438 contradictions. That's all I need to know to dismiss the bible as not being the word of god, or divinely inspired in any way. No omniscient deity would be so shitty an author.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
I saw a post phrased like this citing a bible verse (Gali something or other) and was gob smacked at the mental conditioning/brainwashing of the poster.
Perhaps the most famous version of this Christian Lilith is the Sistine Chapel paintings of Michalangelo. In this She is shown as a half-woman half-snake and is credited with being the very Serpent who instigated the Fall from Eden itself. ; )
According to the Gospel of Judas, "The gods of this world include El (the word for God in the OT); his helper Nebro, also called Yaldabaoth, who is defiled with blood and whose name means "'rebel'; and another named Saklas, a word that means 'fool'. Thus the deities in charge of this world are the OT God, a bloody rebel, and a fool. This is not a ringing endorsement of the world's creator(s)." -- The Gospel of Judas (2006) National Geographic Society.
@AgApE010 & @highwind8124 Look, you're both just butthurt that I don't believe in your god. And what you think are the most 'holy revelations to mankind', I find to be nothing more than the confused mythologies of ignorant, bronze-age misogynists. Xians attempt to fool themselves, and others, into believing that there is only one xianity is bogus. There were many competing ideas in the early xian communities, as there are today.
Yes, why would it be ridiculous to expect an all powerful God can create a mighty angel like Satan who could possess a snake?
This is such a cartoon of what Christians believe. I don't know of one single Christian that thinks a snake can talk on its own.
Can we get any corrections on this vid? Or is this going to be: "Yeah, I know these are false accusations, but whatever it takes to deconvert people." type things?
@highwind8124 Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was anything but a snake. In fact Genesis depicts that serpent as the granddady of all snakes to come. Pure mythology.
"Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was anything but a snake"
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan.
@AgApE010 Gen.3:1, " Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field the Lord God had made". That states clearly that the serpent was a "beast of the field" that god hade made. To stretch that to somehow have any conection to a book written thousands of years later is to read into it something that was not intended and no reader of Gen at that time would have interpretated it as such. Revelation was the most contested book allowed into the canon for fear of people taking it literally
Hey, I don't take either Genesis nor Revelation literally. I was just responding to AronRa's claim that "Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in garden was anything but a snake." That's simply not true.
@AgApE010 That's true, but I think he was referring to 'nowhere in the Genesis account'. We'll have to ask him for a clarification. My comment was addressing the practice of eisegesis.
@AgApE010 Even the account in Rev.12:9, 20:2 does not say that the dragon landed in the garden of Eden with A&E and took on the appearance of a serpent - complete with its 'angels', and 20:2 states that the dragon went to the Abyss - not the garden. So his initial claim is, in fact, accurate. Nowhere does the bible say that "the serpent in the garden" was anything but a snake.
Revelation 20 is speaking of the dragon going into the Abyss on the day of judgment. In any case, the point is that Revelation calls Satan "the serpent of old," equating Satan with the serpent in Eden.
"I think he was referring to nowhere in the Genesis account"
Dude, that's not what he said. You're acting like a cult member refusing to believe your leader made a mistake. Get over it.
@AgApE010 If the dragon in Rev. is referring to the judgment day, it can have no bearing on Genesis - it hasn't been thrown down yet, much less 6,000 years ago. The 'serpent of old' does not 'imply' the snake in the garden, you 'infer' it. Eisegesis! Get over yourself.
Oh look, the atheist learned a hermeneutical term and thinks that it will make it look smart.
No, it's not eisegesis. It cannot be ignored that the author of Revelation ascribes to Satan the name "serpent" and that the only other place in the author's Scriptures where the term is found is in Genesis.
I swear, internet atheists will argue against the sky being blue so long as it's a theist making the claim...
@AgApE010 Yes, but the serpent referred to in Rev. is the Tiamat of the Babylonian theology that the Hebrews adopted and brought back to Israel with them from the exile. Tiamat was the "dragon". before the exile, there was only god. He created good and evil (Is.45:5&7). It is a corruption of the Hebrew theology. I also know another $20 word, syncretism.
Tiamat was an ocean goddess, not a dragon/serpent. We see an element of the Enuma Elish (the myth concerning Tiamat) in Genesis, not Revelation (Revelation is much too late to be influenced by ancient Babylonian theology). And even in Genesis, the influence is seen only in the "separation of the waters from the waters" (as per the demise of Tiamat) But this was a common understanding of the world in the ancient Near East. There's no need to cry "syncretism."
"The monstrous Tiamat, mother goddess personifying the primeval ocean, was killed by the young and daring Marduk." ("Readings From the Ancient Near East" by Arnold and Beyer, pg. 31)
@AgApE010 "In Babylonian myths, Tiamat is a huge, bloated female dragon that personifies the saltwater ocean, the water of chaos." -- Encyclopedia Mythica
If you want to play "Citation Wars," you just lost as an actual book on the ANE is more reputable then "Encylopedia Mythica, whatever the heck that is."
"Sounds like something an ocean goddess is capable of, wouldn't you say?"
@AgApE010 re: Rev.12:9 -- Read down to Rev.12:13, "Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to over take the woman and sweep her away with the torrent." Sounds like something an "ocean goddess" is capable of, wouldn't you say?
@AgApE010 Ok, so Revelation ascribes to Satan the name "serpent". The fact that Revelation came after Genesis and is a completely different book means nothing, of course. The author of Revelation conceiving of Satan as a serpent does have any bearing on weather that was what the author of Genesis thought.
@AgApE010 The 'serpent of old' in Rev is referring to "Satan". The 'serpent' in Gen cannot be referring to "Satan", because he had not been invented yet. The first mention of "satan" is in Job and that meant an adversary, sort of like god's prosecutor. It is only after the Baylonian exile and the Jews subsequent introduction to Babylonian theology of a good god vs a bad god, that the Satan appears in 1 Chronicles 21:1 - which itself is an alteration of the text of 2 Sam.24:1. No Satan in Eden.
Christians agree that the serpent was more crafty, but it's the why we disagree on. You assume it cannot possibly be that it was due to Satan.
"Revelation was the most contested"
I believe the most contested is actually 2 Peter. Revelation is non-negotiable to the canon. It is inspired. It is of John. Nitpick some other book, but Revelation is highly intelligent in formulation and profoundness.
Put it this way - what others vote on is irrelevant.
@highwind8124 7 books were contested: Epistle to the Hebrews; James; 2nd Peter; 2nd&3re John; Jude; and the Apocalypse (Rev.). The Apocalypse was belived by Irenaeus, Eusebius and Caius to be the work of Cerinthus. Caius, a presbyter in Rome, wrote in his 'Disputation', "But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom." --(Church History III.28)
The book of Hebrews certainly passes the quality standard we would expect of inspired text. It's on par with the rest of the Bible (very hard to do).
The author doesn't identify himself. Paul usually does. But 13:23 identifies himself as a companion of Timothy. Considering the wisdom shown in the text, and Paul's close relation with Timothy, it would be hard to see how it couldn't be Paul.
A quick look at your favorites, I'm not really expecting a fair conversation here. If Bart Ehrman's claims went easy with you (I once liked Ehrman), then I would suspect that I would just be getting doubt for the sake of doubt.
I've went through the pain of reading the entire NT apocrypha. Yes, pain. I hoped I could find anything like what was in the canon. I was disappointed. It turns out that what is in the canon is a very good pick.
@AgApE010 Right, and Jesus called the Pharasees serpents too -and the spawn of Satan as well, but nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was ever intended to be anything but a snake. That is a matter of unsupported interpretation -which is why all the Christian artists rendered the serpent as a woman until the late renaissance. Because until then, the serpent was assumed to be Lilith, Adam's first wife in Talmudic legend.
Can you produce one ancient Christianity commentary on Genesis (there are many) where the commentator assumed the serpent to be Lilith?
"Jesus called the Pharisees serpents too"
But the author of Revelation calls Satan "the serpent of old" and "that ancient serpent," clearly pointing back to the Scriptures he and his audience were familiar with.
So you can say *Genesis* doesn't imply that the serpent was Satan, but not the Bible as a whole, as you asserted before.
@AgApE010 If the story of Genesis is "just a story", then what's to say that the same is not true of everything else in the bible?
More importantly, if everything in the book is so open to interpretation, then it really says whatever the hell you want it too, now doesn't it? That would seem to negate the whole idea of divine revelation, would it not?
Maybe that's why there are more than 1,100 different version of Christianity in the United States alone.
You've got an excellent point, but don't bother with this guy. He's an apologist and is therefore obligated to distort and lie to whatever end for his deity.
@TheZooCrew I'm aware of that, but I'm thinking long term. Logic pays dividends in the future. See, an idea is a devious little thing. Once it gets into your head, it's really hard to get out, and the longer it's in there, the more comfortable you become with it.
Either that, or you become obsessed. In either case, he'll have no choice but to process my argument, which will have a permanent and irreversible effect.
I became an atheist only after a protracted effort to rationalize.
"then what's to say that the same is not true of everything else in the bible?"
