You make some good points here. I don't think the Landover people will ever listen. They don't want answers to their objections. They certainly don't seem to cherish the ideal of free thought that atheists are supposed to hold to. They are fundies of a different kind. However, this video will help those who are interested in finding answers.
I'm a real Christian and I love this video! Yes, I believe wholeheartedly even though Jesus is 100% silent, 100% invisible and answers prayers equal to chance, which now that I think about it, does seem a bit odd. Maybe I'll rethink this whole faith thing stop believing in invisible flying dieties and see how things work out. Since I found Jesus he has led me from a great job, to a walmart greeter, then to the soup line at the rescue mission. Maybe I'll try thinking for myself for a change.
@spacenie I'll check your links and reply back in a day or so, but be aware I have spent a good deal of time doing my homework on the origins of religion and the results so far are nowhere near what I was taught in church. But I'm always up for reading more views.
@spacenie : Unfortunately, many priests and ministers over the years have interpreted that passage to mean that Jesus came to give abundant life, and eternal life, only to those who subscribe to whatever particular brand of Christianity they happen to be preaching at the time. It's the Christian denominations condemning other denominations which has hurt Christianity so much. It becomes difficult to take any of it seriously. People just want to be more right than the other guy.
I agree that, ironically, much damage has been done to Christianity by Christians. Up here in New Sweden, Maine, the Baptists, Lutherans and Covenant Churches are working together.
@spacenie: I was referring to your post, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
I'm glad to hear that the different denominations are working together up there in Maine. I love Maine by the way. Anyway, I think the big problems arise when Protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodoxy get into it. They all considered themselves Christians too, but they all like to rip on each other.
Sadly true. It is true that there are differences between these 3 groups, but we should be united by our faith in the one true God.
My main problems with Catholics and Orthodox Churches is when they try to add good works or rituals to the Gospel of grace. As if one needs to do something along with believing in order to be saved. That's not the one Gospel.
Still, all the killing that was done because someone thought different than you. Very sad for us and especially to God.
@spacenie: Yes, our faith tells us that salvation is not obtained through good works. But what alot of Christians, Protestants and Catholics, tell us is that if you are truly saved, you will do good works. If you don't, then it indicates that you're not really saved. To me, this is manipulative. I've heard this from Catholics and Baptists alike. It sounds controlling which is what creeps me out. What do you think about this?
@zoeyjusko There's a lot that could be said about this. I can't speak on the controlling factor. I would agree with the statement, that if you are truly saved, then you will do good works. But I would say that how many good works and what kind of good works is different for each person.
Salvation is not simply getting a "get out of Hell free" card, but knowing that one is a sinner and needs a Savior. When the Holy Spirit comes into our lives, it is to give us eternal life, yes, but also to help us to live more godly lives her and now on earth.
A God that can't or doesn't change our lives for the better (more godly, knowing and doing His will) is not much of a God worth believing in and following.
Matthew 13:23 shows us that people will bear different levels of fruit.
spacenie, you a write a lot about creationism which isn't disputed at all by Landover Baptist but you never ask or answer the fundamental questions that Landover Baptist will challenge us with, like : Does Jesus watch me go poopy?
I seriously doubt you could ever pass any of their bible quizzes.
The belief in God IS the easy way out of explaining our existence. You are relying on information that was created by ignorant MEN over 2,000 years ago. While scientists have all but proven evolutionary theory, religious fanatics cling to the notion that *POOF* God made EVERYTHING (in SIX days, nonetheless) and in just over 2,000 years.
Churches are teaching children and dumb adults that dinosaurs roamed the earth WITH man when scientific evidence CLEARLY indicates otherwise.
I'm not sure about you, but complete sentences do help others interpret what you're trying to explain. I'm not really sure what you just replied with, but I'll do my best to understand.
The Bible certainly isn't "absolute truth," just like the Koran or other holy books aren't...the Bible isn't even complete, there are so many other books floating around out there that most Christians have no idea what the ENTIRE Bible itself is composed of.
Who in the heck is Young Earth Creations? Is that supposed to be some authority on the how earth came to be?
It doesn't matter what all Christians believe; if you choose to use the Bible in some aspects you should use it in ALL aspects. You can't simply pick and choose what you want to believe out of a particular source, that's extremely hypocritical and moronic.
I'm proud to have evolved into such a magnificent, intelligent creature. I'm just ashamed that many of us have chosen to ignore the TRUE miracle of life, that of increasing complexity over millions of years.
Try reading some other book besides the Bible, it's truly enlightening.
Please learn more about Christians and Christianity.
You may surprised that there are other Christians than the narrow-minded, ultra conservative, fundamentalists that you paint me (and all Christians?) to be.
Genesis ch. 4 clearly indicates that Adam's first two children were Cain and Abel. This is elementary knowledge.
The Bible also indicates a 6-day creation (and there was morning... and evening...), contradicting scientific evidence. The whole concept of the Sabbath day wouldn't make sense if these days were "metaphorical".
Again, I refer back to the Bible's genealogies. It claims the Earth is 6000 years old.
What on earth are you smoking? Have YOU read the entire Bible?
True. But who was Cain afraid of (4:14) and whom did he marry (4:17)?
