Last time I heard church bells with that kind of melodies it happened to be speakers ... it was a deception to find out. Here were I live, they are nice only for the tourists, wen you hear theme 4 times in a day more then 10 minutes each , coming from 3 churches at the same time , so loud that you can not understand the person talking next to you and with out a melody, believe me...it is annoying.
@smoothbald In America, when you hear church bells playing hymns and songs, it will be an electronic system 95% of the time. There are very few real carillons in this country, and most of them have visible bells. If the music from this church were being played on real bells, there would be at least twenty of them. Also, those "harp bells" playing in the background are a dead giveaway that these are electronic. Such sounds are not made by real bells.
Funny thing is, I'm an Atheist. But when visiting a church to study the architecture for an Art History class, I was especially fascinated by the art of bell ringing. It's funny how mathematical equations lead up to making melodies. I plan on revisiting this church because they are looking for bell ringers all the time and offer free training.
The bells sound nice.Reminds me of my neighborhood but we don't just have trains and traffic.We have lots of sirens and lots of planes.We live close to a hospital,a major highway and the airport.
As an atheist I can still appreciate the sound of church bells the same I can any other sound. They do sound nice. Despite what they stand for, Id much rather hear this than some idiot in a Honda with rap music blasting so loud I can hear it 5 blocks away.
If no-one objects to it, how can a sound be polluting. Pollution is a strictly negative concept because it implies a disruption to a balance. If church bells are noise pollution then a ball bouncing must also be sound pollution, and so much speech.
Disturbing noise must refer to a disruption to human social balances, so if it bothers people then yes it is pollution but if no-one objects then it doesn't constitute as pollution.
Your right, ball bouncing and spech are also forms of noise pollution. Sudden sounds can be a disruption to human social balances: A car backfiring, a dog barking, a gun shot, or a bell peeling can break a persons concentration, no matter how accepted it is. That is what makes it noise pollution, and making it acceptable to everyone does not change that fact. If everyone in a town started liking honking their horns all the time, would that be noise pollution or not?
As strange as it sound (pun not intended) no, constant honking would not be noise pollution if nobody objected because the social balance has changed to accept it. But someone new to the town changes the balance and could make it pollution again.
Furthermore, even if we accept that all noises *may* constitute as pollution, can there be any reason to silence these noises on the off chance they disturb a minority, especially if the minority does not object? (i.e. social balances, social solutions)
I think your first part is a genuine and valid opinion, thought I do not agree with it based on personal opinion.
"Furthermore" All noises are noise polution and the best we can do as a society is make sure the noise polution we create is not physically damaging to everyone. Personally, though I am an atheist, I love the sounds made by a well maintained and handled bell tower. I may not believe in the song it plays, but I believe in music.
I used to live in a boarding school across the street from a presbyterian church. Every Sunday at noon, the bells would sound...and honestly, that's the only time that I actually hated a religion...because I liked to sleep to 13:00 on Sundays.
There is no Lucifer, not even from a Christian point of view. There never has been. His name only appears once and it is a mistranslation on behalf of the KJV writers. If Lucifer is in the Bible then Jesus is literally Lucifer (Morning Star).
Why do church bells make you think of Luciferianism? Are church bells enlightening to you?
the bible predicted over 2000 years ago that Israel would becomea nation in one day if you add up the years given until the punishment was over they add up to
the exact day it became a nation
this God you say is fake can see things thousands of years ahead of time
realcrowd...This god you say is real, condoned or performed, genocide, murder, rape, slavery, dismemberment, child abuse and kidnapping.....And you worship this creature.?
So even though he sent his wrath at those that did all those things you think he allowed it? Your reading like half of the story and whenever God does something good or just, you probably do not care and so you think such acts are allowed. Open your eyes and read the bible with a caring heart and you will never be an atheist again.
creating millions of people for the sole purpose of eternal torment is the most asshole thing to do, and he did it, so he is the biggest asshole ever(your imaginary god).
Like just read my post above and it pretty much is all I need to say but since you don't understand it I'll talk about it for you. He created people out of love. Once sin came into the world because of the DEVIL tempting man kind we were separated from him. From there God gave us Jesus so that our sins can be forgiven so we don't go to hell as we are imperfect.Thats to put it in a short and very basic way. Also before you make such baseless statements READ THE BIBLE. It's all in there.JUST READ
He created everthing. He knew what was gonna happen. That means he created sin, because he knew it was gonna happen. That means he created billions of people for the sole purpose of going to hell because he knew they were gonna go there. It makes absolutely no sense, he obviously doesn't care about us that much, lol. And this is not baseless at all. I have read the bible, I believed it for the first 21 years of my life. That chapter is done and gone.
Are you being sarcastic or just stupid? Yeah, totally worth it for the souls that he created to burn for eternity, pretty much their whole existence will be in torment. His plan is so shitty and IMPERFECT, there's no way he could exist.
nate, are you being a dipshit or a fucktard? maybe both. there is no reason to get pissed because i said the truth :). by the way you just contradicted yourself, if you dont believe in god then why are you saying "his plan is so"? wow kid, go back to school haha.
haha, I'm not even close to getting pissed :-) What truth? That there is no way to prove or disprove god? He only needs to be proven, lack of evidence is enough non-proof for most sane people. I can talk about the god of the bible as he/him and not believe that he is real, just like any other ficticious character. There was no contradiction.
"Lack of evidence" is an intellectually inferior argument in the realm of philosophy/theology. Evidence changes with one's ability to see it (or discover it). A planet doesn't exist because you don't have a telescope powerful enough to see it.
