient_hebrew_earth. gif
contd.
FlatEarthers 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers it doesn't say it has the apperance of a circle, it says it IS a circle.
According to a spherical earther belief there is no actual north, west, east, or south. South will never become north, and east will never become west (and vice versa). The "equator" doesn't label the difference between north and south because you can be north while below where the "equator" is.
The Earth IS flat, and the Flat Earth Soceity is a Christian orginization.
FlatEarthers 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers Why would a circle be flat!?
Have you never learned Geometry!?
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder seriously (sp?)? If you are being serious then it pains me to inform you that a circle is flat. The thing that is ball like is called a sphere.
(if you weren't being serious then sorry for the comment).
FlatEarthers 6 months ago
@FlatEarthers
A cannon Ball is a Circle? Agreed!? Yet, it is round. If you slap 3D on a Circle, then you got yourself a ball.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
VenomFangX: I happen to think geocentricity is very likely
Kabane52: by geocentricity do you mean that the Earth Solar System is the central solar system or that the sun revolves around the Earth
VenomFangX: the earth
VenomFangX: I happen to think geocentricity is very likely
> the sun revolves around the Earth
All of your opinions are now invalid. Have a nice day.
pseudonymity0000 6 months ago
I disagree. Just because textbooks and a majority of the Scientific community hold up illusions to illustrate "theory"; That does not set the it in stone with the rest of thinkers. I do not support creationism completely. When God says he created everything after its kind, that he also created man and woman, I believe him. It is unwise to believe theories that have gaps as big as Evolution does. What I mean is; accepting it as fact. There are many missing pieces to that puzzle.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX "Hold up illusions?"
So this is a conspiricy? Tin foil hat wearing time? Come on. Think about what it would take, how many scientists would have to be in on it. Think of the possible Nobel Prizes that they would be passing up on if they could overturn Evolution with something else? The grants would be endless; the fame immense. And yet all of them are "[holding] up illusions?"
Something tells me that you are trying really hard to fit reality around your conclusion.
balanceseeker 6 months ago
@balanceseeker "Hold up illusions?"
It would be easier for me to explain if we weren't sifting through context over a thread. I'm not trying to provoke a debate, what I meant when I said that was how people manage to confuse theory with factual data.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX No need to "provoke a debate." If you would like a rational discussion about this or any other issue, simply PM me. If not, that is fine. I will only state that your post *appears* to convey the idea that theory is something less then facts. Theories explain facts, and in some ways, theories are more important than facts. Facts by themselves explain/predict nothing. Theories do. Still, it is a fact evolution happens. The theory explains how & why it does.
balanceseeker 6 months ago
"in such a way that they could understand it in their own times..."
So, does that explain why it is so wrong? People back then had a poor grasp of things, and so the Bible put it in those poor terms? Indeed, it certainly does not "match perfectly" with cosmology, as a result of the above statement.
Isaiah 40:22 - There is no "above the circle of the Earth" unless the Earth is flat. Every direction away would be both above and below.
Job 26:7 - It is not suspended, nor "floats" It orbits. cont
balanceseeker 6 months ago
Isaiah 42:5 - "Stretched" is past tense. If it was to mean that it was expanding, then one would have said, "and stretches them further out every day." Further, it is more likely to reference the old held belief about the night sky being a blanket pulled across the sky, but I digress.
Jeremiah 33:22 - Umm.. Look at the night sky and count the stars? Kind of tough. Almost countless, right? But one might, just like one might count all the stars in the universe which is finite, not countless. cont
balanceseeker 6 months ago
Luke 17:34-36 - Pure fabrication on your part, as nothing about being in a field requires it being during the day. If you have to stretch this far to make the book fit, perhaps it doesn't?
Psalm 103:12 - Without there being a most eastern and a most western point (which would exist in a flat earth), the line makes no sense. Indeed, to take your own view ("at no point does the East become the West") then the line literally means nothing.
This is a really sad attempt on your part....
balanceseeker 6 months ago
There is no point at which the west becomes the east? *facepalm
a) for the person, wherever they happen to be;
b) in geographical sense, the Greenwich Meridian and the International Date Line.
The Bible's cosmology perfectly matches what modern science has to say? Apart from the Earth being 6k-10k years old and existing before the sun...
JMUDoc 6 months ago
Are you seriously comparing geographical directions with magnetic poles? ... -.- I mean.. really?
kwukduck 6 months ago
is this really true?