The literal reading of Genesis is only one interpretation of the Text and only since Darwin has become a major battleground for some Christians. Its interesting that while God could have created everything in one second, He chose to spread creation out over several days. Plus, the Hebrew is written in (I believe) a more poetic style.
Some believe that it is a writing against a popular god of the day, which also had a creation story.
Hebrews 4 uses rest not referring to one day but to resting in salvation that comes through Jesus Christ. Him being the final and perfect sacrifice for our sins.
In general, the Bible agrees with science in that the universe is not eternal, but was created.
Here are many articles, from a Christian perspective, arguing for an old earth:
The Bible never claims to list all families of people who have ever lived (even in one line). When the Bible says that someone was the father of someone else, it could mean literal father or grandfather. Also, Matthew 1:5-6 is clearly not listing all of the generations.
The Bible never claims that the earth is 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists would like for you to believe this, but it is not something that the Bible is dogmatic on.
A belief in a young earth is certainly not an essential belief or teaching of Christianity (though yes, some try to make it out to be so). The Bible does not say that our salvation is dependent on how we interpret Genesis, but on our acceptance/belief or rejection of the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The book of Genesis says that Adam and Eve had numerous children (including Seth) after Cain and Abel. Cain obviously married one of them.
It's wonderful that you don't interpret the book of Genesis "literally", and look for shades of meaning and nuances that never existed there in the first place. Cool. But you Christians never fail the apply the same logic when you condemn homosexuality, or say non-Christians go to eternal hell, etc. Only when you see glaring errors are you so "open-minded"!
Irrelevant. You don't, either, and it's not imperative upon ME to know it.
Science indicates that every single English translation of the Bible is scientifically invalid, and so is the original Hebrew, even if the word "yom" is translated as periods (the bible says fruit-bearing trees existed before land animals).
Scientists humiliate THEMSELVES, and they are proud to do so. Science changes when people uncover new evidence. Your crappy religion does not. You accept things through blind faith.
So knowing Biblical Hebrew is irrelevant to your correctly interpreting the Hebrew word, "yom" in the Old Testament.
Interesting.
And it's not imperative upon you to know it? Yet you dogmatically say that it must mean a literal day? How can you be so sure, if you admit to not knowing the language?
Science cannot prove that there aren't magical fairies or boogeymen living under your bed, either.
What I do know is how often religious nutters have been completely, hilariously wrong when they attribute things like surviving infectious diseases or mental disorders to supernatural causes. People with epilepsy/schizophrenia are NOT "possessed by demons". God did not cause your mother to survive ovarian cancer, etc.
I agree that people with epilepsy or schizophrenia or any other disease are not possessed by demons (not my quote by the way).
In fact, when the Bible talks of Jesus healing people and casting out demons, it separates the two groups.
For example, Mark 1:34 says, "...Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons..."
Also in Mark, in reference to the 12 disciples, it says, "They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. " 6:13 NIV
The reasoning I cited is the same used by old-school Protestants and Orthodox Jews, who know the ins and outs of the Bible. Take up your grievances with them.
Let's assume, for your sake, that the Bible doesn't talk about literal days. Why, then does the Bible say that fruit-bearing trees were created before land animals? The fossil record shows that amphibians emerged millions of years before the existence of angiosperms.
Christians (at least protestants in the U.S. and catholics, the two largest categories) believed overwhelmingly that Genesis 1, 2 referred to literal days of creation. It was only until they were humiliated after witnessing advances in geology and biology that they came up with these creative BS interpretations.
Either way, don't you think it's funny that an almighty god allowed his most important book to be so badly mistranslated over the centuries? Why does the KJV say "days", not "periods"?
I was talking about Christians since the time of Christ. Not since America was founded.
And don't think that scientists haven't been humiliated as their own works time after time show evidence for a created, complex universe.
The Bible has been translated accurately throughout the centuries. Sure there are differences in how people translate (word or thought), but the main writings of the Text have always been clear. The KJV translators went with what they thought was the correct word.
How would you describe the creation of the universe to people living thousands of years ago?
Would you give them a modern day scientific explanation which they would not have been able to comprehend?
Of course not. So when the Bible uses language that the people of that time can understand and makes sense to them, you go off complaining that it's unscientific and therefore totally false. Whatever....
The Bible contains descriptions about dragons, virgin births, people going up to heaven in a chariot, talking snakes and donkeys, pillars of fire, walking on water--
Your argument is so incredibly stupid. Why would people who believe that crazy nonsense not be able to comprehend a complex scientific theory?
The Bible doesn't just "simply" things, it distorts them badly when simple words would more than suffice. Your book is not the word of god. End of story.
My point is, you Christians (and all other religious people) believe in outlandish stories and fairy tales that contradict the laws of nature. These things are obviously hard to believe, and there is no proof for them, yet you believe them anyway.
Why, then, would God tell lies about his own creation? Because plate tectonics is too hard for primitive people to understand, and they wouldn't believe in it? Rubbish.
And somewhere along the way, YWHW forgot to mention archaea, bacteria, fungi, asexual organisms, and other creatures that make up the bulk of life on Earth to day.
Hrm... Could it be that the Bible was written by primitive, superstitious people who knew nothing about science and botany, and were merely reflecting the common prejudices of their day? Or maybe God was too lazy to include over 75% of life on Earth in his plan for creation.
