If the Bible was proof of god, we would KNOW of his existence and no Longer "believe" in him... That is not faith.. Genuine Faith is believing in GOD without definitive evidence of his existence.. but no, my fellow Christians clench to their bibles, and are misguided by self interest..
What you're facing is the assertion that the Bible is a collection of mythical stories and not factual, historical, let alone divine. You have to present acceptable evidence outside the Bible. It's like if they proved to you that Scientology's beliefs are true because it says so in L. Ron Hubbard's book.
If you are truly unbiased you can look at the evidence and see the truth. People should not be concerned with sources that have been proved false. The bible has not been proved false. those who accuse the bible of fallacy have to bring actual evidence. Not their own beliefs.
@MrMcNeech204 "proved"> says a lot about your level of intelligence, or lack thereof... but specifically just as the bible has not been "proven" false, it has NOT been "proven" to be true.. So you are in the same position as those that "accuse bible of fallacy" ... And dont say.. " well the bible is the word of God" because it says so in the bible.. how convenient to use that as your "Truth".. you see what many christians fail to realize is that the bible Cannot be "proof" that go exists
@MrMcNeech204 "proved"> says a lot about your level of intelligence, or lack thereof... but specifically just as the bible has not been "proven" false, it has NOT been "proven" to be true.. So you are in the same position as those that "accuse bible of fallacy" ... And dont say.. " well the bible is the word of God" because it says so in the bible.. how convenient to use that as your "Truth".. you see what many christians fail to realize is that the bible Cannot be "proof" that go exists
christianity was created to start a revolt against the roman empire, thats why there was an emphasis on martyrdom; people would be prepared to die in order to fight the romans
For all those people who believe that the info in zeitgeist is unsupported by facts, I urge you to visit the official youtube "Zeitgeist Movie" channel. Not only do they have a 2010 release of zeitgeist but they also include in the description a link for a free downloadable pdf that is a complete source book. It covers all 3 parts of the first zeitgeist movie. If you really care about the sources and facts of where zeitgeist has got their information from, download the pdf and see for yourself.
I mean there really is NO hope for America. 60million of its 'Christians' have been usurped by Zionist Jews who have convinced them that the Jews are the Chosen Ones.
And these idiots believe it full heartedly. America is plastered with Zionist Cults who claim to be Christians.
America is a dead man walking and will break up soon enough.
at the end of it(about the religion) is typical freemason/masonic argument...be aware! the makers of zeitgeist ,they also programming the viewers...do the search!!....
typical masonic argumentation to weaken the religion..
if you are an atheist , you are a succes product of NWO....check it do research.
Honestly.. 1/2 of me truly believes America need to fall apart because its populated by clueless reactionary dumbass's that are WAY past any sort of educational help.
This new Tea Party, Labour Movement seems to have the right idea. But i have ZERO faith in Americans these days.
it breaks my heart everyday to think that people like this exist...if there is any real care in your voice, show it in actions not words on the internet. Living a real and honest life will show you the truth beyond man's ignorant need for dominance and placating religion.
We will use the very book that crafts the dogma, which keeps us a prisoner of our mind , in an attempt to overthrow the truth. When one lives within a physical realm, believing that their existence is controlled by another entity, they become a victim of their own misery.
Not true. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and so was John. They both knew Jesus. This is not to mention the those that wrote the 39 books of the old testament, which was years before Jesus was even born
Matthew did not write the book of Matthew. If you would like the evidence, I'll be happy to message you. This is common knowledge among academic authorities.
Actually, no books in the new testament have been found to be written by the books' names, John included, except for the apostle Paul. Paul did write Thessalonians, Phillipians, and possibly edited Ephesians. Other than that, the rest has been found to be either unknown or different authors.
John 21:24-25: 24- This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25-And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
This is the disciple John speaking. Other times throught the book, John refers to himself in 3rd person
Right, that is what the Bible says. Unfortunately, the first epistle of John, along with the second and third, were not written by John the Evangelist. The first epistle of John was written to counter the heresy that Jesus was not in flesh, only in spirit, hence the first person writing. This is well known and had been established for some time now.
The Gospel included. It was written anonymously, and the author is not connected to the historical Jesus. It was traditionally believed it was written by John the Evangelist, according to the church fathers, and they claimed he was the apostle John.
Do u have any sources, I'd really like to look into this claim. I'm not saying u are wrong but to my knowledge the Bible is clear on this that it was the disciple John that wrote the gospel of John.
I cannot understand people who lie blatantly with no qualms on a matter as important as this. Are u really that desperate to deceive yourself and others?
My reply was meant to point people in the right direction, to let people know that there is a differing stance on the matter. I deemed that necessary as the manner in which you delivered your statements is such that the uninitiated may really be led to believe that they are true. This is hardly a conducive place to launch a full-fledged discussion on this subject; get real.
I don't know if you are already an avowed atheist, but I'm guessing that is so. If so, you really are acting inconsistently with your worldview. There is no such thing as truth in an atheistic worldview. In fact, you CAN'T HELP saying the things you do. Getting on with your own life with the sole purpose of DNA propagation being under the illusion that it's meaningful and leaving others to theirs should be more apt in your worldview; follow through with the logical outworkings of atheism.
You seem to place great emphasis on semantics. You don't know me, and atheism has nothing to do with my original assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever that refutes the modern, scholarly view that most of the Bible's authors are unknown. That's reality. What I "CAN'T HELP" is taking a blind leap of faith based on a book which contains nothing more than parables and assertions written by unknown men. I suggest you live your life to the fullest, friend, because life is wasted otherwise.
Nowhere in my reply is there any indication of me thinking that I know you, and that atheism has something to do with your disregard of the Bible. Read this again: "I don't know if...guessing that is so." Using the words 'modern' and 'scholarly' in no way helps your cause at all. You are just choosing to side with one school of thought, and the way you worded this statement is duplicitous and disingenuous, as if that view is unanimously accepted across all of scholarship.