RandomWOWhuntard 6 months ago
@RandomWOWhuntard No, Please do not listen to this guy he is just a liar..
Saying that evolution doesnt have any evidence, Shame on him! Sooner or later people will accept evolution to be true because it is a scientific FACT,
grubashu 6 months ago
@grubashu Evolution is as much scientific fact as Astrology is confused with Astronomy. Or as it is routinely accepted world wide as some ridiculous science to some people. The majority that believe the rubbish aren't educated on the matter. I think being in love with the idea that "it seems so true" far exceeds the willingness to see it as it is. You might say the same about believing in God, but there is one difference; You can discover that he lives by seeking his face. Or follow majority.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
« You can discover that he lives by seeking his face »
Which illustrates the exact problem of science vs. faith.
No "observation of god" or anything supernatural has ever been documented in such a way that it is independently verifiable, regardless of the personal belief of the observer.
The various scientific hypotheses and theories accepted in the scientific community and receiving broad support without, however, *are* substantiated by such independently verifiable evidence.
XGralgrathor 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX Ignorance of biology doesn't constitute evolution not being a fact. Evolution is a fact and is indeed the only empirical explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
It's people like you that make christians look bad, you're basically telling people that you have to be retarded of science to be follow god
Please educate yourself or stop associating yourself with jesus.
InternetDiscipIe 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipIe Thank you for that pompous insight. What I was actually doing was demonstrating how dangerous it is to follow majority or mainstream crowds. However, on the subject of Evolution; It might be a structure of clues comprised of ideas and large gaps of missing pieces, but it is not fact. Which is why it is still the subject of debate everywhere.
Now for the Jesus rebuttal. You have no right to tell anyone to stop associating themselves to him. Repent.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX "Which is why it is still the subject of debate everywhere."
Except that it isn't.
The fact that Evolution happens is not debated in the scientific community. They debate on fringes of the idea, but the core ideas of Evolution are settled fact. The public arena is where the core ideas are debated, because Creationism has lost the fight in the scientific arena.
balanceseeker 6 months ago
@balanceseeker Also: Astrology, rather people accept this or not, is the same as a religion. It teaches a stampede of chipperganda with a pricetag sometimes attached to it, to people naive enough to believe it. It also doesn't publish the authors of its never-ending story. You wouldn't know if your horoscope was written by criminal, computer, or an infinite list of other variables. And just like I have been pointing out about majority; nearly everyone, everywhere follow it.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX True, but I do not get what you are trying to say here. So, Astrology is not something we can rely on. Doesn't that just prove my point about Dr. Behe's statement? Evolution fits the definition of scientific theory, a definition that must be watered down to include Intelligent Design, and such watering down leads to Astrology being a scientific theory as well. Hence, evolution is more scientific than astrology and ID.
balanceseeker 6 months ago
@balanceseeker Eh. I see what you mean. Yeah, perhaps I've been misunderstood. Although, I'm not one to debate about ID. I think ID is certainly a personal experience meant to be traveled alone and discovered, it cannot be proven on any battlefield. And arguing about it would more likely harden someone about it than convert them to it. But yes, I'm not refuting at all that Evolution has any practical application in comparison to to Astrology which is practiced by religious, agnostics, atheists.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX Except that it's not actually a subject of debate by those who know what they're talking about. The concept of a controversy regarding evolution was invented by fundamentalists to sell such garbage as a 6000 year old earth (and DVD's) Don't confuse the uneducated not understanding it for it not being fact.
InternetDiscipIe 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipThis is what I was talking about. I'll put it this way: There is NOT enough information to solidify Evolution into legitimized fact. And when people like you pretend that there is while pompously believing other people are "uneducated" for believing otherwise, it speaks volumes of your own capacity to think, and it also creates perspective enough to believe you have an agenda or bias. People should be docile enough to admit when they don't know something. Theory is not fact.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX A theory, in the scientific sense, is quote, "the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject" (Chambers Dictionary). In this definition, gravity is theory but you don't find yourself floating off into space, do you? Evolution, whilst described as a "theory" has been observed and it is a FACT, just as gravity is a FACT. Why would scientists push a non factual hypothesis? What could it possibly benefit them, especially if found out to be wrong?