Because that reasoning doesn't follow. Consider: Homer's "Illiad" wasn't a play, therefore Sophocles' "Antigone" wasn't a play. Obviously, this is fallacious.
"if everything in the book is so open to interpretation"
It's not, really. Most Old Testament scholars are pretty united on this matter. When we put Genesis in its socio-historical context it becomes immediately obvious.
@AgApE010 The book says what it means, or it doesn't. Either every word in the bible is divinely inspired, perfect and completely true, or every last word of it suspect.
You can't argue your way out of this hole.
Snakes do not speak, the Earth is not flat with a dome overhead, and the second coming of Jesus did not occur within the lifetime of those who witnessed his death.
The writing is on the wall here. The bible is a book of lies.
So, your response to my clear demonstration of the falsehood of what is supposedly a perfect book by showing that it is not perfect, is to bash my argument without even addressing any of it's points?
Either make a real argument, or stop wasting my time. I don't have the patience for your ad hominem attack.
What demonstration? I exposed the fallacy in your assertion that if Genesis isn't literal than none of the Bible is, and corrected you on your accusation of Genesis being arbitrarily "open to interpretation." You replied with saying either it's inspired or it's not; but I never said it's not inspired, did I? Literal =/= inspired.
Jesus didn't say he would return in his disciples lifetime; he was speaking of the judgment of Israel...
@AgApE010 There you go again, interpreting the bible for me. Well, for your information, I have read it, and to paraphrase C.S. Lewis; Either everything that Jesus said was completely true, or completely false. Either he was the son of God sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins, or he was a madman.
You cannot base on your life on the writings in a book, asserting that those writings are good and perfect and divinely inspired, and at the same time know that it contains lies.
I never said or implied Jesus was "completely false." You're straw-manning me again, "rationalizer." I said that Jesus was not speaking of his second coming when he told his disciples "this generation shall not pass..." He was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem (fulfilled in 70 AD).
"know that it contains lies"
It's not lying insomuch as it is not arguing in favor of a flat earth. We just see certain passing phrases that imply the authors believed in a flat earth.
@AgApE010 If you had ever actually read the bible, or watched this video, you would know that a divinely authored book would be perfect and incontestable. There would be no alternatives, no debates, and no atheists. Everyone who read it would know without question that God is real.
Given the extremely, incredibly, unfathomably primitive and idiotic nature of every single book in the bible, there can be no doubt that if God wrote it, he is a retard.
"you would know that a divinely authored book would be perfect"
It is, in its proper context (which is religious teachings/theology). It is not trying to be a science book (despite how much Creationists love to treat it so).
"There would be no debates"
That doesn't follow. There can always be people who disagree. Such as our Creationist friends I mentioned earlier. Following your reasoning, science is wrong since they debate it.
@AgApE010 You're missing the point here. This God of yours is supposedly all-knowing and all powerful. If he chose to right a book, every context would be the proper context, and everything in the book would be amazing and impossible for human minds to have created.
It would be readable in every language without translation, or even the need to learn how to read. Everything in it would be impossible to refute, and anyone who tried to make an alternative book would fail miserably.
"No, because science doesn't claim to be inerrant nor divinely inspired."
Truth is truth whether it is scientific fact, logical fact, or divine revelation. The point is that just because some people debate truth (like the Creationists who refuse to believe that we know evolution is a fact) it doesn't mean that it is not no longer true. Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated. But that just doesn't follow.
" Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated."
That's still mildly accurate. If the Bible were right about everything, it would be awfully difficult for anyone to refute it with the exception of small groups in denial. But what do we see? Further splintering of Christianity itself along with several other major religions.
@AgApE010 "Truth is truth whether it is scientific fact, logical fact, or divine revelation"
Since divine revelation has never been shown to be accurate how can it be "truth".
"Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated."
Actually he said that if any holy text was written by an omnipotent, omniscient being it would be obvious it was written by someone superhuman. Something no scientific study claims.
...I already said snakes don't speak, and when the hell did I say the Earth is flat? Did the Bible writers believe in a flat earth? Probably. Most people in those days did. This has no bearing on its spiritual teaching anymore than Aristotle believing in Geocentrism affects his works on logic.
You see, you're not giving an argument, but only making a mess for me to clean up. THINK! You said you're a rationalizer, so rationalize!
@AgApE010 I cannot show pre-King James Christians who commented that the serpent was Lilith, but I can show a lot of Christian artwork that consistently shows this. I can also Rabbinical comments to this effect.
But surely you understand that artwork doesn't necessarily correspond accurately to theology, right?
For instance, Michelangelo's depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel shows him as a muscular senior citizen with a long white beard. But this hardly communicates the Jewish/Christian concept of God (which believes him to be spirit).
So I think your argument here is poor. If you want to know what Christians thought about the serpent, it's best to just read what they wrote about it.
"But this hardly communicates the Jewish/Christian concept of God"
Then why was Michelangelo commissioned to paint just that? And why were the clergy at the time satisfied?
" If you want to know what Christians thought about the serpent, it's best to just read what they wrote about it."
And apparently they thought the serpent was Lilith according to the Talmud. It's just a matter of Occam's Razor. You're just offering a solution that goes against the grain because you're an apologist.
How do you expect to depict an immaterial being? He used anthropomorphism in his painting.
"And apparently they thought the serpent was Lilith according to the Talmud."
Christians didn't write the Talmud! Stop being stupid. Or at least try.
"solution that goes against the grain"
Not at all. I have 2000 years of Christian teachers backing me up. AronRa still hasn't presented any Christians teaching the serpent is Lilith; indeed, he admitted he can't.
That's not the point. I was talking about what Christians thought of the serpent and you said "they thought it was Lilith according to the Talmud." That was a fail. It's ok to admit it.
"No you don't"
Then show me one Christian commentator who taught that the serpent was Lilith.
"Then show me one Christian commentator who taught that the serpent was Lilith."
I'm running into an interesting problem. I can find over a dozen sources within 15 minutes that credit Lilith with being the serpent in Genesis, but none of them cite their own sources, although they do appear credible by themselves. I'll continue investigating.
Also, it's rather odd to assert that this part of Judaism magically reversed with the birth of Christianity.
The imago Dei doesn't have to do with physical resemblance. In the ancient Near East, kings were said to be made in the images of their gods; it was an indication of authority and ruler-ship. Hence the connection in Genesis when man is given authority over the earth and its creatures.
It's curious that you misunderstand so many things about God and yet call yourself an atheist. An atheist with regard to what?? Clearly not the Xian God.
"It's curious that you misunderstand so many things about God and yet call yourself an atheist. "
I do not call myself an atheist. That is a judgment based on uninformed speculation. I KNOW the Bible warns against those.
And who's actually misunderstanding God? Are you totally unaware of the perceptions of your fellow Christians? Are you ignorant of the thousands of denominations of Christianity, many of whom DO believe the things I listed?
You're right. I don't recall you saying you're an atheist. It was a judgmental leap on my part. Apologies.
"Are you totally unaware of the perceptions of your fellow Christians?"
I don't know of any Christians that actually believe, as you do, that God has a physical body. Some may, I'm sure. But what does this have to do with your error?
"I don't know of any Christians that actually believe, as you do, that God has a physical body."
But that is NOT what I believe, as I clarified. That is merely what I've been told. Not by the church I grew up in, but by the vocal fundamentalists nearby.
It's not even that God has a physical body...I've literally been told that God appears similar to the Sistine Chapel ceiling even if he's not physical.
"You argued against my comment about God not having a physical body. "
And AS I FUCKING CLARIFIED, that wasn't what I believed, but what I have been told. I was looking for consistency. Almost NONE of my "arguments" have been from my own beliefs. I said this already.
"some of you guys can get so dishonest sometimes..."
You are not in a position to make that accusation.
Almost of my dialogue thus far addresses what creationists and other fundamentalist Christians assert, not what's accurate. I actually DO know a decent bit about the background and formation of the Bible.
So I found a few more sources, but again credibility is questionable. Still interesting.
*Sigh* I guess it's my fault for not specifying that the source should be credible or at least provide a citation of the ancient Christian source. I took it for granted.
Of course you can go on the Internet and find any old website or book making claims about Lilith. I bet you can find something about the serpent being a UFO too. But ask yourself this: if you were writing a University paper, would your professor accept those sources? Use that as your judgment in your search.
I already mentioned that their credibility is questionable. I would probably have to get a copy of that book and look in the back, and I'm not paying 8 bucks and buying a Kindle to maybe prove a point. However, the book DOES cite several Biblical passages as evidence. That counts as an ancient Christian source, does it not?
It's very difficult to find Christian writings outside the Bible after it was canonized, as the church attempted to destroy most of them.
There is exactly one pre-King James writing in that library that I can see. That was what Aron was talking about and so was I. Why are there no writings in that library before 1302? And why is it the only one that's even THAT early?
Dude, are you nuts? It has writings by Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Origen, Clement, Gregory... All these guys are long before the 1300s. When you go to the website click on the tab at the upper-right corner that says "Fathers." There you'll find virtually every Christian writing in ancient history.