I'm not siding with "one school of thought". I am siding with reality. As well, there are many schools of thought on the bible, but believing in afterlife, etc is not thought based on reality, it is thought based on faith. It creates an illusion that comforts people. As far as the bible authors, if you want to label it as disingenuous to make reasonable observations on what the bible is, based on centuries of its study, then I suppose I'll go with "disingenuous". (Even though it isn't.)
Come on, do you really think that comfort is the sole reason why people believe in God and the afterlife? To caricature and then to knock down gleefully, is deplorable. Suffice it to say that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the fence, and common sense will tell you that such do not believe in something founded on lies. And no, you're not siding with reality. Either you're willfully or genuinely ignorant about the issue of the Bible's authenticity. I suspect it's e former.
I precisely believe that comfort is largely the driving motive to accept the notion of an afterlife, no caricature intended. As well, it does not have anything to do with intelligence, as you have stated. It has to do with evidence and skepticism. Intelligent people need comfort as well. You may repeat "ignorant" and "deplorable" over and over, but that does not change the evidence and study of the Bible.
You're committed e genetic fallacy: just because you may have shown how a belief originated, thereby you have somehow proven it to be false. Don't flatter yourself: if you have e capability to discern such a motive, you can bet most theists do as well. Belief in God does provide comfort, but comfort's not e reason why a sensible theist would believe in God. And i too precisely mean that: if you're willfully ignorant about e Bible's authenticity and deliberately mislead others, you're deplorable.
That's where you are incorrect. I am not asserting Christian beliefs are wrong. I am asserting that I am a skeptic, but above all, respect science and history far above any faith to inform me about what reality is. Also, when I say "comfort", I am not referring to god. I am referring to the notion of an afterlife. Society routinely sidesteps thoughts of dying, because it is some peoples' greatest fear. I know the Bible is authentic: an authentic historical document written by men.
If all you concern yourself with are the hard sciences, history etc., then you don't have an integrated reality. For one, the big bang is a supernatural event. Logical & mathematical truths (science presupposes them), metaphysical truths (there are other minds other than my own), ethical beliefs about statements of value, aesthetic judgements (because e beautiful like e good cannot be scientifically proven) are all unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview.
The big bang isn't an event. Its a theory based on the observation of an expanding universe. It's not supernatural, either. Beautiful and good are opinions, so comparing that to forming a theory based on evidence is like comparing apples and oranges. And everything is "natural", btw.
How is it not an event if it really did happen according to modern cosmology? How does showing the way the big bang theory came about tell you that it's not an event? How is it not supernatural when it brought all the natural universe-matter, space and time-into existence from nothing? Bro, understand my reply properly please. I did not compare opinions to e scientific method, I did say that e scientific method cannot account for beauty and goodness which all rational people admit exist.
Because its a theory. The words "scientific proof" are only used by people who don't understand science. The "something from nothing" argument is used routinely by creationists, and is shot down routinely, yet repetition of this statement is very telling. We simply don't know what caused the big bang if there was a big bang. But that's why I respect science. Because the growing body of knowledge will tell. Somehow, you equate this with "something from nothing". Scientists never assert that.
This is hardly an avenue to argue with scientific rigor. By default, it's laymen talk. So again, enough of your pedantic corrections. I used the phrase "big bang" only in the sense that it's the current prevailing view of scientists on how the universe got started. We don't know what caused the big bang, but we do know that the cause of the big bang is supernatural, in that it's not part of matter, space and time, and that was my point all along.
I will correct you when you misrepresent scientific view. We don't know the cause of the Big Bang was "supernatural". There is absolutely no evidence that points to this. So I will correct again and state to you that you are again misrepresenting science. First, you assert scientists claim "something from nothing". Now you're asserting they claim "supernatural". You simply are changing misrepresentations to fit your faith.
You're just nit-picking over a minor case of non-precise language, that btw is not misplace in a setting like this. My dear friend, please engage your logical faculties properly. Supernatural just means: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Noone disputes e fact that the cause of the universe cannot be part of the universe. Therefore it's outside the natural world and therefore supernatural. Follow?
And no it's not shot down routinely, if what u mean by shot down are feeble attempts to obfuscate things to dodge the question. You respect science? That's news. Because you disrespect it by according to it powers that it doesn't have: namely, the power to explain something that isn't natural, something that exists apart from matter, space, time, which the cause of the universe must be for it to be e cause.
"namely, the power to explain something that isn't natural"
Right, the supernatural. That's not science, but that's what creationism tries to do: make the supernatural science.
So again, the "something from nothing" presupposition that creationists always use to describe the scientific view is invalid. Science does not claim "something from nothing". Science waits for evidence, then forms hypotheses, then forms theories. Science does not claim to know everything and have all the answers.
Get your facts right. Creationism doesn't try to make e supernatural science. It does however recognize the limitations of science. 1. Science only deals with what is natural, namely, the physical universe. 2. The universe began. 3. The cause of the universe cannot be composed of anything the universe is. 4. Science is therefore non-applicable to that cause.
And I would like to add to your true statement: The Bible is an authentic historically accurate document written by men superintended by the Holy Ghost. Just the bizarre mathematical properties inherent in parts of the text alone-not to mention fulfilled prophecy and others-is compelling evidence of a supernatural fingerprint; go look up Chuck Missler. Err, if there's a God, in e Christian sense, then an afterlife is a given, isn't it?
The bible is not historically accurate. The bible is a piece of history itself. Noah's boat ride does not fit in with evidence. And that's not a conspiracy "hoax" like you asserted with fossil records. Also, any mathematics of the bible that one sees is not evidence for God.