ThomasTrue 6 months ago
@ThomasTrue I'm not talking about it in it's category. I'm referring to the assumptions that are made in the absence of data. Example: All the materials that make up the big bang, which everything "came and evolved" from. But where did the materials come from that made up the big bang? I'm certain you agree that it's impossible for something to evolve from nothing. Don't even get me started on primate and fossil Evolution process, so many missing pieces to that it's ridiculous.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX "I'm certain you agree that it's impossible for something to evolve from nothing."
So, the appearance of a 'God' which then just magically created EVERYTHING on their own free will doesn't count because...?
MegaMonkeyExtreme 6 months ago
@ThomasTrue Part 2: To answer your question about who benefits and how. It's not just scientists. You and I both know this old world has a problem with religious people or beliefs because it scares them. Perhaps some sincerely wish others to simply know truth as the perceive it, but there are multitudes that fight against it simply out of spite and hatred. Those who have dedicated their life to seek out and ridicule people of faith. Bill Maher is an amusing example. So is VFX.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@ThomasTrue Part 3: Using gravity as an example was a bad idea by the way. I suppose that Evolution imposed upon us in such an astonishing manner as gravity does; it would be easier to observe, analyze, study and take us all to a fundamental conclusion. But since it doesn't, and a lot of what we have are ideas, imagination and speculation with beginnings, gaps and conclusions, It creates somewhat of a paradox when compared to something as invasive as gravity.
XChromeboyX 6 months ago
@XChromeboyX "Evolution is as much scientific fact as Astrology is confused with Astronomy."
That is probably not the best line to start a post. Dr. Behe ("Darwin's Black Box") stated that under his definition of what a scientific theory was, the definition that allow Intelligent Design to be considered a scientific theory, that Astrology would also be considered a scientific theory. He said that under oath in the Dover trial and was asked repeatedly to ensure that was what he meant. It was.
balanceseeker 6 months ago
@grubashu yea, I thought it sounded kinda wierd.. why would he lie about it?
RandomWOWhuntard 6 months ago
@RandomWOWhuntard To support his beliefs, (Christianity) Which has not a shred of evidence for it and christians have tried to find it for 2000 years and still fails..
They are a bunch of hypocritical, Brainwashed and close minded people.. Simply as that.
grubashu 6 months ago
@RandomWOWhuntard While I found problems with every one of the passages he quoted and posted my problems with them in the comments here, don't believe me. Look it up yourself. Look up the passages yourself and compare them to what he is saying here. Make certain that the context is sound, that it isn't something allegorical instead of a factual claim, and then go research cosmology and see if it jives. Do not let someone else tell you what to believe.
Best of luck out there!
balanceseeker 6 months ago
Joshua 10 : The sun and moon stand still.
He prayed for the sun to stand still over Gibeon as at high noon, and the moon to stand still in the valley of Aijalon. The Aijalon was a valley extending from Gibeon west and...
goegelwoegel 6 months ago
@rykoodasr Maybe you should consider reading it again or looking at the works of a few biblical scholars (Chuck Missler is my favourite) All I know is that I have been studying the Bible for years and every time I read a passage I've already read I discover something new. I once studied from a teenagers perspective and now my perspective has changed and so do my discoveries. If all that is important to you is the truth and you can put biases aside you will find it.
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Thank you. I'll consider it. I don't have much time for reading anything outside of college right now, but I may look more into things in the future.
rykoodasr 6 months ago
good guy ~ 2oo many bckyard cults on Ytube ~ matt 7:22
TJae1 6 months ago
testin' ~ 1 thes 5:21
TJae1 6 months ago
awesome video God bless you brother
archdelux 6 months ago
@rykoodasr We do believe that it started as a singularity "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth" from the mouth of God came that singularity. The age of the earth is an extremely complex subject and I can assure you that through copious amounts of study the Genesis account fits perfectly. Now let me ask you something... how does the concept "first there was nothing, then it exploded" not scream stupidity to you? For the sake of being open minded Google "Irreducible Complexity"
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist It does scream stupidity, and I don't know why you'd use it ;) Sorry, bad joke. But I don't think something came from nothing, nor does the big bang model state this. Simply put, we don't know what came before. Maybe it was a god, or the flying spaghetti monster, or even nothing; I don't know and wouldn't claim to know. But we have observed galaxies that are over 13 million light years away.
rykoodasr 6 months ago
@rykoodasr So if you don't know, and scientists don't know then why is the official position of modern science that the universe couldn't have been created? Also please don't trivialise the belief in God to the level of intelligence of the belief in a flying spaghetti monster, there is clearly more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. Not to mention there are very competent scholars and scientist who believe in Creation, and none for the spaghetti monster.