I clicked on the "library" tab as per your directions.
The "fathers" tab means much more. Of course, how many of those are not consistent with the Bible? I should have clarified that this was my point...writings that were inconsistent with the Bible were destroyed.
Tertuallian, Origen, Commodian, and some of the epistles labeled "spurious" contain some heretodoxy. And they weren't destroyed.
"writings that were inconsistent with the Bible were destroyed."
Is that why we have so many pseudopigraphal works and Gnostic texts? Don't revise history. I did your legwork for you by providing you a source. Now put up or quit bugging me.
Revelation 12:9 certainly does. Also note that the serpent isn't interested in taking the fruit for himself. He has a vested interest in them taking it.
It parallels when Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off a ledge by omitting a vital line of a Psalm.
The coincidental parallels in behavior between the two aren't coincidences, but demonstrates cognizance by the Genesis writer of Satan, same as demonstrated of the Trinity in chapters 18 and 19.
@highwind8124 Let's say that it's like you say it is and that the Christian Satan possessed the snake. How the hell is he going to make it talk? Is the possession itself going to make the snake grow some vocal chords? Is he going to change the structure of the snake's throat completely?
Then he complains that (supposedly) the four accepted Gospels were taken as one mere arbitrary vote at one time.
Try actually reading the crap that got rejected to find out why Christians today aren't moaning about other texts they liked but weren't kept.
The historical value, the sheer level of verified details that give those four Gospels such early datings in comparison, make the supposed vote at Nicea meaningless.
The Holy Spirit was God in the Old Testament. The Father was God in the Old Testament. The Messiah is God in the Old Testament. Remember Isaiah 9:6? Daniel 7:13-14?
"Christianity began with the gnostic faith, docetics, and ebionites..."
Translation: "I'll just chuck my credibility and supposed objectivity out the window now."
There it went, all for a cheap argument.
You seriously think those movements have their apocryphal texts dating to the first century, with any historical connection to Jesus' apostles? Paul was in fellowship with Peter and Jesus' very brother James. Read Galatians.
I would make corrections to this vid, little notes at least.
AronRa falls in head deep to the documentary hypothesis where he gives this absurdly late date for the formulation of the document.
At this point, he may as well just quote Acharya S. and the Zeitgeist movie. It doesn't matter. None of this needs to be looked into.
Is he even aware that there isn't one shred of manuscript evidence for any of these supposed four original documents, all of which conveniently disappeared in a culture that would have preserved them as sacred scripture?
"It would inspire a unity of common belief for every reader."
Actually, no. This has got to be one of the most naive assumptions, because the assumption is that humans are not depraved, that they're not capable of lying, that they're not selfish, that they cannot hate the principle "love your neighbor as yourself".
Take one look around. Just turn on your television and notice the unbridled vanity and indifference, what consumes attention. Don't tell me humanity is objective/benevolent.
if the bible is undeniable evidence to god and i have read it then how could I be able to deny it? yet I do so i have to say only people that need to have something more and have a big hole in there life(why are we here?) need to think that there is more than what we are.
Without trying to sound like a jerk, why hasn't the creator of this video admitted to the errors he makes? I said this months ago, there was never a "show of hands at nicea". If you read the historical records of nicea, there was NEVER any mention of the cannon. There were never any books "removed" from the NT either. There was close to 800 books that were rejected, but none removed at the council.
This is indeed an error, but Aron's point still stands. Why were 800 books rejected, especially when several are referenced by the current books?
I've tried investigating the process of canonization, but it's disappointingly incomplete. The history of it appears to start with the Muratorian fragment, which is late 2nd century at the earliest. It's a little odd that there doesn't seem to be much of a record.
@TheZooCrew The reason those 800 books were rejected is due to the fact that the first and second generation Christians didn't accept anything as "inspired" if it wasn't written by an Apostle, or by someone working under the supervision of an Apostle. You are correct that authors like Paul reference other books, and even Paul wrote letters that the Church didn't include into the NT (I have no idea why)
@truthforchrist Are you saying there was never any vote on which books should be included or excluded? Some of those that made it in reference other books that were clearly thought to be part of that set. A human committee opting to exclude them effectively removes them from that set. It also proves that God was neither the author nor editor of that compilation.
@AronRa I am absolutly saying there was never a vote. The entire idea that things were voted on at Nicea comes purely from the Divinci Code. Before that book/movie, no one ever said things were voted on. There are plenty of historical records from Nicea. None of those records even mention a cannon (meaning the cannon was not discussed).
I never even brought the concept of God being the author of anything, so I don't know why you said that :)
Actually, no. No to many things you said. Firstly, Nicea had nothing to do with the Canon; it was one of the Carthaginian Councils that dealt with the Canon. Even then, the books that are generally refused are known forgeries, many of which are still available today (see "N.T. Apocrypha" by Schneemelcher).
Secondly, even if it was true that they voted on them (which they did not) it in no way follows logically that the books therefore are not "God-breathed," as the Greek term says.
" the books that are generally refused are known forgeries"
Then why are there still known forgeries IN THE BIBLE (e.g. last chapters of John)? Could it be that the church merely labeled the Apocrypha et al "forgeries" to appear consistent?
" it in no way follows logically that the books therefore are not "God-breathed,""
Well, yes it does...especially when you figure out that most of the Bible is flat-out wrong about almost everything.
Actually, it is the last chapter (singular) and even then it is debated. In any case, one chapter added to an otherwise legitimate book does not make for discrediting the entire book.
"to appear consistent?"
I'm not sure what you mean. But the reason they rejected some books was because Gnostics, Marcionites, etc were producing many pseudopigraphal works.
"Well,yes it does"
No, it does not follow that if a council voted that those books aren't inspired.
@AronRa Actually Aron, tfc is partially correct from what I have found.Did man pick and choose books? Of course. But there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that it happened at the council of Nicaea. The 'cannon' that was decided on at Nicaea was not the cannon of books. Your point still stands of course, but I know how much accuracy matters to You, so thought I might add my two cents. Peace.
@truthforchrist While its true that the canon came together, more or less, by popular demand and not by a vote, per se, the decision to, first, canonize a bible and, second, how to select what would become canon, was made by man.
@AgeOfScience Of coarse those decisions were man made :) I dont think anyone says otherwise.
It's just annoying that people, for some reason, believe the Divinci Code to be some sort of historical documentary. There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding Nicea, when in reality, not much happened at Nicea (a few ideas were labeled as heresies, a creed was established). To be fair, I have watched Aron Ra's series about creationism more than once, and I did enjoy it.
I love that "The Life of Brian" clips were used.. Reminds me of Brian's speech.
BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
Why aren't smart people like this and their ideas predominate? Why are the stupid, gullible people the norm? I just don't get it. It's obvious, painfully to some, that religion is a false belief system that men use to rule other men. It's lame social dominance bullshit and everyone really knows this. Some just won't admit it and that's the part that puzzles me. Are religious people just that dogmatic? Why? Is it fear? Well, there's no-one under the bed and we all know this. It's childishness.
As demonstrated near the end of this video, creationsists--especially fundamentalist Christians, have little tolerance for facts or reality, and will always choose the path of least intelligence.
@sonykroket you are so smart,, you gonna created a new world and make it a forever happy place, no more wars, hnger and disease,,, man you have all the awsers,, dam!! i'm you are God !!!!
@albusai how on earth does that make sense at all? You are equating the fact that we dont have a cure for lets say Parkinson's Disease with the scientific discoveries of DNA or Mars. You've convulted emotion into objectivity. And you have also demonstrated ignorance because you dont beleive in it based on outside facters such as world hunger you believe based on evidence, and peer reviewed hypothesis and proof. Your post made no sense
@moroney1 look man ,, you think you are a accident, so don't worry go on , living , you gonna die soon,, hope not to soon,,, maybe you'll see that man, will not have the answer, and behind everything their is a intelligent designer,
@albusai Your original point make no sense. Maybe we are accidents, just because that is unsettlig doesnt mean it is untrue. And if you look at the collapsing stars and failing galaxcies and black holes, or our own petty solar system which lets life occur on only one planet some of the time on some of its surface where 99.9% of life has become extinct it is obvious there was no intelligence behind that. That may scare you, however just becase religion is comforting does not mean its true
"you think you are a accident, so don't worry go on , living , you gonna die soon"
This is part of the world's biggest problem...a giant contingent of ignorant bigots still thinks that where a person comes from is more important than where they go.
@albusai "when scientist find the cure of all disease, and end world hunger, i'll start to belive everything they say"
What an ignorant comment. I guess doubling the life expectancy and the world population in the last 100 years don't count. Or the literally hundreds of diseases that were a sure death sentence a mere 100 years ago but are now just a slight nuisance. Did u know that, from prehistory up until 200 years ago, the main cause of female death was child birth?
