3 Challenges for Red Beetle

[RedBeetleHillBilly]

RedBeetle is a hill billy.

[SkiesVibrant]

Yep, Monty is a pathetic excuse for someone who claims to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. He does delete, censor anyone who dares to disagree.

Christians have easily dismissed the so-called issues between the Matthew and Luke account of the geneology of Jesus. If they were exactly the same, you'd accuse them of collaborating. The authors can't win because the argument is flawed. How convenient.

Ravel's Bolero is a nice touch... let's drive up the tension. Sadly transparent.

[crazypills2]

@SkiesVibrant "Christians have easily dismissed the so-called issues between the Matthew and Luke account of the geneology of Jesus."



I love responses like this. Although they appear to debunk the claim, they do nothing of the sort. They are nothing more than empty rhetoric. I understand why you do it; if you state something as fact, some people will believe you. However, that's not the case here. Empty claims will be treated as a a non-response. Based on this, my argument stands.

[SkiesVibrant]

@crazypills2 Tell you what... go and talk with my cousin, Dan Barker. He'll tell you everything you need to know about me. Beyond that you are in no position to demand that I do anything. Spend some time with the issues of authors craft, eyewitness historical accounts and you'll know everything you need to know about so-called discrepancies. Better yet, ask Dan... he'll tell you quite a story about our family's history. Happy sleuthing!

[crazypills2]

@SkiesVibrant "Beyond that you are in no position to demand that I do anything."

Unfortunately, this was the type of response I was expecting. You make assertions without evidence and when asked for evidence, you bring up Dan Barker to change the subject. I'm not really sure how to respond other than to say, "that was weak, I'm sure you can do better."

[SkiesVibrant]

@crazypills2 Unfortunately a 500 character limit, makes any kind of in depth discussion difficult. Not that I'd spend the time arguing with an atheist. Scripture tells us not to throw our pearls before swine. It's a metaphor for not wasting time and precious scripture against someone whose only intention is to trample it underfoot. That appears to be your intention. If you choose atheism, that is your right. I choose truth. I will pray for you.

[crazypills2]

@SkiesVibrant "If they were exactly the same, you'd accuse them of collaborating."

How do you know? I assume all divinely inspired texts to be without errors or contradictions. When your text contains both, I apply rules of logic and dismiss its credibility.

"The authors can't win because the argument is flawed."

Please demonstrate how the argument is flawed. I have made my case in the video. If you choose to rebut my argument, I suggest you do more than provide unsubstantiated claims.

[MrUltratruth]

Redbeetle thinks himself more biblically accurate and more intelligent then John MacArthur!! Denying Lordship Salvation is to deny the gospel invitation of Christ, to deny Lordship Salvation is to support an easy believism.. No turning from sin, no repentance, no obedience to Christ, just ask Jesus in your heart, No lordship salvation is no narrow gate, no losing your life to find it. Redbettle is deluded to say the least

[turtle4aire]

Don't worry about this Beetle for when a beetle move around in life. some where a man will step on him and he is gone ! The reason i say this is he is here for to attack others and you will see many have come to attack, but found out it is no fun and they move on !

6 month to a year from now some one will ask where is that Beetle ? they will say Awwww He just moved on to something else to hate !

Attackers and haters just move on when the fun is over !

[patriotsfan137]

I didn't say you claimed that he did i just said that is an example of speculation

[patriotsfan137]

oh !!! am sorry my bad I guess your one of those guys that unless you see it written right next to it it could be even your own genealogy huh? since Jesus is the subject it has to be marys come on man!!!! seriously you know you lost I think you joking now yea it has to be your joking cause no one can be that blind hahahaha am really laughing jokes on me huh hahaha

[patriotsfan137]

this is just as funny as that guy whos in a wheelchair and claims the universe created itself out of nothing NOW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! IS PURE SPECULATION since hes braking a fundamental rule that out of nothing nothing can come now that is pure insane SPECULATION  lol

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "this is just as funny as that guy whos in a wheelchair and claims the universe created itself out of nothing NOW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!! IS PURE SPECULATION since hes braking a fundamental rule that out of nothing nothing can come now that is pure insane SPECULATION lol"

Is that what I have claimed?

[patriotsfan137]

your funny in this case tho its not so can you breath? its called air you can't see it but you know its there that its not speculating Jesus is the subject of both genealogys one is of the father thats Mathews so the other must be of the mother and the writter does not have to wrtte that because its common sense !!!! unles of course are you saying jesus didn't have a mother? therefore you are speculating that Lukes genealogy is that of luke? mybe???? your worrying me now son do you homework

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "your worrying me now son do you homework"

Why should one assume Luke's genealogy is Mary's when it says that Joseph is the son of Heli. Only someone with presuppositions. Speculation is not evidence, but I guess you'll never understand that....