Noah's ark does indeed fit with e evidence. Again, i won't go into e details here as my statements are only meant to spur people to do their own research. Modern archaeological discoveries have confirmed many of the biblical accounts. Even the star of bethlehem has been conclusively proven to be a real celestial, historical event. And as for the mathematical properties of the bible, for a start, you don't even know what they are yet,
For thenoah story can you please explain how it's possible to flood the world in only 40 day's with so much water that the highest mountain is also under water, how some cold animals like polar bears would survice, how slow animals would get to the ark. and final what the flesh eating animals will eat after everybody went off the boat.
I have more questions, but maby this can make me understand more. thx
Stating a lie boldly and assertively in no way makes it true. Thanks for your suggestion of living life to the fullest that borrows from the Judeo-Christian worldview, and to demonstrate my gratitude tangibly, let me repeat my advice: follow through with the logical outworkings of atheism in your own life; realize that a full life and a wasted life are both equally meaningless if you're an atheist.
What are you referring to as a "lie"? That nearly all of the Bible's authors are unknown? If so, then apparently nearly all of the academic authorities on the subject are lying. I believe I'll go with the bible scholars. But onto your statement about a living: everything dies. Everyone in your life will die, just as with everyone else. So indeed, it actually does matter to live a full life, and to treat people with compassion, not righteousness. "Afterlife" is leap of faith I do not have, yes.
You're not going with scholarship and rational judgement; I suspect that you're going with your emotional attachment to atheism, that predisposes you to accept certain branches of scholarship, and that also gives gives you justification to deliberately misrepresent the matter with no qualms. Thanks for telling me e obvious that everyone dies, but sorry dude, that fact in no way logically tells you that living a full life does matter and that people should be treated compassionately.
I don't need an emotional attachment to atheism. I don't even have to call it atheism, because evidence and reality are all I need. You are now throwing around words like "misrepresent", yet bring nothing to the table to illustrate how. I'm highly skeptical of your assertions.
In my earlier reply I've already stated that this is hardly e place to engage in a well-reasoned and detailed discussion about e Bible's authenticity. When I use words like "misrepresent", my intention is to bring to people's awareness that another perspective on e matter exists, as the way in which you delivered your statements (as though they were universally and unanimously accepted by all scholarship) about e Bible was disingenuous, which may cause e uninitiated to be deceived.
I did not state "all scholarship" about the bible states the authors are unknown. But the vast majority do, and I have read and studied it myself. If you have credible sources that state otherwise, I would be happy to take a look, because I haven't found any. So I challenge you to present me this, and not anything faith based. I would like to see hard evidence from the realm of history or anthropology.
Well, that's precisely my point: even if you did not mean that, the way in which you worded that statement gives the impression that the matter is settled, and that's e final truth. And that's dishonest. I doubt that have really done your homework judging by the position you have arrived at. Since you're the one making a positive claim, why not back your claim up first? And I don't remember giving anything faith-based in any of my replies.
Well, that's provided your evidence is really evidence, and that's precisely the issue at hand. And quit trying to portray atheists as rational and theists as crackpots and wishful thinkers. We all have e same evidence and reality, the difference is in the interpretation of them. And that's provided e evidence isn't skewed, which is what you atheists and evolutionists have a penchant of doing, the illustrious history of fossil hoaxes serving as one example of that.
Here some the semantics again. "crackpots and wishful thinkers" are words you have chosen to define my argument, and I am again skeptical of your motives here because of that redefining of my argument. Just because I choose to evolve my opinions based on evidence, not faith, doesn't mean I imply or call those who do "crackpots". I disagree with your assertion that we all merely interpret reality and evidence differently. We all also acknowledge or ignore reality as well.
My goodness. It's merely giving a label to theists from your perspective. Let me show you how i arrived at those words by inference: isn't someone who believes in an afterlife for comfort contrary to "evidence" a wishful thinker and didn't you express that alot of theists fall into that category? You keep saying that you are on the side of evidence and reality, so isn't it logical to conclude that those who disagree with you from your perspective aren't?
Someone who ditches evidence and reality and goes after falsities and fantasy is somewhat a crackpot right? How have i redefined your argument? We live in e same world with e same physical laws, same scientific facts, same history. So if our views on reality differ, it's either due to different interpretations, genuine/willful ignorance, compartmentalization, or skewed evidence.
"Someone who ditches evidence and reality and goes after falsities and fantasy is somewhat a crackpot right?"
Not if they see this detachment from reality for what it is, an escape. When they begin to perceive the escape as reality, then call it what you will, but don't put words in my mouth, please.
If we both look at a tree, and you say its beautiful and I say its ugly,those are opinion. But if one can't even acknowledge the tree is there, that's delusion.
Now don't you get technical on me, you do know what i mean when i use that word. And my drift was basically that such people-theists-from your perspective are irrational. 'Crackpot' expresses that to sufficiently good effect. Please don't spout baseless statements: I've never put words in your mouth. Ya and i know those are opinions. But both of us both agree that beauty exists for us to state opinions of such a nature. But science cannot explain beauty, that was my point.
An atheist who does live that way is really just pretentious. And u've yet to address any of my statements about e logical outworkings of atheism in e slightest bit. "Afterlife" is only a leap of faith provided atheism were true, but not otherwise.
I know you'd probably prefer to stay to your ignorance, but I'm going to recommend a sight to you, on the off chance you want to open your eyes. skepticsannotatedbible[dot]com click on the button on the side that says 'Contradictions'
LOL stay in my ignorance?? LOL I have already read through that entire website LOL. I will admit it's AMAZING how they perverted what it really says lol. First off if you read the entire chapter or thought about it you would see it's not a contradiction you can take ANY of those so called "bad things or contradictions" on the side and type it in google for a real explanation instead of being brainwashed by an idiot who just skimmed threw the bible.