Mentioning bacteria to people living thousands of years ago without modern scientific equipment (ex. microscopes) would not make any sense.
Yes, they knew nothing of science, but God did, hence the dietary laws and cleansing laws which were ways for keeping the people healthy and were ways that were not known to the people of that day.
If Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and every other orthodox Christian faith is wrong (because they all advocated a literal 6-day creation before the 19th century), what's left?
You're referring to a mythical, "scientifically valid" version of Christianity that doesn't exist, and never has existed. Every Christian believed in that myth about the talking snake and the magical fruit before the 19th century.
Changing "God created the world in *6 days*" to *six periods* badly distorts the Bible.
You're making excuses again. "What they thought was the correct word" turns out to be totally false.
And you say "humiliated" as if that's a bad thing-- the whole point of science is to rigorously test hypotheses about the universe, debunk the ones that are correct, and refine the ones that make sense. I.e. Science improves over time. Your religion is stuck in the dark ages.
Scientists are not ashamed to be humiliated, but religious nuts will tell lies to deny that their holy texts are false.
Unless you a scientist who believes in some type of Creator (not necessarily the Christian God). Then you are treated as an outcast for daring to challenge evolution, which has come under scientific scrutiny on several fronts:
No. There are plenty of devout Christians (such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins) that are quite popular and well-received within the scientific community. All of them accept evolution because the scientific proof for it is overwhelming. Creationists are rejected for the same reason that fire departments reject applicants who don't believe that fire douses water.
BTW, the two sites you mentioned have been rebuked by real biologists for distorting their experimental data. Try harder.
Two sites above- I'm tempted to ask for evidence that the godandsience website distorts data, but then how would we know that your source(s) is not distorting the data?
I advise everyone who reads our comments to go to the godandscience (org) website, read some of their articles (which cite their sources) and make up your own mind.
Compare what different sides say (there are of course more than just 2) and see where the evidence leads you.
Yes, Ken and Francis accept evolution, but for me the more important point is that they each strongly believe in God. While I don't believe it is true, I am not so much against Theistic Evolution or BioLogos, as I am against atheistic evolution. This is evolution that completely removes God from existence.
It's interesting that Collins went from being an atheist to being a believer in God.
You are correct about "complex", but you are totally ignorant about "created" characteristics.
Everything from lightning, to the development of new organs, to speciation, to the history of the Earth has been elucidated through science. Life would be teeming with all sorts of creatures even in the absence of a creator. Blanket statements like yours are evidence of a scientifically illiterate, credulous mind that elevates faith over critical thinking.
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Complex and simple- I spoke a bit about this in regards to the universe and our solar system in particular.
youtube (com/watch?v=i4Owv6osftI)
Our universe is complex, and our solar system and earth are not only complex, but perfectly suited for life.
Calculations suggest that even small changes in some key parameters [of the Cosmic Designer Machine] would wreck the familiar structure of the universe and prevent life from arising. Cosmic Jackpot, page 140.
Please acknowledge the last point before changing the subject. Would you now agree that belief is not a choice?
While I disagree that there is evidence of god(s)... Let's say you're right: that there is evidence of god. How do you then take the leap from deism (belief in god, by itself) to christianity (belief in jesus).
Changing the subject from which point? FSM or Santa? If people do not chose to believe or not believe, are we all forced by God to either believe or not?
I would go from deism to Christianity because Christianity is not based on a set of rules or principles, but on an historical event, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There is evidence for this event- from the empty tomb to the disciples dying for their faith in a risen Christ.
Eli (Matthew 1) or Jacob (Luke 3)? And no, one of the geneologies cannot be referring to Mary, as some Christian apologists have hypothesized.
No Biblical geneology acknowledges women, except in the case of polygamy, and one of them is unduly long, despite the fact that David is Jesus's ancestor in both.
Both prove that the prophecy about the Messiah being the seed of David never occured. Jesus was born from a virgin; Joseph was NOT his father.
Tell me, do you believe in the concept of a global flood, or the fact that all languages came into being instantaneously when people tried to build a tower up to heaven?
Do you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, that locusts have four legs, or that a man can survive in the belly of a fish for three days?
Even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to be an idiot to believe in these antiquated Jewish fairytales. The Bible contradicts cosmology, biology, linguistics, and geology.
Your problem is that Deists have a hard time believing in the truth of a book that contains all manner of absurdities, scientific errors, and contradictions.
And to top it off, nearly all of the original documents have been lost. Protestant Christians, Catholics, and Egyptian Copts all have very different versions of the Bible with different numbers of books.
Furthermore, no two translations of the Bible in English are the same, leading to hilarious differences in doctrine among Protestants.
p.s. for somebody who sneers at evolution, you have no problem believing that human beings are made from dirt, and that even a little infant is disgusting in the eyes of god because his great-great-great-great-great granddaddy ate an apple.
Are human beings made from chemicals like all other living things? "Dirt" is using language to describe this scientific fact in non-scientific terms. Or would you rather have the author list all the chemicals in the body to people from thousands of years ago?
No infant is disgusting in the eyes of God, but we all are sinners by nature. All people are also created in God's image.
That site fails to address my contradictions at all.
But you have been brainwashed into thinking that human beings and dinosaurs coexisted, just like in the Flintstones, and that the whole universe is 6,000 years old, so I don't blame you for your gullibility.