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Is it the modern position of science? I personally would say it is highly unlikely that the universe was created. I don't mean to trivialize the belief in a god, but you also have to consider that there are recognized religions such as Scientology that I think trivialize all religions. I was using FSM as an analogy. You mention there are scientists and scholars who believe in creation (and FSM IS creation); there are also Christians who believe in evolution.
rykoodasr 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist I know all about the irreducible complexity argument and find it wholly unconvincing. There is a reason intelligent design lost its court case. Even if the intelligent design argument is completely true, it has nothing to do with the age of the universe. An evolved life form could have designed these irreducibly complex systems and planted them on Earth. Read up on Michael Behe (irreducible complexity); he actually argues for evolution if I remember correctly.
rykoodasr 6 months ago
@rykoodasr That theory is completely speculative and contrary to the laws of life! how can a being evolve if not a single one of his cells could have evolved? As for the age of the Earth I absolutely believe it is around as old as modern science says it is from our perspective, yet I also 100% believe in the Genesis account, these things are a matter of understanding, it's a little complicated and hard to explain to someone who hasn't studied the Bible.
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist
"it's a little complicated and hard to explain to someone who hasn't studied the Bible" lololol
Nicolasduca 6 months ago
But only magnetic north and south change. We'll still recognize the north as the north and the south as the south. If we did switch them then the west would be the east!
rykoodasr 6 months ago
Yes and it says God stoped the earth rotating and then rotated it forward again. Look at at my current work in static items at writing.com under name stillseeking, titles such as tips to heal the nations and the ego map, the sexual ego. I believe the Creationism and the Evolution Theories are both wrong. For one says nothing about the world more than 6000 years ago, and evolution is too slow to be real-- lucky cars arent made-evolved that slow or we'd all be still walking or riding horses.
inertialcapacity 6 months ago
The Architect of the Universe, Elohim, spoke to some very ancient men in a dream and gave them many so called modern astronomical facts, all verifiable and recorded within the Great Pyramids.. They knew the circumference of the earth, the distance from the earth to the sun, the mean length of the earth’s orbit around the sun and much more..
muzalot 6 months ago
Yes the bible teaches that the earth is flat, Matthew 4:8 says jesus could see all the kingdoms of earth from a high mountain, IE flat.
Calling it allegory or poetry doesn't make it go away, you can ignore the misses in any ancient text and it will then be 100% accurate.
InternetDiscipIe 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipIe Incorrect. What it states is the devil ' showed ' Christ the kingdoms of the earth; telling us that one very powerful being - Satan - used his power to show him the kingdoms. Furthermore, in the context of the Bible, Jesus is God - therefore he is able to see things beyond human perception. When you quote the bible, you should first understand what you're reading before you incorrectly come to conclusions.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
So you're saying they went for a stroll and then Satan in a completely unrelated move showed using his powers all the kingdoms of the world. After Satan already taken Jesus to the highest temple of Jerusalem. And you don't think you're pushing it a bit.
Explain then "He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in"
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares The whole episode begins with Christ going into exile, into the wilderness to begin with; it's clearly an event where he goes one-on-one vs the great tempter; in the process they symbolically go up onto the mountain top; but they both have perception to see every kingdom even from one location on a sphere. You wouldn't be able to see the ' splendor ' looking at kingdoms thousands of miles away on a flat earth, even if you could see them all. Right ?
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares He stretches out the heavens like a canopy; spreads em out like a tent; you're stating this clearly equals flat earth? You know the Bible talks about wolves in sheeps' clothing, humans soaring like eagles, and God's protective wings too right? But most intelligent folks know it's not referring to wolf seamstresses, flying humans, or calling God the big chicken.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH No, what I'm saying is you can't use a phrase full of symbolism and then decide that part of it is scientific knowledge. Moreover what I'm saying is that ALL of the Bible is symbolic.