You don't understand, those contradictions are a lie type in ANY of those contradictions(so called contradictions) on youtube and you will see what it really means it makes perfect sense it is supposed to be like that. I use King James Version I don't use modern translations.
Good job adding ... why do you lie about the bible to try to get people to believe what you believe while pretending your defending my freedom. The only freedom your defending is the right to go to hell.
Samuel says The Tachmonite Chief Captain and Adino the Eznite who slew 800 by the spear.
Chronicles says Chief Captain Jashobeam the Hachmonite who slew 300 by the spear.
I don't know what contradiction your talking about liar.
I'm done dealing with your shit. Have fun wasting your life with your foolish religion and telling me I'll go to hell because I don't believe the same as you do.
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.--2 Chronicles 15:13
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.
This is what you are. You do not care what the bible says when you find out your wrong you get angry and cry out lies against God you are full of hate. You are a fool. It's not a judgement it's a criteria. You fit the criteria. You can tell God he is not loving after you die, actually you won't be able to because you will go strait to hell. God bless I pray you find salvation.
LoL sorry but instead of using google to tell me what to believe I read the bible myself. All of those contradictions are made up illusions. Why don't you go on google find one contradiction and post it here if there is so many then...
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
I am busy and I have to go to work right now but when I get back I will gladly explain to you how you have no idea what your talking about and why you should read the bible yourself instead of letting other people read it for you.
GE 2:7, 19 = Says God formed the birds for the garden of Eden
In Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 It says God created birds before man?
I don't understand what is the contradiction here? It's a contradiction because a random website on google told you it was?
It actually is quite sad because if they would just type in the 2 verses which they believe are contradictory a million websites would pop up laughing about how people actually think it's a contradiction and shows how it could not even be percieved as a contradiction if you would just read a few pages of the actual document.
GE 2:7, 19 says God BROUGHT the animals he created AFTER he created them to man? What is the contradiction? Admit this is not a contradiction and apologize for posting a lie on youtube and I will also show you why all the other ones are not contradictions when I get home in a few hours.
God created some animals infront of Adam to show him that he made everything, Eve didn't see that, and she was decieved by Satan. You are not understanding what is being said at all.
In genesis, I don't have my bible with me right now, it's very clear. God simply did it to show Adam that HE was the one who created everything. Satan couldn't decieve Adam but decieved Eve because she didn't see God create anything. Read the bible, it makes a lot of sense. You've been lied to and taught it's a book of myths. If you would read the book and see all the amazing things, including scientific knowledge well before the time, you would realize how real the bible is.
How come you assumed that I don't read the Bible? I believe it and study it daily. But I have never found anywhere in Genesis that says that God made animals in front of Adam. Man and woman were the last things that God created.
However. If you want to type bible inconsitencies into google and click the first link you'll get the passages that the inconsistencies are interpretted from.
i believe the Bible is 100% true but why argue and debate over it? if God wants to reveal the truth to people, as He did to me, He will.
faithalonemormon 1 month ago
Fail. Bible is true because it says its true. Fail. Circular Reasoning again.
halolIlmao0 2 months ago
If the Bible was proof of god, we would KNOW of his existence and no Longer "believe" in him... That is not faith.. Genuine Faith is believing in GOD without definitive evidence of his existence.. but no, my fellow Christians clench to their bibles, and are misguided by self interest..
SYKE771 3 months ago
What you're facing is the assertion that the Bible is a collection of mythical stories and not factual, historical, let alone divine. You have to present acceptable evidence outside the Bible. It's like if they proved to you that Scientology's beliefs are true because it says so in L. Ron Hubbard's book.
itorres008 6 months ago
If you are truly unbiased you can look at the evidence and see the truth. People should not be concerned with sources that have been proved false. The bible has not been proved false. those who accuse the bible of fallacy have to bring actual evidence. Not their own beliefs.
MrMcNeech204 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMcNeech204 But the bible has not been proven to be true too. If you are truly unbiased you can look at the evidence and see the truth.
cdcuv 8 months ago
@MrMcNeech204 "proved"> says a lot about your level of intelligence, or lack thereof... but specifically just as the bible has not been "proven" false, it has NOT been "proven" to be true.. So you are in the same position as those that "accuse bible of fallacy" ... And dont say.. " well the bible is the word of God" because it says so in the bible.. how convenient to use that as your "Truth".. you see what many christians fail to realize is that the bible Cannot be "proof" that go exists
SYKE771 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMcNeech204 "proved"> says a lot about your level of intelligence, or lack thereof... but specifically just as the bible has not been "proven" false, it has NOT been "proven" to be true.. So you are in the same position as those that "accuse bible of fallacy" ... And dont say.. " well the bible is the word of God" because it says so in the bible.. how convenient to use that as your "Truth".. you see what many christians fail to realize is that the bible Cannot be "proof" that go exists
SYKE771 3 months ago
Christianity was created by Jesus so me may have a chance at everlasting life.
MrMcNeech204 8 months ago
christianity was created to start a revolt against the roman empire, thats why there was an emphasis on martyrdom; people would be prepared to die in order to fight the romans
MamaMario13 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For all those people who believe that the info in zeitgeist is unsupported by facts, I urge you to visit the official youtube "Zeitgeist Movie" channel. Not only do they have a 2010 release of zeitgeist but they also include in the description a link for a free downloadable pdf that is a complete source book. It covers all 3 parts of the first zeitgeist movie. If you really care about the sources and facts of where zeitgeist has got their information from, download the pdf and see for yourself.
yllierutube 1 year ago 4
...... How can you use Religion.. to prove Religion? Lack of Freedom Causes Arrogance.
SoulsOfThePure 1 year ago
You are just an ignorant and narrow minded person. Why the hell you should use religion as the way out, when religion is a man made thing!!!