@danoso0931 people used to live alot longer and were healthier, in bible time way longer, but since you don't belive in the bible,, go enjoy the very little time you have left
@albusai lol, i dont know if u are trolling or just plain stupid, but did u know that in the "bible time" the way of living was entirely different at was it right now, there was not fast food, nor any chemical wars,etc, is clear that the life was at certain point "healthier", since the life style was much more simple, but also keep in mind that even if the life at that time was "healthier", the life span was much more shorter that is now
@TheZooCrew your mouth explains, your arrogant mind,, yet i bet you talk like that cause you are not facing me,,, you would see many skeletons found over India,, and the way scients use to determine years of age , that bones,, rocks and other have is not acured,, and has many flaws, is like looking at a burning candle that is 7 inches long,, how long has it been burniing for, if you know it burns at 1 inch an hour
@albusai "nd the way scients use to determine years of age , that bones,, rocks and other have is not acured"
It is accurate, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the age someone was when they died, not how long ago they died. We can look at a skeleton and confidently say: this was a woman who was around 35 years old when she died. This is actually easy. And your candle? I would measure how much wax there is at the base of the candle, then I know how long it's been burning
@albusai "people used to live alot longer and were healthier, in bible time way longer"
Skeletons from 2000 to 5000 years ago beg to differ, as they all seem to have lived regular human lives (well, shorter than today's, anyway). Oh, you didn't know we can know the age of death of a once-living organism by looking at its skeleton? Or that humanity right now is the at the tallest it's been in history? Wonder where all those Goliath skeletons went...
@AronRa Well, I do not demand the death penalty. I would imagine though it is that the difference between positive vs negative rights. Basically, a positive right is the right to do something, while a negative right is the right to not have something done. In general, negative rights are more important than positive. So in the case of abortion, doing "nothing" should be more important than having the ability to have an abortion. Likewise with murder, the right to not be killed is stronger.
"So in the case of abortion, doing "nothing" should be more important than having the ability to have an abortion"
I see you haven't bothered to read anything I've said or any of the articles I've posted. You want to force your religious beliefs onto others for no reason.
@TheZooCrew I have, and this has nothing to do with religion. When did i ever say anything about religion? I love how the default argument is I am trying to shove religion down peoples throats? Do I claim you are trying to push your liberal agenda on me? Look up the violinists thought experiment. We have two sets of rights, the right to do something and the right to not have something done to us. The right to have nothing done has ALWAYS outweighed the right to do something. Except abortion.
@TheZooCrew Free speech for one? can i yell "fire" at any point? What about swearing on the radio? FCC forbids it. What about free speech zones?
What about the argument that people want freedom from religion when the first amendment says freedom of expression?
And the only reason? so the logic that A => B => C therefore A => C is not logical? I believe that was sophomore math that I learned how logic is applied.
If you protect bald eagles, do you protect their eggs as well?
But you still have free speech nonetheless, and the First Amendment guarantees this even if it's slightly regulated.
Same with abortion...states are allowed to restrict or ban post-first trimester abortions. Do you not understand this?
Your argument about eagles is inherently fallacious because you're taking an anthropocentric issue and attempting to equate it to protection of endangered species.
Whole books were removed; those verses were merely a few that reference the removed books. Learn how to read.
Nobody thinks abortion is a "good thing," you asshat. Pro-choice people like myself merely assert that it is a necessary evil that protects the rights of citizens more than the alternative, i.e. lesser of two evils. Way to not understand anything.
8:12 - 8:40 is pure PWANAGE!
EverEvolvingApe 1 day ago
438 contradictions. That's all I need to know to dismiss the bible as not being the word of god, or divinely inspired in any way. No omniscient deity would be so shitty an author.
DaToNyOyO 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL
RosesOfTimes 3 days ago
An excellent video on the fallacies contained within religion. AronRa, you are an inspiration to us all. Keep up your excellent work.
InsanoGerbil 1 week ago
Hell ya man what he said
FrankaDith 1 week ago
02:33 try saying that five times in a row..
TioPhillippe 1 week ago
1) The bible says other religions are false
2) There are other religions
3) Therefore other religions are false
I saw a post phrased like this citing a bible verse (Gali something or other) and was gob smacked at the mental conditioning/brainwashing of the poster.
ganados0 1 week ago
Perhaps the most famous version of this Christian Lilith is the Sistine Chapel paintings of Michalangelo. In this She is shown as a half-woman half-snake and is credited with being the very Serpent who instigated the Fall from Eden itself. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 1 week ago
According to the Gospel of Judas, "The gods of this world include El (the word for God in the OT); his helper Nebro, also called Yaldabaoth, who is defiled with blood and whose name means "'rebel'; and another named Saklas, a word that means 'fool'. Thus the deities in charge of this world are the OT God, a bloody rebel, and a fool. This is not a ringing endorsement of the world's creator(s)." -- The Gospel of Judas (2006) National Geographic Society.
yeshuahfullofit 1 week ago
@AgApE010 & @highwind8124 Look, you're both just butthurt that I don't believe in your god. And what you think are the most 'holy revelations to mankind', I find to be nothing more than the confused mythologies of ignorant, bronze-age misogynists. Xians attempt to fool themselves, and others, into believing that there is only one xianity is bogus. There were many competing ideas in the early xian communities, as there are today.
yeshuahfullofit 1 week ago
AMEN BROTHER!
leftclickben 2 weeks ago
It's been 'real' folks, but I got to get to bed. See you later on. G'night. Sweet dreams. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
Brilliant!
julzabro 2 weeks ago
"Who believe snakes and donkeys can talk."
Yes, why would it be ridiculous to expect an all powerful God can create a mighty angel like Satan who could possess a snake?
This is such a cartoon of what Christians believe. I don't know of one single Christian that thinks a snake can talk on its own.
Can we get any corrections on this vid? Or is this going to be: "Yeah, I know these are false accusations, but whatever it takes to deconvert people." type things?
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
"This is such a cartoon of what Christians believe."
What creationists believe does seem cartoonish, but it is what they believe.
"Can we get any corrections on this vid? "
Your "corrections" are merely your evidently uneducated opinion on a document that you have accepted in advance as true.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew Good response!
MeepullStewray 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Man are you just going to copy and paste utter rubbish? You believe in fantasy. Grow up.
itchygonads 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was anything but a snake. In fact Genesis depicts that serpent as the granddady of all snakes to come. Pure mythology.
AronRa 2 weeks ago 7
@AronRa
"Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was anything but a snake"
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan.
-Revelation 12:9 and 20:2, respectively
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Gen.3:1, " Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field the Lord God had made". That states clearly that the serpent was a "beast of the field" that god hade made. To stretch that to somehow have any conection to a book written thousands of years later is to read into it something that was not intended and no reader of Gen at that time would have interpretated it as such. Revelation was the most contested book allowed into the canon for fear of people taking it literally
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
Hey, I don't take either Genesis nor Revelation literally. I was just responding to AronRa's claim that "Nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in garden was anything but a snake." That's simply not true.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 That's true, but I think he was referring to 'nowhere in the Genesis account'. We'll have to ask him for a clarification. My comment was addressing the practice of eisegesis.
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Even the account in Rev.12:9, 20:2 does not say that the dragon landed in the garden of Eden with A&E and took on the appearance of a serpent - complete with its 'angels', and 20:2 states that the dragon went to the Abyss - not the garden. So his initial claim is, in fact, accurate. Nowhere does the bible say that "the serpent in the garden" was anything but a snake.
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
Revelation 20 is speaking of the dragon going into the Abyss on the day of judgment. In any case, the point is that Revelation calls Satan "the serpent of old," equating Satan with the serpent in Eden.
"I think he was referring to nowhere in the Genesis account"
Dude, that's not what he said. You're acting like a cult member refusing to believe your leader made a mistake. Get over it.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 If the dragon in Rev. is referring to the judgment day, it can have no bearing on Genesis - it hasn't been thrown down yet, much less 6,000 years ago. The 'serpent of old' does not 'imply' the snake in the garden, you 'infer' it. Eisegesis! Get over yourself.
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
"Eisegesis!"
Oh look, the atheist learned a hermeneutical term and thinks that it will make it look smart.
No, it's not eisegesis. It cannot be ignored that the author of Revelation ascribes to Satan the name "serpent" and that the only other place in the author's Scriptures where the term is found is in Genesis.
I swear, internet atheists will argue against the sky being blue so long as it's a theist making the claim...
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Yes, but the serpent referred to in Rev. is the Tiamat of the Babylonian theology that the Hebrews adopted and brought back to Israel with them from the exile. Tiamat was the "dragon". before the exile, there was only god. He created good and evil (Is.45:5&7). It is a corruption of the Hebrew theology. I also know another $20 word, syncretism.
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
Tiamat was an ocean goddess, not a dragon/serpent. We see an element of the Enuma Elish (the myth concerning Tiamat) in Genesis, not Revelation (Revelation is much too late to be influenced by ancient Babylonian theology). And even in Genesis, the influence is seen only in the "separation of the waters from the waters" (as per the demise of Tiamat) But this was a common understanding of the world in the ancient Near East. There's no need to cry "syncretism."
But we digress...
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Bull! It is 'described' as a "sea serpent - a dragon".
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
"It's described as a 'sea serpent - a dragon' "
Who? Tiamat? Sorry, but that's wrong.