You surely can't use that phrase to state that the universe is expanding.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
Comment removed
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares In 2008 presidential-candidate Barack Obama went to the Brandenburg Gate in Germany and delivered a speech; it was an event that was real-world - could be used to demonstrate some material measurements or scientific knowledge, but was quite symbolic too. Both can happen in one event. Both often happen in one event in the real-world.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH I wasn't clear enough? You can't use a speech with symbolism to obtain scientific facts. The reason is simple, you can't distinguish between a symbol and a fact. And please don't tell me common sense, people died because the earth is not the center of the universe thing.
All Bible scholars up to Galileo though the earth was the center of the world and until 15th century Christian countries though the earth was flat. And these are facts, not interpretations of symbolic texts.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares The point is going to some location like the Brandenburg Gate or up to a mountain top is the symbolic part; but the speech was about real world stuff; and Satan actually showed Christ the kingdoms. You can have both in one event. This whole discussion is regarding whether or not Satan and Jesus being able to see kingdoms from one location on earth -> means the Bible states the earth is flat; I clearly explained how the Bible is NOT stating earth is flat here.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH So here it is not flat and in Mathew's the earth is a sphere. Although the text is not clear and although the people who wrote it believed the earth is flat.
And you don't see any contradiction.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
Comment removed
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares You're misunderstanding me here, my friend. I'm not sure how else to explain it but I was only trying to explain how Matthew 4:8 isn't stating the earth is flat. We're getting confused with other issues here.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH Ok, back to basics.I know that. My point is that you can't infer that the earth is round or flat by reading any passage of the Bible.
My point is that you can't obtain scientific knowledge from the Bible.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Yes we agree that the Bible isn't a detailed science text; it isn't supposed to tell us things that God allows us to examine and discover on our own.
I see some big picture outlines of nature in Genesis for example; but no extensive details. I certainly see no contradictions of science in the Bible either. We mostly agree here, my friend :)
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH Well yes, we agree to some extent. Then maybe we can also agree that this video attributes scientific knowledge to the Bible that can't be really confirmed and for that reason the video is useless.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares I just would state too that what VFX communicates in his video here is worth considering however.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Well yes you can, a Jewish scholar in the 1200's by the name of Nachmanides after studying the Genesis account he discovered that we live in 10 dimensions 4 of which are knowable and the other six are indiscernible to us. String theory only in the last 20 years has discovered that "we live in 10 dimensions 4 are knowable to us and the other 6 are curled into our existence and can only be seen through particle observation. not to mention the discovery of underwater current systems.
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist oh yeah, that. Scientists today believe there can be a lot more than just 10 dimensions, so Nachmanides must've been wrong. Bear in mind this theory isn't proven yet. Besides, those aren't at all the same dimensions Nachmanides talks about. He talks about the nature of God and so. Place them here if you want. I don't have them with me.
Not to discourage late findings but underwater currents are of general knowledge since probably the beginning of civilization.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Your statement was that you cant obtain scientific knowledge from the Bible and my statement was yes you can. The two examples I gave you are clear evidence of that. It's extremely speculative to suggest that early civilization had knowledge of underwater currents, what are you basing this on?
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Well, I know about underwater currents ever since I was a child, you just need to swim in the sea to know about them. So, people might not know to what extend it influences navigation, but people know they exist. Besides, have you read Psalm 8:8? Can you really say that the paths of the seas are currents? As of my knowledge birds don't use underwater currents, do they?
Consider also that currents where used to navigate from Portugal to Brasil, prior to Maury's work.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Besides, to claim scientific knowledge you can't be ambiguous. Everything suggested to be scientific knowledge in the Bible has a more simple explanation so, in accordance to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the solution.
You can't go from stretch the heavens out to the universe is expanding.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Would you imagine how easy would be an exam in Astronomy if we could answer it with Bible quotes? It would be so easy!
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist In fact, let's do that. Place here a scientific fact from the Bible and then the question as if in a exam.
Let's see what's worth all that science.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Well yes I guess you can look at it that way, the Bible isn't a scientific text book. What I think VFX is trying to get across is that there isn't one thing in the Bible that contradicts science and if you are to take a deeper look at it you'll discover that the Bible has an Integrated system that does not contradict itself and had to be from outside our time domain. Do some study you'll find specific prophecies about factual events specifically outline hundreds of years in advance
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Well... The Bible has good things but it is my understanding that it was written by men. If not, errors like Leviticus 11:20-23 (locusts, crickets and grasshoppers have six, not 4 legs) wouldn't exist.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares You have clearly taken that scripture completely out of context you are referring to a figure of speech, these are used all through the scripture. And if the Bible was written by men how do you propose that Daniel knew in advance that Babylon would be taken over by Persia and Persia by Greece and Greece by Rome? It was penned by men but Divinely Inspired by God almighty. This is clearly evident when you study the word of God.