If there is a god, then he/she would have a SICK sense of humour by letting the human race beat each other to death.
If you have kids you would not allow the one kill the other, YOU WOULD FISICALY intervene and set them apart.
I am not commenting any more because I am already annoyed of your lack of knowledge.
PerivaleBuses 1 year ago
These interpretations can work in whatever you make up.
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
this guy relies way too much on biblical references which does support his case if your going to disprove zeitgeist do not use the bible
kenroy916 1 year ago
I mean there really is NO hope for America. 60million of its 'Christians' have been usurped by Zionist Jews who have convinced them that the Jews are the Chosen Ones.
And these idiots believe it full heartedly. America is plastered with Zionist Cults who claim to be Christians.
America is a dead man walking and will break up soon enough.
nfusionthemes 2 years ago
zeitgeist is a half true documentation film.
at the end of it(about the religion) is typical freemason/masonic argument...be aware! the makers of zeitgeist ,they also programming the viewers...do the search!!....
typical masonic argumentation to weaken the religion..
if you are an atheist , you are a succes product of NWO....check it do research.
satria4cinta 2 years ago
Yeah and this video is half true as well.
The Nazi's were fundamentalist Christians fighting the NWO.
Infact, American AND Britian both ended up fighting against the same Nazi enemy after WWII.
This video presents the 'Evil Nazi's' as the source of everything 'NWO'
nfusionthemes 2 years ago
Oh please. They were farmers and workers fighting against the international zionist banking mafia.
The SAME thing you fight right now. Only you call it the 'NWO' because you're too cowardly to call a spade, a spade in fear of social persecution.
nfusionthemes 2 years ago
Honestly.. 1/2 of me truly believes America need to fall apart because its populated by clueless reactionary dumbass's that are WAY past any sort of educational help.
This new Tea Party, Labour Movement seems to have the right idea. But i have ZERO faith in Americans these days.
Fat. Stupid. Lazy. Afraid. Cowardly. Gullible. Naive. Brainwashed.
nfusionthemes 2 years ago
it breaks my heart everyday to think that people like this exist...if there is any real care in your voice, show it in actions not words on the internet. Living a real and honest life will show you the truth beyond man's ignorant need for dominance and placating religion.
nubius 2 years ago
We will use the very book that crafts the dogma, which keeps us a prisoner of our mind , in an attempt to overthrow the truth. When one lives within a physical realm, believing that their existence is controlled by another entity, they become a victim of their own misery.
TheJm8284 2 years ago
We all know the bible was written years later by people who didnt even know Jesus.
sheptropremix 2 years ago
Not true. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and so was John. They both knew Jesus. This is not to mention the those that wrote the 39 books of the old testament, which was years before Jesus was even born
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
Matthew did not write the book of Matthew. If you would like the evidence, I'll be happy to message you. This is common knowledge among academic authorities.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Maybe not but John new Jesus, he was a disciple. He wrote the book of John for sure. So my point is still valid
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
Actually, no books in the new testament have been found to be written by the books' names, John included, except for the apostle Paul. Paul did write Thessalonians, Phillipians, and possibly edited Ephesians. Other than that, the rest has been found to be either unknown or different authors.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
John 21:24-25: 24- This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25-And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
This is the disciple John speaking. Other times throught the book, John refers to himself in 3rd person
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
Right, that is what the Bible says. Unfortunately, the first epistle of John, along with the second and third, were not written by John the Evangelist. The first epistle of John was written to counter the heresy that Jesus was not in flesh, only in spirit, hence the first person writing. This is well known and had been established for some time now.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
I'm just referring to the gospel of John, not the Epistles: 1 John, 2John and 3 John.
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
The Gospel included. It was written anonymously, and the author is not connected to the historical Jesus. It was traditionally believed it was written by John the Evangelist, according to the church fathers, and they claimed he was the apostle John.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Do u have any sources, I'd really like to look into this claim. I'm not saying u are wrong but to my knowledge the Bible is clear on this that it was the disciple John that wrote the gospel of John.
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
I cannot understand people who lie blatantly with no qualms on a matter as important as this. Are u really that desperate to deceive yourself and others?
a6laze 2 years ago
Prove it.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
My reply was meant to point people in the right direction, to let people know that there is a differing stance on the matter. I deemed that necessary as the manner in which you delivered your statements is such that the uninitiated may really be led to believe that they are true. This is hardly a conducive place to launch a full-fledged discussion on this subject; get real.
a6laze 2 years ago
I don't know if you are already an avowed atheist, but I'm guessing that is so. If so, you really are acting inconsistently with your worldview. There is no such thing as truth in an atheistic worldview. In fact, you CAN'T HELP saying the things you do. Getting on with your own life with the sole purpose of DNA propagation being under the illusion that it's meaningful and leaving others to theirs should be more apt in your worldview; follow through with the logical outworkings of atheism.
a6laze 2 years ago
You seem to place great emphasis on semantics. You don't know me, and atheism has nothing to do with my original assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever that refutes the modern, scholarly view that most of the Bible's authors are unknown. That's reality. What I "CAN'T HELP" is taking a blind leap of faith based on a book which contains nothing more than parables and assertions written by unknown men. I suggest you live your life to the fullest, friend, because life is wasted otherwise.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Nowhere in my reply is there any indication of me thinking that I know you, and that atheism has something to do with your disregard of the Bible. Read this again: "I don't know if...guessing that is so." Using the words 'modern' and 'scholarly' in no way helps your cause at all. You are just choosing to side with one school of thought, and the way you worded this statement is duplicitous and disingenuous, as if that view is unanimously accepted across all of scholarship.
a6laze 2 years ago
I'm not siding with "one school of thought". I am siding with reality. As well, there are many schools of thought on the bible, but believing in afterlife, etc is not thought based on reality, it is thought based on faith. It creates an illusion that comforts people. As far as the bible authors, if you want to label it as disingenuous to make reasonable observations on what the bible is, based on centuries of its study, then I suppose I'll go with "disingenuous". (Even though it isn't.)