"The monstrous Tiamat, mother goddess personifying the primeval ocean, was killed by the young and daring Marduk." ("Readings From the Ancient Near East" by Arnold and Beyer, pg. 31)
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 "In Babylonian myths, Tiamat is a huge, bloated female dragon that personifies the saltwater ocean, the water of chaos." -- Encyclopedia Mythica
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
If you want to play "Citation Wars," you just lost as an actual book on the ANE is more reputable then "Encylopedia Mythica, whatever the heck that is."
"Sounds like something an ocean goddess is capable of, wouldn't you say?"
You're a moron. I'm sorry for wasting my time.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 re: Rev.12:9 -- Read down to Rev.12:13, "Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to over take the woman and sweep her away with the torrent." Sounds like something an "ocean goddess" is capable of, wouldn't you say?
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Ok, so Revelation ascribes to Satan the name "serpent". The fact that Revelation came after Genesis and is a completely different book means nothing, of course. The author of Revelation conceiving of Satan as a serpent does have any bearing on weather that was what the author of Genesis thought.
dannytibi 1 week ago
@AgApE010 The 'serpent of old' in Rev is referring to "Satan". The 'serpent' in Gen cannot be referring to "Satan", because he had not been invented yet. The first mention of "satan" is in Job and that meant an adversary, sort of like god's prosecutor. It is only after the Baylonian exile and the Jews subsequent introduction to Babylonian theology of a good god vs a bad god, that the Satan appears in 1 Chronicles 21:1 - which itself is an alteration of the text of 2 Sam.24:1. No Satan in Eden.
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
Christians agree that the serpent was more crafty, but it's the why we disagree on. You assume it cannot possibly be that it was due to Satan.
"Revelation was the most contested"
I believe the most contested is actually 2 Peter. Revelation is non-negotiable to the canon. It is inspired. It is of John. Nitpick some other book, but Revelation is highly intelligent in formulation and profoundness.
Put it this way - what others vote on is irrelevant.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 7 books were contested: Epistle to the Hebrews; James; 2nd Peter; 2nd&3re John; Jude; and the Apocalypse (Rev.). The Apocalypse was belived by Irenaeus, Eusebius and Caius to be the work of Cerinthus. Caius, a presbyter in Rome, wrote in his 'Disputation', "But Cerinthus by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great Apostle falsely pretended to wonderful things, asserting that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom." --(Church History III.28)
yeshuahfullofit 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
I haven't studied or read the writings of the early church "fathers". I don't doubt that there was debate over certain texts.
I'll just weigh in though - James is inspired. It's holy text. It would be irrelevant if men debated it.
The epistles of John, not even a shred of doubt about those.
I was slow to come around on 2 Peter, but if he did write it, he would be over 70 years old, or around that.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
"The epistles of John, not even a shred of doubt about those."
John was illiterate.
See, this is why you're not taken seriously...all you do is make wild claims and back them up only with your clearly biased and uneducated opinion.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@yeshuahfullofit
Jude is really short. It's just one chapter. It doesn't really contain anything new or controversial.
Personally, I think its counsel is kind. "Be merciful to those who doubt"
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
The book of Hebrews certainly passes the quality standard we would expect of inspired text. It's on par with the rest of the Bible (very hard to do).
The author doesn't identify himself. Paul usually does. But 13:23 identifies himself as a companion of Timothy. Considering the wisdom shown in the text, and Paul's close relation with Timothy, it would be hard to see how it couldn't be Paul.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@yeshuahfullofit
A quick look at your favorites, I'm not really expecting a fair conversation here. If Bart Ehrman's claims went easy with you (I once liked Ehrman), then I would suspect that I would just be getting doubt for the sake of doubt.
I've went through the pain of reading the entire NT apocrypha. Yes, pain. I hoped I could find anything like what was in the canon. I was disappointed. It turns out that what is in the canon is a very good pick.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
Not "pick", but what I mean is it stands on its own merit.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Right, and Jesus called the Pharasees serpents too -and the spawn of Satan as well, but nowhere does the Bible imply that the serpent in the garden was ever intended to be anything but a snake. That is a matter of unsupported interpretation -which is why all the Christian artists rendered the serpent as a woman until the late renaissance. Because until then, the serpent was assumed to be Lilith, Adam's first wife in Talmudic legend.
AronRa 1 week ago 11
@AronRa
Can you produce one ancient Christianity commentary on Genesis (there are many) where the commentator assumed the serpent to be Lilith?
"Jesus called the Pharisees serpents too"
But the author of Revelation calls Satan "the serpent of old" and "that ancient serpent," clearly pointing back to the Scriptures he and his audience were familiar with.
So you can say *Genesis* doesn't imply that the serpent was Satan, but not the Bible as a whole, as you asserted before.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 What in the fuck do you think you're talking about? IT'S NOT REAL, DICKHEAD.
Nobody cares how big you think Santa's shoes are. It's NONSENSE. You're living in a fantasy-world.
You think there's something rational about debating whether a fucking snake CAN SPEAK TO HUMANS? ARE. YOU. MENTAL.?
None of this shit matters. None of it.
Just ... grow up, for goodness' sake.
Skindoggiedog 1 week ago
@Skindoggiedog
"None of this shit matters"
Then why are you coming to a video that mentions this stuff?
And I know there wasn't actually a talking snake talking to a woman made from a rib. It's a story, dumb ass.
Nothing like an angry internet atheist...
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 If the story of Genesis is "just a story", then what's to say that the same is not true of everything else in the bible?
More importantly, if everything in the book is so open to interpretation, then it really says whatever the hell you want it too, now doesn't it? That would seem to negate the whole idea of divine revelation, would it not?
Maybe that's why there are more than 1,100 different version of Christianity in the United States alone.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
You've got an excellent point, but don't bother with this guy. He's an apologist and is therefore obligated to distort and lie to whatever end for his deity.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew I'm aware of that, but I'm thinking long term. Logic pays dividends in the future. See, an idea is a devious little thing. Once it gets into your head, it's really hard to get out, and the longer it's in there, the more comfortable you become with it.
Either that, or you become obsessed. In either case, he'll have no choice but to process my argument, which will have a permanent and irreversible effect.
I became an atheist only after a protracted effort to rationalize.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
"then what's to say that the same is not true of everything else in the bible?"
Because that reasoning doesn't follow. Consider: Homer's "Illiad" wasn't a play, therefore Sophocles' "Antigone" wasn't a play. Obviously, this is fallacious.
"if everything in the book is so open to interpretation"
It's not, really. Most Old Testament scholars are pretty united on this matter. When we put Genesis in its socio-historical context it becomes immediately obvious.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 The book says what it means, or it doesn't. Either every word in the bible is divinely inspired, perfect and completely true, or every last word of it suspect.
You can't argue your way out of this hole.
Snakes do not speak, the Earth is not flat with a dome overhead, and the second coming of Jesus did not occur within the lifetime of those who witnessed his death.
The writing is on the wall here. The bible is a book of lies.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
That's your reply? Is this the same person that said "I became an atheist only after a protracted effort to rationalize"? You BSer, you...
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 Are we having the same conversation?
So, your response to my clear demonstration of the falsehood of what is supposedly a perfect book by showing that it is not perfect, is to bash my argument without even addressing any of it's points?
Either make a real argument, or stop wasting my time. I don't have the patience for your ad hominem attack.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
"my clear demonstration of the falsehood"
What demonstration? I exposed the fallacy in your assertion that if Genesis isn't literal than none of the Bible is, and corrected you on your accusation of Genesis being arbitrarily "open to interpretation." You replied with saying either it's inspired or it's not; but I never said it's not inspired, did I? Literal =/= inspired.
Jesus didn't say he would return in his disciples lifetime; he was speaking of the judgment of Israel...
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 There you go again, interpreting the bible for me. Well, for your information, I have read it, and to paraphrase C.S. Lewis; Either everything that Jesus said was completely true, or completely false. Either he was the son of God sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins, or he was a madman.
You cannot base on your life on the writings in a book, asserting that those writings are good and perfect and divinely inspired, and at the same time know that it contains lies.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
I never said or implied Jesus was "completely false." You're straw-manning me again, "rationalizer." I said that Jesus was not speaking of his second coming when he told his disciples "this generation shall not pass..." He was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem (fulfilled in 70 AD).
"know that it contains lies"
It's not lying insomuch as it is not arguing in favor of a flat earth. We just see certain passing phrases that imply the authors believed in a flat earth.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 If you had ever actually read the bible, or watched this video, you would know that a divinely authored book would be perfect and incontestable. There would be no alternatives, no debates, and no atheists. Everyone who read it would know without question that God is real.
Given the extremely, incredibly, unfathomably primitive and idiotic nature of every single book in the bible, there can be no doubt that if God wrote it, he is a retard.
Now go away, you ridiculous ass.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
"you would know that a divinely authored book would be perfect"
It is, in its proper context (which is religious teachings/theology). It is not trying to be a science book (despite how much Creationists love to treat it so).
