Hey guys and girls please take this seriously and think about it because there's nothing more important then where you will spend eternity. Will you go to heaven when you die? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used Gods name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on judgment day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thie
That was not a very good question, was a very stupid one...if you ask me why?, then you´ll make an utter utter stupid of yourself too...so don´t ask my why? zas
How horribly deceptive the questioner was in leaving out Scripture that was a direct part of the question and answer. He has obviously gone and read the original text. The original text NEVER changes. What is said in Genesis 2:9 is indeed what the top commenters have pointed out. It is "Etz haDa'at tov V'ra", or the knowledge of good and evil.
Lennox - "God actually started science by encouraging human beings to name the animals at the beginning of Genises". I wouldn't really call that science. There's nothing scientific about going "that looks like it should be called a panda!"
7:45 - the text is "Etz hada'at tov ve-ra" (עץ הדעת טוב ורע) which is "Tree of knowing good and evil" or "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". In short it is called only "Etz hada'at" - tree of knowledge, but dr. Lennox was right on that point.
I mean, Lennox makes many reasonable good points -- but the thing is - NONE OF THEM ARE ANSWERING THE MAIN TOPIC -- should Christians be allowed to be scientists? Of course! Why not -- does that have anything to do with the fact that most of the top scientists in the world UNDERSTAND that God doesn't exist as opposed to the minority of theists who still do? No, not at all -- hence: it's a good point, but it's irrelevant! Just like the rest of his claims
@rubinood, If you live at least another 2-4 decades from today, remember my words then, as I'm telling you that atheism is a dying religion. No point in arguing now over it...just let time prove me wrong...or right.
... and evil va ra` (rah) וָרָֽע: bad or (as noun) and evil (natural or moral)one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
That guy was completely wrong on his statement about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Hebrew the phrase is עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע - anglicized as "Etz haDaat tov V'ra". Literally "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" or sometimes "Tree of Conscience".
@Kiithknight Don't know what you just said, but you have demonstrated clearly that the bible, in all languages, can be interpreted in as many ways as one needs to explain what one already believes, and that the bits that don't fit that preconception can be willfully ignored with impunity. That's what you have to do, otherwise you would all have to admit to condoning slavery, homophobia, women, amalacites, midionites, islam, atheism etc etc. Cherry-pickers all !!
"I don't know what you just said, but I'm going to add my own unfounded input because I have a bone to pick."
K, that's nice.
The two translations I gave mean the same thing. "Conscience" means "with knowledge" and refers to moral knowledge, thus the "knowledge of good and evil". The guy who asked the question omitted the rest of the phrase in Hebrew about good and evil, which is pretty underhanded.
The list of problems you gave is laughable. Go actually study them in context.
@Kiithknight Why are there so many religions from one text then? In fact, there are, or were, many texts. The bible is a collections which was not agreed upon until the King James version. Even this is now interpreted thousands of ways. Take the commanfdment, "thou shalt not murder". Some say kill, some think murder. They are clearly different. Self defence against an attacker is justifiable and is killing, whereas pre-meditated is murder. A HUGE difference, but not clear in the bible.
Religions or denominations? If denominations: Because people have their own opinions and ways of doing things? As long as they stick to the core doctrines, the only thing which differ are trivial opinions. The basic books of the Bible were agreed on by the early Church fathers. What we use now and their lists are very similar. Councils in the late 300s AD confirmed the books we use now; the KJV was translated in 1611. They were confirmed ~1200 years before the KJV.
@Kiithknight Exactly my point! "Because people have their own opinions and ways of doing things?". People interpret things differently from the bible, ignore whole sections, in some denominations they add huge swathes of extra info (mormons), or just focus on phrases or passages they feell are important to them, ignoring others completely. Westboro Baptists concentrate wholly on homosexuality for instance. Why would gods scripture, if it was indeed influenced by the truth, be so ambiguous?
I noticed you ignored what I said about sticking to core doctrines. The specific groups you mentioned, Westboro and the Mormons, are not Christian. They don’t stick to the core doctrines. It’s one thing to differ on how often to take Communion or what kind of music to play, but leaving out sections of the Bible and adding other works which contradict Christian teachings is not matter of opinion – it makes you another religion.
@Kiithknight If this god was all-loving and all-powerful, it would be able to make things absolutely clear. Surely that would be within its capability? And....Why impose worship and vainglorious attitudes like making no images of other gods, then claim to be loving. Why claim to have power over satan, but then also not just kill him? What a wicked god! Makes no sense! What does make sense, however, is if you read the book as if it were written by man, for man, to control other men.
YHWH did make things absolutely clear. It’s people who are corrupt and use God’s name for their own purposes. What you’re saying is that everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian. If someone claims to be a pacifist but is a professional boxer, is he a pacifist simply because he says so? No, that would be stupid. He would be a liar or insane. Same issue here. As for Satan why should YHWH judge him before He judges everyone else? Satan is just a sinner like the rest of us.
@Kiithknight Clearly not! Otherwise there would not be anglicans, methodists, catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons etc etc etc. That's without mentioning the fact that there are millions of atheists and agnostics, as well as hundreds of completely seperate religions, followed by millions. Is your god, who after all commands respect through worship, and through vanity, bans all other gods, that incompetent? To a neutral it is just so clear that it's all nonsense.
The word for "kill" or "murder" there isתִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃ which is anglicized "tir tzach". The root word literally means "manslayer", so this form of it means "to murder, slay". It occurs in 46 places in the Bible. "Murder" to us today gives a much clearer meaning than "kill". Remember we don't live in 1611. It has to be understood in context, and looking at other places it's used in the same book and througout the OT, it's always used to mean premeditated murder for selfish gain.
@Kiithknight There you go again, interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Look up the ten commandments on wikipedia and you will see clearly, some say kill, some murder. Even after all this is ironed out, if you were to follow the bible word for word, which you have to do, otherwise it is cherr-picking, then you would condone slavery, rape, violence against children, homophobia, and be racist and sexist. Which bits do you choose to follow? And you call these differences "trivial opinions"!
Are you citing Wikipedia as a more reliable source than the original languages? Some say kill and some say murder, but the context makes the meaning clear for either word. Aside from this it’s people that translate the Hebrew into English. But if there is a confusing translation, go back and see the original word and its usage in context.
@Kiithknight Clearly taking each word from the original text is still not good enough, or indeed in any way reliable. Why would there be so many variations and denominations. This is the scripture god wants you to follow, yet it's written in an ancient language people can dispute endlessly. Even if the translations were agreed upon, hundereds of denominations would still exist. And within those, some would follow more strictly than others. It's a mess. Clearly not something god would condone!
@Kiithknight Clearly I don't cite wikipedia as "gospel" (sic). I just gave an example of how many different inferences are taken from one text. As I have sia many times, if the words were followed literally, you would be homophobic, child-beating and have a slave. You would oppress women, and you would murder non-believers and other tribes, eg The Amalacites. The text should either be followed literally, with the above atrocities included, ie wicked. Or it's so unclear it's not from a god!
@Kiithknight Yet again, you make the same point. Parallel translations. Why did your god make it so unclear? It makes no sense. After all it is a loving god, right? What nonsense, until you realise the whole thing weas made up, almost completely copied from previous religious scriptures, and merely used for controlling people. How relevant exactly are all the 10 commandments today? And scripture says they are "eternal"! Lol.
You’d have to point out where “slavery, rape, violence against children, homophobia, racism, and sexism” are condoned in the Bible and commanded that all people hold to them. If we’re just throwing around unjustified statements, you said that you’re a slaver who rapes homosexual girls because they have a different skin color. Can I show where you said that? No, but by your standards that shouldn’t stop me.
Again people translate from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern English and other languages. I don’t understand what your stumbling block is here. It’s very clear in the original languages. Also what other religious scriptures? Cite them. Controlling people? I’d love to see your evidence for that. You have a very poor understanding of Christianity, and it looks like you just have a bone to pick rather than an actual inquiry. That’s pretty pathetic.
@Kiithknight If it is so clear to you, i would ask that you follow it precisely. In which case you believe there was a worldwide flood, that beating a child who answers back is OK, and that a man should not lie with another man. Can you not see that to a first time reader it would appear plain that this is written by men to control women, and indeed other men in an ancient asian backwater? You only believe because you are told to and are scared of death. This gives you an out into a heaven!
I don't have time to respond for a while, but drop me a note on my channel comments with all this, and I'll get back to you as soon as classes ease up a bit.
@ikawpipa ; Way to miss the point. Shermer moved on to say that he could cite several scientists that are not religious, but that it isn't relevant either. Lennox selectively use statistics and the people he cite to create a false illusion of controversy. What Lennox is doing is called appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy, which means he makes the point that because a scientist is christian then this means christianity is true.