[SkiesVibrant]

@patriotsfan137 Yep, that is exactly what is happening. From Got Questions? Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” & Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. This is Christianity 101 & every sincere committed believer learned this in Sunday School. Be blessed.

[patriotsfan137]

yes you are right evidence is required in certain areas but the problem here is not evidence it has been given to you!! the problem is that you don't want GOD in your life cause you want to be autonomous you can't stand the thought that GOD rules over you you are not alone this is the problem of humanity including me I have problems accepting GODSsovereignty over my life please forgive me if I sounded sometimes as if am criticizing you it is not my intent

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "yes you are right evidence is required in certain areas but the problem here is not evidence it has been given to you!!"

I keep forgetting that, when it comes to religious matters, evidence = speculation :-)

[patriotsfan137]

and by the way your question has been answered weather you say yes or no it's irrevelant anyone who see's these posts will see your foolishness I know you hate that it seems to me you have a very BIG problem with being shown that you are wrong so sorry for you

[patriotsfan137]

it's amazing how pridefull you are sir it is either that or you lack all form of common sense like I SAID from the begining you have a real problem and no matter what anyone says you won't accept but remmember that GOD works two ways through circumstances to either soften the human heart or to harden it so that HE can be gloryfied in either way this is HIS universe and we play by HIS rules but once again am amazed at how people can be so easly decieved and than stay stubrnly in that condition

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "it's amazing how pridefull you are sir it is either that or you lack all form of common sense..."

Because I don't accept unsubstantiated claims, I'm prideful? Because I require someone provide evidence, not just rhetoric, I lack common sense?

It's obvious that we look at things completely different when it comes to the bible, god, and religion. However, in other areas of your life, I suspect that you actually require evidence. In those areas, we might not be so different.

[patriotsfan137]

matew does say this is joseph genealogy since the subject is Jesus Luke does not have to writte that Heli was Mary's father its common sense that he is since both the genealogy's are refering to JESUStha's not speculation at all sir it's common sense question answered !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I gave you a few extra so that you might believe lol

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "Luke does not have to writte that Heli was Mary's father its common sense..."

Only "common sense" to someone who already presupposes that the bible contains no contradictions. To all others, we tend to read the words that are written. Again, you have offered no evidence. If someone was to make the same argument to show that the Qur'an is inspired, I think you might appreciate my position. I don't think you would accept the "common sense" argument, because it isn't common sense.

[patriotsfan137]

if things happen for no purpose what so ever now thats a scary thought but things happen as a predetermined mean to an end that is the hope of the christian faith sir and we know that GOD causes all things to work for the good of those who love HIM for those who are called according to HIS purpose romans 8;28'29 yes even the evil acts of men are determined by the sovereign GOD the greatest evil the crucifixion of Jesus was directed byGOD to bring salvation to men

[patriotsfan137]

son was also used as a term for son in law example Jair was a distant son in law of Manasseh ( 1st chronicles 2: 21-23 and 7:14-15) yet he was called the "son of Manasseh"

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "son was also used as a term for son in law example Jair was a distant son in law of Manasseh"

Well, if that were the only problem with the genealogy, then you might be able to use it (although you have no evidence that Heli was Mary's father...only speculation...show me the evidence). However, there are many other problems, such as Matthew leaving out generations from his genealogy and the problematic 28 generations from David to Jesus. And that's not all...

[patriotsfan137]

as far as chooice is concerned you don't have choice nobody does do you choose circimstances that come into your life? sicknes, accidents etc... and not only that you can only choose within the situation that you find yourself in you cannot choose to be heald instantly of many ills or of many many situations your choices are not only limited most times they are forced only an arrogant fool would not see that

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "as far as chooice is concerned you don't have choice nobody does do you choose circimstances that come into your life?"

It's one thing to accept that things are outside of my control. It's quite another to accept that god is responsible for them. I accept that there is 'evil' in the world. I find it difficult to accept that any god could be the cause of it. Life makes much more sense if we remove god from the equation...shit happens, plain and simple.

[patriotsfan137]

do you like luke? you don't say the same thing about mathew ? you are a smart man did you not do your homework? his letter was written to greek chritians who were interested in knowing Jesus decent from GOD oh am sorry maybe he should have called you first to see if that was allright with you huh? what an ego!!! you have HAHAHAHAHAHA

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "his letter was written to greek chritians who were interested in knowing Jesus decent from GOD oh am sorry maybe he should have called you first to see if that was allright with you huh?"

Luke says that Joseph was the "son of Heli"; it doesn't say Mary was the daughter of Heli. Matthew says the Joseph was the son of Jacob. Both can't be right. So Joseph, who's your daddy?

There's no ego here. Is it too much to ask the bible to not contradict itself?