"There would be no debates"
That doesn't follow. There can always be people who disagree. Such as our Creationist friends I mentioned earlier. Following your reasoning, science is wrong since they debate it.
I guess you're done being made into a fool.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 You're missing the point here. This God of yours is supposedly all-knowing and all powerful. If he chose to right a book, every context would be the proper context, and everything in the book would be amazing and impossible for human minds to have created.
It would be readable in every language without translation, or even the need to learn how to read. Everything in it would be impossible to refute, and anyone who tried to make an alternative book would fail miserably.
TheSmackerlacker 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"Following your reasoning, science is wrong since they debate it."
No, because science doesn't claim to be inerrant nor divinely inspired.
You seem far more rational than the creationists here; I'm confused as to why you're still posting.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"No, because science doesn't claim to be inerrant nor divinely inspired."
Truth is truth whether it is scientific fact, logical fact, or divine revelation. The point is that just because some people debate truth (like the Creationists who refuse to believe that we know evolution is a fact) it doesn't mean that it is not no longer true. Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated. But that just doesn't follow.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
" Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated."
That's still mildly accurate. If the Bible were right about everything, it would be awfully difficult for anyone to refute it with the exception of small groups in denial. But what do we see? Further splintering of Christianity itself along with several other major religions.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@AgApE010 "Truth is truth whether it is scientific fact, logical fact, or divine revelation"
Since divine revelation has never been shown to be accurate how can it be "truth".
"Your buddy was trying to say that if the Bible is divine, it wouldn't be debated."
Actually he said that if any holy text was written by an omnipotent, omniscient being it would be obvious it was written by someone superhuman. Something no scientific study claims.
johnrainrules 1 week ago
@TheSmackerlacker
cont'd
...I already said snakes don't speak, and when the hell did I say the Earth is flat? Did the Bible writers believe in a flat earth? Probably. Most people in those days did. This has no bearing on its spiritual teaching anymore than Aristotle believing in Geocentrism affects his works on logic.
You see, you're not giving an argument, but only making a mess for me to clean up. THINK! You said you're a rationalizer, so rationalize!
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010 I cannot show pre-King James Christians who commented that the serpent was Lilith, but I can show a lot of Christian artwork that consistently shows this. I can also Rabbinical comments to this effect.
AronRa 1 week ago
@AronRa
But surely you understand that artwork doesn't necessarily correspond accurately to theology, right?
For instance, Michelangelo's depiction of God in the Sistine Chapel shows him as a muscular senior citizen with a long white beard. But this hardly communicates the Jewish/Christian concept of God (which believes him to be spirit).
So I think your argument here is poor. If you want to know what Christians thought about the serpent, it's best to just read what they wrote about it.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"But this hardly communicates the Jewish/Christian concept of God"
Then why was Michelangelo commissioned to paint just that? And why were the clergy at the time satisfied?
" If you want to know what Christians thought about the serpent, it's best to just read what they wrote about it."
And apparently they thought the serpent was Lilith according to the Talmud. It's just a matter of Occam's Razor. You're just offering a solution that goes against the grain because you're an apologist.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"why was Michelangelo..."
How do you expect to depict an immaterial being? He used anthropomorphism in his painting.
"And apparently they thought the serpent was Lilith according to the Talmud."
Christians didn't write the Talmud! Stop being stupid. Or at least try.
"solution that goes against the grain"
Not at all. I have 2000 years of Christian teachers backing me up. AronRa still hasn't presented any Christians teaching the serpent is Lilith; indeed, he admitted he can't.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"Christians didn't write the Talmud!"
But Jews did, and the Genesis fable existed long, long before Christianity. Or are you going to argue that Christianity did not splinter from Judaism?
" I have 2000 years of Christian teachers backing me up."
No you don't, and it's a little sad that you think this is a clear-cut matter.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"But Jews did"
That's not the point. I was talking about what Christians thought of the serpent and you said "they thought it was Lilith according to the Talmud." That was a fail. It's ok to admit it.
"No you don't"
Then show me one Christian commentator who taught that the serpent was Lilith.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"Then show me one Christian commentator who taught that the serpent was Lilith."
I'm running into an interesting problem. I can find over a dozen sources within 15 minutes that credit Lilith with being the serpent in Genesis, but none of them cite their own sources, although they do appear credible by themselves. I'll continue investigating.
Also, it's rather odd to assert that this part of Judaism magically reversed with the birth of Christianity.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"How do you expect to depict an immaterial being?"
I thought man was made in God's image? How can God be immaterial and man be man if this was true?
Again, why are you here? You're clearly not a creationist. Do you have a permanent rod up your ass?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"I thought man was made in God's image?"
The imago Dei doesn't have to do with physical resemblance. In the ancient Near East, kings were said to be made in the images of their gods; it was an indication of authority and ruler-ship. Hence the connection in Genesis when man is given authority over the earth and its creatures.
It's curious that you misunderstand so many things about God and yet call yourself an atheist. An atheist with regard to what?? Clearly not the Xian God.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"It's curious that you misunderstand so many things about God and yet call yourself an atheist. "
I do not call myself an atheist. That is a judgment based on uninformed speculation. I KNOW the Bible warns against those.
And who's actually misunderstanding God? Are you totally unaware of the perceptions of your fellow Christians? Are you ignorant of the thousands of denominations of Christianity, many of whom DO believe the things I listed?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"I do not call myself an atheist"
You're right. I don't recall you saying you're an atheist. It was a judgmental leap on my part. Apologies.
"Are you totally unaware of the perceptions of your fellow Christians?"
I don't know of any Christians that actually believe, as you do, that God has a physical body. Some may, I'm sure. But what does this have to do with your error?
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
"I don't know of any Christians that actually believe, as you do, that God has a physical body."
But that is NOT what I believe, as I clarified. That is merely what I've been told. Not by the church I grew up in, but by the vocal fundamentalists nearby.
It's not even that God has a physical body...I've literally been told that God appears similar to the Sistine Chapel ceiling even if he's not physical.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"But that is NOT what I believe"
BS dude. You argued against my comment about God not having a physical body. Damn, some of you guys can get so dishonest sometimes...
AgApE010 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AgApE010
"You argued against my comment about God not having a physical body. "
And AS I FUCKING CLARIFIED, that wasn't what I believed, but what I have been told. I was looking for consistency. Almost NONE of my "arguments" have been from my own beliefs. I said this already.
"some of you guys can get so dishonest sometimes..."
You are not in a position to make that accusation.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@AgApE010
Almost of my dialogue thus far addresses what creationists and other fundamentalist Christians assert, not what's accurate. I actually DO know a decent bit about the background and formation of the Bible.
So I found a few more sources, but again credibility is questionable. Still interesting.
tinyurl . com / 7rjsu7u
tinyurl . com / 88mob83
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
*Sigh* I guess it's my fault for not specifying that the source should be credible or at least provide a citation of the ancient Christian source. I took it for granted.
Of course you can go on the Internet and find any old website or book making claims about Lilith. I bet you can find something about the serpent being a UFO too. But ask yourself this: if you were writing a University paper, would your professor accept those sources? Use that as your judgment in your search.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
I already mentioned that their credibility is questionable. I would probably have to get a copy of that book and look in the back, and I'm not paying 8 bucks and buying a Kindle to maybe prove a point. However, the book DOES cite several Biblical passages as evidence. That counts as an ancient Christian source, does it not?
It's very difficult to find Christian writings outside the Bible after it was canonized, as the church attempted to destroy most of them.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
"It's very difficult to find Christian writings outside the Bible"
Nonsense. Go to newadvent . org and you'll find all sorts of early Christian writings you can read for free.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
That website scares the shit out of me. Is that really what people believe? Wow.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
Actually, I never looked on the homepage. I just go to the library where they have online copies of the writings of almost all the Church fathers.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
There is exactly one pre-King James writing in that library that I can see. That was what Aron was talking about and so was I. Why are there no writings in that library before 1302? And why is it the only one that's even THAT early?
TheZooCrew 1 week ago
@TheZooCrew
Dude, are you nuts? It has writings by Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Origen, Clement, Gregory... All these guys are long before the 1300s. When you go to the website click on the tab at the upper-right corner that says "Fathers." There you'll find virtually every Christian writing in ancient history.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AgApE010
I clicked on the "library" tab as per your directions.
The "fathers" tab means much more. Of course, how many of those are not consistent with the Bible? I should have clarified that this was my point...writings that were inconsistent with the Bible were destroyed.
TheZooCrew 1 week ago 5
@TheZooCrew
Tertuallian, Origen, Commodian, and some of the epistles labeled "spurious" contain some heretodoxy. And they weren't destroyed.
"writings that were inconsistent with the Bible were destroyed."
Is that why we have so many pseudopigraphal works and Gnostic texts? Don't revise history. I did your legwork for you by providing you a source. Now put up or quit bugging me.