@pinkdeath82 - that is exactly the point. J Lennox just want to clarify that religion NEVER interferes with progress of science by mentioning Top Level Christian scientists... Both Atheists and Christians scientists achieve goals in science by believing their own religion.
@ikawpipa ; He interrupts Shermer who is making the same point he's supposedly making by attributing significance of the belief of top scientists. That makes no sense, at all. For the last time, atheism is as much a religion as a bald is a hair colour. I mean, we seem to be the only "group" of people that are defined by something we do not believe in. There are many other things I am not but describing who I am by telling you what I am not would take way too long.
@ikawpipa ; Then call it belief, or worldview, as religion as the implication of also being an institution and have inherant dogma(even though there are surely different ideas within this as well). An atheist does not have to adhere to the scientific principles, which isn't a belief in itself but a method of interpretating the world without personal predjudice. Believing that there is no god, however, is not a scientific statement. That is the statement of a person, not the scientist.
It saddens me to keep seeing highly intelligent, good people like Lennox waste their intellect and abilities believing in utter foolishness. There is no god. Get over it and get on with your life.
the statement is not that 15%of scientist still belive in god rather it is a question why do they still belive in it despite their scientifique knowleg pointed on the contraire of god existence
Ha, the christian needed an atheist to explain the bible to him. Oh, and not only is it the Tree of Knowledge, but it's not an apple tree, it's a fig tree. The apple was a representation added by Europeans. (There weren't apple trees in the Middle East at the time the bible was written, but plenty of fig trees.)
Lennox is a smart guy. But he thing is, you have to be smart to be able to come up with explanations to things that are clearly against your own point of view. It's a lot easier if the facts are on tour side:)
Like the question "why does God allow bad things happening to good people?". Lennox has a long and philosofical answer to the question but all the answer he really would need is "because there is no God".
@Seigu007 Wow, you do have issues. Maybe counselling could help. Seriously, you have that low an opinion of yourself. Seek help now! I mean real help, not worthless and pointless prayer! Do you have some close family to talk to. I will try if you like. Message me any time.
@sids500 Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-)
Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
@Seigu007 I am not alone, misreable nor do i live in a hole, but then again you are obviously not interested in any truths, just abuse. You are full of anger and need to sort it for a more fulfilling life. Please try. Anyway, at the moment you are incapable of informed or even polite debate so i will sign off with you and wish you better times ahead.
@sids500 This may be the minor leagues dealing with a group of quote mining parrots in here but it nevertheless does keep my debating skills finely honed. In other words you’re being used for my pleasure and academic recall,and nothing more. And just barely at that.
@Seigu007 Wow again, smug arrogance added to your list of virtues. You really are a piece of (god's) work. You seem to have forgotten one thing though. You claim to be debating, and claim that you are "honing your skills", but have offered simply nothing. Hmmm. not honed so well yet then! Never mind though, i am sure you will have prepared a really amusing, evidential and persuasive argument ready for your next message. On the other hand you may just prefer abuse again! Lol.
@sids500 I’m sure all you do is jump from forum to forum all day long and your mom constantly sobs in her room because of what a failure you are. I’m even more sure that if she had the chance, she’d kill you and start over with a new sack of protoplasm.
That’s a good little weak atheist….now run along boy
@Seigu007 Just read back to yourself what I have written, and what you have written, then tell me being a christian gives you the moral high ground!! You have no idea how stupid you look
@Seigu007 Thats laughabkle, again. you have proposed nothing, just abuse! Try asking a question, note the reply, then debate on that basis. It can be fun! Abuse is merely boring.zzzzzzzz
@Seigu007 Lol, good christian values displayed there. No debating, answers, reasoning, even any attempt to use the brain, just abuse. Hope you are not representative of religious people!
@Seigu007 We all are. But again, very christian of you to speak to a stranger in that manner. Your god obviously does not give you a good moral code to live up to. I have morals without an ancient mythical text, but then I live by common sense and social responsibility, not 2000year old, cherry-picked rules written well after the events about things for which there is simply no evidence, and interpreted all over the world completely differently. Until the KJB there were different versions even!
2 videos ago Shermer said that it is completely irrelevant HOW many people believe in God as to whether it is true or not. Now he is saying that 7% of the 'most intelligent scientists' believe in God as if that means something... Make up your mind, does consensus = truth or not? The consensus amongst the top scientists of the Medieval era clearly acknowledged God. Does that mean truth? No it doesn't.
@GoldenbanjoDJ He was responding to Lennox's continued use of statistics and quotation of sources from the "top level". As is obvious when he finishes his remark on it. Playing Lennox at his own game to show how futile it is. :)
I can't remember which video it was in, but doesn't Lennox readily admit that it a futile point?
I see atheists on Youtube do that all the time though, say 'oh well most scientists are atheist'. maybe they should get rid of their 'baby food' videos where Dawkins makes ad hominems and watch a debate like this. Christians too. It would generate better discussion for everyone. I have sure seen many Christians making stupid comments as well as atheists. would you agree? :)
5m23 "St Augutin said Reason is the ennemy of faith"??? What is he talking about??? That's pure non-sense, St Augustin actually said the opposite and his doctrine is based on Faith and Reason working hand in hand.
@Gazdo01 and the one asking the question misquoted the Bible. I just looked it up in the Hebrew. It does indeed say the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
@brizzoke It's always amazing to see and hear people making up stuff for their benefit. Don't they have any shame? I mean... facts that are totally unthrue... It surprises me all the time.
@Gazdo01 nope ste augustin really say that reason was the ennemy of faith go back to study ste augustin again i m not sure aware that st augustin vote jesus to be a son of god before that he was just a prophet and a rabi(in the jewich world to be call a rabin you had to be married)
@mystisme If you're going to make such a claim, I'll need references. As for me, I know as a FACT that the Catholic Tradition is very fond of REASON and LOGIC. I could cite the Great Albertus Magnus (bishop and Doctor of the Church), who achieved fame for his comprehensive knowledge of and advocacy for the peaceful coexistence of science and religion... or Roger Bacon (Franciscan friar, philosopher), who is credited as one of the earliest European advocates of the MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD
@Gazdo01 reason and logic go see and read your bilbe do know that if a child is insubordinate to is parent the parent has the right to kill him or if a woman is fond not virgin the night of her wedding her hsband dive her to the porch to her parent house and can kill her i guess you should read it again
@mystisme This just proves my point. You're out of the Catholic understanding of the Bible, therefore of course you're going to be lost in interpretation.
This is like you looking at a physics problems, and saying it's ILLOGICAL for time and space to be shaped by matter around them, and therefore rejecting science as irrationnel. However, a simple lecture in relativity would have sufficed...
Your argument is irrelevant... since we started, we've been talking about S.Augustin, not the Bible
@mystisme BY THE WAY... Name me one christian you know who stoned his child to death... With this sort of pueril understanding of faith and Reason, no wonder you've misread St Augustin (I'm pretty sure you never actually read him).
Notice that you haven't accepted my challenge of providing me REFERENCES, i.e. evidence of your claims.
@Gazdo01 feel sorry for you you do not even know were your christianity nor the bible come from nor came about gp study like me theologie with the hebrew language and greak
@m4c13k86 Martin Luther said every reader should interpret the Bible on his own, because the "Holy Spirit" would act through them individualy.
Plus, he believed he was the only one who "truly understood the meaning of Paul the Apostles", this is why he added the word "alone" after "saved by faith"...
I don't know whether of not Luther relied on Reason, but I'm positive Saint Augustine did.
@Gazdo01 Why would god condone a book which everyone interprets differently? and this is the book that god hopes will make everyone christian? Lol. If you look from the outside you can see so clearly that it's all man-made nonsense. The ten commandments, the only part that is actually the "word of god", start with 3 arrogant and vain ones, go on to completely obvious ones, and end with pointless ones about sabbath and oxen. That the best it could do? Lol. What about important eternal things?
Actually the creation account is very sophisticated. Think about it. There was no scientific knowledge. Yet his succession of days is almost a mirror image of how scientific knowledge says things arrived on the scene in nature. The odds of this happening are astronomical and outside the realm of reasonable probability in math. That definitely means something.
@luvlatinmamis thats not true, in the bible it says God created the birds and the fish in the same day, and animals on another, but evolution says it went fish->animals->birds
@ChristopherOde In stating things like atmosphere first, plants and vegetation, discernible sun and moon (atmosphere changing in anatomy and elemental distribution, also highly due to plants obviously...) Then fish, and the things that follow, you can debate the specific order in which the animals came but the point is with no scientific knowledge, Moses was incredibly accurate.
@ChristopherOde In stating things like atmosphere first, plants and vegetation, discernible sun and moon (atmosphere changing in anatomy and elemental distribution, also highly due to plants obviously...) Then fish, and the things that follow, you can debate the specific order in which the animals came but the point is with no scientific knowledge, Moses was incredibly accurate.