And as for infants-- then where does the concept of original sin come from?
I never said that I believed that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and that the whole universe is 6,000 years old.
It may surprise you to learn that not all Christians are conservative fundamentalists. To a Christian who holds to a more "liberal" interpretation of Scripture, your two above arguments mean nothing.
Infants are sinners by nature, they are also created in God's image. Like all people, they are loved by the Lord.
Even with a sin nature, you are responsible for how you act.
If you add up all of the genealogies in the Bible, and trace them back from the supposed birth of Jesus to the fall of man, "god" created the universe roughly 6,000 years ago. This clearly contradicts mountains of scientific evidence.
If you don't believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why did "god" (in the book of Genesis) create them only a few days before creating Adam? They must have coexisted, unless somehow the dinosaurs went extinct the same day that God made them.
The Bible does not claim to record all of the genealogies of all of human history and in fact does not do this (ex. the names of Adam and Eve's first children).
BTW- the mountains of scientific evidence also show that the universe had a beginning. It is reasonable to believe that a Being that exists outside of the universe, created the universe.
This is irrelevant. Most Christian historians agree that Jesus Christ was born between 15 BC and 15 AD. The Bible gives an entire geneology of Jesus Christ dating all the way back to Adam. (e.g. Adam gave birth to Seth 130 yrs. after the fall of man, Seth begat Enosh at 150, Enosh begat Seth at 912...)
Yes, I was a Christian for most of my life, until a careful study of the Bible led me to believe it cannot be the word of god. There were also the massive contradictions of scientific evidence...
you say that people who are absent of god will live a life
of suffering and torment but on the next clip you say god loves those who do not love him(and then he sends them to hell??) Can you or god make your mind up please
God does love all people and wants for all people to come into a personal relationship with Him. So yes, God does love those who do not love Him.
But people can choose to reject God's love- both now and for all eternity. If they reject God and die in that state, then they will exist apart from God for eternity. God is not sending people to Hell, people are choosing to go there by not believing in Him.
Spacenie, The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional; it was created by Chris Harper as an Atheist spoof of Christianity. Look it on Wiki they are just yanking your chain. Sorry but thats Youtube.
You make some good points here. I don't think the Landover people will ever listen. They don't want answers to their objections. They certainly don't seem to cherish the ideal of free thought that atheists are supposed to hold to. They are fundies of a different kind. However, this video will help those who are interested in finding answers.
ukchristian28 5 months ago
I'm a real Christian and I love this video! Yes, I believe wholeheartedly even though Jesus is 100% silent, 100% invisible and answers prayers equal to chance, which now that I think about it, does seem a bit odd. Maybe I'll rethink this whole faith thing stop believing in invisible flying dieties and see how things work out. Since I found Jesus he has led me from a great job, to a walmart greeter, then to the soup line at the rescue mission. Maybe I'll try thinking for myself for a change.
morgan4xl 9 months ago
@morgan4xl
Wow! That's original.
Yes, please think for yourself and check out the evidence for God's existence/Christianity-
See for example- garyhabermas (com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm)
godandscience (org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html)
bethinking (org/bible-jesus/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm)
reasonablefaith (org)
bethinking (org/science-christianity/intermediate/a-change-of-mind-for-antony-flew.htm)
Thank you.
spacenie 8 months ago
@spacenie I'll check your links and reply back in a day or so, but be aware I have spent a good deal of time doing my homework on the origins of religion and the results so far are nowhere near what I was taught in church. But I'm always up for reading more views.
morgan4xl 8 months ago
@morgan4xl
Thanks! I admit, it does take some time to find good sources, but they're out there.
spacenie 7 months ago
Let's all let Satan into our hearts.
DuGrail 1 year ago
@DuGrail
Jesus Christ says, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
spacenie 1 year ago
@spacenie : Unfortunately, many priests and ministers over the years have interpreted that passage to mean that Jesus came to give abundant life, and eternal life, only to those who subscribe to whatever particular brand of Christianity they happen to be preaching at the time. It's the Christian denominations condemning other denominations which has hurt Christianity so much. It becomes difficult to take any of it seriously. People just want to be more right than the other guy.
zoeyjusko 1 year ago
@zoeyjusko
Which passage?
I agree that, ironically, much damage has been done to Christianity by Christians. Up here in New Sweden, Maine, the Baptists, Lutherans and Covenant Churches are working together.
spacenie 1 year ago
@spacenie: I was referring to your post, "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
I'm glad to hear that the different denominations are working together up there in Maine. I love Maine by the way. Anyway, I think the big problems arise when Protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodoxy get into it. They all considered themselves Christians too, but they all like to rip on each other.
zoeyjusko 1 year ago
@zoeyjusko
Sadly true. It is true that there are differences between these 3 groups, but we should be united by our faith in the one true God.
My main problems with Catholics and Orthodox Churches is when they try to add good works or rituals to the Gospel of grace. As if one needs to do something along with believing in order to be saved. That's not the one Gospel.