AgApE010 1 week ago
@AronRa
not even that, but genesis said that the serpent was the 'subtlest of creatures the lord god put on earth' in so many words
GOD made the serpent
infernalone666 5 days ago
@infernalone666 God isnt real, just sayin :)
eArtrash 3 days ago
@eArtrash
don't worry about that. I *know* he isn't. i absolutely despise religion
that was more or less slamming christians trying to make excuses to disassociate their god with creating the thing that supposedly fucked up his plan
infernalone666 3 days ago
@infernalone666 ah ok, please excuse my failure to detect.
eArtrash 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AronRa
"does the Bible"
Revelation 12:9 certainly does. Also note that the serpent isn't interested in taking the fruit for himself. He has a vested interest in them taking it.
It parallels when Satan tried to get Jesus to jump off a ledge by omitting a vital line of a Psalm.
The coincidental parallels in behavior between the two aren't coincidences, but demonstrates cognizance by the Genesis writer of Satan, same as demonstrated of the Trinity in chapters 18 and 19.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124 Let's say that it's like you say it is and that the Christian Satan possessed the snake. How the hell is he going to make it talk? Is the possession itself going to make the snake grow some vocal chords? Is he going to change the structure of the snake's throat completely?
siamondTV 2 weeks ago
@highwind8124
> why would it be ridiculous to expect an all powerful God
ridiculous
> can create
ridiculous
> a mighty angel like Satan
ridiculous
> who could possess a snake?
ridiculous
rkyeun 1 week ago
Then he complains that (supposedly) the four accepted Gospels were taken as one mere arbitrary vote at one time.
Try actually reading the crap that got rejected to find out why Christians today aren't moaning about other texts they liked but weren't kept.
The historical value, the sheer level of verified details that give those four Gospels such early datings in comparison, make the supposed vote at Nicea meaningless.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
"To create the existence of the Trinity"
Which was already present in Genesis 18 and 19.
The Holy Spirit was God in the Old Testament. The Father was God in the Old Testament. The Messiah is God in the Old Testament. Remember Isaiah 9:6? Daniel 7:13-14?
Can we expect to see a note with the corrections?
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
"Christianity began with the gnostic faith, docetics, and ebionites..."
Translation: "I'll just chuck my credibility and supposed objectivity out the window now."
There it went, all for a cheap argument.
You seriously think those movements have their apocryphal texts dating to the first century, with any historical connection to Jesus' apostles? Paul was in fellowship with Peter and Jesus' very brother James. Read Galatians.
I would make corrections to this vid, little notes at least.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
AronRa falls in head deep to the documentary hypothesis where he gives this absurdly late date for the formulation of the document.
At this point, he may as well just quote Acharya S. and the Zeitgeist movie. It doesn't matter. None of this needs to be looked into.
Is he even aware that there isn't one shred of manuscript evidence for any of these supposed four original documents, all of which conveniently disappeared in a culture that would have preserved them as sacred scripture?
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
Then to claim that the Book of Mormon is on par in credibility with the Bible, that Joseph Smith is just as noble and honest as Paul, is absurd.
This was the same taunt, where the one holy God was compared with the plethora of unholy and immoral ones by Sennacherib.
This argument may phase a Christian unfamiliar with other religion's texts, but reading them actually shows an amazing contrast in quality.
Try reading the Apocrypha and watch quality level just drop, and wonder why.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
"It would inspire a unity of common belief for every reader."
Actually, no. This has got to be one of the most naive assumptions, because the assumption is that humans are not depraved, that they're not capable of lying, that they're not selfish, that they cannot hate the principle "love your neighbor as yourself".
Take one look around. Just turn on your television and notice the unbridled vanity and indifference, what consumes attention. Don't tell me humanity is objective/benevolent.
highwind8124 2 weeks ago
if the bible is undeniable evidence to god and i have read it then how could I be able to deny it? yet I do so i have to say only people that need to have something more and have a big hole in there life(why are we here?) need to think that there is more than what we are.
tainted705 2 weeks ago
Without trying to sound like a jerk, why hasn't the creator of this video admitted to the errors he makes? I said this months ago, there was never a "show of hands at nicea". If you read the historical records of nicea, there was NEVER any mention of the cannon. There were never any books "removed" from the NT either. There was close to 800 books that were rejected, but none removed at the council.
truthforchrist 2 weeks ago
@truthforchrist
This is indeed an error, but Aron's point still stands. Why were 800 books rejected, especially when several are referenced by the current books?
I've tried investigating the process of canonization, but it's disappointingly incomplete. The history of it appears to start with the Muratorian fragment, which is late 2nd century at the earliest. It's a little odd that there doesn't seem to be much of a record.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew The reason those 800 books were rejected is due to the fact that the first and second generation Christians didn't accept anything as "inspired" if it wasn't written by an Apostle, or by someone working under the supervision of an Apostle. You are correct that authors like Paul reference other books, and even Paul wrote letters that the Church didn't include into the NT (I have no idea why)
truthforchrist 2 weeks ago
@truthforchrist Are you saying there was never any vote on which books should be included or excluded? Some of those that made it in reference other books that were clearly thought to be part of that set. A human committee opting to exclude them effectively removes them from that set. It also proves that God was neither the author nor editor of that compilation.
AronRa 2 weeks ago 16
@AronRa I am absolutly saying there was never a vote. The entire idea that things were voted on at Nicea comes purely from the Divinci Code. Before that book/movie, no one ever said things were voted on. There are plenty of historical records from Nicea. None of those records even mention a cannon (meaning the cannon was not discussed).
I never even brought the concept of God being the author of anything, so I don't know why you said that :)
truthforchrist 2 weeks ago
@AronRa
Actually, no. No to many things you said. Firstly, Nicea had nothing to do with the Canon; it was one of the Carthaginian Councils that dealt with the Canon. Even then, the books that are generally refused are known forgeries, many of which are still available today (see "N.T. Apocrypha" by Schneemelcher).
Secondly, even if it was true that they voted on them (which they did not) it in no way follows logically that the books therefore are not "God-breathed," as the Greek term says.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010
" the books that are generally refused are known forgeries"
Then why are there still known forgeries IN THE BIBLE (e.g. last chapters of John)? Could it be that the church merely labeled the Apocrypha et al "forgeries" to appear consistent?
" it in no way follows logically that the books therefore are not "God-breathed,""
Well, yes it does...especially when you figure out that most of the Bible is flat-out wrong about almost everything.
TheZooCrew 2 weeks ago
@TheZooCrew
"last chapters of John"
Actually, it is the last chapter (singular) and even then it is debated. In any case, one chapter added to an otherwise legitimate book does not make for discrediting the entire book.
"to appear consistent?"
I'm not sure what you mean. But the reason they rejected some books was because Gnostics, Marcionites, etc were producing many pseudopigraphal works.
"Well,yes it does"
No, it does not follow that if a council voted that those books aren't inspired.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AronRa Actually Aron, tfc is partially correct from what I have found.Did man pick and choose books? Of course. But there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that it happened at the council of Nicaea. The 'cannon' that was decided on at Nicaea was not the cannon of books. Your point still stands of course, but I know how much accuracy matters to You, so thought I might add my two cents. Peace.
CATMAHAT 2 weeks ago
@truthforchrist While its true that the canon came together, more or less, by popular demand and not by a vote, per se, the decision to, first, canonize a bible and, second, how to select what would become canon, was made by man.
AgeOfScience 2 weeks ago
@AgeOfScience Of coarse those decisions were man made :) I dont think anyone says otherwise.
It's just annoying that people, for some reason, believe the Divinci Code to be some sort of historical documentary. There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding Nicea, when in reality, not much happened at Nicea (a few ideas were labeled as heresies, a creed was established). To be fair, I have watched Aron Ra's series about creationism more than once, and I did enjoy it.
truthforchrist 2 weeks ago
AronRa , you have some spanish speakers relatives? Because the spanish subtitles are perfect !!! Im from Uruguay , saludos !!!
EdyMar77 3 weeks ago
On the Krishna thing, jeez, what did Buddha ever do to him ?
Jaybird196 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My Imaginary god, AronRa.
That unabashed brain rape is hurting the creationists so badly that after all of that, even I can't feel the lower half of my scrotum.
Laitharex 1 month ago
Comment removed
Laitharex 1 month ago
@AronRa where did you get the bit about the first five books of the bible being compilations?
MoralRapist 1 month ago
It's kinda hard to hear the audio, because it's drowned out by the incredibly loud ass-slapping that theists get in this video. CHEERS!
SubconsciousGatherer 1 month ago
I love that "The Life of Brian" clips were used.. Reminds me of Brian's speech.
BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN: Exactly!
FOLLOWERS: Tell us more!
NoGirlsOnTheInternet 1 month ago 7
AronRa i really enjoy your videos good job
HDBeliever 1 month ago
Why aren't smart people like this and their ideas predominate? Why are the stupid, gullible people the norm? I just don't get it. It's obvious, painfully to some, that religion is a false belief system that men use to rule other men. It's lame social dominance bullshit and everyone really knows this. Some just won't admit it and that's the part that puzzles me. Are religious people just that dogmatic? Why? Is it fear? Well, there's no-one under the bed and we all know this. It's childishness.
agroundhere 1 month ago
@agroundhere
"Why are the stupid, gullible people the norm? I just don't get it."