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Come on, do you really think that comfort is the sole reason why people believe in God and the afterlife? To caricature and then to knock down gleefully, is deplorable. Suffice it to say that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the fence, and common sense will tell you that such do not believe in something founded on lies. And no, you're not siding with reality. Either you're willfully or genuinely ignorant about the issue of the Bible's authenticity. I suspect it's e former.
a6laze 2 years ago
I precisely believe that comfort is largely the driving motive to accept the notion of an afterlife, no caricature intended. As well, it does not have anything to do with intelligence, as you have stated. It has to do with evidence and skepticism. Intelligent people need comfort as well. You may repeat "ignorant" and "deplorable" over and over, but that does not change the evidence and study of the Bible.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
You're committed e genetic fallacy: just because you may have shown how a belief originated, thereby you have somehow proven it to be false. Don't flatter yourself: if you have e capability to discern such a motive, you can bet most theists do as well. Belief in God does provide comfort, but comfort's not e reason why a sensible theist would believe in God. And i too precisely mean that: if you're willfully ignorant about e Bible's authenticity and deliberately mislead others, you're deplorable.
a6laze 2 years ago
That's where you are incorrect. I am not asserting Christian beliefs are wrong. I am asserting that I am a skeptic, but above all, respect science and history far above any faith to inform me about what reality is. Also, when I say "comfort", I am not referring to god. I am referring to the notion of an afterlife. Society routinely sidesteps thoughts of dying, because it is some peoples' greatest fear. I know the Bible is authentic: an authentic historical document written by men.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
If all you concern yourself with are the hard sciences, history etc., then you don't have an integrated reality. For one, the big bang is a supernatural event. Logical & mathematical truths (science presupposes them), metaphysical truths (there are other minds other than my own), ethical beliefs about statements of value, aesthetic judgements (because e beautiful like e good cannot be scientifically proven) are all unexplainable in a naturalistic worldview.
a6laze 2 years ago
The big bang isn't an event. Its a theory based on the observation of an expanding universe. It's not supernatural, either. Beautiful and good are opinions, so comparing that to forming a theory based on evidence is like comparing apples and oranges. And everything is "natural", btw.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
How is it not an event if it really did happen according to modern cosmology? How does showing the way the big bang theory came about tell you that it's not an event? How is it not supernatural when it brought all the natural universe-matter, space and time-into existence from nothing? Bro, understand my reply properly please. I did not compare opinions to e scientific method, I did say that e scientific method cannot account for beauty and goodness which all rational people admit exist.
a6laze 2 years ago
Because its a theory. The words "scientific proof" are only used by people who don't understand science. The "something from nothing" argument is used routinely by creationists, and is shot down routinely, yet repetition of this statement is very telling. We simply don't know what caused the big bang if there was a big bang. But that's why I respect science. Because the growing body of knowledge will tell. Somehow, you equate this with "something from nothing". Scientists never assert that.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
This is hardly an avenue to argue with scientific rigor. By default, it's laymen talk. So again, enough of your pedantic corrections. I used the phrase "big bang" only in the sense that it's the current prevailing view of scientists on how the universe got started. We don't know what caused the big bang, but we do know that the cause of the big bang is supernatural, in that it's not part of matter, space and time, and that was my point all along.
a6laze 2 years ago
"So again, enough of your pedantic corrections"
I will correct you when you misrepresent scientific view. We don't know the cause of the Big Bang was "supernatural". There is absolutely no evidence that points to this. So I will correct again and state to you that you are again misrepresenting science. First, you assert scientists claim "something from nothing". Now you're asserting they claim "supernatural". You simply are changing misrepresentations to fit your faith.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
You're just nit-picking over a minor case of non-precise language, that btw is not misplace in a setting like this. My dear friend, please engage your logical faculties properly. Supernatural just means: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Noone disputes e fact that the cause of the universe cannot be part of the universe. Therefore it's outside the natural world and therefore supernatural. Follow?
a6laze 2 years ago
And no it's not shot down routinely, if what u mean by shot down are feeble attempts to obfuscate things to dodge the question. You respect science? That's news. Because you disrespect it by according to it powers that it doesn't have: namely, the power to explain something that isn't natural, something that exists apart from matter, space, time, which the cause of the universe must be for it to be e cause.
a6laze 2 years ago
"namely, the power to explain something that isn't natural"
Right, the supernatural. That's not science, but that's what creationism tries to do: make the supernatural science.
So again, the "something from nothing" presupposition that creationists always use to describe the scientific view is invalid. Science does not claim "something from nothing". Science waits for evidence, then forms hypotheses, then forms theories. Science does not claim to know everything and have all the answers.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Get your facts right. Creationism doesn't try to make e supernatural science. It does however recognize the limitations of science. 1. Science only deals with what is natural, namely, the physical universe. 2. The universe began. 3. The cause of the universe cannot be composed of anything the universe is. 4. Science is therefore non-applicable to that cause.
a6laze 2 years ago
And I would like to add to your true statement: The Bible is an authentic historically accurate document written by men superintended by the Holy Ghost. Just the bizarre mathematical properties inherent in parts of the text alone-not to mention fulfilled prophecy and others-is compelling evidence of a supernatural fingerprint; go look up Chuck Missler. Err, if there's a God, in e Christian sense, then an afterlife is a given, isn't it?
a6laze 2 years ago
The bible is not historically accurate. The bible is a piece of history itself. Noah's boat ride does not fit in with evidence. And that's not a conspiracy "hoax" like you asserted with fossil records. Also, any mathematics of the bible that one sees is not evidence for God.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Noah's ark does indeed fit with e evidence. Again, i won't go into e details here as my statements are only meant to spur people to do their own research. Modern archaeological discoveries have confirmed many of the biblical accounts. Even the star of bethlehem has been conclusively proven to be a real celestial, historical event. And as for the mathematical properties of the bible, for a start, you don't even know what they are yet,
a6laze 2 years ago
@a6laze
For thenoah story can you please explain how it's possible to flood the world in only 40 day's with so much water that the highest mountain is also under water, how some cold animals like polar bears would survice, how slow animals would get to the ark. and final what the flesh eating animals will eat after everybody went off the boat.