Yeah, but there's no reason to believe it's there until you do have the means to observe it ;-) And an old storybook doesn't count as evidence. Let's use it as an example. Some dude comes up to you and says that there's a planet called Nibiru up there that has all these killer aliens on it that is coming towards earth. If you don't believe his claim(backed by no proof whatsoever besides bits and peices of ancient myth) and prepare for them, you will surely die in 2012. Pretty much the same.
You are correct in general. However, relating to God and/or Christianity...one first has to weigh the evidence as to whether or not there is evidence of a Creator. From there, one can debate which theology (if any) represents that potential Creator.
By pretty much the same, I mean that there is just as much tangible evidence of that as there is evidence of the christian god. The only reason it would seem more crazy is that it is a more recent myth and hasn't been passed down through the generations for approx 2000 years.
It is simply my opinion that to equate the claims of Christianity with that of your Nibiru believer demonstrates a lack of sincere investigation and research. I have debated those that have studied the evidence. But not to have studied the volumes of evidence that exists and yet dismiss it is something I will never fully grasp.
Well, since thousands of scholars have spent lifetimes studying the "non-existent" evidence, looks like there have been alot of dumb dudes over the years.
You are very childish. There was no indication that you deisred to investigate the evidence. Should you choose to do so, I would be happy to make presentations to you outside of this comment section.
You don't have any. If you did, you would've already told me, you just KNOW somebody else has some(just like I used to think), right? I don't need a presentation, if the "evidence" is compelling enough then I will investigate it myself.
haha, you obviously don't have any evidence to show me. My bad for asking, I knew the wasn't any. Have fun answering all your questions with "god did it". I used to say that too, but then I started to use my brain to find the real answers instead of defending "god did it", it makes way more sense! I don't like following bullshit.
Why do you fabricate both sides of the conversation and talk to yourself? You didn't ask for evidence, you said "I will investigate of for myself." I have never answered a question with "God did it." And stop with the "haha" if you want anyone to take you seriously.
How was I talking to myself? Well give it to me then!!!! Let me know what this evidence is so I can investigate it. That's what I was saying, "if the "evidence" is compelling enough then I will investigate it myself.", meaning you don't have to give me a huge presentation, let me know the gist and if it doesn't sound like total bullshit, I will investigate it. So bring it on, if you even have anything.
The evidence begins with a discussion of the likelihood of intelligent design behind the universe vs. chance events over long periods of time. That discussion of evidence alone takes hours or even days. The logical path towards which theology (if any) are correct takes a long time to get to.
There we go! At least you gave me something, I was looking for a specific point, but, whatever. The hard part about that is not letting biases get in the way, whether theist or atheist. It seems harder for the theists and the hardcore atheists because they have so much invested in their stance. For most theists it's their whole life, and for the hardore atheist their ego and proving they're right.
From your profile: "The King James Authorized Bible 1769 The perfectly preserved word of God."
That is why you say "god did it". When you can't figure out why, "it's god's plan". When your "evidence" just isn't there, "god did it". Anyone that says that the bible "is the perfectly preserved word of god" HAS to say "god did it"(or because it's in gods perfect plan, or it doesn't matter because he's god) at some point to make it work. You never said it to me...yet.
Correct. Know that my journey was as follows. Catholic...athiest...agnostic...believer in some kind of Creator...Bible believer. The journey from agnostic to Bible believer has been a 20 year trek. I believe my journey is based on sound logic, science, and yes, ultimately faith. BUT, never blind faith. I can understand and debate an atheist because I was one.
Debate them one what, exactly? The nonexistent premise of atheism? Or do you claim to debate science because you were at one point an atheist? That's not sound logic.
The existence of humanoids on another planet may be a untrue, but it is, in fact, a premise. Knowing the points that such believers argue is critical to demonstrating the premise likely false. You cannot intelligently debate knowing only one side of an argument.
Hence the question as to what exactly you claim to be able to debate atheists about. Atheism is inherently an empty term, more often than not atheists find themselves simply debating scientific matters, but being an atheist does not implicitly endow one with sufficient knowledge to debate any given subject. That you were once an athiest doesn't impart any understanding that couldn't have been drawn from elsewhere. Which is why I asked specifically what you claim better able to debate due to it.
I've stated pretty simply what I'm asking twice now. I don't know how to breakdown "Debate athiests on what?" any further than I have. The point being, however, that being a christian, for example, endows you with knowledge of christianity (which is functional in a debate about christianity). Being an atheists bears nothing that would help you understand or debate anything better than anyone else. I feel like pointing out that what you've just said makes no sense though.
You don't have to be a Christian to debate Christianity. You don't have to be a communist to debate communism. What's more, there are Christians with no ability to defend their faith. Self imposed labels endow nothing.
The labels don't, the act of participating first-hand in the matter of discussion does. No, you don't have to be a christian to debate christianity but, in general, christians have the advantage in discussions regarding christianity, do they not? The point being that you claim to be able to debate athiests because you were one, but you've already refuted that claim yourself and you've failed to explain exactly what the focus of your ability to debate athiests is.
Knowing the points they will make, and also knowing the "emotional place" an atheist is in is helpful when trying to show an atheist that there is, in fact, a Creator.
Not in "point of view", but 'in fact". I see. You still miss the point though. If I told you that I can understand and debate people who aren't muslim because I used to not be muslim, I'd be making a logical fallacy. You cann't understand what the 'emotional place' is of a group of people defined by what they are not or do not believe in. There IS no standard as the group is defined by the lack thereof.
We disagree. I am not talking about the apatheic agnostic (i.e. the guy that just doesn't care enough to care). I'm talking about the militant atheist typically armed with studied talking points.