[patriotsfan137]

no not at all that is what you worship but you do it in front of the mirror PRIDE since they didn't want to worship the true GOD , HE gave them up so they could worship the creature instead of the creator

[patriotsfan137]

tell the truth man you want the glory that many people give to GOD don't you? you want it you desire it don't you? huh!!huh?I know its true cause you don't want to give GOD the glory therefore you must want it for yourself like a child who does not want to share his toy with anyone GOD sees from the heavens and HE laughs HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "tell the truth man you want the glory that many people give to GOD don't you?"

I wouldn't ever want manipulated worship. If you are correct regarding god, then your worship of him isn't genuine, as you have no choice but to worship him. What sort of a being makes people want to tell him how great he is? Your god has serious self-esteem issues, coupled with characteristics of a 3-year-old. He's powerful, but has the emotional maturity of a child. This is what you worship.

[patriotsfan137]

thats really funny I find myself laughing at your comment at 5 am here goes the extra!!!but it is just as I said when it was answerd bout lukes genealogys dfference you did not accept it cause you want luke to have said mr. crazypills am writting to let you know this is marys genealogy pride has confused you into believing that there is no God cause you want to be god you want the glory the fool says in his heart there is no GOD the heavens declare the glory of GOD day after day

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 " it is just as I said when it was answerd bout lukes genealogys dfference..."

You only offered unsubstantiated claims; where is the evidence behind your claims? Here are some problems: 1) why didn't Luke say it was Mary's genealogy?, 2) why does Matthew skip generations that are clearly outlined in the OT?, 3) why did Matthew miscount in his 3rd group of 14?, 4) why does Matthew show 28 generations from David to Jesus, but Luke shows 43? These are real problems...

[patriotsfan137]

it has already been answered!!!!! but you don't belive it because you can't believe it and you hate that ! you hate to think that you are not able to just like all men whom God has not chosen to reveal himself to GOD also says 'Do not throw your pearls to the pigs for they will only trample them' I WISH the best for you sir in the end GOD will be glorified weather you believe or not

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "it has already been answered!!!!!"

Had you used just one more exclamation, I would have believed that you actually answered the question :-)

"I WISH the best for you sir in the end GOD will be glorified weather you believe or not"

I never ceased to be amazed when people make that statement. Like there's a being out there, who created and controls the universe, that has such low self-esteem that he's only concerned with his glorification. How pathetic would that be?

[patriotsfan137]

it;s the other way around sir it seems to me that truth is only what you are concerned with or what you think it's true and you are right it is an interesting perspective

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "it;s the other way around sir it seems to me that truth is only what you are concerned with or what you think it's true and you are right it is an interesting perspective"

I can offer justification for my position, which is one of the many ways we differ. I can demonstrate that the bible is a fallible book filled with errors and contradictions. You can offer nothing but rhetoric. Either the bible is infallible or it's not. I feel very comfortable I can demonstrate the latter.

[patriotsfan137]

the question has been answered!!! that you don't want to accept it verifyes and testifyes what God says its true the" natural man can not I say it again can not understand the things of God for they are foolishness to him" you want to be god you want to rule your life " PRIDE" therefore you don't accept Gods assertion of you and you can;t accept it cause sin has decieved you and clouded your mind into thinking IT IS NOT SO but some of us can see it there is a way

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "the question has been answered!!!"

No, you are avoiding the question. By saying you have answered it is disingenuous at best. You have provided no reasoning as to why you are right. Instead, you have offered assertions and quotes from a two-thousand year old book of desert scribblings.

I'll ask again; how do you know you are right? Please answer if you can.....

[patriotsfan137]

the original readers of Lukes work were greek christians; while Mathew wrote to the jews; Luke wrote to the greeks; Mathews genealogy emphasizes Jesus claim to the throne of David; Lukes readers were less concerned about fullfillment of jewish prophecy, his genealogy focus on jesus decent from God it placed no emphasis on jesus on jesus being a decendant of David

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "Lukes readers were less concerned about fullfillment of jewish prophecy..."

So, the truth isn't the truth then? The truth is only what you're concerned with? Interesting perspective.

[patriotsfan137]

exactly! you don't believe because you can't believe,you can't believe because thats what sin does it decieves you into thinking against Gods ways or truths "there is a way that seems rght to a man but the end of it leads to death" so by the way you are reasoning you are displaying what God says to be true of a person who has their understanding darkend to the things of God humanly speaking you may be very smart there is a way tho if there was 1 for me than there is one available also

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "exactly! you don't believe because you can't believe,you can't believe because thats what sin does it decieves you into thinking against Gods ways or truths "

This is fine rhetoric, but it ignores the question I have asked multiple times: how do you know that you are right and I am wrong?