I have more questions, but maby this can make me understand more. thx
lxx28 2 years ago
so you're disqualified from making qualitative statements about them. And i did not mention that as proof for God, merely as compelling evidence.
a6laze 2 years ago
Stating a lie boldly and assertively in no way makes it true. Thanks for your suggestion of living life to the fullest that borrows from the Judeo-Christian worldview, and to demonstrate my gratitude tangibly, let me repeat my advice: follow through with the logical outworkings of atheism in your own life; realize that a full life and a wasted life are both equally meaningless if you're an atheist.
a6laze 2 years ago
What are you referring to as a "lie"? That nearly all of the Bible's authors are unknown? If so, then apparently nearly all of the academic authorities on the subject are lying. I believe I'll go with the bible scholars. But onto your statement about a living: everything dies. Everyone in your life will die, just as with everyone else. So indeed, it actually does matter to live a full life, and to treat people with compassion, not righteousness. "Afterlife" is leap of faith I do not have, yes.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
You're not going with scholarship and rational judgement; I suspect that you're going with your emotional attachment to atheism, that predisposes you to accept certain branches of scholarship, and that also gives gives you justification to deliberately misrepresent the matter with no qualms. Thanks for telling me e obvious that everyone dies, but sorry dude, that fact in no way logically tells you that living a full life does matter and that people should be treated compassionately.
a6laze 2 years ago
I don't need an emotional attachment to atheism. I don't even have to call it atheism, because evidence and reality are all I need. You are now throwing around words like "misrepresent", yet bring nothing to the table to illustrate how. I'm highly skeptical of your assertions.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
In my earlier reply I've already stated that this is hardly e place to engage in a well-reasoned and detailed discussion about e Bible's authenticity. When I use words like "misrepresent", my intention is to bring to people's awareness that another perspective on e matter exists, as the way in which you delivered your statements (as though they were universally and unanimously accepted by all scholarship) about e Bible was disingenuous, which may cause e uninitiated to be deceived.
a6laze 2 years ago
I did not state "all scholarship" about the bible states the authors are unknown. But the vast majority do, and I have read and studied it myself. If you have credible sources that state otherwise, I would be happy to take a look, because I haven't found any. So I challenge you to present me this, and not anything faith based. I would like to see hard evidence from the realm of history or anthropology.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Well, that's precisely my point: even if you did not mean that, the way in which you worded that statement gives the impression that the matter is settled, and that's e final truth. And that's dishonest. I doubt that have really done your homework judging by the position you have arrived at. Since you're the one making a positive claim, why not back your claim up first? And I don't remember giving anything faith-based in any of my replies.
a6laze 2 years ago
Well, that's provided your evidence is really evidence, and that's precisely the issue at hand. And quit trying to portray atheists as rational and theists as crackpots and wishful thinkers. We all have e same evidence and reality, the difference is in the interpretation of them. And that's provided e evidence isn't skewed, which is what you atheists and evolutionists have a penchant of doing, the illustrious history of fossil hoaxes serving as one example of that.
a6laze 2 years ago
Here some the semantics again. "crackpots and wishful thinkers" are words you have chosen to define my argument, and I am again skeptical of your motives here because of that redefining of my argument. Just because I choose to evolve my opinions based on evidence, not faith, doesn't mean I imply or call those who do "crackpots". I disagree with your assertion that we all merely interpret reality and evidence differently. We all also acknowledge or ignore reality as well.
ie: "fossil hoaxes".
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
My goodness. It's merely giving a label to theists from your perspective. Let me show you how i arrived at those words by inference: isn't someone who believes in an afterlife for comfort contrary to "evidence" a wishful thinker and didn't you express that alot of theists fall into that category? You keep saying that you are on the side of evidence and reality, so isn't it logical to conclude that those who disagree with you from your perspective aren't?
a6laze 2 years ago
Someone who ditches evidence and reality and goes after falsities and fantasy is somewhat a crackpot right? How have i redefined your argument? We live in e same world with e same physical laws, same scientific facts, same history. So if our views on reality differ, it's either due to different interpretations, genuine/willful ignorance, compartmentalization, or skewed evidence.
a6laze 2 years ago
"Someone who ditches evidence and reality and goes after falsities and fantasy is somewhat a crackpot right?"
Not if they see this detachment from reality for what it is, an escape. When they begin to perceive the escape as reality, then call it what you will, but don't put words in my mouth, please.
If we both look at a tree, and you say its beautiful and I say its ugly,those are opinion. But if one can't even acknowledge the tree is there, that's delusion.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Now don't you get technical on me, you do know what i mean when i use that word. And my drift was basically that such people-theists-from your perspective are irrational. 'Crackpot' expresses that to sufficiently good effect. Please don't spout baseless statements: I've never put words in your mouth. Ya and i know those are opinions. But both of us both agree that beauty exists for us to state opinions of such a nature. But science cannot explain beauty, that was my point.
a6laze 2 years ago
Of course faith is irrational. That's why its faith, not reason. Beauty is opinion, nothing more.
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
You're missing e point. Reread my reply and respond correctly, please!
a6laze 2 years ago
What do you mean by "respond correctly"?