@luvlatinmamis lol that comment made me laugh, moses told a story only one chapter long and he still got it wrong according to the science. Usually when you say something general enough you will eventually get something right, its human perception, it distorts everything to see what we want to see. There are far more impressive ancient civilizations too, the greeks who understood perception and built the parthanon...something that is so accurate it takes human perception into account
@ChristopherOde He didn't get it all wrong. PM me for that if you want. The whole point of what I said was the time period that he lived. No scientific knowledge. Civilizations back then wrote stories like Gilgamesh to explain creation. Also Moses lived several thousand years before the Greeks. Of course they were more advanced. ( it should be noted that in the book of Job, written by Moses, for the first time in history the earth is described as hanging upon nothing. Writtin 1473 B.C.E)
@luvlatinmamis well the egyptians were before both, and they had some pretty fancy engineering thousands of years before the hebrews made any claims. He did get it wrong because according to the evidence things went sea animals->land animals->flying animals (dont remember where land vegitation is but its definately before land animals)...moses said sea animals and flying animals->vegitation->land animals. If you think that isn't a mistake I'll never be able to explain it
@ChristopherOde And recall Moses never said anything. The pentateuch was not written by moses, as most Christians think, every biblical scholar and historian know that.
@luvlatinmamis You think that deciding what order things were created in is difficult! .... "The odds of this happening are astronomical and outside the realm of reasonable probability in math."??? You are joking. It's just common sense. Create the world, produce light, then things that live on it? Why would it be any other order? What a ridiculous assessment. But then again not surprising logic from someone that I assume actually believes in creationism.
@sids500 Stick man fallacy on this one. Bottom line is there wasn't the scientific knowledge we have now, available back then. Right now as a scientifically educated person for you it's obvious. The majority of people during that era (1513 B.C or so) didn't think the earth was round and understood the earth to be on tortoises and huge elephant and who knows what else. So with proper context of the era, it's quite amazing that he got the order as close to our current understanding as he did.
@luvlatinmamis No its not amazing at all. Build the base, then put the smaller things on it. How difficult is that? I am sure every ancient builder knew that order! What you are doing is assuming that just because you, or indeed anybody, do not know for sure how it was created, and do not yet know all the laws that govern it, that it must have been a god-like thing that created it. That's just lazy, unambitious, and halts human discovery, which can be so exciting. A shame really.
for all those just looking in I apologize for fighting on the internet but I have had a long intelligent debate with this guy fussinated about a few things, the most recent being the basis for atheistic morals...if you read the latest posts please ignore the virus parts of 4/? and 5/? because I get off topic. If you think I'm backing down there read every part
@luvlatinmamis ya the simple thing is that our morals came about because of farming and the need for large scale co-operation. If we didn't have the concepts of respect and self denial as our foundation of morals we would be stuck with the chimpanzees unable to expect help in the future for help given in the present
@ChristopherOde lol well I don't want to turn this in to pages and pages of youtube debate comments but a similar Idea is virutally agreed upon in a debate between Dinesh and Hitchens. That even from an evolutionary stand point the morals of religion are in many cases essential for the advancement of social evolution. So whether one agrees with it or not, it's core morals ( no murder no stealing etc ) do quite a bit of positive.
@luvlatinmamis lol ya...ive already done that :P you might be interested in Nietzsche's genealogy of morals, cause not all the religions have these values as their core morals (greeks had hospitality of all things at their core)
@luvlatinmamis Thast's right. The blindingly obvious ones are required, and it certainly does not take religion to help make this happen. They were there anyway, and religion wrote them down, along with many other awful rules that we can certainly do without. The world would undoubtedly be a better place without religion!
Just to state one thing I discovered that will make everything a lot easier for everyone reading this. At 7:39 Lennox makes a claim that the tree of knowledge is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, the speaker refutes this. The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil BUT in the ancient world (greeks and egyptians and probably other hebrews), we are arguing about if this embarrassing for lennox or not
@ChristopherOde Actually you are wrong. According to the audience it is the tree of knowledge, and good and evil is not mentioned. How ever you say that;
"The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil"
Are you embarrssed now and apply the similar emotions and responses you expect from John Lennox or are you going to try to evade and pretend as if nothing happened?
@ChristopherOde "At 7:39 Lennox makes a claim that the tree of knowledge is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, the speaker refutes this. The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil BUT in the ancient world (greeks and egyptians and probably other hebrews), we are arguing about if this embarrassing for lennox or not"
The audience says that the good and evil is not mentioned, yet apperantly it is mentioned. John Lennox is far too trusting the audience's knowledge of Hebrew Bible as it seems. It also seems that, since he relies on translations he is afraid of making a mistake when it comes to original expression. Another positive quality.
@Fussinated ya they audience should have explained, good and evil is mentioned BUT this has translation issues, it is extremely likely/possible that it meant knowledge in general (in which case that wouldn't be so bad), which I wrote about before, which you should really read because I took some time to research it. wikipedia has a section on it if you look up the tree of good and evil
@ChristopherOde The second reason is, that, regardless to accepting any particular translation, knowledge, can't be bad, but the way it is used can be bad. Depending on the context of of application of knowledge any knowledge could be applied in good ways or bad ways. It comes to the point where John Lennox makes the difference between religion causing problem, and people causing problem in the name religion.
@Fussinated 3/3 unfortunately there is another problem with one of your statements, you raise the point that people cause problems in the name of religion...again I'm assuming you are christian...god causes their problems. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"-Jesus Matthew 10:34b there are more examples of this in the new testament and the old testament is actually violent not just threatening to be violent
" "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"-Jesus Matthew"
This is irrelevant. Christianity, does not cause wars. Christians, by making this verse an excuse might cause wars. If you don't assume the responsibility of our actions, especially as an Atheist, then you are in illusion. As Atheist, because your consciousness doesn't have(can't have) a maning other than you give, you are in an illusion.
@ChristopherOde So, the bottom line here is that the auidence, probably has more to be embarressed about since his angle of approach to the mentioned verse reflects a bias i.e. putting one translation above the other, and bring it as if it is the only way of translation of that mentioned verse. Therefore, again, John Lennox has nothing to be embarressed about.
@Fussinated 1/2 Im glad you finally checked out some other credible sources (or at least I'm assuming so, please tell me you didn't just check bibles), when I started looking into it I saw that the tree of knowledge can be translated to the tree of conscious, but I think its wrong to accept a point of view without something to back it up so I made you work for it, congrats you found out that this stuff isn't always so clean cut but you did find the truth. I just hope that you start to question
@ChristopherOde "I think its wrong to accept a point of view without something to back it up so I made you work for it,"
I think this approach is next to trolling. My inital argument was about "embarressment." If you feel insecur about something, you don't change the subject, at least for the moment you assume ignorance just like John Lennox does here. So you can observe the correctness of my argument in your own conscious. Do you feel embarrseed because of something?
@Fussinated I've already given it (maybe it needs some explaining) he is basing his life around a book which he doesn't even know all the translation issues of (maybe we can excuse this because it is a very big book). He is getting on stage and claiming to know that God wants humans to pursue science (science dismisses beliefs without proof) and states that the bible needs to be accepted on faith (a lack of proof) rather than the proof which science is based on (i will get the morality pt still)
@ChristopherOde No, no, no. If you reason that you can't tell that he is embarressed since the audience has a better knowledge about the translation. Again audience insists on a [articular translation is better than John Lennox's and John Lennox admits ignorance. Therefore audience should be embarressed.
"science dismisses beliefs without proof"
This is false. For two reasons, first science does not have a seperate identity and personality to make such a remark. >>>
@ChristopherOde "if im just gonna disintegrate weather or not there is a god, things are especially good for me if god doesnt even bother to tell me im wrong"
If you are deciding with IF's there is not much to be certain about anything, don't you think? So, this is not even a real reasoning. At best you want everyone to be uncertain as you are, again, herd mentality.
@ChristopherOde >> It is the scientists who are trying to keep "god" out of science. And two, science is limited to answer a specific type of question; how ... Science can't answer the question "why" with or without the acceptance of "god." Science is not there to read the mind of the presumed or actual creator about his/her purpose.
"i will get the morality pt still"
No need to first you should make one thing clear in your mind that science or religion has no meaning without humans.
@Fussinated I am perfectly aware that I am screwed if there is a god, but the good news is that your probably screwed too...I mean there have been how many gods "revealed" to mankind throughout our existence and religions place bets on one of them, odds are we are both wrong if there is a god/s...Im not saying I have a choice if there is one but if im just gonna disintegrate weather or not there is a god, things are especially good for me if god doesnt even bother to tell me im wrong
@Fussinated about the your screwed too-sarcasm dude...I dont want anyone to suffer for doubting something which is impossible to see or prove and doesn't seem to be there. About the sheep comment, no I'm sharing one of the arguments that set me free...there were counter arguments that I heard that I think are crap and lets face it your the one following a book About the creator, just because you believe zeus will kill you with a lighting bolt if you start climbing a mountain
@ChristopherOde "about the your screwed too-sarcasm dude...I dont want anyone to suffer for doubting something which is impossible to see or prove and doesn't seem to be there."