[patriotsfan137]

exactly! you don't believe because you can't believe,you can't believe because thats what sin does it decieves you into thinking against Gods ways or truths "there is a way that seems rght to a man but the end of it leads to death" so by the way you are reasoning you are displaying what God says to be true of a person who has their understanding darkend to the things of God humanly speaking you may be very smart there is a way tho if there was 1 for me than there is one available also

[patriotsfan137]

you are so right sir that is a problem, but it is not my problem it is your problem, you see by making those statements you are actually verifying what God says about people like yourself romans 1:18-23 read it sir and also see if you and am sure you do, fall into the category of the following verses 24-32 you won' t believe because you can't it is a judgement against you from God I wish it was not so! you might be a nice guy I dont know but it is what it is although there is a way

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "''...you might be a nice guy I dont know but it is what it is although there is a way"

Unfortunately, if you are right, then there is no way. However, we are back to where we started; how do you know you are right?

[patriotsfan137]

you can joke about my spelling I have no problem with that since I know for sure you make many other mistakes in other areas of your life so am glad you looked tho I for one if this guy red beatle is calling people names thats not right nor is it godly as far as you sir wether you want to believe or not you will come in to the presence of God some day and ALL knees will be bent and you WILL declare that HE is LORD to HIS glory you can laugh now but of that you can be sure

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "...you will come in to the presence of God some day and ALL knees will be bent and you WILL declare that HE is LORD to HIS glory you can laugh now but of that you can be sure"

That's the problem, I can't be sure. In fact, all evidence would point to the contrary.

So sir, the question is how can you know what you said is true?

[patriotsfan137]

the bible speaks of people like all of you 1st. corinthians the natural man cannot understand the things of God cause they are foolishness to him; it also warns about spending time ansewering foolish questions about geneolagies and stories tce... most of you fall into the category of romans 1 professing to be wise G od has darken their mind to believe a lie and worship the creature rather than the creator

[crazypills2]

@patriotsfan137 "... it also warns about spending time ansewering foolish questions about geneolagies and stories tce...."

Does it warn about bad spelling? :-)

[TheCarydal]

You gotta love how this guy goes on and on about the protestant reformation, sola fide, sola gratia and yet nitpicks when anyone deviates from (his view) of orthodox protestantism , like a legalist.

Fuck.

[TheCarydal]

Monty collier is... completely vapid.

Look up vincent cheung. He's a supralapsarian nutjob if I ever saw one

[OneRadicalCentrist]

Monty would be more tolerable if he'd stop referring to the bible as an axiom and if he'd stop claiming Calvinism were the only possible true interpretation of Christianity. His constant videos harping on about the superiority of Calvinism via sheer propaganda and historical ignorance get very annoying very quickly. As does his dismissive and condescending view towards non-Calvinists and non-Christians (though to hear him tell it they're one in the same)

[TheCarydal]

Thank YOU! And I'm a christian.

[m1tchish]

It is true you can find discrepancies...

However, The JEWS denied the one pierced.

In the old testament it says "Then they will look at the one that

was pieced.....The Jews are to this day not looking at the pieced one

So even if you see some discrepancies the truth is still there....

[Passiflora101]

Just block him & choose the "comment pending approval" option on your channel options.

[Passiflora101]

UPDATE: Add "dork" and "MouthFart" to the list of name calling.

Collier has many of the characteristics of a psychological batterer with what appears to be a multiple personality disorder. A Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. A control freak. At the heart of abuse is the absolute need to control, thus no dissent. Name calling is just another aspect of it. Re-writing history, selective forgetfulness, put downs, shifting blame...these are more symtoms to watch for.

[Psylliumhead]

I just stumbled in on this video, so I don't know what any of this is about. But does this maker understand what the word "censorship" means? Disabling comments or deleting comments is not censorship. It's his channel he can do whatever he wants. He is not a government controling your speech.

[daafith]

Can you Pm me those questions about the genealogy.?If I have some more time I would like to look at them and find a good explanation

[QuisSeperabit60]

I looked into them just there; there are several very sound explanations. They satisfied me, and I'm not even ideaologically committed to Biblical inerrancy.

[daafith]

Hi Quis.

Then I'd suggest to PM me those explanations, or the references to them. Thanks

[QuisSeperabit60]

sorry got looked at it all last night so can't remember the links. they're slightly too involved to regurgitate here. google jesus geneaology and you should find most of them if you look long enough.

[daafith]

Ok thanks.

[foucachon]

yeah, Monty blocked me too...because I disagreed with him. thankfully, he refutes himself through his own egotistical videos.

[jcrabs1]

While i am a christian, I do NOT agree with Monty Collier because that man is a fool. But if the only contradictions you can find in the bible are in a very complicated genealogy and the apostles lack of mathamatical skills, then maybe you should look for more. I dont believe that you should just take everything as truth. i question many things that i dont understand in the bible, but please do not try to be critical of the bible using only the genealogy.