The fact that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive aside, I know "who" you are talking about and I'm telling you that you are overgeneralizing and misrepresenting their point of view.
People debate points of view. While being an athiest may not qualify someone for any kind of a debate badge, it does qualify someone to be shown the error in their logic.
Any chance of extrapolating why being an athiest qualifies a person of being shown they are wrong? Or futhermore, why the same criteria can't be applied to chrisianity? Especially considering the implicit emptiness of the term 'athiesm' to begin with, I don't see how you can make such a claim as; "I can understand and debate an atheist because I was one. "
Because proclaiming yourself an atheist is very pragmatic. It's nonsensical really. If you don't believe in God...who cares? Why talk about it? It is important to recognize that state of mind of a militant atheist and to alway have empathy with individuals you are trying to convince.
A vast majority of the time, your 'militant atheists' are simply defending scientific theory, not attacking your particular notion of a higher power. Your notion of 'god' isn't what's important, what's important is that the opposition is ignoring logic and interjecting faith to make arguments against science.
I have typically found that the militant atheist is poorly learned in science, and that their so called scientific arguments are a simple mask for their emotional desire to not believe in God.
Then your 'militant athiest' is simply a very small subset of the implicitly empty term given to a group of people unified only by their common disbelief in a certain idea. Futhermore, you make the assumption that they wear a mask to begin with, an assumption that I am going to assume you have no evidence of other than your own personal experience. Perhaps you are poorly aquainted with the atheistic community.
I would propose that it's time for you to meet new athiests then, because you are generalizing a group of people unified only by a particular belief that they don't have, based only on your own experience and the assumption that they are masking an emotional desire not to believe in god. I would further propose that not only is your claim one of pure arrogance, you are using it as an excuse not to give the opposition any credibility and that you can't support your claim in the least.
Perhaps it is erroneous, but can you prove it? Or is my error only in your point of view? How do you observe an emotional desire not to believe in your god, furthermore how do you observe someone masking such a desire with the state of being an atheist, as opposed to the assumed truth of both premises (being an athiest, and desiring not to believe in god) having another relationship? You assume one must be masking another beyond the assumption that both are even true to begin with.
Because logic dictates a Creator. Even in collegiate settings, I've seen time and time again how emotion takes over as the atheist house of cards falls apart. When one betrays logic to continue to believe what has been shown to be untrue...that becomes a phsycological issue.
If logic dictates a creator, then why, might I ask, is it that those trained to use logic in their careers tend towards atheism in vastly higher quantities than those who are not? Am I to assume that you're a proponent of the 'theory' of intelligent design then? Because an atheist becomes emotional, you assume that is their motive. You offer alot of assumptions and presuppositions, but logic dictates something cannot be shown to be true without adequate objective proof.
You misrepresent my point. If there is a creation, then it was created and there was a creator. You assume there was a creation to begin with. You cannot provide any evidence to support the idea that what you think was created is actually a creation at all. You merely assume so because it fits your own personal worldview. That is subjective and not logical.
Absolutely incorrect. While in my agnostic phase, I was studying to be a meteoroligist. I found so many flaws in scientific theories...I began to study on my own. Long story short, I can make a very convincing argument that our existence cannot be by random chance. My conclusions are not illogical or based on blind assumptions (and/or faith).
You do assume that there was a creation to begin with because you assume that there are only two options; Random Chance vs. Creation. If you were ever truly agnostic, then you wouldn't assume that there is ever only a finite number of possibilities for any given question.
In the past, I have contemplated everything from strict evolutionary theory to a uninvolved higher power, to a creator that utilized evolution, to intelligent being from elsewhere in the universe that planted life on this planet. Yes, I have considered all options both reasonable and not so reasonable.
Negative. I have studied most options, both scientific and philosophical available to my limited comprehension provided by the limited wisom of human kind. That's all I have at the moment.
Only the Creator knows all options about anything. Unfortunately, we are left to discuss what we can percieve in our limited existence as humans. Don't allow yourself to build the straw man argument of "arrogance." That is a very elementary debate mistake.
It's not an argument, and it's not even close to a strawman. Misconceiving the definition of a strawman argument is an elementary debate mistake.
What we can perceive in our limitied existence as humans is expanding, new knowledge constantly being obtained. To assume at any point in time that you've learned all or considered all there is on any given subject, is in fact arrogant. For me to supply that as an argument would've been a strawman, I did not.
Thus, at this point in time, based on my study acknowledging the constraints of our existence and current state of limited wisdom, I have concluded that we were created by a Creator. How's that?
Better articulated, but it still comes with the earlier implication that you think you've considered all options currently available for you to perceive, unless you wish to recant on the previous statements you've made. To know that you haven't considered everything, but then to say you've considered everything that is available to you is nonsensical.
I would pose that you've likely missed quite a few more than one, but even the idea that you might have missed one is enough to discredit your earlier statement that you've considered all options.
Shall we then? Your tangents are getting bothersome afterall.
You cannot claim that you've considered all options to explain our existence, and your belief that there our existence was created is therefore merely an assumption based on the fact that disproving random chance doesn't automatically prove creation (afterall that was the subject at hand before all of this banter.)
topiser:..Of course he allowed those things. If he didn't allow them , they wouldn't have happened.............................And you're saying that if god did a bunch of really good stuff too, then it's o.k. that he did all the bad stuff?....God is kind and merciful to his children, except when he's not slaughtering them by the thousand, handing over enemies captured women to be raped by his priests, or having pregnant women ripped open , and their babies dashed to pieces...It's o.k????