So, you actually know and trying to teach others ... this is rather ambitious and presumtuous.
" there were counter arguments that I heard that I think are crap "
@Fussinated 2/? the other messages of the bible in the same way (by finding other credible sources). See the thing is that there are so many other religions claiming that they know the supernatural, and they tell everyone that the other religions are lying...they cant all be right...ill save you some time by telling you there are similar problems with pretty much all the other religions (no offense). The thing that has set me free the most is not unquestioning belief but questioning everything
@ChristopherOde "The thing that has set me free the most is not unquestioning belief but questioning everything"
You are not free, Actually, you are doomed to degradation to nothingness. If this unconscious universe caused a wise guy such as yourself, then your wisdom i.e. your freedom or any other ethical value you caan bring does not mean anything since it is as well doomed to be degraded into nothing. Of course I am assuming you are Atheist.
@Fussinated if your saying im gonna disintegrate well in that case I'm hoping your right because the muslims say I'm gonna burn in a second life then disintegrate into nothing, and I'd rather just get it over with. Which by the way is exactly what I am expecting and planning for...so if its a punishment...it's pretty lame
If you are an Atheist, that's what you are saying, not me.
"well in that case I'm hoping your right because the muslims say I'm gonna burn in a second life then disintegrate into nothing,"
Well, if you think you can decide about it, why are you having diffculties about becoming what you are here, while you are here? After you die, what scientific theory makes you think that you will have a choce between disintegrating and burning?
Why? If you try to go against the scientific laws you suffer the consequences right? If you jump out of the top floor of a building, you will crash to the ground and you accept this, So, why it is lame if a Creator warns you about the after life and you don't listen and get punished for it i.e. suffer the consequences for your actions (or for the motives of your actions)?
@Fussinated shoot forgot to say that I am aware that if there is a god I dont have any choice over what punishment i face...ps if you wana move to a chat room we can get back to eachother a lot quicker, and thanks for sticking with the convo for so long
@ChristopherOde "lets face it your the one following a book About the creator, just because you believe zeus will kill you with a lighting bolt if you start climbing a mountain"
The only thing I am facing right now is that you don't know that there is no religious source claimed to be originated to Zeus, Therefore, as I stated, your inability to differentiate among the religious teachings is nobadies fault except yours. To claim that "God" sent a message, is different than producing rumors.
@Fussinated 1/2 how written about greek, I can recite the basics to you...in the beginning there was mother earth father sky and water (if forget thier names) sky was constantly raping earth so that no life could be free, one of her sons chronos lived in a cave and cut his dads who-ha off forcing dad to go back to get off mom. Chronos then became king of the titans, when he found that his son was destined to overthrow him he ate every child his wife had until his wife swaped zeus for a bolder
@ChristopherOde "I have honestly searched for god and have honestly found nothing other than books which all contradict each other."
First of all, if you searched like this it is quite normal that you didn't go anywhere. Why did you start a search like this in the first place? Did you think you already know the answer when you started your search, or did you really start from scrach i.e. nothing? Where did you start?
@ChristopherOde >> that's why I say that you sound like you already knew the outcome of your search.
" I prayed every day, I would wake up every morning and listen to religious music, and I read my bible every night...I was deeper into the bible than most preachers, but when I questioned it or gave things up nothing really changed"
The apperantly the god you deny is the Judeo Christian god, What about other teachings. Did you meditate like Yogi's or Budhist Monks, >>
@Fussinated 2/2after that zeus slowly grew up and eventually killed chronos and cut his guts open so his brothers and sisters escaped...his brother posidon got dominion over the sea (because chronos won it first) and his brother hades got dominion over the underworld...the other gods came about in different exciting ways too and eventually we were created...if we ignore evidence supporting evolution who is to say that this story is wrong?
@ChristopherOde Instead of trying to vent what you knoe you should learn to listen and try to communicate. This attitude is very similar to those who consider themselves religious and decided about what is right for all. Are you aware of this aspect of your approach?
Now, I said there is no book that is claimed that it was sent by Zeus. I did not say that there are no books written about Zeus. So what is the point you are quoting me about Zeus? If there is something you don't get simply ask >
@Fussinated ps I prayed every day, I would wake up every morning and listen to religious music, and I read my bible every night...I was deeper into the bible than most preachers, but when I questioned it or gave things up nothing really changed
Hey guys and girls please take this seriously and think about it because there's nothing more important then where you will spend eternity. Will you go to heaven when you die? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used Gods name in vain? Jesus said, "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on judgment day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thie
mamainmancj 1 day ago
"Is good and evil not mentioned?" "No it is not." Liar.
berettaNZ 2 weeks ago 2
That was not a very good question, was a very stupid one...if you ask me why?, then you´ll make an utter utter stupid of yourself too...so don´t ask my why? zas
realhomosapiens 3 weeks ago
As usual with atheists here on the youtube comments, making a lot of wild and inflammatory remarks, with little to no evidence. Ironic much?
wazpoppin9 1 month ago 4
8:33
That professor was right, Lennox turned out to be a fucking idiot.
thewarriorsrok 2 months ago
Atheists, much like animals, tend to lash out when feeling cornered/threatened. Most of them are uneducated
Seigu007 2 months ago 4
How horribly deceptive the questioner was in leaving out Scripture that was a direct part of the question and answer. He has obviously gone and read the original text. The original text NEVER changes. What is said in Genesis 2:9 is indeed what the top commenters have pointed out. It is "Etz haDa'at tov V'ra", or the knowledge of good and evil.
Evangeliiss 2 months ago
Lennox - "God actually started science by encouraging human beings to name the animals at the beginning of Genises". I wouldn't really call that science. There's nothing scientific about going "that looks like it should be called a panda!"
charnhill 2 months ago
7:45 - the text is "Etz hada'at tov ve-ra" (עץ הדעת טוב ורע) which is "Tree of knowing good and evil" or "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". In short it is called only "Etz hada'at" - tree of knowledge, but dr. Lennox was right on that point.
(Hebrew speaking atheist)
ShaharOfer 4 months ago 17
I mean, Lennox makes many reasonable good points -- but the thing is - NONE OF THEM ARE ANSWERING THE MAIN TOPIC -- should Christians be allowed to be scientists? Of course! Why not -- does that have anything to do with the fact that most of the top scientists in the world UNDERSTAND that God doesn't exist as opposed to the minority of theists who still do? No, not at all -- hence: it's a good point, but it's irrelevant! Just like the rest of his claims
PerplexingMango 4 months ago
Lennox plays mostly on emotions, but he is more powerful in this debate - at least in the Q&A part. A great debater, defending a lost cause.
rubinood 4 months ago
@rubinood, If you live at least another 2-4 decades from today, remember my words then, as I'm telling you that atheism is a dying religion. No point in arguing now over it...just let time prove me wrong...or right.
flotopo 1 month ago
Lennox is infuriating.
ClumsyRoot 4 months ago
"No, it's not." Serpents indeed.
וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־ הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־ עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְטֹ֣וב לְמַאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת טֹ֥וב וָרָֽע׃
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
Comment removed
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
Comment removed
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
... and evil va ra` (rah) וָרָֽע: bad or (as noun) and evil (natural or moral)one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
וַיַּצְמַ֞ח יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ מִן־ הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה כָּל־ עֵ֛ץ נֶחְמָ֥ד לְמַרְאֶ֖ה וְטֹ֣וב לְמַאֲכָ֑ל וְעֵ֤ץ הַֽחַיִּים֙ בְּתֹ֣וךְ הַגָּ֔ן וְעֵ֕ץ הַדַּ֖עַת טֹ֥וב וָרָֽע׃
da`ath (dah'-ath) הַדַּ֖עַת: knowledge -- cunning, (ig-)norantly, know(-ledge), (un-)awares (wittingly).
towb (tobe) טֹ֥וב : of good (as adj.) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun ...
m1chae15 4 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
when it comes to beliefs even a smart guy like lennox is insane.
chinamanspeakenlis 4 months ago
That guy was completely wrong on his statement about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In Hebrew the phrase is עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע - anglicized as "Etz haDaat tov V'ra". Literally "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" or sometimes "Tree of Conscience".