[crazypills2]

"i question many things that i dont understand in the bible, but please do not try to be critical of the bible using only the genealogy." - jcrabs1

I'm glad that you question a lot of things in the bible. And as such, this video is not really directed at you. Instead, it is directed at those who believe it is without error.

The genealogy is not the only error I find in the bible. I spent most of my life studying this book and have found numerous problems.

[dannukesem]

I don't know Red Beetle, and I hate to say this, but more often than not, this seems to be the case with Christians. I wonder what God would think of this if he was watching ?

[skintightpotato]

Please don't make such a sweeping generalization. This man, RB, has also been nasty and hurtful to many within the Christian community as well, and many Christians are speaking out against his repeated attacks. He is not a representative of the Christian faith...but then again, none of us should be so good as to make claim to represent the faith. I know I wouldn't want people judging "all" Christians because of "me." Please judge a man by his own merit.

Peace.

[dannukesem]

Point taken. There is a channel here called "bondservant40" that examples all of what a Christian should be. Although I don't believe everything there, I think the core characteristics are important. In the last few years, I have lost much of the faith in things I used to believe in, yet still have some definite reasons to believe in God. I think what gets Christians in trouble is their dogmatic trying to prove ideas that will not work, creationism, age of earth (6000 years) .

[dannukesem]

In every religion, people get together with their "ideas", and unfortunately it isn't like the scientific arena where things need to be proven. So these ideas get through and become "religious law", and are never questioned by anybody except the atheists. I've identified myself more with the atheists in the last few years because they are more honest, and really do care about truth, even though I am not an atheist myself. If you really think about it, who can understand God ?

[TheFlanker35]

Monty blocked me just for questioning his views on empiricism.

[crazypills2]

That's surprising TheFlanker35 :-)

[TheFlanker35]

@crazypills2,

It gets worse. He told me to PM him before blocking him. You can't PM users that have blocked you.

[700bees]

son-in-laws were referred to as sons

[numberonesurvivor75]

In fact, the destruction of Biblical Christianity was a goal of the nazis and a goal of Christian Identity.

[dannyboyfour]

@numberonesurvivor75 No, it wasn't. Nazi's even wore the words "God with us" (obviously in German though) on their belt buckles. This does nothing to show that Christianity is evil though. Just as it wouldn't show Atheism to be evil if it were otherwise.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Professing Christianity publically doesn't equal believing in Christianity. Hitler was a closet pagan. There's a lot documentation confirming this. He wanted to replace Christianity with a religion called Ariosophy.

[dannyboyfour]

@numberonesurvivor75 Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. Catholicism being a sect of Christianity would make him a Christian.

[numberonesurvivor75]

People profess different religions in different circumstances. Hitler also carried out Kristalnacht on Luther's birthday. Catholics usually despise Martin Luther.

[numberonesurvivor75]

dannyboyfour,

That god wasn't the Christian God.

[pranays]

Lol the Right wing Christian comments posted here are the funniest bullshit I have ever seen.

Calling people rednecks and Nazis, that is just stupid, Creationism is a Southern movement and they are the rednecks, and the Nazis were an extreme Right wing Christian movement.

(Do not make stupid comments misquoting the one quote you Christians say makes Hitler and atheist unless you want to get owned, I have copies of all his books and table talk was not written till 2000 he did not write it.)

[pranays]

If you are going to insult someone there has to be some truth to it so it stings a little:

You are just a bunch of ignorant, inbreed, redneck, trailer trash, caveman quoting, uneducated, neo-fundamentalist, Reich Wing Christians.

See how I did that? I used stereotypes and called you Nazis twice without using the actual word that is how it is done.

PS: that is what I think of you Banjo playing, Alabama porch jockeys.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Hitler was a Pagan, Creationism is a Christian movement, and the Nazis were Left Wing by American standards where Right Wing is based on limited government through a belief in God.

[pranays]

Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lords work."Also in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

[numberonesurvivor75]

pranays,

"In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Roman Catholicism rejects the Bible so you can't really call it Christian. It's more Gnostic than Christian.

[pranays]

Hitler 1933 speech in Berlin: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

All quotes thanks to Mark at word press.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Christian Identity is also a Pagan movement.

[pranays]

Pagan = a follower of an ancient polytheistic or pantheistic religion; does not follow one of the world's main religions, especially somebody who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Hitler followed ancient Pagan movements and was an Odinist. Christian Identity profess Christianity, but aren't Christian. They basically just steal the name Christian.

[numberonesurvivor75]

pranays,

If you're going to accurately comment on Christianity, you have to understand its doctrines. Otherwise, you're just obsessed with slandering civilization.

[pranays]

Christianity was an anti pagan movement and civilization excited tens of thousands of years before Christianity.