Still, all the killing that was done because someone thought different than you. Very sad for us and especially to God.
spacenie 1 year ago
@spacenie: Yes, our faith tells us that salvation is not obtained through good works. But what alot of Christians, Protestants and Catholics, tell us is that if you are truly saved, you will do good works. If you don't, then it indicates that you're not really saved. To me, this is manipulative. I've heard this from Catholics and Baptists alike. It sounds controlling which is what creeps me out. What do you think about this?
zoeyjusko 1 year ago
@zoeyjusko There's a lot that could be said about this. I can't speak on the controlling factor. I would agree with the statement, that if you are truly saved, then you will do good works. But I would say that how many good works and what kind of good works is different for each person.
spacenie 1 year ago
Salvation is not simply getting a "get out of Hell free" card, but knowing that one is a sinner and needs a Savior. When the Holy Spirit comes into our lives, it is to give us eternal life, yes, but also to help us to live more godly lives her and now on earth.
A God that can't or doesn't change our lives for the better (more godly, knowing and doing His will) is not much of a God worth believing in and following.
Matthew 13:23 shows us that people will bear different levels of fruit.
spacenie 1 year ago
"Hell is a place where god and his blessings don't exist"....
So there are certain places god does exist, and others he doesn't?
A1underdog 1 year ago
@A1underdog
Hell is a place where at the very least, there is (or perhaps more specific will not be) any trace of God's blessings- love, peace, joy, etc.
Whether or not God is actually there or not can go either way. The result for those there will be the same.
spacenie 1 year ago
Did Apes evolve from Creationists?...
stormwolf800 2 years ago
godandscience (org/evolution/locke.html#JebSkP3N1P0z)
and there are many other good articles on their site.
spacenie 2 years ago
spacenie, you a write a lot about creationism which isn't disputed at all by Landover Baptist but you never ask or answer the fundamental questions that Landover Baptist will challenge us with, like : Does Jesus watch me go poopy?
I seriously doubt you could ever pass any of their bible quizzes.
djb0110 2 years ago
Does Jesus watch me go poopy?
There may be serious content behind that, but why should I take the title seriously?
What is the main point(s) of that video?
spacenie 2 years ago
Comment removed
lcsumpter 2 years ago
The belief in God IS the easy way out of explaining our existence. You are relying on information that was created by ignorant MEN over 2,000 years ago. While scientists have all but proven evolutionary theory, religious fanatics cling to the notion that *POOF* God made EVERYTHING (in SIX days, nonetheless) and in just over 2,000 years.
Churches are teaching children and dumb adults that dinosaurs roamed the earth WITH man when scientific evidence CLEARLY indicates otherwise.
lcsumpter 2 years ago
"over 2,000 years ago"- facts that belong into the category of absolute truth never change, no matter how old they are.
God had to have made everything, since the universe is not eternal.
Even Young Earth Creations hold that the earth was created around 6,000 years ago, not just over 2,000 years.
BTW- not all Christians believe in a literal 6 day creation or dinosaurs and people living together.
All but proven evolution? Not at all.
godandscience (org)
christiancadre (org)
reasons (org)
spacenie 2 years ago
I'm not sure about you, but complete sentences do help others interpret what you're trying to explain. I'm not really sure what you just replied with, but I'll do my best to understand.
The Bible certainly isn't "absolute truth," just like the Koran or other holy books aren't...the Bible isn't even complete, there are so many other books floating around out there that most Christians have no idea what the ENTIRE Bible itself is composed of.
....continued...
lcsumpter 2 years ago
Who in the heck is Young Earth Creations? Is that supposed to be some authority on the how earth came to be?
It doesn't matter what all Christians believe; if you choose to use the Bible in some aspects you should use it in ALL aspects. You can't simply pick and choose what you want to believe out of a particular source, that's extremely hypocritical and moronic.
...continued...
lcsumpter 2 years ago
I'm proud to have evolved into such a magnificent, intelligent creature. I'm just ashamed that many of us have chosen to ignore the TRUE miracle of life, that of increasing complexity over millions of years.
Try reading some other book besides the Bible, it's truly enlightening.
lcsumpter 2 years ago
Yes, I only read the Bible.
Please learn more about Christians and Christianity.
You may surprised that there are other Christians than the narrow-minded, ultra conservative, fundamentalists that you paint me (and all Christians?) to be.
spacenie 2 years ago
Genesis ch. 4 clearly indicates that Adam's first two children were Cain and Abel. This is elementary knowledge.
The Bible also indicates a 6-day creation (and there was morning... and evening...), contradicting scientific evidence. The whole concept of the Sabbath day wouldn't make sense if these days were "metaphorical".
Again, I refer back to the Bible's genealogies. It claims the Earth is 6000 years old.
What on earth are you smoking? Have YOU read the entire Bible?
MattressGallery 2 years ago
True. But who was Cain afraid of (4:14) and whom did he marry (4:17)?
The literal reading of Genesis is only one interpretation of the Text and only since Darwin has become a major battleground for some Christians. Its interesting that while God could have created everything in one second, He chose to spread creation out over several days. Plus, the Hebrew is written in (I believe) a more poetic style.
spacenie 2 years ago
Some believe that it is a writing against a popular god of the day, which also had a creation story.
Hebrews 4 uses rest not referring to one day but to resting in salvation that comes through Jesus Christ. Him being the final and perfect sacrifice for our sins.
In general, the Bible agrees with science in that the universe is not eternal, but was created.