Kiithknight 5 months ago
@Kiithknight Don't know what you just said, but you have demonstrated clearly that the bible, in all languages, can be interpreted in as many ways as one needs to explain what one already believes, and that the bits that don't fit that preconception can be willfully ignored with impunity. That's what you have to do, otherwise you would all have to admit to condoning slavery, homophobia, women, amalacites, midionites, islam, atheism etc etc. Cherry-pickers all !!
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500
"I don't know what you just said, but I'm going to add my own unfounded input because I have a bone to pick."
K, that's nice.
The two translations I gave mean the same thing. "Conscience" means "with knowledge" and refers to moral knowledge, thus the "knowledge of good and evil". The guy who asked the question omitted the rest of the phrase in Hebrew about good and evil, which is pretty underhanded.
The list of problems you gave is laughable. Go actually study them in context.
Kiithknight 5 months ago
@Kiithknight Why are there so many religions from one text then? In fact, there are, or were, many texts. The bible is a collections which was not agreed upon until the King James version. Even this is now interpreted thousands of ways. Take the commanfdment, "thou shalt not murder". Some say kill, some think murder. They are clearly different. Self defence against an attacker is justifiable and is killing, whereas pre-meditated is murder. A HUGE difference, but not clear in the bible.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
1/2
Religions or denominations? If denominations: Because people have their own opinions and ways of doing things? As long as they stick to the core doctrines, the only thing which differ are trivial opinions. The basic books of the Bible were agreed on by the early Church fathers. What we use now and their lists are very similar. Councils in the late 300s AD confirmed the books we use now; the KJV was translated in 1611. They were confirmed ~1200 years before the KJV.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight Exactly my point! "Because people have their own opinions and ways of doing things?". People interpret things differently from the bible, ignore whole sections, in some denominations they add huge swathes of extra info (mormons), or just focus on phrases or passages they feell are important to them, ignoring others completely. Westboro Baptists concentrate wholly on homosexuality for instance. Why would gods scripture, if it was indeed influenced by the truth, be so ambiguous?
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
1/5
I noticed you ignored what I said about sticking to core doctrines. The specific groups you mentioned, Westboro and the Mormons, are not Christian. They don’t stick to the core doctrines. It’s one thing to differ on how often to take Communion or what kind of music to play, but leaving out sections of the Bible and adding other works which contradict Christian teachings is not matter of opinion – it makes you another religion.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight If this god was all-loving and all-powerful, it would be able to make things absolutely clear. Surely that would be within its capability? And....Why impose worship and vainglorious attitudes like making no images of other gods, then claim to be loving. Why claim to have power over satan, but then also not just kill him? What a wicked god! Makes no sense! What does make sense, however, is if you read the book as if it were written by man, for man, to control other men.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
2/5
YHWH did make things absolutely clear. It’s people who are corrupt and use God’s name for their own purposes. What you’re saying is that everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian. If someone claims to be a pacifist but is a professional boxer, is he a pacifist simply because he says so? No, that would be stupid. He would be a liar or insane. Same issue here. As for Satan why should YHWH judge him before He judges everyone else? Satan is just a sinner like the rest of us.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight Clearly not! Otherwise there would not be anglicans, methodists, catholics, protestants, baptists, mormons etc etc etc. That's without mentioning the fact that there are millions of atheists and agnostics, as well as hundreds of completely seperate religions, followed by millions. Is your god, who after all commands respect through worship, and through vanity, bans all other gods, that incompetent? To a neutral it is just so clear that it's all nonsense.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
2/2
The word for "kill" or "murder" there isתִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃ which is anglicized "tir tzach". The root word literally means "manslayer", so this form of it means "to murder, slay". It occurs in 46 places in the Bible. "Murder" to us today gives a much clearer meaning than "kill". Remember we don't live in 1611. It has to be understood in context, and looking at other places it's used in the same book and througout the OT, it's always used to mean premeditated murder for selfish gain.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight There you go again, interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Look up the ten commandments on wikipedia and you will see clearly, some say kill, some murder. Even after all this is ironed out, if you were to follow the bible word for word, which you have to do, otherwise it is cherr-picking, then you would condone slavery, rape, violence against children, homophobia, and be racist and sexist. Which bits do you choose to follow? And you call these differences "trivial opinions"!
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
3/5
Are you citing Wikipedia as a more reliable source than the original languages? Some say kill and some say murder, but the context makes the meaning clear for either word. Aside from this it’s people that translate the Hebrew into English. But if there is a confusing translation, go back and see the original word and its usage in context.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight Clearly taking each word from the original text is still not good enough, or indeed in any way reliable. Why would there be so many variations and denominations. This is the scripture god wants you to follow, yet it's written in an ancient language people can dispute endlessly. Even if the translations were agreed upon, hundereds of denominations would still exist. And within those, some would follow more strictly than others. It's a mess. Clearly not something god would condone!
sids500 4 months ago
@Kiithknight Clearly I don't cite wikipedia as "gospel" (sic). I just gave an example of how many different inferences are taken from one text. As I have sia many times, if the words were followed literally, you would be homophobic, child-beating and have a slave. You would oppress women, and you would murder non-believers and other tribes, eg The Amalacites. The text should either be followed literally, with the above atrocities included, ie wicked. Or it's so unclear it's not from a god!
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
Seriously this stuff takes 5 minutes to look up. Here:
biblos(.)com
This has parallel translations, original languages, and concordances. Do the research before you make yourself look lazy.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight Yet again, you make the same point. Parallel translations. Why did your god make it so unclear? It makes no sense. After all it is a loving god, right? What nonsense, until you realise the whole thing weas made up, almost completely copied from previous religious scriptures, and merely used for controlling people. How relevant exactly are all the 10 commandments today? And scripture says they are "eternal"! Lol.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
4/5
You’d have to point out where “slavery, rape, violence against children, homophobia, racism, and sexism” are condoned in the Bible and commanded that all people hold to them. If we’re just throwing around unjustified statements, you said that you’re a slaver who rapes homosexual girls because they have a different skin color. Can I show where you said that? No, but by your standards that shouldn’t stop me.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kiithknight Have you read the bible?
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
5/5
Again people translate from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern English and other languages. I don’t understand what your stumbling block is here. It’s very clear in the original languages. Also what other religious scriptures? Cite them. Controlling people? I’d love to see your evidence for that. You have a very poor understanding of Christianity, and it looks like you just have a bone to pick rather than an actual inquiry. That’s pretty pathetic.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
@Kiithknight If it is so clear to you, i would ask that you follow it precisely. In which case you believe there was a worldwide flood, that beating a child who answers back is OK, and that a man should not lie with another man. Can you not see that to a first time reader it would appear plain that this is written by men to control women, and indeed other men in an ancient asian backwater? You only believe because you are told to and are scared of death. This gives you an out into a heaven!
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500
I don't have time to respond for a while, but drop me a note on my channel comments with all this, and I'll get back to you as soon as classes ease up a bit.
Kiithknight 4 months ago
"the notion that God is trying to keep us down is actually the original lie.".... epic
ikawpipa 5 months ago
Shermer: I dont know John why are you quoting anybody, it's irrelevant.
John Lennox: So you're not interested in what scientists at the top level of science believe ?
ikawpipa: AHAHAHAHA !!!!
ikawpipa 5 months ago
@ikawpipa ; Way to miss the point. Shermer moved on to say that he could cite several scientists that are not religious, but that it isn't relevant either. Lennox selectively use statistics and the people he cite to create a false illusion of controversy. What Lennox is doing is called appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy, which means he makes the point that because a scientist is christian then this means christianity is true.
pinkdeath82 5 months ago
@pinkdeath82 - that is exactly the point. J Lennox just want to clarify that religion NEVER interferes with progress of science by mentioning Top Level Christian scientists... Both Atheists and Christians scientists achieve goals in science by believing their own religion.
ikawpipa 5 months ago
@ikawpipa ; He interrupts Shermer who is making the same point he's supposedly making by attributing significance of the belief of top scientists. That makes no sense, at all. For the last time, atheism is as much a religion as a bald is a hair colour. I mean, we seem to be the only "group" of people that are defined by something we do not believe in. There are many other things I am not but describing who I am by telling you what I am not would take way too long.
pinkdeath82 5 months ago
@pinkdeath82 - Belief or Religion, for me it's the same thing.
ikawpipa 5 months ago
@ikawpipa ; Then call it belief, or worldview, as religion as the implication of also being an institution and have inherant dogma(even though there are surely different ideas within this as well). An atheist does not have to adhere to the scientific principles, which isn't a belief in itself but a method of interpretating the world without personal predjudice. Believing that there is no god, however, is not a scientific statement. That is the statement of a person, not the scientist.
pinkdeath82 5 months ago
It saddens me to keep seeing highly intelligent, good people like Lennox waste their intellect and abilities believing in utter foolishness. There is no god. Get over it and get on with your life.
jmullins2008 6 months ago
I feel sad that Lennox has convinced himself of the garbage he spews.