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
An atheist who does live that way is really just pretentious. And u've yet to address any of my statements about e logical outworkings of atheism in e slightest bit. "Afterlife" is only a leap of faith provided atheism were true, but not otherwise.
a6laze 2 years ago
What are you referring to when you say "logical outworkings"?
RipTheSystem33 2 years ago
Please have e courtesy to reread my replies. I don't want to have to repeat myself.
a6laze 2 years ago
Common opinion, you mean.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Anyone willing to read the gospel WITHOUT wondering where its most likely to have come from.
Or why 99% of your evidence comes from the book that you ASSUME is the word of god.
meaning its almost entirely erroneous.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
100% agree with you. His argument: The bible has to be real, because the bible says its real. Typical christian circular logic.
Superkornking 2 years ago
No it is real because it's 100% accurate all of it's prophecies have come true. There is also no contradictions as many claim there is.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
I know you'd probably prefer to stay to your ignorance, but I'm going to recommend a sight to you, on the off chance you want to open your eyes. skepticsannotatedbible[dot]com click on the button on the side that says 'Contradictions'
Superkornking 2 years ago
LOL stay in my ignorance?? LOL I have already read through that entire website LOL. I will admit it's AMAZING how they perverted what it really says lol. First off if you read the entire chapter or thought about it you would see it's not a contradiction you can take ANY of those so called "bad things or contradictions" on the side and type it in google for a real explanation instead of being brainwashed by an idiot who just skimmed threw the bible.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
You can look up everything on that site in your very own bible and you will see it (unless the version you use has edited out the contradictions)
Superkornking 2 years ago
You don't understand, those contradictions are a lie type in ANY of those contradictions(so called contradictions) on youtube and you will see what it really means it makes perfect sense it is supposed to be like that. I use King James Version I don't use modern translations.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
2 Samuel 23:8 The ... chief among the captains ... he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.
1 Chronicles 11:11 The chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.
If that's not a direct contradiction I don't know what is. Good luck making up an excuse for this one.
Superkornking 2 years ago
Good job adding ... why do you lie about the bible to try to get people to believe what you believe while pretending your defending my freedom. The only freedom your defending is the right to go to hell.
Samuel says The Tachmonite Chief Captain and Adino the Eznite who slew 800 by the spear.
Chronicles says Chief Captain Jashobeam the Hachmonite who slew 300 by the spear.
I don't know what contradiction your talking about liar.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
The bible is not 1 book it's 66 books. There is many many other writings outside the bible aswell which confirm the things therof.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
So the number postulative writings matters?
What about the fact that they were all written by different people and are all completely incoherent and inconsistent with regards to one another?
I could take one book and separate the pages into 66 piles.
It would not lend the material more credibilty, it would simply give wishful thinkers another straw to clutch at.
Believe what you like sir, I will defend to the death your right to do that.
But do not tell me to believe the same.
TVP FTW.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
Strange as I have read all 66 books and they are completely complementary to eachother.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
I'm done dealing with your shit. Have fun wasting your life with your foolish religion and telling me I'll go to hell because I don't believe the same as you do.
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.--2 Chronicles 15:13
What a loving god!
Superkornking 2 years ago
Proverbs 10:18
He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.
This is what you are. You do not care what the bible says when you find out your wrong you get angry and cry out lies against God you are full of hate. You are a fool. It's not a judgement it's a criteria. You fit the criteria. You can tell God he is not loving after you die, actually you won't be able to because you will go strait to hell. God bless I pray you find salvation.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
Sounds to me like your lying.
Google bible inconsistencies.
Then perhaps stop claiming to know that which is unknowable to support your argument.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
LoL sorry but instead of using google to tell me what to believe I read the bible myself. All of those contradictions are made up illusions. Why don't you go on google find one contradiction and post it here if there is so many then...
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
Hope you have your bible on hand then buddy!!
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)
gavbag1234 2 years ago
I am busy and I have to go to work right now but when I get back I will gladly explain to you how you have no idea what your talking about and why you should read the bible yourself instead of letting other people read it for you.
GE 2:7, 19 = Says God formed the birds for the garden of Eden
In Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 It says God created birds before man?
I don't understand what is the contradiction here? It's a contradiction because a random website on google told you it was?
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
Exactly, they go on googel and type in "bible contradictions" and read stuff from people who have no clue what they are talking about.
micah1116 2 years ago 2
It actually is quite sad because if they would just type in the 2 verses which they believe are contradictory a million websites would pop up laughing about how people actually think it's a contradiction and shows how it could not even be percieved as a contradiction if you would just read a few pages of the actual document.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
GE 2:7, 19 says God BROUGHT the animals he created AFTER he created them to man? What is the contradiction? Admit this is not a contradiction and apologize for posting a lie on youtube and I will also show you why all the other ones are not contradictions when I get home in a few hours.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
God created some animals infront of Adam to show him that he made everything, Eve didn't see that, and she was decieved by Satan. You are not understanding what is being said at all.
micah1116 2 years ago
Where does the Bible say that God made animals infront of Adam?
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
In genesis, I don't have my bible with me right now, it's very clear. God simply did it to show Adam that HE was the one who created everything. Satan couldn't decieve Adam but decieved Eve because she didn't see God create anything. Read the bible, it makes a lot of sense. You've been lied to and taught it's a book of myths. If you would read the book and see all the amazing things, including scientific knowledge well before the time, you would realize how real the bible is.
micah1116 2 years ago
How come you assumed that I don't read the Bible? I believe it and study it daily. But I have never found anywhere in Genesis that says that God made animals in front of Adam. Man and woman were the last things that God created.
freshtildeathonline 2 years ago
However. If you want to type bible inconsitencies into google and click the first link you'll get the passages that the inconsistencies are interpretted from.
gavbag1234 2 years ago
None of these are contadictions lol, I knew you would click on that link... lol how easily the head of Lies has decieved you.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago