The Big Bang seems to be one of those things that theists and non-theists agree on, but simply differ on the cause thereof. While Abrahamic theists believe that the Big Bang was caused by their *God*, secularists believe that the Big Bang was caused *naturally*. I don't know how ANYBODY can deny the Big Bang.
Wait how does the 'watch-maker' big bang God equate to the God of christianity? Seriously, what distinguishes xian scientists or whoever as correct or at least more correct than muslim or jewish scholars?
I reject any claim to know about the 'super-set' of meta-reality from our subjective position within the 'set' of reality.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I responded to his sarcastic comment with a perfectly logical question, one M3PanoS assumes must be christianity which is a poor answer."
The second part of this sentence, after the comma, isn't even coherent. I'd love to answer you, but I kind of can't...
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Jewfaq? are you a jew or an atheist? jewfaq argues in favor of judaism it doesn't prove atheism true what prophecies did he not fulfill?
@DarthLordSpawn I'm an agnostic with buddhistic influences. Jewfaq specifically states the requirements to be the jewish messiah one of which is to not be supernatural. I can give you a number of unfulfilled prophecies.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus died before he was able to fulfill ANY prophecies. No coincidence involved. Reference to men gods is not present in the tanakh because they didn't exist in Judaism. Try paganism where the Christian story has its basis."
So, you have no evidence that Messiah is required to be only a man. Also, you are wrong in your claim about Jesus.
The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles(
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Isaiah 53 isn't about Jesus. The sufffering servant is Israel, mat. ". But you, Israel , are my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called you from its farthest corners, and said to you, You are my servant; I have chosen you, and not cast you away. ?"
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It is about the Messiah, at least, that's what Jews believed/believe. How can the suffering servant be Israel when it is speaking of a person? Was Israel pierced for their own transgressions and crushed for their own iniquities or for someone else? What peace was brought from their chastisement? Whose iniquity was laid upon Israel?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Whose soul made an offering for guilt? You see, it doesn't make sense applying it to Israel. It applies to a person, the Messiah. Clearly, the language in ch. 53 is different from that in ch. 41.
@DarthLordSpawn If you look at it in a metaphorical way it seems to make sense, as though it were speaking to the whole of the nation. But the bible is so complex in its mix of pseudohistory/ mythology/ allegory/ scientific understandings/ contradictions/ political manipulation and a number of other things that you have to sift through it all for any of it to make sense.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus wasn't the suffering servent, mat. Again, you're trying to put a Christian slant on verses that have nothing to do with Christianity."
He wasn't because...you said so? OK, let's compare using the Gospel of Matthew, since that is the only one Ebionites accept:
@Requiemxtoxinnocence He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. Is. 53:3-4 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him. Matt. 27:27-31
@Requiemxtoxinnocence But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. Is. 53:5
"His blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified...And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Matt. 27:26-26,35-37
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? Is. 53-7-8
And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent...Then Pilate said to him,
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed. Matt. 26:63; 27:13
And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Is. 53:9
@DarthLordSpawn Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That's nice, but choosing three out of all the verses I gave to you doesn't exactly make your case. Maybe you can take the rest of the verses and passages and continue to make the case.
@DarthLordSpawn The three monotheistic groups are all babbling about this vague prophecy all with different interpretations, views, and agendas on this subject. What makes any of this correct in any sense? Especially when you consider all of you are fighting to be god's "chosen people" and all of you think you are right, and god hasn't bothered to show himself to sort this confusion out when it may lead to destruction and war over such a thing.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Matthew's Gospel, the one you claim is reliable, records many instances of fulfilled prophesy by Jesus and he quotes the prophesies as he writes. Start with chapter 1, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 and says that Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophesy.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Then go to Matt. 2, where he quotes Micah 6:8 and says that Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophesy. Then in the same chapter, Matthew quotes from Jeremiah 31. Matthew records no less than 24 individual prophesies that Jesus fulfilled.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Want to read the REAL words,before mistranslation of Isaiah 53?
The Hebrew Tanakh says “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.”
But the KJV says:: “thou shall make his soul an offering for sin "ISN'T IN THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS, MAT. More Christian interpolation/ "
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't use the KJV, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. However, let's look to the Septuagint for how it is translated, since that is not a Christian interpolation as you claim the KJV is. It reads,
O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We brought a report as a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed. 4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;and by his bruises we were healed. 6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins. And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death. 9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth. 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. 12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death:
That's a good question, if there is no temple, then you are dead in your sins according to Judaism. You have no sacrificial system, no way to atone for your sins. We believe that Jesus will return to establish his reign and bring in a time of peace before the final battle and final judgment, ...