MrWagman11 6 months ago
We should dig up Galileo and ask him if religion is at odds with science.
wondergundy 6 months ago
wow @ the guy quoting hebrew passage... impressive
Pawlit360 7 months ago
Comment removed
warezwarrior 6 months ago
@Pawlit360
The actual is Etz haDaat tov V'ra (Tree of the knowledge of good and evil)
Notice the questioner only said " Etz haDaat" leaving out the טוֹב וָרָע "tov V'ra" meaning Good and Evil. This is a clear case of deception.
Sources:
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil
biblegateway(dot)com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:9&version=WLC (Hebrew)
biblegateway(dot)com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:9&version=NIV (English)
warezwarrior 6 months ago 9
@warezwarrior Thanks warrior, it seems that the questioner did in fact obfuscated the truth there.
Taught me a good lesson to be careful with being impressed too quickly, I guess ;p
Pawlit360 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it wasn't the tree of ALL KNOWLEDGE it was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
AaronLowden 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The name of the tree in Genesis is "Tree of knowledge of good and evil".
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
the statement is not that 15%of scientist still belive in god rather it is a question why do they still belive in it despite their scientifique knowleg pointed on the contraire of god existence
mystisme 7 months ago
This was supposed to be a debate, not a soapbox for Lennox to sermonize from...**facepalm**
iamheasyouaremeandwe 7 months ago
Ha, the christian needed an atheist to explain the bible to him. Oh, and not only is it the Tree of Knowledge, but it's not an apple tree, it's a fig tree. The apple was a representation added by Europeans. (There weren't apple trees in the Middle East at the time the bible was written, but plenty of fig trees.)
twiedenfeld 7 months ago
Lennox is a smart guy. But he thing is, you have to be smart to be able to come up with explanations to things that are clearly against your own point of view. It's a lot easier if the facts are on tour side:)
Like the question "why does God allow bad things happening to good people?". Lennox has a long and philosofical answer to the question but all the answer he really would need is "because there is no God".
aimonaali 8 months ago
Humans dont deserve God. They deserve to be destroyed.
Seigu007 8 months ago
@Seigu007 Wow, you do have issues. Maybe counselling could help. Seriously, you have that low an opinion of yourself. Seek help now! I mean real help, not worthless and pointless prayer! Do you have some close family to talk to. I will try if you like. Message me any time.
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500 Thanks for the comment God-Hater but I have a nasty surprise for you.
The day that you can prove that there isn’t a single shred of empirical evidence, logic, reason or rational arguement for the non-existence of God,the day any anti-theistic God hater such as yourself can provide one, I’d be *delighted* to hear it. :-)
Now go back to your hole and don’t return. No one likes you. No one will ever like you. You are destined to be alone and miserable…FOREVER.
Seigu007 5 months ago
@Seigu007 I am not alone, misreable nor do i live in a hole, but then again you are obviously not interested in any truths, just abuse. You are full of anger and need to sort it for a more fulfilling life. Please try. Anyway, at the moment you are incapable of informed or even polite debate so i will sign off with you and wish you better times ahead.
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500 This may be the minor leagues dealing with a group of quote mining parrots in here but it nevertheless does keep my debating skills finely honed. In other words you’re being used for my pleasure and academic recall,and nothing more. And just barely at that.
Seigu007 5 months ago
@Seigu007 Wow again, smug arrogance added to your list of virtues. You really are a piece of (god's) work. You seem to have forgotten one thing though. You claim to be debating, and claim that you are "honing your skills", but have offered simply nothing. Hmmm. not honed so well yet then! Never mind though, i am sure you will have prepared a really amusing, evidential and persuasive argument ready for your next message. On the other hand you may just prefer abuse again! Lol.
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500 I’m sure all you do is jump from forum to forum all day long and your mom constantly sobs in her room because of what a failure you are. I’m even more sure that if she had the chance, she’d kill you and start over with a new sack of protoplasm.
That’s a good little weak atheist….now run along boy
Seigu007 5 months ago
@Seigu007 Just read back to yourself what I have written, and what you have written, then tell me being a christian gives you the moral high ground!! You have no idea how stupid you look
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500 And I noticed you never refuted my rebuttals to all of your claims?
And no ….more questions and posturing to someones questions is not debating,it’s called trolling, and it’s something that your’e an expert at.
Seigu007 5 months ago
@Seigu007 Thats laughabkle, again. you have proposed nothing, just abuse! Try asking a question, note the reply, then debate on that basis. It can be fun! Abuse is merely boring.zzzzzzzz
sids500 4 months ago
i don't understand how resurrection is a "hard fact" or "evidence". just calling it that really doesn make it so. it screams "confirmation bias".
EsenHanIm 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lennox nails it, and btw it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
TheMirica23 9 months ago
Lennox is one of the best debaters, right up there with William Lane Craig.
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
Don't just say why it's a good question....answer it!
sids500 9 months ago
@sids500 shut up God Hater
Seigu007 8 months ago
@Seigu007 Lol, good christian values displayed there. No debating, answers, reasoning, even any attempt to use the brain, just abuse. Hope you are not representative of religious people!
sids500 8 months ago
@sids500 Youre a worthless corpse. Nothing more. Live with that.
Seigu007 5 months ago
@Seigu007 We all are. But again, very christian of you to speak to a stranger in that manner. Your god obviously does not give you a good moral code to live up to. I have morals without an ancient mythical text, but then I live by common sense and social responsibility, not 2000year old, cherry-picked rules written well after the events about things for which there is simply no evidence, and interpreted all over the world completely differently. Until the KJB there were different versions even!
sids500 5 months ago
7:34 Genesis 2:17 starts out (u-m-otz e-doth tub u-ro) and-from-tree-of the-knowledge-of good and-evil
joardar73 10 months ago 2
2 videos ago Shermer said that it is completely irrelevant HOW many people believe in God as to whether it is true or not. Now he is saying that 7% of the 'most intelligent scientists' believe in God as if that means something... Make up your mind, does consensus = truth or not? The consensus amongst the top scientists of the Medieval era clearly acknowledged God. Does that mean truth? No it doesn't.
GoldenbanjoDJ 11 months ago
@GoldenbanjoDJ He was responding to Lennox's continued use of statistics and quotation of sources from the "top level". As is obvious when he finishes his remark on it. Playing Lennox at his own game to show how futile it is. :)
dlmc1989 11 months ago
@dlmc1989
I can't remember which video it was in, but doesn't Lennox readily admit that it a futile point?
I see atheists on Youtube do that all the time though, say 'oh well most scientists are atheist'. maybe they should get rid of their 'baby food' videos where Dawkins makes ad hominems and watch a debate like this. Christians too. It would generate better discussion for everyone. I have sure seen many Christians making stupid comments as well as atheists. would you agree? :)
GoldenbanjoDJ 11 months ago
I wish I could shake the hand of the guy who made the question at 5:23. It was an excellent question that Lennox obviously couldn't answer.
Snyderman41104 11 months ago
5m23 "St Augutin said Reason is the ennemy of faith"??? What is he talking about??? That's pure non-sense, St Augustin actually said the opposite and his doctrine is based on Faith and Reason working hand in hand.
Gazdo01 11 months ago 19
@Gazdo01 and the one asking the question misquoted the Bible. I just looked it up in the Hebrew. It does indeed say the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
brizzoke 11 months ago
@brizzoke It's always amazing to see and hear people making up stuff for their benefit. Don't they have any shame? I mean... facts that are totally unthrue... It surprises me all the time.
Gazdo01 11 months ago
@Gazdo01 nope ste augustin really say that reason was the ennemy of faith go back to study ste augustin again i m not sure aware that st augustin vote jesus to be a son of god before that he was just a prophet and a rabi(in the jewich world to be call a rabin you had to be married)
mystisme 7 months ago
@mystisme If you're going to make such a claim, I'll need references. As for me, I know as a FACT that the Catholic Tradition is very fond of REASON and LOGIC. I could cite the Great Albertus Magnus (bishop and Doctor of the Church), who achieved fame for his comprehensive knowledge of and advocacy for the peaceful coexistence of science and religion... or Roger Bacon (Franciscan friar, philosopher), who is credited as one of the earliest European advocates of the MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 reason and logic go see and read your bilbe do know that if a child is insubordinate to is parent the parent has the right to kill him or if a woman is fond not virgin the night of her wedding her hsband dive her to the porch to her parent house and can kill her i guess you should read it again
mystisme 7 months ago
@mystisme This just proves my point. You're out of the Catholic understanding of the Bible, therefore of course you're going to be lost in interpretation.
This is like you looking at a physics problems, and saying it's ILLOGICAL for time and space to be shaped by matter around them, and therefore rejecting science as irrationnel. However, a simple lecture in relativity would have sufficed...