Reality is hard.
Mythology is easy.
Case closed.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
As demonstrated near the end of this video, creationsists--especially fundamentalist Christians, have little tolerance for facts or reality, and will always choose the path of least intelligence.
licensedtolive 1 month ago 23
@metaalan18801 Nope....it's not..just men....no god
Krooksbane 1 month ago
That pretty much sums up the literary religious bullshit.
TheCrimsonification 1 month ago
If God wrote the Bible, it wouldn't start "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth", but "In the beginning, I created heaven and earth"
vytah 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@metaalan18801
So God thinks pi is three and leprosy can be cured with dead birds?
Some God.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@metaalan18801
The Fantastic Four™ was written by the hand of Marvel but it is all still the inspired word of Stan Lee
sonykroket 1 month ago
@metaalan18801 No
TehDeminz 1 month ago
"Muslims killing everyone else" - Chuckled.
TheAsymmetrical 2 months ago
when scientist find the cure of all disease, and end world hunger, i'll start to belive everything they say
albusai 2 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@albusai
Science has saved more lives that you can possibly imagine.
Religion has done little more than kill millions.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew made people inmortal? you mean cure cancer and that people won't die anymore?
albusai 2 months ago
@albusai
How bout the thing your typing on?
I dont think science needs you to "believe them"
If you doubt everything science does, throw your computer out the window and stop going to the hospital.
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket typing and cure of all disease? mmm you must be a scientist, that sees a monkey and think that we come from them
albusai 2 months ago
@albusai
With every comment you demonstrate you have the IQ of a goldfish
sonykroket 2 months ago 4
@sonykroket you are so smart,, you gonna created a new world and make it a forever happy place, no more wars, hnger and disease,,, man you have all the awsers,, dam!! i'm you are God !!!!
albusai 2 months ago
@albusai
You sound like that ugly skank from the Excorcist.
Can you do a 360 with yer ole head and post a clip of it on Youtube?
That would be awesomesauce!
sonykroket 2 months ago
@sonykroket i could go to your house and spin yours
albusai 2 months ago
@albusai
Ha fuckin ha, dumbass, Real sharp there ace, how many fuckspanks like you did it take to come up with that gem.
The same amount clowns like you need to put in a lightbulb? Must run in the 1000s then, i assume
sonykroket 2 months ago
@albusai Hahaha, is that what your god tells you is the proper thing to do!? Lol stupid hypocrite.
delfartel 1 month ago
@delfartel should i listen to a moron like you who is aboout to die and can't do a thing about it,, you going to set the morals rules?
albusai 1 month ago
@albusai how on earth does that make sense at all? You are equating the fact that we dont have a cure for lets say Parkinson's Disease with the scientific discoveries of DNA or Mars. You've convulted emotion into objectivity. And you have also demonstrated ignorance because you dont beleive in it based on outside facters such as world hunger you believe based on evidence, and peer reviewed hypothesis and proof. Your post made no sense
moroney1 1 month ago
@moroney1 look man ,, you think you are a accident, so don't worry go on , living , you gonna die soon,, hope not to soon,,, maybe you'll see that man, will not have the answer, and behind everything their is a intelligent designer,
albusai 1 month ago
@albusai Your original point make no sense. Maybe we are accidents, just because that is unsettlig doesnt mean it is untrue. And if you look at the collapsing stars and failing galaxcies and black holes, or our own petty solar system which lets life occur on only one planet some of the time on some of its surface where 99.9% of life has become extinct it is obvious there was no intelligence behind that. That may scare you, however just becase religion is comforting does not mean its true
moroney1 1 month ago
@albusai
"you think you are a accident, so don't worry go on , living , you gonna die soon"
This is part of the world's biggest problem...a giant contingent of ignorant bigots still thinks that where a person comes from is more important than where they go.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@albusai "when scientist find the cure of all disease, and end world hunger, i'll start to belive everything they say"
What an ignorant comment. I guess doubling the life expectancy and the world population in the last 100 years don't count. Or the literally hundreds of diseases that were a sure death sentence a mere 100 years ago but are now just a slight nuisance. Did u know that, from prehistory up until 200 years ago, the main cause of female death was child birth?
danoso0931 1 month ago
@danoso0931 people used to live alot longer and were healthier, in bible time way longer, but since you don't belive in the bible,, go enjoy the very little time you have left
albusai 1 month ago
@albusai lol, i dont know if u are trolling or just plain stupid, but did u know that in the "bible time" the way of living was entirely different at was it right now, there was not fast food, nor any chemical wars,etc, is clear that the life was at certain point "healthier", since the life style was much more simple, but also keep in mind that even if the life at that time was "healthier", the life span was much more shorter that is now
Anemite 1 month ago
@albusai
"people used to live alot longer and were healthier"
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, wait...you were serious.
Go back to school,, dumbass.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
@TheZooCrew your mouth explains, your arrogant mind,, yet i bet you talk like that cause you are not facing me,,, you would see many skeletons found over India,, and the way scients use to determine years of age , that bones,, rocks and other have is not acured,, and has many flaws, is like looking at a burning candle that is 7 inches long,, how long has it been burniing for, if you know it burns at 1 inch an hour
albusai 1 month ago
@albusai
" i bet you talk like that cause you are not facing me"
You would lose that bet.
Try learning English.
TheZooCrew 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@albusai "nd the way scients use to determine years of age , that bones,, rocks and other have is not acured"
It is accurate, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the age someone was when they died, not how long ago they died. We can look at a skeleton and confidently say: this was a woman who was around 35 years old when she died. This is actually easy. And your candle? I would measure how much wax there is at the base of the candle, then I know how long it's been burning
danoso0931 1 month ago
@albusai "people used to live alot longer and were healthier, in bible time way longer"
Skeletons from 2000 to 5000 years ago beg to differ, as they all seem to have lived regular human lives (well, shorter than today's, anyway). Oh, you didn't know we can know the age of death of a once-living organism by looking at its skeleton? Or that humanity right now is the at the tallest it's been in history? Wonder where all those Goliath skeletons went...
danoso0931 1 month ago
People love to think that THEY are right,and if someone has an opinion even a bit different,then they will rush to kill each other.
The sad truth-humans love to have enemies-it nearly gives them a reason to be alive.
Humans invent their ideas to keep a form of cultural order and explain many things which are either painful or sad or happy or joyful.
The books humans read today were written by humans alone...The thing is,they LOVE to believe that it came from something BIGGER.
Humans Love bigger.
Wharwulif 2 months ago in playlist Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
@AronRa Well, I do not demand the death penalty. I would imagine though it is that the difference between positive vs negative rights. Basically, a positive right is the right to do something, while a negative right is the right to not have something done. In general, negative rights are more important than positive. So in the case of abortion, doing "nothing" should be more important than having the ability to have an abortion. Likewise with murder, the right to not be killed is stronger.
bluefootedpig 2 months ago
@bluefootedpig
"So in the case of abortion, doing "nothing" should be more important than having the ability to have an abortion"
I see you haven't bothered to read anything I've said or any of the articles I've posted. You want to force your religious beliefs onto others for no reason.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew I have, and this has nothing to do with religion. When did i ever say anything about religion? I love how the default argument is I am trying to shove religion down peoples throats? Do I claim you are trying to push your liberal agenda on me? Look up the violinists thought experiment. We have two sets of rights, the right to do something and the right to not have something done to us. The right to have nothing done has ALWAYS outweighed the right to do something. Except abortion.
bluefootedpig 2 months ago
@bluefootedpig
"I love how the default argument is I am trying to shove religion down peoples throats?"
This is because there's no other reason to believe life starts at conception.
"The right to have nothing done has ALWAYS outweighed the right to do something. Except abortion."
This is a blatant lie. Free speech, for one. In fact, the entire First Amendment contradicts this.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
@TheZooCrew Free speech for one? can i yell "fire" at any point? What about swearing on the radio? FCC forbids it. What about free speech zones?
What about the argument that people want freedom from religion when the first amendment says freedom of expression?
And the only reason? so the logic that A => B => C therefore A => C is not logical? I believe that was sophomore math that I learned how logic is applied.
If you protect bald eagles, do you protect their eggs as well?
bluefootedpig 2 months ago
@bluefootedpig
"What about free speech zones?"
But you still have free speech nonetheless, and the First Amendment guarantees this even if it's slightly regulated.
Same with abortion...states are allowed to restrict or ban post-first trimester abortions. Do you not understand this?
Your argument about eagles is inherently fallacious because you're taking an anthropocentric issue and attempting to equate it to protection of endangered species.
TheZooCrew 2 months ago
..and that the weasel is a reptile. yes. the bible also says that.
Aldelirium 2 months ago
I fucking love you!
RaulWalrus 2 months ago
@bluefootedpig
Whole books were removed; those verses were merely a few that reference the removed books. Learn how to read.
Nobody thinks abortion is a "good thing," you asshat. Pro-choice people like myself merely assert that it is a necessary evil that protects the rights of citizens more than the alternative, i.e. lesser of two evils. Way to not understand anything.
TheZooCrew 3 months ago