In my country churchbells and muslim calls for prayer are illegal, most people never ever go to a church or a mosque anyway, and such noise-pollution would be pretty on your days off, I should think.. By the way, I live in a scandinavian country. : )
Here's a verse & refrain I love to tell the story of unseen things above, of Jesus and his glory, of Jesus and his love. I love to tell the story, because I know 'tis true; it satisfies my longings as nothing else can do. I love to tell the story, 'twill be my theme in glory, to tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love.
At 1:27, I can hear a train horn. BTW, where is this church?
YankeePat94 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
I am catholic and those bells remind me of my childhood. we used those bells to call for help in civil war.
NO ONE! will ever be able to stop these bells, and no matter how many disbelievers their is, we will always have more believers.
GoodyearBandit 5 months ago in playlist More videos from jezuzfreek777
Every hour at my university I used to hear multiple church's bells -- some playing tunes, others just ringing the hour. Always enjoyable.
smellincoffee 7 months ago
What church is this?
Magicking788 1 year ago
I think this is a recording of real bells.
frsdonahue 2 years ago
Last time I heard church bells with that kind of melodies it happened to be speakers ... it was a deception to find out. Here were I live, they are nice only for the tourists, wen you hear theme 4 times in a day more then 10 minutes each , coming from 3 churches at the same time , so loud that you can not understand the person talking next to you and with out a melody, believe me...it is annoying.
smoothbald 2 years ago
@smoothbald In America, when you hear church bells playing hymns and songs, it will be an electronic system 95% of the time. There are very few real carillons in this country, and most of them have visible bells. If the music from this church were being played on real bells, there would be at least twenty of them. Also, those "harp bells" playing in the background are a dead giveaway that these are electronic. Such sounds are not made by real bells.
Audinos 1 year ago
Funny thing is, I'm an Atheist. But when visiting a church to study the architecture for an Art History class, I was especially fascinated by the art of bell ringing. It's funny how mathematical equations lead up to making melodies. I plan on revisiting this church because they are looking for bell ringers all the time and offer free training.
HipRockInc 2 years ago
Wow, how many bells do they have in there? Beautiful!
God bless.
R5p172 2 years ago
What pretty bells! What church do you attend?
MiraculousMoments 2 years ago
What a pretty sound. I wish I could hear church bells from my house!
StudentoftheSpirit 2 years ago
Noise pollution!
JesusSavesAtCitibank 2 years ago
I would complain if I heard this from my house.
kzdavis1000 2 years ago
same
ImAustinH 2 years ago
of course you would.
jezuzfreek777 2 years ago
because above the freeway noise, the dogs barking, if I heard church bells, they would be way too loud
kzdavis1000 2 years ago
it looks too contmporary - Byzantine churches are the best.
scaleshchess 2 years ago
Lovely!
porolita22 2 years ago
I always wish they had praise hymns with a metal sound to it
neonscientist 2 years ago
You know that inside those walls lurks an old man (praying or preying). You can't blame Jeezuzfreek for staying away!
charlesfloyb 2 years ago
if you ting that priests are pedophiles, or that black men are niggers, if you think this you are a bigot
ned262626 2 years ago
That church is very nice. What is that song it's playing?
Janicec730 2 years ago
nea
alucard9692005 2 years ago
every church i've been to never had bells. cool to hear this though
aiG0oChamNa 2 years ago
Church are nice, shame they are a thing of the past
MrPainfullytrue 2 years ago
The bells sound nice.Reminds me of my neighborhood but we don't just have trains and traffic.We have lots of sirens and lots of planes.We live close to a hospital,a major highway and the airport.
noahsark1962 2 years ago
Nice music, but dont proove God.
baltusd 2 years ago
The inscription on the Liberty Bell reads as follows:
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X
redwine65 2 years ago
I'll give you black sensations up and down your spine.
If you're into evil, you're a friend of mine.
See my white light flashing as I split the night,
'cause if goods on the left, them I'm stickin' to the right.
I won't take no prisoners, won't spare no lives.
Nobody's puttin' up a fight.
I got my bell, I'm gonna take you to hell.
I'm gonna get you, Satan get you!
LordToast 2 years ago
AC/DC for the win!
HotRhymez 2 years ago
Well, i certainly enjoyed it, back in NZ i could remember hearing church bells growing up...Thanks for posting xo
shinesmile77 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I despise church bells. They're so obnoxious. There's no need for a 3 block radius to hear them.
charlietripi 2 years ago
I love to tell the story...
AmericanWayne 2 years ago
As an atheist I can still appreciate the sound of church bells the same I can any other sound. They do sound nice. Despite what they stand for, Id much rather hear this than some idiot in a Honda with rap music blasting so loud I can hear it 5 blocks away.
Raverouso 2 years ago
what about a mosques call to prayer would you like to hear that?
romanempiresucks 2 years ago
Are you seriously trying to compare the wailing noise of a Muslim call to prayer to the sound of bells ringing?
Raverouso 2 years ago
no it was just a question.
romanempiresucks 2 years ago
hisssssss hisssssss
Leadman1989 2 years ago
Noise pollution is noise pollution, no matter how pretty it sounds.
rtottenc 2 years ago
But if no-one complains, is it noise pollution?
blackemerald 2 years ago
Yes, it is.
rtottenc 2 years ago
If no-one objects to it, how can a sound be polluting. Pollution is a strictly negative concept because it implies a disruption to a balance. If church bells are noise pollution then a ball bouncing must also be sound pollution, and so much speech.