@Requiemxtoxinnocence ...then the new heavens and new earth will establish everlasting peace in the new Jerusalem, where the Holy of Holies will be established permanently in the New Jerusalem. But again, where is your Temple, your hope for world peace, your hope for peace with God? On what do you base any of this in your system? *Paul.
@DarthLordSpawn Requiemxtoxinnocence is a troll and his logic module is broken. He is not here to have a productive discussion. Don't waste your time with him.
@damntull How disrespectful, I like any other skeptic is questioning the validity of these religious texts to see if they hold any truth value and how accurate they are when dealing with reality. Calling me a troll is an assertion, and questioning my questions when they deal specifically with your religions is a bit defensive. It's as if you are too afraid to answer them or simply dismiss them without reason.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence But you ARE a troll, and I remember this because I tried to have a conversation with you, until you asserted that God has a gender. You're just a combative nut.
@damntull Don't Christians commonly refer to god as "the father" and in the form of he? This suggests that god is a male, even the bible speaks of god's gender in many passages. I also don't remember having any conversation with you, but if you want to suggest the biblical god has no gender then that's fine by me. Also in early judaism yahweh was the male counterpart to Asherah the wife of god as archaeology suggests.
@damntull I gave you three examples for my reasoning, you just asserted that I was a troll without evaluating my reasoning. I'd say its far more likely you are a troll since you can't back up any of your claims with valid reasoning or evidence.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think what you offered were actual reasons. You're just combative for the sake of being combative. Which makes you a troll.
@damntull " I don't think you offered actual reasons" Then you obviously didn't read what I wrote.
As for being combative, i'm just asking questions. If that makes me a troll then I guess all skeptics are trolls by your logic. How about looking up the information i've provided or give me an explanation as to why you think god is genderless.
@damntull Think what you will. My original question had nothing to do with god's gender or lack there of. If you do feel like debating how about instead of continuously calling someone a troll you debunk my claims. Anyway this conversation is going nowhere. peace.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
@damntull I agree with his point. If you are asserting that the biblical depiction which uses "he" is incorrect. I recommend changing all references of he and other gender notions to it or something that is genderless. Since, the use of gender based language changes MANY connotations in the bible. I doubt many people even consider the word as problematic until someone actually brings it up, since, there is so much anthropomorphizing of the notion in so many ways.
@MyContext However, there are many notions that are built on the idea of gender that are absolutely fraudulent if he is removed, since, the analogies commonly use play on the ideas of various experiences to craft a notion which has no support beyond claims. So, the idea of heavenly father represents what exactly? Since, I won't say that any two fathers are the same. Fathers range from worthless scum to the best that circumstance could offer.
@damntull A bit angry are we? I'm just trying to find clarity in this confusion over which religion is right when many seem to think its important. So please if you want to have a civil discussion talk, if not then stop replying. As for a troll, nope.
@M3PanoS The reason god is refused is because it hasn't been identified, no cultures agree on who or what this being is and all claim to be correct. God can only seemingly be placed in the unknown and until we can identify this thing we have no way of accepting its existence. Yet you call people ignorant for questioning it?
@M3PanoS "Jesus Christ." - a cultural claim from a specific religion, not an objective god. An objective god would be agreeable with all people across the planet and not up for debate as we can't identify what exactly god is, its unknown. Religion is subjective based not objective. Furthermore Jesus Christ was a human how do you intend to reconcile this with your other definition ( immaterial,timeless, spaceless, ect.)?
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "a cultural claim from a specific religion, not an objective god."
The claim that Jesus resurrected may be a "cultural" claim only in the sense that ALL events that occur happen within certain background noise, but at it's essence, like all claims on knowledge, it is a factual claim -that is to say, it is a 100% objective claim and thus must either be true or false. Trying to "relativize" it won't help you get past that.
@M3PanoS I only point out the cultural part because, many other cultures claim their religion to be true without looking into the cultural origins of gods/legends of specific cultures. Next we need evidence that supports that its even medically possible to do such a thing. We should also compare this story to past god concepts which makes this story very mundane and unoriginal. Furthermore a cultural god isn't an objective god apart from the other disagreements.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I only point out the cultural part because, many other cultures claim their religion to be true without looking into the cultural origins of gods/legends of specific cultures."