Here are many articles, from a Christian perspective, arguing for an old earth:
godandscience(org) /apologetics/creation.html
spacenie 2 years ago
The Bible never claims to list all families of people who have ever lived (even in one line). When the Bible says that someone was the father of someone else, it could mean literal father or grandfather. Also, Matthew 1:5-6 is clearly not listing all of the generations.
The Bible never claims that the earth is 6,000 years old. Young Earth Creationists would like for you to believe this, but it is not something that the Bible is dogmatic on.
spacenie 2 years ago
A belief in a young earth is certainly not an essential belief or teaching of Christianity (though yes, some try to make it out to be so). The Bible does not say that our salvation is dependent on how we interpret Genesis, but on our acceptance/belief or rejection of the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
spacenie 2 years ago
The book of Genesis says that Adam and Eve had numerous children (including Seth) after Cain and Abel. Cain obviously married one of them.
It's wonderful that you don't interpret the book of Genesis "literally", and look for shades of meaning and nuances that never existed there in the first place. Cool. But you Christians never fail the apply the same logic when you condemn homosexuality, or say non-Christians go to eternal hell, etc. Only when you see glaring errors are you so "open-minded"!
MattressGallery 2 years ago
How do you know they didn't exist there in the first place?
Do you know biblical Hebrew?
Do you know the historical and cultural context and setting of Genesis?
Do you know proper biblical hermeneutics?
spacenie 2 years ago
Irrelevant. You don't, either, and it's not imperative upon ME to know it.
Science indicates that every single English translation of the Bible is scientifically invalid, and so is the original Hebrew, even if the word "yom" is translated as periods (the bible says fruit-bearing trees existed before land animals).
Scientists humiliate THEMSELVES, and they are proud to do so. Science changes when people uncover new evidence. Your crappy religion does not. You accept things through blind faith.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
So knowing Biblical Hebrew is irrelevant to your correctly interpreting the Hebrew word, "yom" in the Old Testament.
Interesting.
And it's not imperative upon you to know it? Yet you dogmatically say that it must mean a literal day? How can you be so sure, if you admit to not knowing the language?
spacenie 2 years ago
Science cannot prove that there aren't magical fairies or boogeymen living under your bed, either.
What I do know is how often religious nutters have been completely, hilariously wrong when they attribute things like surviving infectious diseases or mental disorders to supernatural causes. People with epilepsy/schizophrenia are NOT "possessed by demons". God did not cause your mother to survive ovarian cancer, etc.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
I agree that people with epilepsy or schizophrenia or any other disease are not possessed by demons (not my quote by the way).
In fact, when the Bible talks of Jesus healing people and casting out demons, it separates the two groups.
For example, Mark 1:34 says, "...Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons..."
Also in Mark, in reference to the 12 disciples, it says, "They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. " 6:13 NIV
spacenie 2 years ago
The reasoning I cited is the same used by old-school Protestants and Orthodox Jews, who know the ins and outs of the Bible. Take up your grievances with them.
Let's assume, for your sake, that the Bible doesn't talk about literal days. Why, then does the Bible say that fruit-bearing trees were created before land animals? The fossil record shows that amphibians emerged millions of years before the existence of angiosperms.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Christians (at least protestants in the U.S. and catholics, the two largest categories) believed overwhelmingly that Genesis 1, 2 referred to literal days of creation. It was only until they were humiliated after witnessing advances in geology and biology that they came up with these creative BS interpretations.
Either way, don't you think it's funny that an almighty god allowed his most important book to be so badly mistranslated over the centuries? Why does the KJV say "days", not "periods"?
MattressGallery 2 years ago
I was talking about Christians since the time of Christ. Not since America was founded.
And don't think that scientists haven't been humiliated as their own works time after time show evidence for a created, complex universe.
The Bible has been translated accurately throughout the centuries. Sure there are differences in how people translate (word or thought), but the main writings of the Text have always been clear. The KJV translators went with what they thought was the correct word.
spacenie 2 years ago
How would you describe the creation of the universe to people living thousands of years ago?
Would you give them a modern day scientific explanation which they would not have been able to comprehend?
Of course not. So when the Bible uses language that the people of that time can understand and makes sense to them, you go off complaining that it's unscientific and therefore totally false. Whatever....
spacenie 2 years ago
Oh Jesus Christ
The Bible contains descriptions about dragons, virgin births, people going up to heaven in a chariot, talking snakes and donkeys, pillars of fire, walking on water--
Your argument is so incredibly stupid. Why would people who believe that crazy nonsense not be able to comprehend a complex scientific theory?
The Bible doesn't just "simply" things, it distorts them badly when simple words would more than suffice. Your book is not the word of god. End of story.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Reasons for believing that the Bible is the Word of God:
godandscience (org/apologetics/bibletru.html)
markdroberts (com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm#jan1106)
spacenie 2 years ago
My point is, you Christians (and all other religious people) believe in outlandish stories and fairy tales that contradict the laws of nature. These things are obviously hard to believe, and there is no proof for them, yet you believe them anyway.
Why, then, would God tell lies about his own creation? Because plate tectonics is too hard for primitive people to understand, and they wouldn't believe in it? Rubbish.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
The Bible talks of miracles. If you don't believe in miracles, then sure, they will seem to be outlandish or like fairy tales.