Disturbing noise must refer to a disruption to human social balances, so if it bothers people then yes it is pollution but if no-one objects then it doesn't constitute as pollution.
blackemerald 2 years ago
Your right, ball bouncing and spech are also forms of noise pollution. Sudden sounds can be a disruption to human social balances: A car backfiring, a dog barking, a gun shot, or a bell peeling can break a persons concentration, no matter how accepted it is. That is what makes it noise pollution, and making it acceptable to everyone does not change that fact. If everyone in a town started liking honking their horns all the time, would that be noise pollution or not?
rtottenc 2 years ago
As strange as it sound (pun not intended) no, constant honking would not be noise pollution if nobody objected because the social balance has changed to accept it. But someone new to the town changes the balance and could make it pollution again.
Furthermore, even if we accept that all noises *may* constitute as pollution, can there be any reason to silence these noises on the off chance they disturb a minority, especially if the minority does not object? (i.e. social balances, social solutions)
blackemerald 2 years ago
I think your first part is a genuine and valid opinion, thought I do not agree with it based on personal opinion.
"Furthermore" All noises are noise polution and the best we can do as a society is make sure the noise polution we create is not physically damaging to everyone. Personally, though I am an atheist, I love the sounds made by a well maintained and handled bell tower. I may not believe in the song it plays, but I believe in music.
rtottenc 2 years ago
That's cool, far too few people are able to appreciate sounds for their value and get caught up in the motivations and theories behind it.
Thanks for the good convo, it's one of the more pleasant ones I've had on youtube. Take care!
blackemerald 2 years ago
I have enjoyed our conversation as well. I feel that you have been pleasant as well, thank you.
Let us walk forward in peace my friend.
rtottenc 2 years ago
Are you saying that God is outside of you?
vivicareno 2 years ago
I recognize the melody but can't put my finger on it. Would you go in and ask what song it was...take us with you!!! :)
tries2getitright 2 years ago
Very dreamy.
emmthreejonny 2 years ago
I've gotten a hand job at church once, by my girlfriend.. it was great. =)
PossessMe 2 years ago
Dude... Me too.
p0rkch0ps 2 years ago
I used to live in a boarding school across the street from a presbyterian church. Every Sunday at noon, the bells would sound...and honestly, that's the only time that I actually hated a religion...because I liked to sleep to 13:00 on Sundays.
teriy4ki 2 years ago
Noise pollution.
undeadair 2 years ago
when i hear church bells i think of luciferianism
the whole world has been deceived
-.-
EssedariusMaiestas 2 years ago
There is no Lucifer, not even from a Christian point of view. There never has been. His name only appears once and it is a mistranslation on behalf of the KJV writers. If Lucifer is in the Bible then Jesus is literally Lucifer (Morning Star).
Why do church bells make you think of Luciferianism? Are church bells enlightening to you?
CHVNX 2 years ago
Well this are one church bells that would not wake me up :)
IntellectualRubbish 2 years ago
Woot Woot! wow! Such a great song! *sniff* old memories. ^__^
JesseQuintana 2 years ago
Wow,I'm actually jealous.
I live two blocks away from a Catholic church,and its bells are very,very loud and annoying.
RPGguy2006 2 years ago
church are for tools. haha
PossessMe 2 years ago
Improper grammar must be for bigger tools than, eh troll?
dslmc 2 years ago
Don't you mean "then"?
RaindropsFantasia 2 years ago
I love that song.
boxing84batman 2 years ago
I'm not religious, but I do love the architecture of churches. Especially the old gothic cathedrals.
fa272 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Your Self From God!
TheAntiCommie 2 years ago
if you are against Him.
why bother people who aren't?
do you have anything else better to do?
realcrown 2 years ago
I don't want you to waste your life following a fairy tale.
TheAntiCommie 2 years ago
the bible predicted over 2000 years ago that Israel would becomea nation in one day if you add up the years given until the punishment was over they add up to
the exact day it became a nation
this God you say is fake can see things thousands of years ahead of time
and this prophecy proves it
realcrown 2 years ago
realcrowd...This god you say is real, condoned or performed, genocide, murder, rape, slavery, dismemberment, child abuse and kidnapping.....And you worship this creature.?
216trixie 2 years ago
So even though he sent his wrath at those that did all those things you think he allowed it? Your reading like half of the story and whenever God does something good or just, you probably do not care and so you think such acts are allowed. Open your eyes and read the bible with a caring heart and you will never be an atheist again.
t0piser 2 years ago
creating millions of people for the sole purpose of eternal torment is the most asshole thing to do, and he did it, so he is the biggest asshole ever(your imaginary god).
Nate2203 2 years ago
Like just read my post above and it pretty much is all I need to say but since you don't understand it I'll talk about it for you. He created people out of love. Once sin came into the world because of the DEVIL tempting man kind we were separated from him. From there God gave us Jesus so that our sins can be forgiven so we don't go to hell as we are imperfect.Thats to put it in a short and very basic way. Also before you make such baseless statements READ THE BIBLE. It's all in there.JUST READ
t0piser 2 years ago
He created everthing. He knew what was gonna happen. That means he created sin, because he knew it was gonna happen. That means he created billions of people for the sole purpose of going to hell because he knew they were gonna go there. It makes absolutely no sense, he obviously doesn't care about us that much, lol. And this is not baseless at all. I have read the bible, I believed it for the first 21 years of my life. That chapter is done and gone.
Nate2203 2 years ago
if it had no purpose, he wouldn't create nothing. there is no way to prove/disprove god lol. he obviously knew it would all be worth in the end.
fury3600 2 years ago
Are you being sarcastic or just stupid? Yeah, totally worth it for the souls that he created to burn for eternity, pretty much their whole existence will be in torment. His plan is so shitty and IMPERFECT, there's no way he could exist.