JointHeirInChrist 6 months ago
@JointHeirInChrist Out of context? How come? It's just the number of legs... My guess is that it's a typo... Maybe Daniel predicted all that. Maybe not. It's not like he is clear about it. Many are the prophets who did similar prophecies and not all where Christian(ish).
Moreover, what about the Ottoman and Islamic Empires? They too occupied Judah and Jerusalem before the 2nd comming of Christ.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares In terms of medievel scholars examining science - who cares what un-enlightened people perceived in 1492; it's obvious God lets us figure lots of stuff out on our own; it makes life interesting. What's so complicated about this concept ?
Lot of the words and actions committed by supposedly church people in history contradict what the Bible teaches; it's them who are wrong, not the Bible.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH then it's not science! you can read anything and in a kabbalah kind of way remove any significant you want! That is what you are doing! Picking something and saying "this is scientific but this is not". So, go pick another book, the book of the dead of the Egyptians, the lord of the rings, I don't care. With your method there is science revealed in all!
Who cares? Anybody who died in the name of religion! I care because there are people today in the dark ages yet!
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH Now you're doing more than taking liberty with interpretation, the passage says nothing that even resembles that.
It says he could see all kingdoms of earth from a high mountain. If you're wanting to inject magic anywhere in there, that's your personal comprehension, not the reality of the context.
InternetDiscipIe 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipIe Ever read the Bible or heard much about what it teaches? The biggest theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ is the Creator God and Satan is one extremely powerful being of the spirtual realm; therefore they can perceive things beyond human perception. You must read every form of literature IN CONTEXT of the obvious, clear, bigger themes. You are the one who is clearly missing the big theme of the Bible - which is easy to recognize. Magic - huh ?
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipIe One more thing on the going up to the mountain top and looking at kingdoms; even if the earth was considered to be flat - you still wouldn't be able to look thousands of miles in every direction to see every kingdom and all its splendor; right? So your interpretation still wouldn't square with what the text reads. It's obvious the text is referring to perception beyond human physical eyesight. You have to torture the text to see some reference to flat earth here.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
@desertTRUTH 'It's obvious the text is referring to perception beyond human physical eyesight'
Nothing in the text itself indicates this. A flat earth is the only thing that makes sense if the text is literal. They know they can see across a flat plain.
InternetDiscipIe 6 months ago
@InternetDiscipIe Read the Bible to comprehend what you're referring to first. The devil isn't in physical form; he cannot walk onto a mountain top and look across a flat plain; he exists only in spiritual form, ok. Plus I explained how they still wouldn't be able to look thousands of miles in every direction too see every kindom and all its splendor. Your interpretation is ignorant of context and real-world physics.
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
Comment removed
desertTRUTH 6 months ago
hmmm
HeliosFire9ll 6 months ago
This looks like a very fun video to have put together and edited, also I love it when religion and science tie in, people are always so science versus religion as polar opposites.
baneofhatred 6 months ago
Amen, and I totally agree. Makes a lot of sense.
TheGospelStuff 6 months ago
@VenomFangX I'm sorry to blow a hole in your minute-long fallacy, but it says 'stretched'. Now most everything else you said that proves they knew about cosmology can be figured out by looking up at night, like 'countless stars'. However, the universe is expanding now. it did not start and then stop. Your collection of bronze-age myths says he 'stretched them out' not 'is stretching them out' if god told them about cosmology why would he forget to mention that the universe is still expanding?
Spocktacular96 6 months ago
Shawn, I have a suggestion for your next video. Give the definitions for
- Scientific method
- Evolution
- Big Bang Theory
- Naturalism
- Abiogenisis
And then your points about what's fundamentally wrong with them.
People keep mixing these things, I think it would be very helpful.
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Wonderful suggestion. Please also include:
Life
God
Kind <== especially
Just as an aside to you creationist folks -- you may be able to make some headway with these notions if you're willing to define them and stick to it. Just bouncing between them like a ball-bearing in a pinball machine doesn't help your cause.