But science can only take you so far, and it can't disprove a miracle. Why say that miracles can never take place?
spacenie 2 years ago
And somewhere along the way, YWHW forgot to mention archaea, bacteria, fungi, asexual organisms, and other creatures that make up the bulk of life on Earth to day.
Hrm... Could it be that the Bible was written by primitive, superstitious people who knew nothing about science and botany, and were merely reflecting the common prejudices of their day? Or maybe God was too lazy to include over 75% of life on Earth in his plan for creation.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Mentioning bacteria to people living thousands of years ago without modern scientific equipment (ex. microscopes) would not make any sense.
Yes, they knew nothing of science, but God did, hence the dietary laws and cleansing laws which were ways for keeping the people healthy and were ways that were not known to the people of that day.
spacenie 2 years ago
If Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and every other orthodox Christian faith is wrong (because they all advocated a literal 6-day creation before the 19th century), what's left?
You're referring to a mythical, "scientifically valid" version of Christianity that doesn't exist, and never has existed. Every Christian believed in that myth about the talking snake and the magical fruit before the 19th century.
Changing "God created the world in *6 days*" to *six periods* badly distorts the Bible.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
You're making excuses again. "What they thought was the correct word" turns out to be totally false.
And you say "humiliated" as if that's a bad thing-- the whole point of science is to rigorously test hypotheses about the universe, debunk the ones that are correct, and refine the ones that make sense. I.e. Science improves over time. Your religion is stuck in the dark ages.
Scientists are not ashamed to be humiliated, but religious nuts will tell lies to deny that their holy texts are false.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Unless you a scientist who believes in some type of Creator (not necessarily the Christian God). Then you are treated as an outcast for daring to challenge evolution, which has come under scientific scrutiny on several fronts:
godandscience (org/evolution/evolprob.html)
godandscience (org/evolution/descent.html)
spacenie 2 years ago
No. There are plenty of devout Christians (such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins) that are quite popular and well-received within the scientific community. All of them accept evolution because the scientific proof for it is overwhelming. Creationists are rejected for the same reason that fire departments reject applicants who don't believe that fire douses water.
BTW, the two sites you mentioned have been rebuked by real biologists for distorting their experimental data. Try harder.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Two sites above- I'm tempted to ask for evidence that the godandsience website distorts data, but then how would we know that your source(s) is not distorting the data?
I advise everyone who reads our comments to go to the godandscience (org) website, read some of their articles (which cite their sources) and make up your own mind.
Compare what different sides say (there are of course more than just 2) and see where the evidence leads you.
spacenie 2 years ago
Yes, Ken and Francis accept evolution, but for me the more important point is that they each strongly believe in God. While I don't believe it is true, I am not so much against Theistic Evolution or BioLogos, as I am against atheistic evolution. This is evolution that completely removes God from existence.
It's interesting that Collins went from being an atheist to being a believer in God.
spacenie 2 years ago
Even though he holds to evolution, he still kept an open mind and could not deny the evidence which lead him to believe in God.
So if one is a Creationist and believes in God, and if one can be an evolutionist and believe in God, what reason is there for being an atheist?
spacenie 2 years ago
You are correct about "complex", but you are totally ignorant about "created" characteristics.
Everything from lightning, to the development of new organs, to speciation, to the history of the Earth has been elucidated through science. Life would be teeming with all sorts of creatures even in the absence of a creator. Blanket statements like yours are evidence of a scientifically illiterate, credulous mind that elevates faith over critical thinking.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
What is this evidence for a created universe? Imploding galaxies? Failed solar systems? Collapsing stars?
Remember complex and simple do not equate to created or not.
A paper-clip is simple, yet we know it was created.
A snowflake is complex, yet we know it forms naturally with no human or divine intervention.
deutschdemon 2 years ago
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Romans 8:20-22
spacenie 2 years ago
Complex and simple- I spoke a bit about this in regards to the universe and our solar system in particular.
youtube (com/watch?v=i4Owv6osftI)
Our universe is complex, and our solar system and earth are not only complex, but perfectly suited for life.
Calculations suggest that even small changes in some key parameters [of the Cosmic Designer Machine] would wreck the familiar structure of the universe and prevent life from arising. Cosmic Jackpot, page 140.
I would change some to many.
spacenie 2 years ago
An atheist no more chooses to reject god than you choose to reject the flying spaghetti monster.
Non belief and belief is not a choice.
Can you force yourself to believe in Santa? I can't.
Vindaven 2 years ago
There are evidences for the existence of God. A couple of good websites that I've found are:
godandscience (org)
christiancadre (org)
spacenie 2 years ago
Please acknowledge the last point before changing the subject. Would you now agree that belief is not a choice?
While I disagree that there is evidence of god(s)... Let's say you're right: that there is evidence of god. How do you then take the leap from deism (belief in god, by itself) to christianity (belief in jesus).
Vindaven 2 years ago
Changing the subject from which point? FSM or Santa? If people do not chose to believe or not believe, are we all forced by God to either believe or not?
I would go from deism to Christianity because Christianity is not based on a set of rules or principles, but on an historical event, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There is evidence for this event- from the empty tomb to the disciples dying for their faith in a risen Christ.
spacenie 2 years ago
Personally, I am also drawn by God becoming a true human being and dying for our sins. This is not equaled in any other world religion.