Nate2203 2 years ago
nate, are you being a dipshit or a fucktard? maybe both. there is no reason to get pissed because i said the truth :). by the way you just contradicted yourself, if you dont believe in god then why are you saying "his plan is so"? wow kid, go back to school haha.
fury3600 2 years ago
haha, I'm not even close to getting pissed :-) What truth? That there is no way to prove or disprove god? He only needs to be proven, lack of evidence is enough non-proof for most sane people. I can talk about the god of the bible as he/him and not believe that he is real, just like any other ficticious character. There was no contradiction.
Nate2203 2 years ago
"Lack of evidence" is an intellectually inferior argument in the realm of philosophy/theology. Evidence changes with one's ability to see it (or discover it). A planet doesn't exist because you don't have a telescope powerful enough to see it.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Yeah, but there's no reason to believe it's there until you do have the means to observe it ;-) And an old storybook doesn't count as evidence. Let's use it as an example. Some dude comes up to you and says that there's a planet called Nibiru up there that has all these killer aliens on it that is coming towards earth. If you don't believe his claim(backed by no proof whatsoever besides bits and peices of ancient myth) and prepare for them, you will surely die in 2012. Pretty much the same.
Nate2203 2 years ago
You are correct in general. However, relating to God and/or Christianity...one first has to weigh the evidence as to whether or not there is evidence of a Creator. From there, one can debate which theology (if any) represents that potential Creator.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
well, there is no evidence.
Nate2203 2 years ago
By pretty much the same, I mean that there is just as much tangible evidence of that as there is evidence of the christian god. The only reason it would seem more crazy is that it is a more recent myth and hasn't been passed down through the generations for approx 2000 years.
Nate2203 2 years ago
It is simply my opinion that to equate the claims of Christianity with that of your Nibiru believer demonstrates a lack of sincere investigation and research. I have debated those that have studied the evidence. But not to have studied the volumes of evidence that exists and yet dismiss it is something I will never fully grasp.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
"the volumes of evidence"
what, the bible? I don't think that counts. The evidence is just not there dude.
Nate2203 2 years ago
Well, since thousands of scholars have spent lifetimes studying the "non-existent" evidence, looks like there have been alot of dumb dudes over the years.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
haha, you don't even know what this evidence is. You talk about it, but don't present it.
Nate2203 2 years ago
You are very childish. There was no indication that you deisred to investigate the evidence. Should you choose to do so, I would be happy to make presentations to you outside of this comment section.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
You don't have any. If you did, you would've already told me, you just KNOW somebody else has some(just like I used to think), right? I don't need a presentation, if the "evidence" is compelling enough then I will investigate it myself.
Nate2203 2 years ago
No you won't. There is plenty of evidence, and you have chosen to take the lazy path of ignorance.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
haha, you obviously don't have any evidence to show me. My bad for asking, I knew the wasn't any. Have fun answering all your questions with "god did it". I used to say that too, but then I started to use my brain to find the real answers instead of defending "god did it", it makes way more sense! I don't like following bullshit.
Nate2203 2 years ago
Why do you fabricate both sides of the conversation and talk to yourself? You didn't ask for evidence, you said "I will investigate of for myself." I have never answered a question with "God did it." And stop with the "haha" if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
How was I talking to myself? Well give it to me then!!!! Let me know what this evidence is so I can investigate it. That's what I was saying, "if the "evidence" is compelling enough then I will investigate it myself.", meaning you don't have to give me a huge presentation, let me know the gist and if it doesn't sound like total bullshit, I will investigate it. So bring it on, if you even have anything.
Nate2203 2 years ago
The evidence begins with a discussion of the likelihood of intelligent design behind the universe vs. chance events over long periods of time. That discussion of evidence alone takes hours or even days. The logical path towards which theology (if any) are correct takes a long time to get to.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
There we go! At least you gave me something, I was looking for a specific point, but, whatever. The hard part about that is not letting biases get in the way, whether theist or atheist. It seems harder for the theists and the hardcore atheists because they have so much invested in their stance. For most theists it's their whole life, and for the hardore atheist their ego and proving they're right.
Nate2203 2 years ago
From your profile: "The King James Authorized Bible 1769 The perfectly preserved word of God."
That is why you say "god did it". When you can't figure out why, "it's god's plan". When your "evidence" just isn't there, "god did it". Anyone that says that the bible "is the perfectly preserved word of god" HAS to say "god did it"(or because it's in gods perfect plan, or it doesn't matter because he's god) at some point to make it work. You never said it to me...yet.
Nate2203 2 years ago
In the end, I personally concluded that "God did it." The pholisophical discussion that may or may not lead to that ultimate conclusion is up to you.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
My point is that as long as someone completely believes in god/no god, they cannot possibly consider the opposing view to be true.
Nate2203 2 years ago
Correct. Know that my journey was as follows. Catholic...athiest...agnostic...believer in some kind of Creator...Bible believer. The journey from agnostic to Bible believer has been a 20 year trek. I believe my journey is based on sound logic, science, and yes, ultimately faith. BUT, never blind faith. I can understand and debate an atheist because I was one.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Well that's good, there's hope for me yet ;-)
Nate2203 2 years ago
Debate them one what, exactly? The nonexistent premise of atheism? Or do you claim to debate science because you were at one point an atheist? That's not sound logic.