Your argument is irrelevant... since we started, we've been talking about S.Augustin, not the Bible
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@mystisme BY THE WAY... Name me one christian you know who stoned his child to death... With this sort of pueril understanding of faith and Reason, no wonder you've misread St Augustin (I'm pretty sure you never actually read him).
Notice that you haven't accepted my challenge of providing me REFERENCES, i.e. evidence of your claims.
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 feel sorry for you you do not even know were your christianity nor the bible come from nor came about gp study like me theologie with the hebrew language and greak
mystisme 7 months ago
@mystisme LOOOOOLLL I still notice you can't give any reference, making you point merely a personnal opinion, i.e. valueless. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Gazdo01 7 months ago
@Gazdo01 i think Martin Luther said that, not St Augustin
m4c13k86 5 months ago
@m4c13k86 Martin Luther said every reader should interpret the Bible on his own, because the "Holy Spirit" would act through them individualy.
Plus, he believed he was the only one who "truly understood the meaning of Paul the Apostles", this is why he added the word "alone" after "saved by faith"...
I don't know whether of not Luther relied on Reason, but I'm positive Saint Augustine did.
Gazdo01 5 months ago
@Gazdo01 Why would god condone a book which everyone interprets differently? and this is the book that god hopes will make everyone christian? Lol. If you look from the outside you can see so clearly that it's all man-made nonsense. The ten commandments, the only part that is actually the "word of god", start with 3 arrogant and vain ones, go on to completely obvious ones, and end with pointless ones about sabbath and oxen. That the best it could do? Lol. What about important eternal things?
sids500 5 months ago
Comment removed
sids500 5 months ago
"Creation Science"... what a beautiful example of an oxymoron.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX There is no oxymoron. Science does not create(facts and understanding of all things)?
07Aristotle 7 months ago
Lennox ... You inspire me . Thanks :)
blopajmbar62 1 year ago 16
@blopajmbar62 he inspires me too, to stab myself in the ear with a blow torch
sidewinderxx 11 months ago
Lennox has to be mad; that's the only excuse for his intelectual gangrene.
fidenful 1 year ago
Dubious uses of the words "great" and "debate". What Voltaire termed a "wank-fest".
impalax327 1 year ago 2
well said
Law19157 1 year ago
I love that guys red coat, he's so chilled and relaxed & laid back with that thing on...kewl :)
Law19157 1 year ago
Actually the creation account is very sophisticated. Think about it. There was no scientific knowledge. Yet his succession of days is almost a mirror image of how scientific knowledge says things arrived on the scene in nature. The odds of this happening are astronomical and outside the realm of reasonable probability in math. That definitely means something.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis thats not true, in the bible it says God created the birds and the fish in the same day, and animals on another, but evolution says it went fish->animals->birds
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde In stating things like atmosphere first, plants and vegetation, discernible sun and moon (atmosphere changing in anatomy and elemental distribution, also highly due to plants obviously...) Then fish, and the things that follow, you can debate the specific order in which the animals came but the point is with no scientific knowledge, Moses was incredibly accurate.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde In stating things like atmosphere first, plants and vegetation, discernible sun and moon (atmosphere changing in anatomy and elemental distribution, also highly due to plants obviously...) Then fish, and the things that follow, you can debate the specific order in which the animals came but the point is with no scientific knowledge, Moses was incredibly accurate.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis lol that comment made me laugh, moses told a story only one chapter long and he still got it wrong according to the science. Usually when you say something general enough you will eventually get something right, its human perception, it distorts everything to see what we want to see. There are far more impressive ancient civilizations too, the greeks who understood perception and built the parthanon...something that is so accurate it takes human perception into account
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde He didn't get it all wrong. PM me for that if you want. The whole point of what I said was the time period that he lived. No scientific knowledge. Civilizations back then wrote stories like Gilgamesh to explain creation. Also Moses lived several thousand years before the Greeks. Of course they were more advanced. ( it should be noted that in the book of Job, written by Moses, for the first time in history the earth is described as hanging upon nothing. Writtin 1473 B.C.E)
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis well the egyptians were before both, and they had some pretty fancy engineering thousands of years before the hebrews made any claims. He did get it wrong because according to the evidence things went sea animals->land animals->flying animals (dont remember where land vegitation is but its definately before land animals)...moses said sea animals and flying animals->vegitation->land animals. If you think that isn't a mistake I'll never be able to explain it
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde And recall Moses never said anything. The pentateuch was not written by moses, as most Christians think, every biblical scholar and historian know that.
burkerow 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis You think that deciding what order things were created in is difficult! .... "The odds of this happening are astronomical and outside the realm of reasonable probability in math."??? You are joking. It's just common sense. Create the world, produce light, then things that live on it? Why would it be any other order? What a ridiculous assessment. But then again not surprising logic from someone that I assume actually believes in creationism.
sids500 5 months ago
@sids500 Stick man fallacy on this one. Bottom line is there wasn't the scientific knowledge we have now, available back then. Right now as a scientifically educated person for you it's obvious. The majority of people during that era (1513 B.C or so) didn't think the earth was round and understood the earth to be on tortoises and huge elephant and who knows what else. So with proper context of the era, it's quite amazing that he got the order as close to our current understanding as he did.
luvlatinmamis 4 months ago
@luvlatinmamis No its not amazing at all. Build the base, then put the smaller things on it. How difficult is that? I am sure every ancient builder knew that order! What you are doing is assuming that just because you, or indeed anybody, do not know for sure how it was created, and do not yet know all the laws that govern it, that it must have been a god-like thing that created it. That's just lazy, unambitious, and halts human discovery, which can be so exciting. A shame really.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500 Okay.
luvlatinmamis 4 months ago
for all those just looking in I apologize for fighting on the internet but I have had a long intelligent debate with this guy fussinated about a few things, the most recent being the basis for atheistic morals...if you read the latest posts please ignore the virus parts of 4/? and 5/? because I get off topic. If you think I'm backing down there read every part
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde I was going to read them all but good lord that crap is 10 pages long lol
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis ya the simple thing is that our morals came about because of farming and the need for large scale co-operation. If we didn't have the concepts of respect and self denial as our foundation of morals we would be stuck with the chimpanzees unable to expect help in the future for help given in the present
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde lol well I don't want to turn this in to pages and pages of youtube debate comments but a similar Idea is virutally agreed upon in a debate between Dinesh and Hitchens. That even from an evolutionary stand point the morals of religion are in many cases essential for the advancement of social evolution. So whether one agrees with it or not, it's core morals ( no murder no stealing etc ) do quite a bit of positive.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis lol ya...ive already done that :P you might be interested in Nietzsche's genealogy of morals, cause not all the religions have these values as their core morals (greeks had hospitality of all things at their core)
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis Thast's right. The blindingly obvious ones are required, and it certainly does not take religion to help make this happen. They were there anyway, and religion wrote them down, along with many other awful rules that we can certainly do without. The world would undoubtedly be a better place without religion!
sids500 5 months ago
Just to state one thing I discovered that will make everything a lot easier for everyone reading this. At 7:39 Lennox makes a claim that the tree of knowledge is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, the speaker refutes this. The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil BUT in the ancient world (greeks and egyptians and probably other hebrews), we are arguing about if this embarrassing for lennox or not
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherOde Actually you are wrong. According to the audience it is the tree of knowledge, and good and evil is not mentioned. How ever you say that;
"The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil"
Are you embarrssed now and apply the similar emotions and responses you expect from John Lennox or are you going to try to evade and pretend as if nothing happened?
Fussinated 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherOde "At 7:39 Lennox makes a claim that the tree of knowledge is a tree of knowledge of good and evil, the speaker refutes this. The truth is that the original hebrew expression says knowledge of good and evil BUT in the ancient world (greeks and egyptians and probably other hebrews), we are arguing about if this embarrassing for lennox or not"
What do you exactly mean by this?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde This is the referred section in the Bible.
ve·'etz = and the tree
had·da·'at = of the knowledge
to·vv = of good
va·ra. = and evil.
The audience says that the good and evil is not mentioned, yet apperantly it is mentioned. John Lennox is far too trusting the audience's knowledge of Hebrew Bible as it seems. It also seems that, since he relies on translations he is afraid of making a mistake when it comes to original expression. Another positive quality.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated ya they audience should have explained, good and evil is mentioned BUT this has translation issues, it is extremely likely/possible that it meant knowledge in general (in which case that wouldn't be so bad), which I wrote about before, which you should really read because I took some time to research it. wikipedia has a section on it if you look up the tree of good and evil
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde The second reason is, that, regardless to accepting any particular translation, knowledge, can't be bad, but the way it is used can be bad. Depending on the context of of application of knowledge any knowledge could be applied in good ways or bad ways. It comes to the point where John Lennox makes the difference between religion causing problem, and people causing problem in the name religion.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated 3/3 unfortunately there is another problem with one of your statements, you raise the point that people cause problems in the name of religion...again I'm assuming you are christian...god causes their problems. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"-Jesus Matthew 10:34b there are more examples of this in the new testament and the old testament is actually violent not just threatening to be violent
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "again I'm assuming you are christian"
I am not a Christian.