Christianity was responsible for the dark ages and all the Jedo-Christian religions are the biggest scourge on modern civilization.

You clearly have no understanding of real history and are resorting to slander and lies to prove your false beliefs.

[numberonesurvivor75]

pranays,

Civilization, in the sense pertaining to everybody, did not exist before Christianity. Pagan Rome had some cities and roads, but they served no purpose. The Romans worshipped cannibals and were founded on rape and fratricide. Few people could read and write. Most people were enslaved. Whenver pure, Biblical Christianity has taken hold, things have improved. Read New Atlantis by Francis Bacon

[numberonesurvivor75]

pranays,

Civilization did not exist much before Christianity. There was very little written. The food surpli were low. Very few strides were made intellectually. It took Christian scientists/mathematicians to produce the Enlightenment.

[pranays]

Also you do not need to type my name before you comment when you post as a reply.

Are you 12 years old or something?

You are spewing bullshit and Reich Wing Christian Garbage you know nothing about history at all.

[numberonesurvivor75]

pranays,

You neither think nor read about history or historical concepts. You need people like me to teach you how thought works and how societies develop. Anything you've read has probably just been pseudo-historical at best. When you've read it, you haven't been able to logically examine it. That's why you don't know what to make of the facts. History shows that science, culture, and civilization rest on the Bible.

[pranays]

Your an idiot the First Civilization goes back 7500 B.C - 10 000 B.C. Christianity is only 2009 year old.

Catholics are Christians; you morons are even racist to each other how can you claim to be Civilized when you are so blatantly Ignorant.

You are so fucking stupid you need to shut the fuck up with your Christian lies and propaganda.

[numberonesurvivor75]

I type your name in for the benefit of everyone reading the comments. It's practical and clear. Catholics do not always believe in the authority of the Bible so it is hard to call them Christian always. Also, Catholics are not a race. The First Civilization doesn't go back 7500 B.C. Civilization needs a cultural, philosophical foundation to order society. This doesn't begin to appear until 2500 B.C. Complete civilization begins with Abraham, who was a Christian.

[pranays]

Yes the first civilization does go back further than 7500 B.C. it is historical fact.

You do not have even an elementary school level of understanding of history if you think the Abraham started civilization. That is utter nonsense you need to read a history text book you clearly do not know the first thing about history if you truly believe that Jedo-Christian Garbage.

You are a propagandist.

[numberonesurvivor75]

No, pranays all evidence points to the fact that civilization is about 4000-5000 years old. That's a generous definition too. You're the one being a propagandist since you claim to use "mainstream" history yet all credible encyclopedias agree with me.

Stop lying.

Evidence does not prove, but support, that Abraham founded civilization as we know it in terms of constructing a society along moral lines. Prior to Abraham, all "civilization" was a degenerate and savage.

[pranays]

"Mainstream history yet all credible encyclopaedias agree with me"

You are a lair name one and I will prove you are full of shit.

[numberonesurvivor75]

The fact is that my history background is strong. I have an honorary degree in the subject for my research into the Rapanui culture of Easter Island. Evidence supports that Abraham founded civilization. Your history textbooks are definitely wrong if they teach that civilization goes back to 7500 B.C.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Certain elements of civilization existed before Abraham but without his moral fortitude, those societies lacked the consistency to be considered completely civilized.

The requirements for civilization are:

1)Usual surplus of food

2)General assortment and division of occupations

3)A form of writing that's WIDESPREAD

4)An established code of written law!

Before Abraham, no one cared about writing. Since Abraham made literacy important and widespread, he made civilization.

[pranays]

No you are wrong again.

Harpan Civilization 7500-10000BC

Sumarian 5300 BC

Egypition 3150 BC

Mesopotamian 7000 10000B.C.

China 6500 B.C.

Greek 1100 B.C.

These are just a few there are more and all predate you Christian Bullshit by thousands of years.

We learn this stuff in elementary school in Canada what kind of garbage education are they giving you in your shit hole schools.

You are either stupid or a liar, but you are defiantly WRONG.

[pranays]

Next you are going to claim the earth is only 6000 thousand get your head out of your ass and stop reading the bible for history it is just a fairy tale.

All these civilizations had

"1)Usual surplus of food

2)General assortment and division of occupations

3)A form of writing that's WIDESPREAD

4)An established code of written law!"

And all predate Abraham the Jew.

You do not understand history at all your an idiot.

[pranays]

You fucking coward I own you and prove you wrong so you mark my comments as spam.

Typical religious cowardly bullshit it is the reason you chicken shits hide behind god.

[pfnr37]

@pranays Pranays I know you do not believe in a world wide flood. But just suppose that there was a world wide flood. Before that flood there would have been a civilization, possibly an advanced civilization. If only one family survived would not all cultures there on have similarities because they came from that one family?