Noctokage 2 years ago
The existence of humanoids on another planet may be a untrue, but it is, in fact, a premise. Knowing the points that such believers argue is critical to demonstrating the premise likely false. You cannot intelligently debate knowing only one side of an argument.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Hence the question as to what exactly you claim to be able to debate atheists about. Atheism is inherently an empty term, more often than not atheists find themselves simply debating scientific matters, but being an atheist does not implicitly endow one with sufficient knowledge to debate any given subject. That you were once an athiest doesn't impart any understanding that couldn't have been drawn from elsewhere. Which is why I asked specifically what you claim better able to debate due to it.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Being "anything" doesn't endow one with sufficient knowledge to debate a given subject. I don't know what you are asking.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
I've stated pretty simply what I'm asking twice now. I don't know how to breakdown "Debate athiests on what?" any further than I have. The point being, however, that being a christian, for example, endows you with knowledge of christianity (which is functional in a debate about christianity). Being an atheists bears nothing that would help you understand or debate anything better than anyone else. I feel like pointing out that what you've just said makes no sense though.
Noctokage 2 years ago
You don't have to be a Christian to debate Christianity. You don't have to be a communist to debate communism. What's more, there are Christians with no ability to defend their faith. Self imposed labels endow nothing.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
The labels don't, the act of participating first-hand in the matter of discussion does. No, you don't have to be a christian to debate christianity but, in general, christians have the advantage in discussions regarding christianity, do they not? The point being that you claim to be able to debate athiests because you were one, but you've already refuted that claim yourself and you've failed to explain exactly what the focus of your ability to debate athiests is.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Knowing the points they will make, and also knowing the "emotional place" an atheist is in is helpful when trying to show an atheist that there is, in fact, a Creator.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Not in "point of view", but 'in fact". I see. You still miss the point though. If I told you that I can understand and debate people who aren't muslim because I used to not be muslim, I'd be making a logical fallacy. You cann't understand what the 'emotional place' is of a group of people defined by what they are not or do not believe in. There IS no standard as the group is defined by the lack thereof.
Noctokage 2 years ago
We disagree. I am not talking about the apatheic agnostic (i.e. the guy that just doesn't care enough to care). I'm talking about the militant atheist typically armed with studied talking points.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
The fact that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive aside, I know "who" you are talking about and I'm telling you that you are overgeneralizing and misrepresenting their point of view.
Noctokage 2 years ago
People debate points of view. While being an athiest may not qualify someone for any kind of a debate badge, it does qualify someone to be shown the error in their logic.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Any chance of extrapolating why being an athiest qualifies a person of being shown they are wrong? Or futhermore, why the same criteria can't be applied to chrisianity? Especially considering the implicit emptiness of the term 'athiesm' to begin with, I don't see how you can make such a claim as; "I can understand and debate an atheist because I was one. "
Noctokage 2 years ago
Because proclaiming yourself an atheist is very pragmatic. It's nonsensical really. If you don't believe in God...who cares? Why talk about it? It is important to recognize that state of mind of a militant atheist and to alway have empathy with individuals you are trying to convince.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
A vast majority of the time, your 'militant atheists' are simply defending scientific theory, not attacking your particular notion of a higher power. Your notion of 'god' isn't what's important, what's important is that the opposition is ignoring logic and interjecting faith to make arguments against science.
Noctokage 2 years ago
I have typically found that the militant atheist is poorly learned in science, and that their so called scientific arguments are a simple mask for their emotional desire to not believe in God.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Then your 'militant athiest' is simply a very small subset of the implicitly empty term given to a group of people unified only by their common disbelief in a certain idea. Futhermore, you make the assumption that they wear a mask to begin with, an assumption that I am going to assume you have no evidence of other than your own personal experience. Perhaps you are poorly aquainted with the atheistic community.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Very well aqainted with the community. I've been formally and informally debating for years.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
I would propose that it's time for you to meet new athiests then, because you are generalizing a group of people unified only by a particular belief that they don't have, based only on your own experience and the assumption that they are masking an emotional desire not to believe in god. I would further propose that not only is your claim one of pure arrogance, you are using it as an excuse not to give the opposition any credibility and that you can't support your claim in the least.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Your proposition would be erroneous. My claims are based on my observations, debates, and discussions with countless atheists since 1987.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Perhaps it is erroneous, but can you prove it? Or is my error only in your point of view? How do you observe an emotional desire not to believe in your god, furthermore how do you observe someone masking such a desire with the state of being an atheist, as opposed to the assumed truth of both premises (being an athiest, and desiring not to believe in god) having another relationship? You assume one must be masking another beyond the assumption that both are even true to begin with.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Because logic dictates a Creator. Even in collegiate settings, I've seen time and time again how emotion takes over as the atheist house of cards falls apart. When one betrays logic to continue to believe what has been shown to be untrue...that becomes a phsycological issue.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
If logic dictates a creator, then why, might I ask, is it that those trained to use logic in their careers tend towards atheism in vastly higher quantities than those who are not? Am I to assume that you're a proponent of the 'theory' of intelligent design then? Because an atheist becomes emotional, you assume that is their motive. You offer alot of assumptions and presuppositions, but logic dictates something cannot be shown to be true without adequate objective proof.
Noctokage 2 years ago
In fact, history paints a different picture. Science being somehow linked to atheism a a relatively new phenomina. Yes, I believe a Creator created.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Relatively new, but not irrelevant. You believe a creator created, but you assume a creation.