The terms you use matter (just like referencing a pinball machine makes me feel so old [sigh]).
This is an argument against your equivocation.
kbi42 6 months ago
Huh... let's try it again...
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
So, God camps in earth's orbit, sits down in a throne and with the cozy heaven above him watches humankind.
Where is the scientific part again?
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
Matches perfectly. Then the evolution debates begin. READY GO!
OceanTheViking 7 months ago
@OceanTheViking Have you read the comments before posting? Aren't you a bit, I don't know... Late?
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares Actually I didn't read it at all. I give myself props for predicting the past.
OceanTheViking 6 months ago
@OceanTheViking you are funny! Next time use some sort of scientific method, you know, observe the evidence. Then you might find the debate already begun... or did it begun when you read it in a book, maybe?
edgarrsoares 6 months ago
@edgarrsoares wat?
OceanTheViking 6 months ago
*Great find brother !
John 12:37- " Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in Him."
yadig2012 7 months ago
Sure, why not. Happy?
AkuZod 7 months ago
@copypaper92704 You can't number all the stars, you can only estimate how many are there in the universe.
flameboy1236 7 months ago
Anyway, that's why I think there are so many religions.
OneEyedJack1970 7 months ago
Yes... I love how you avoid the "the earth rests on 4 pillars"... But that's only methaphorical isn't it? You make the bible mean what you want it to mean.
WallieTF 7 months ago
@WallieTF & you make the bible mean what you want it to mean.
Atheismlikestotroll6 7 months ago
@Atheismlikestotroll6 No, i read the texts and interpet it from what it says. Which the unknowing people that wrote the bible actually belived in. That the world stod on 4 pillars, that lepreacy can be cured by bird blood etc.
WallieTF 6 months ago
The bible teaches that earth and species was created in 6 days whether science says it was 4.5 x 10^9 y. It does not match perfectly.
humbleu 7 months ago
If you like this video I would suggest to watch this one also.
watch?v=GnLGEhWYseI
PsalmChapter117 7 months ago
Why are there so many different religions?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@doireallyneed1 Religion is what Satan uses to deceive mankind and that is why we see so many of them. Islam is Satan's masterpiece.
But there is only one who can wash away your sins and that is Jesus!
drybomber5 7 months ago
@drybomber5,
Do those who belong to other faiths go to hell?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@doireallyneed1 Let me answer that with a question...
Who goes to hell?
drybomber5 7 months ago
@drybomber5,
I don't know.
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@doireallyneed1 Well let me tell you.
Sinners go to hell... and a person who dies in their sins, no matter what believed, will go to hell. God has provided only way for you to be forgiven of your sins and that is through Jesus. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me. Was Jesus lying when he said this?
Another question, if you think there are many ways to heaven, then what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross?
drybomber5 7 months ago
@drybomber5,
The thing I am haviing difficulty with is that not all people were born into the same beliefs. If I were born somewhere outside the infuence of Western culture then I would have been taught something different from my parents, teachers etc. and I would not even have heard of Christ. Does this mean I must go to hell?
I can't believe that God would abandon so many millions of people.
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@drybomber5,
"what was the purpose of Jesus dying on the cross?"
I would think about that very thing when I was a kid in church. It doesn't seem to add up to me. How does the horrible prolonged suffering and death of one part of God pay for the sins of all mankind? Why was the suffering of the thousands of others who were crucified have no value - shouldn't that at least have payed for their own transgressions?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@doireallyneed1 Because many people want to go to Heaven on their own terms, rather than God's.
OneEyedJack1970 7 months ago
@OneEyedJack1970,
You mean that people of other faiths know that they are going against God's will but do so anyway?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago
@doireallyneed1 I think everybody does that, to some degree or other. I mean more like how they came about in the first place. Religion is man reaching out to God (our terms). Christianity is God reaching out to man (His terms).
One of God's terms is that you're a sinner in need of forgiveness. But many people get hung up on being called a sinner. Which leads (for those still theologically inclined) towards works-based religions that allow people to see themselves as righteous.
OneEyedJack1970 7 months ago
@OneEyedJack1970,
But what if you were born into some other faith and never heard of Jesus Christ? You would have no reason to doubt what your parents, teachers etc. have told you was the truth and go looking for something else, would you? There have been many billions of people who have lived and died without hearing the Good News - what will happen to their immortal soul?
doireallyneed1 7 months ago