[2xsf]

"I don't know"

This seems to be the most difficult phrase for mythers to utter, and the phrase that drives most science.

[crazypills2]

You are absolutely correct 2xsf. The pursuit of knowledge is the catalyst for our advancement. If we hope to survive as a species, our hunger for knowledge must increase.

[2xsf]

It was actually meant to be a reference to the last screen in your vid, the one that reads:

"It's ok to question things.

If something doesn't make sense, don't pretend that it does".

I have no doubts that we will survive as a species, the question is, how much will we accomplish?

[LeksServices]

Oh, I sometimes like to call people out using rather vile name calling. I say, for example, that someone is "small minded" if they don't see the irony that since pedophilia is a sexual orientation, it is unreformable, so people who have sex with children must be punished for life; but on the other hand, homosexuality is reformable, because it's a choice. People get hung up on "pedophile" without really seeing the point. It's weird. XD

[T4148]

Love ur vids but just want to say I don't allow comments because I don't want to spend my time debating. My videos are for self-expression and for those who want to watch. Is it censoring? Yes. Am I weak-minded just because I don't want to debate? Perhaps, but calling someone weak-minded is name calling too, right?

[crazypills2]

T4148,

Thanks for your comment. You ask 2 good questions, which I will attempt to address. Hopefully others will join in as well.

1. Although I understand what you are saying regarding censorship, I don't agree. In a free speech society, I believe people have the right to criticize what you say. If you don't want to debate, you are under no obligation to respond

2. Is saying someone is weak-minded name calling? Perhaps. Although I may not be justified, my use isn't intended to end an argument

[hicamaman]

Re: #1

If something is posted here for presentation and not debate, I don't see a problem with not providing a means for discussion. Yes, people have the right to criticize what you say/present, but that doesn't mean the artist or author needs to provide that space.

You won't see a whiteboard hanging next to works of Pollock, but you will see the work discussed in other places.

The big difference here is that the works of Pollock don't claim to be "right" or call others fools.

[crazypills2]

hicamaman,

Why shouldn't the author of a video provide space for criticism? I believe that when ideas are offered on youtube alternative opinions should be requested. I guess I just don't see why I would want to limit someone's ability to comment on my ideas. If my ideas aren't strong, then they should be exposed so I can change my view if I need to.

[hicamaman]

Context is everything. I think those who present ideas here and don't allow for feedback are simply afraid of having their ideas challenged. I also think that as often as possible, those people should simply be ignored.

The man with the weakest argument is also usually the loudest. They want theirs to be the only voice, to not hear opposing views which might challenge theirs. When opinion is presented up here with no means for commenting, the presenter has already lost the argument.

[hicamaman]

If I post a video of my great aunt myrtle doing the hula hoop, I probably don't want a lot of people criticizing her technique or calling her names.  Assuming that I put it up there for people (family esp) to enjoy, comments/opinions/technical assessments don't really matter.

You know that the way to learn is to find out you were wrong, and you welcome new information. These other people don't. They've based their whole life's purpose on something we all say isn't real, and they're terrified.

[T4148]

1. I agree with hicamaman--feel free to debate my artistic expression but I don't have to invite you into my home to do it and you shouldn't expect me to stand there and take it. In a free society, I'm free to partake in activities I enjoy and if I don't enjoy debating and moderating comments, no amount of calling me "weak minded" is going to shame me into a debate in which I have no interest in participating. To me, there are more enjoyable activities to spend my time doing.

[crazypills2]

T4148,

1. You obviously don't have to provide space for criticism, but why wouldn't you want to? If your ideas are strong, then they will stand on their own. And, you can further defend them if you want. However, you are under no obligation to respond to comments from your viewers. If you don't want to debate them, then just allow them to comment without a response. I do this all of the time.

[T4148]

2. If your name calling is not intended to end an argument, what is it intended to do? To shame someone into taking your position? To guilt them into a debate with you?

[crazypills2]

T4148,

2. I'm not offering the name calling in lieu of an argument. Have you never told anyone they were closed minded? Do you consider this name calling or a statement of your belief? Is this the same as calling someone a chump, idiot, moron, or redneck atheist?

[T4148]

You didn't answer the question. Again, If your name calling is not intended to end an argument, what is it intended to do?

[crazypills2]

T4148,

I'm trying to get them to allow a discussion.

Now, you answer my questions. Is saying that someone is closed minded name calling? Have you ever done this? And is it the same as calling someone a redneck atheist?

[T4148]

!. Yes. Saying someone is closed-minded is name calling. It's a put-down meant to induce guilt and shame. 2. No, I've never done this. 3. Yes. It's the same as calling someone a redneck atheist. Both the terms "close-minded" and "redneck atheist" are subjective and are meant to incite an emotional response when used against another. Do I think you shouldn't use the term "close minded"? Well, that's up to you but it is hypocritical to accuse someone of name-calling and do it yourself.