Neither is the teaching that our salvation is based on Gods grace (our faith in Him, apart from our good works).
spacenie 2 years ago
Example of contradictions in the Bible:
Who ordered David to take a census of all of Israel?
God (2 Samuel 24:1) or Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)
What was his punishment for taking the census?
7 years of famine (2 Samuel 24:13) or 3 years (1 chronicles 21:11-12)
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Who was Jesus's paternal grandfather?
Eli (Matthew 1) or Jacob (Luke 3)? And no, one of the geneologies cannot be referring to Mary, as some Christian apologists have hypothesized.
No Biblical geneology acknowledges women, except in the case of polygamy, and one of them is unduly long, despite the fact that David is Jesus's ancestor in both.
Both prove that the prophecy about the Messiah being the seed of David never occured. Jesus was born from a virgin; Joseph was NOT his father.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Tell me, do you believe in the concept of a global flood, or the fact that all languages came into being instantaneously when people tried to build a tower up to heaven?
Do you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, that locusts have four legs, or that a man can survive in the belly of a fish for three days?
Even if you don't believe in evolution, you have to be an idiot to believe in these antiquated Jewish fairytales. The Bible contradicts cosmology, biology, linguistics, and geology.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Your problem is that Deists have a hard time believing in the truth of a book that contains all manner of absurdities, scientific errors, and contradictions.
And to top it off, nearly all of the original documents have been lost. Protestant Christians, Catholics, and Egyptian Copts all have very different versions of the Bible with different numbers of books.
Furthermore, no two translations of the Bible in English are the same, leading to hilarious differences in doctrine among Protestants.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
p.s. for somebody who sneers at evolution, you have no problem believing that human beings are made from dirt, and that even a little infant is disgusting in the eyes of god because his great-great-great-great-great granddaddy ate an apple.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
Here are articles which deal with Bible contradictions:
godandscience (org) apologetics/bible_contradictions.html
Are human beings made from chemicals like all other living things? "Dirt" is using language to describe this scientific fact in non-scientific terms. Or would you rather have the author list all the chemicals in the body to people from thousands of years ago?
No infant is disgusting in the eyes of God, but we all are sinners by nature. All people are also created in God's image.
spacenie 2 years ago
That site fails to address my contradictions at all.
But you have been brainwashed into thinking that human beings and dinosaurs coexisted, just like in the Flintstones, and that the whole universe is 6,000 years old, so I don't blame you for your gullibility.
And as for infants-- then where does the concept of original sin come from?
MattressGallery 2 years ago
I never said that I believed that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and that the whole universe is 6,000 years old.
It may surprise you to learn that not all Christians are conservative fundamentalists. To a Christian who holds to a more "liberal" interpretation of Scripture, your two above arguments mean nothing.
Infants are sinners by nature, they are also created in God's image. Like all people, they are loved by the Lord.
Even with a sin nature, you are responsible for how you act.
spacenie 2 years ago
If you add up all of the genealogies in the Bible, and trace them back from the supposed birth of Jesus to the fall of man, "god" created the universe roughly 6,000 years ago. This clearly contradicts mountains of scientific evidence.
If you don't believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why did "god" (in the book of Genesis) create them only a few days before creating Adam? They must have coexisted, unless somehow the dinosaurs went extinct the same day that God made them.
MattressGallery 2 years ago
The Bible does not claim to record all of the genealogies of all of human history and in fact does not do this (ex. the names of Adam and Eve's first children).
BTW- the mountains of scientific evidence also show that the universe had a beginning. It is reasonable to believe that a Being that exists outside of the universe, created the universe.
I'm curious- have you read the Bible?
spacenie 2 years ago
This is irrelevant. Most Christian historians agree that Jesus Christ was born between 15 BC and 15 AD. The Bible gives an entire geneology of Jesus Christ dating all the way back to Adam. (e.g. Adam gave birth to Seth 130 yrs. after the fall of man, Seth begat Enosh at 150, Enosh begat Seth at 912...)
Yes, I was a Christian for most of my life, until a careful study of the Bible led me to believe it cannot be the word of god. There were also the massive contradictions of scientific evidence...
MattressGallery 2 years ago
hmmm,maybe i'm missing something but at 1.00min
you say that people who are absent of god will live a life
of suffering and torment but on the next clip you say god loves those who do not love him(and then he sends them to hell??) Can you or god make your mind up please
dontbelieveitall 3 years ago
It's "both-and."
God does love all people and wants for all people to come into a personal relationship with Him. So yes, God does love those who do not love Him.
But people can choose to reject God's love- both now and for all eternity. If they reject God and die in that state, then they will exist apart from God for eternity. God is not sending people to Hell, people are choosing to go there by not believing in Him.
spacenie 3 years ago
Yes, I know that they are fictional and that it is an atheist spoof of Christianity.
While using satire, they do make some pretty strong accusations, which are real and should be responded to.
It would be a mistake to think that this is just light-hearted fun; no harm, no foul.
spacenie 3 years ago
Spacenie, The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional; it was created by Chris Harper as an Atheist spoof of Christianity. Look it on Wiki they are just yanking your chain. Sorry but thats Youtube.
bil1yjoe 3 years ago