Noctokage 2 years ago
I have logically reasoned a creation being created by a Creator over any other possibility...you are correct.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
You misrepresent my point. If there is a creation, then it was created and there was a creator. You assume there was a creation to begin with. You cannot provide any evidence to support the idea that what you think was created is actually a creation at all. You merely assume so because it fits your own personal worldview. That is subjective and not logical.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Absolutely incorrect. While in my agnostic phase, I was studying to be a meteoroligist. I found so many flaws in scientific theories...I began to study on my own. Long story short, I can make a very convincing argument that our existence cannot be by random chance. My conclusions are not illogical or based on blind assumptions (and/or faith).
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
You do assume that there was a creation to begin with because you assume that there are only two options; Random Chance vs. Creation. If you were ever truly agnostic, then you wouldn't assume that there is ever only a finite number of possibilities for any given question.
Noctokage 2 years ago
In the past, I have contemplated everything from strict evolutionary theory to a uninvolved higher power, to a creator that utilized evolution, to intelligent being from elsewhere in the universe that planted life on this planet. Yes, I have considered all options both reasonable and not so reasonable.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Again, you assume that you are even aware of 'all options'. That in itself, is illogical and unreasonable.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Negative. I have studied most options, both scientific and philosophical available to my limited comprehension provided by the limited wisom of human kind. That's all I have at the moment.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Not negative. Something isn't true because you say it is, lol.
"Yes, I have considered all options.."
That is an inherently illogical and unreasonable statement. Saying "Negative" doesn't disprove me, albeit your arrogance is still impressive.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Only the Creator knows all options about anything. Unfortunately, we are left to discuss what we can percieve in our limited existence as humans. Don't allow yourself to build the straw man argument of "arrogance." That is a very elementary debate mistake.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
It's not an argument, and it's not even close to a strawman. Misconceiving the definition of a strawman argument is an elementary debate mistake.
What we can perceive in our limitied existence as humans is expanding, new knowledge constantly being obtained. To assume at any point in time that you've learned all or considered all there is on any given subject, is in fact arrogant. For me to supply that as an argument would've been a strawman, I did not.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Thus, at this point in time, based on my study acknowledging the constraints of our existence and current state of limited wisdom, I have concluded that we were created by a Creator. How's that?
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Better articulated, but it still comes with the earlier implication that you think you've considered all options currently available for you to perceive, unless you wish to recant on the previous statements you've made. To know that you haven't considered everything, but then to say you've considered everything that is available to you is nonsensical.
Noctokage 2 years ago
There are only so many scientific, philosophical and theological expanations for our existence out there! I surely could have missed one!
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
I would pose that you've likely missed quite a few more than one, but even the idea that you might have missed one is enough to discredit your earlier statement that you've considered all options.
Noctokage 2 years ago
Well good. Now then, if you actually want to talk about something of consequence, let me know.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Shall we then? Your tangents are getting bothersome afterall.
You cannot claim that you've considered all options to explain our existence, and your belief that there our existence was created is therefore merely an assumption based on the fact that disproving random chance doesn't automatically prove creation (afterall that was the subject at hand before all of this banter.)
Noctokage 2 years ago
Sorry to bother you. Have a good night.
Tychicus1769 2 years ago
Indeed, likewise.
Noctokage 2 years ago
topiser:..Of course he allowed those things. If he didn't allow them , they wouldn't have happened.............................And you're saying that if god did a bunch of really good stuff too, then it's o.k. that he did all the bad stuff?....God is kind and merciful to his children, except when he's not slaughtering them by the thousand, handing over enemies captured women to be raped by his priests, or having pregnant women ripped open , and their babies dashed to pieces...It's o.k????
216trixie 2 years ago
Israel becoming a country was a self for filling prophecy, so that dosn't prove any thing.
TheAntiCommie 2 years ago
It's actually self-fulfilling, not "self for filling". lol
AmericanWayne 2 years ago
Don't post your non sense here please.
vfIskullangel 2 years ago
if you dont like it dont watch it
shade8xxx 2 years ago
Don't be such a sheep.
TheAntiCommie 2 years ago
And what will happen? Will we end up harrassing people on the internet?
GroundedForLife27 2 years ago
No you will be free from the fariy tale of god.
TheAntiCommie 2 years ago
What can you offer thats better besides your own fariy tail?.......Thats what I thought!.
You call me a sheep I call you an admirer because your talking about it.
vfIskullangel 2 years ago
For an anti-commie, you sound like A Commie.
emmthreejonny 2 years ago
In my country churchbells and muslim calls for prayer are illegal, most people never ever go to a church or a mosque anyway, and such noise-pollution would be pretty on your days off, I should think.. By the way, I live in a scandinavian country. : )
winterstellar 2 years ago
wow thats a nice tone : )
In the UK the church bells dont seem to have an actual song, just a constant ringing for about an hour
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Cool
DragonWolf2345 2 years ago
that the bells for the time or was that a special occasion? Either way that was beautiful.
Magus79 2 years ago
every day at six .
jezuzfreek777 2 years ago
Wonderful. It must be nice to hear that kind of music.
Magus79 2 years ago
did not know a church any where still played bells! a great memory of my past, thank you :)
booku4 2 years ago
very nice
sparze1 2 years ago
i'm scared of big churches.
DiggityDoglikeDogg 2 years ago
very nice church God bless you brother
archdelux 2 years ago
I've never heard of a church bell with a tune before. Nice!
You go to that church building jf?
andyswVids 2 years ago
VioletKitty411 2 years ago
its not that common no more to have church bells going any more.
derekw14 2 years ago
That's a beautiful building. Is it attached to a school or something?
robyngerris88 2 years ago
Cool, I love church bells
redbaron998 2 years ago
FIRST! Nice church!
Nintendog140 2 years ago