" "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"-Jesus Matthew"
This is irrelevant. Christianity, does not cause wars. Christians, by making this verse an excuse might cause wars. If you don't assume the responsibility of our actions, especially as an Atheist, then you are in illusion. As Atheist, because your consciousness doesn't have(can't have) a maning other than you give, you are in an illusion.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde So, the bottom line here is that the auidence, probably has more to be embarressed about since his angle of approach to the mentioned verse reflects a bias i.e. putting one translation above the other, and bring it as if it is the only way of translation of that mentioned verse. Therefore, again, John Lennox has nothing to be embarressed about.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated 1/2 Im glad you finally checked out some other credible sources (or at least I'm assuming so, please tell me you didn't just check bibles), when I started looking into it I saw that the tree of knowledge can be translated to the tree of conscious, but I think its wrong to accept a point of view without something to back it up so I made you work for it, congrats you found out that this stuff isn't always so clean cut but you did find the truth. I just hope that you start to question
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "I think its wrong to accept a point of view without something to back it up so I made you work for it,"
I think this approach is next to trolling. My inital argument was about "embarressment." If you feel insecur about something, you don't change the subject, at least for the moment you assume ignorance just like John Lennox does here. So you can observe the correctness of my argument in your own conscious. Do you feel embarrseed because of something?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated So please, reason that why John Lennox should be embarressed without deviating from the topic.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated I've already given it (maybe it needs some explaining) he is basing his life around a book which he doesn't even know all the translation issues of (maybe we can excuse this because it is a very big book). He is getting on stage and claiming to know that God wants humans to pursue science (science dismisses beliefs without proof) and states that the bible needs to be accepted on faith (a lack of proof) rather than the proof which science is based on (i will get the morality pt still)
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde No, no, no. If you reason that you can't tell that he is embarressed since the audience has a better knowledge about the translation. Again audience insists on a [articular translation is better than John Lennox's and John Lennox admits ignorance. Therefore audience should be embarressed.
"science dismisses beliefs without proof"
This is false. For two reasons, first science does not have a seperate identity and personality to make such a remark. >>>
Fussinated 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherOde "if im just gonna disintegrate weather or not there is a god, things are especially good for me if god doesnt even bother to tell me im wrong"
If you are deciding with IF's there is not much to be certain about anything, don't you think? So, this is not even a real reasoning. At best you want everyone to be uncertain as you are, again, herd mentality.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde >> It is the scientists who are trying to keep "god" out of science. And two, science is limited to answer a specific type of question; how ... Science can't answer the question "why" with or without the acceptance of "god." Science is not there to read the mind of the presumed or actual creator about his/her purpose.
"i will get the morality pt still"
No need to first you should make one thing clear in your mind that science or religion has no meaning without humans.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated I am perfectly aware that I am screwed if there is a god, but the good news is that your probably screwed too...I mean there have been how many gods "revealed" to mankind throughout our existence and religions place bets on one of them, odds are we are both wrong if there is a god/s...Im not saying I have a choice if there is one but if im just gonna disintegrate weather or not there is a god, things are especially good for me if god doesnt even bother to tell me im wrong
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "I am perfectly aware that I am screwed if there is a god, but the good news is that your probably screwed too"
Why it is a good news I'm screwed, too? Do you decide the validty of your arguments according to others? This is sheep mentality.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated about the your screwed too-sarcasm dude...I dont want anyone to suffer for doubting something which is impossible to see or prove and doesn't seem to be there. About the sheep comment, no I'm sharing one of the arguments that set me free...there were counter arguments that I heard that I think are crap and lets face it your the one following a book About the creator, just because you believe zeus will kill you with a lighting bolt if you start climbing a mountain
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherOde "about the your screwed too-sarcasm dude...I dont want anyone to suffer for doubting something which is impossible to see or prove and doesn't seem to be there."
So, you actually know and trying to teach others ... this is rather ambitious and presumtuous.
" there were counter arguments that I heard that I think are crap "
Crap? According to what reference point?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated 2/? the other messages of the bible in the same way (by finding other credible sources). See the thing is that there are so many other religions claiming that they know the supernatural, and they tell everyone that the other religions are lying...they cant all be right...ill save you some time by telling you there are similar problems with pretty much all the other religions (no offense). The thing that has set me free the most is not unquestioning belief but questioning everything
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "The thing that has set me free the most is not unquestioning belief but questioning everything"
You are not free, Actually, you are doomed to degradation to nothingness. If this unconscious universe caused a wise guy such as yourself, then your wisdom i.e. your freedom or any other ethical value you caan bring does not mean anything since it is as well doomed to be degraded into nothing. Of course I am assuming you are Atheist.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated if your saying im gonna disintegrate well in that case I'm hoping your right because the muslims say I'm gonna burn in a second life then disintegrate into nothing, and I'd rather just get it over with. Which by the way is exactly what I am expecting and planning for...so if its a punishment...it's pretty lame
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "if your saying im gonna disintegrate"
If you are an Atheist, that's what you are saying, not me.
"well in that case I'm hoping your right because the muslims say I'm gonna burn in a second life then disintegrate into nothing,"
Well, if you think you can decide about it, why are you having diffculties about becoming what you are here, while you are here? After you die, what scientific theory makes you think that you will have a choce between disintegrating and burning?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "so if its a punishment...it's pretty lame"
Why? If you try to go against the scientific laws you suffer the consequences right? If you jump out of the top floor of a building, you will crash to the ground and you accept this, So, why it is lame if a Creator warns you about the after life and you don't listen and get punished for it i.e. suffer the consequences for your actions (or for the motives of your actions)?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated ps you say you aren't christian, what are you Mormon?
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherOde "you say you aren't christian, what are you Mormon?"
I am not a mormon. I am a truth seeker.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated shoot forgot to say that I am aware that if there is a god I dont have any choice over what punishment i face...ps if you wana move to a chat room we can get back to eachother a lot quicker, and thanks for sticking with the convo for so long
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde What chat room do you use? Or we can personal message, my computer is not up to spec for the high volume internetting.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated do u have msn
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "lets face it your the one following a book About the creator, just because you believe zeus will kill you with a lighting bolt if you start climbing a mountain"
The only thing I am facing right now is that you don't know that there is no religious source claimed to be originated to Zeus, Therefore, as I stated, your inability to differentiate among the religious teachings is nobadies fault except yours. To claim that "God" sent a message, is different than producing rumors.
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated 1/2 how written about greek, I can recite the basics to you...in the beginning there was mother earth father sky and water (if forget thier names) sky was constantly raping earth so that no life could be free, one of her sons chronos lived in a cave and cut his dads who-ha off forcing dad to go back to get off mom. Chronos then became king of the titans, when he found that his son was destined to overthrow him he ate every child his wife had until his wife swaped zeus for a bolder
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde "I have honestly searched for god and have honestly found nothing other than books which all contradict each other."
First of all, if you searched like this it is quite normal that you didn't go anywhere. Why did you start a search like this in the first place? Did you think you already know the answer when you started your search, or did you really start from scrach i.e. nothing? Where did you start?
Fussinated 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde >> that's why I say that you sound like you already knew the outcome of your search.
" I prayed every day, I would wake up every morning and listen to religious music, and I read my bible every night...I was deeper into the bible than most preachers, but when I questioned it or gave things up nothing really changed"
The apperantly the god you deny is the Judeo Christian god, What about other teachings. Did you meditate like Yogi's or Budhist Monks, >>
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated 2/2after that zeus slowly grew up and eventually killed chronos and cut his guts open so his brothers and sisters escaped...his brother posidon got dominion over the sea (because chronos won it first) and his brother hades got dominion over the underworld...the other gods came about in different exciting ways too and eventually we were created...if we ignore evidence supporting evolution who is to say that this story is wrong?
ChristopherOde 1 year ago
@ChristopherOde Instead of trying to vent what you knoe you should learn to listen and try to communicate. This attitude is very similar to those who consider themselves religious and decided about what is right for all. Are you aware of this aspect of your approach?
Now, I said there is no book that is claimed that it was sent by Zeus. I did not say that there are no books written about Zeus. So what is the point you are quoting me about Zeus? If there is something you don't get simply ask >
Fussinated 1 year ago
@Fussinated ps I prayed every day, I would wake up every morning and listen to religious music, and I read my bible every night...I was deeper into the bible than most preachers, but when I questioned it or gave things up nothing really changed
ChristopherOde 1 year ago