[crazypills2]

So instead of calling someone "closed minded," I should say "you are not open to new ideas." Is that better?

[T4148]

Either way, you're accusing the person of something they're clearly not going to agree with you over. Does anyone consider himself to be close-mined or not opened to new ideas? Of course not! My question is, should we even bother engaging in a discussion with someone like Red Beetle? Or, are the better, more fun, more productive, more helpful, etc. things to do with our time? Again, only you can answer those questions for yourself. For me the answer is to not bother with people like that.

[hicamaman]

T4148,

I've known quite a few christians who are *proud*! to state they are closed minded! They *proudly* declare that an open mind leads to demon possession and exposure to ungodly things (like science. No, I'm not kidding).

They quite proudly surround themselves *only* by people and ideas which will strengthen and not challenge in any way, that which they've already decided is true. These people are very common.

[T4148]

Interesting! I heard Hitchens (or Dawkins--I forget) quote Lawrence Ferlinghetti who said, "If you're too open-minded; your brains will fall out." This surprised me coming from an Atheist.

For me, I struggle with the question of whether or not to engage in a continual debate with the religious-minded. I end up thinking, "Doesn't anyone see this? I feel like I' m taking crazy pills!"

I'd rather spend my time having interesting discussions like this one with people like you and crazypills.

[styrofoamheart]

i don't like to read videos.

[Fast81Z28]

Hey Steve..."Athiest" is name calling? I thought it was a compliment. ;)

[crazypills2]

Fast81Z28,

"Atheist" probably is a compliment. Especially when individuals like Red Beetle make "Christian" a pejorative.

[MagnusIan]

Censorship: You may be wrong, but why grow up and deal with it?

Great vid, Steve. :)

[crazypills2]

Thanks Magnuslan.

[TheMudbrooker]

Aww, c'mon Steve, it sounds so much better when the generations between David and Jesus work out to neat multiples of seven!

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[crazypills2]

TheMudbrooker,

Excellent point.

Now here's an interesting question: do you think that even the National Inquirer would reject some of the bible stories as ridiculous?

[TheMudbrooker]

SEX! BETRAYAL! MURDER!

Try the No-Pork diet and watch the pounds melt away!

Priest claims "I CAN CURE LEPROSY!!"

I've always suspected the bible started out as a collection of tabloid stories someone took a little too seriously.

[Blogrich55]

So is it okay to doubt the scientfic method, empericism, and evolution? O Shteve, may I point out that you calling Lightspeed and I both cowards is name calling. May I also express my doubts as to your not having any sock accounts? LOL

Also, you may not know the but YouTube has been removing comments now. ALL of your early comments on GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT are gone. Too bad. You were getting your smug self righteous butt kicked good. You came back as Shteve and got it kicked again.

[crazypills2]

Rich,

Once again I am wowed by your comment :-)

[stealthbadger]

o.o

/popcorn

[ProfMTH]

"Martin Luther would be ashamed of you"

LOL!

[crazypills2]

Thanks Prof. It's always nice to have you stop by.

I know you've had your interesting experiences with the beetle too :-)

[ProfMTH]

To call them interesting would probably be saying too much. ;-)

[Afrikitty]

ProfMTH, have you seen this video: "ProfMTH's Irrational Ethics"?

It has been months since it was posted, but there's been no reply from you. What's the matter? Has the cat got your fingers?

Is RedBeetle right? Do you lack basic logic and grammar? Is this a good quality in a professor? Hmmmmmmmmm????

[ProfMTH]

LOL @ Afrikitty. First, your friend RedBeetle has me blocked. Nifty way to conduct business, eh, Afrikitty: make a video about a person but block the person so he or she can't reply. Second, I *did* see the video once. It was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. Third, your comment is almost as stupid as that video. Thanks.

[Afrikitty]

Aaaahaahahahahaha hahahaaaa

So, Monty's got you blocked huh? I think I will get onto him about that, the little so and so.

But I gotto tell you something ProfMTH, I sure can see why Monty calls you guys names!

Chumps! Aahahahahahahaha haha~

[NIKandSi]

ProfMTH,

Thank you for publicly identifying the basic rules of logic and grammar as the "stupidest things" you've ever seen.

I've always maintained that you and your followers are irrationalists.

You truly are a redneck atheist.

The truth is, you're not qualified to be a professor to those seeking their G.E.D.--LOL.

In the end, my video presents well reasoned scholarship with credible citations, while you present idiotic rhetoric--like the ignorant fool you are.

[tattooskin72]

someone is bad at math? :)

[crazypills2]

You're right tattooskin72. Math is obviously not a requirement to write a book of the bible.