Well then, why don't we look into the origins of the "Jesus legend" and debunk it instead of giving me these general objections. And by the way, Jesus was rejected by His culture lol -so yea...
@M3PanoS Rejected by the jewish culture yes he did not fulfill the requirements needed to be the jewish messiah. Now as for claims of the origins of this you have to dig deeper, especially around the time of the crucifixion when many people were claiming to be messiah's and many other religions were in a cultural mix making it likely that it could've been influenced by them.
@M3PanoS I'd suggest you check out jewfaq before saying he fulfilled any prophecies, most of what christians claim are either not there or are easily do able or unfulfilled.
That's easy, the roman's were in a state of turmoil because of the civil unrest over which religion would take over. Christianity won because of the emperor's like constantine and in doing so lead to its acceptance. Rome's power grew and so did its religion as it spread out through the globe.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I'd suggest you check out jewfaq before saying he fulfilled any prophecies, most of what christians claim are either not there or are easily do able or unfulfilled."
Yea, it's called the Second Coming bro...
"Christianity won because of the emperor's like constantine and in doing so lead to its acceptance. Rome's power grew and so did its religion as it spread out through the globe."
Yea man, you're only missing a 300 year chunk there...
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "The only way to base your religion on reality is to see if it fits with science/ universe, lane craig and plantinga even debated about how we could somehow use god and religion as an answer to scientific problems with gale and quentin smith."
Actually, although a religion should be agreeable with our understanding of the universe -notice I didn't say congruent because our understanding isn't infallible or complete -it's primary function is to understand existence.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Next we need evidence that supports that its even medically possible to do such a thing. We should also compare this story to past god concepts which makes this story very mundane and unoriginal. Furthermore a cultural god isn't an objective god apart from the other disagreements."
Alright, I see this coming from a mile away -the whole Horus, Mithra, whatever else Jesus is a copy-pasta god type of deal. Yea, I'm not even going to go there with you.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "An objective god would be agreeable with all people across the planet and not up for debate as we can't identify what exactly god is, its unknown."
And I think, if properly understood, Jesus Christ is the most agreeable and most intrinsically satisfying answer that the human soul yearns for. If you disagree, you have something wrong in your theology, I guarantee it. And I'll even go so far as to say you sabotaged your own theology so as to not see Christ for what He is.
No, it's not. Religions claim to have the objectively correct view on how ultimate reality is -even religions that teach reality is what you make it have the objective view that it's up to the individual. Since religions disagree, there can only be one right one, or they can all be wrong -including atheism.
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective."
The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is an objective claim -I cannot make it anymore black and white for you.
"Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway."
I think Christianity is the only religion with a legitimate foundation for the claims it makes actually -the rest seem to be either vain philosophies or fabrications.
@M3PanoS Jesus rising from the dead is merely the popular view, there are other theories as to what actually happened. So it isn't an objective claim, in order for it to be objective it would have to be agreed upon by historians that it actually happened but that's unlikely.
That's pretty strange considering all the scientific inaccuracies with it. Especially since we know adam and eve is genetically impossible, that alone makes it unworthy.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus rising from the dead is merely the popular view, there are other theories as to what actually happened."
Jesus' resurrection is the view that most adequately explains the facts AND the most popular view -maybe it's the most popular because of the first part, but go figure...
"So it isn't an objective claim...but that's unlikely."
You don't understand what objective means. It mean there's only one correct answer, not that I know 100% what the answer is.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "That's pretty strange considering all the scientific inaccuracies with it. Especially since we know adam and eve is genetically impossible, that alone makes it unworthy."
I'm assuming you're talking about the Bible? The Bible isn't meant to be a scientific textbook. If you want to object with: "Oh, you retard Christians are just saying that because your retarded book got it wrong," then I advise you to educate yourself on church history to find this was the original view.
@M3PanoS The only way to base your religion on reality is to see if it fits with science/ universe, lane craig and plantinga even debated about how we could somehow use god and religion as an answer to scientific problems with gale and quentin smith. So it seems you either think religion can be based in reality apart from conflicting evidence or it is merely meant to be allegorical/metaphorical.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence " So it seems you either think religion can be based in reality apart from conflicting evidence or it is merely meant to be allegorical/metaphorical."
No, like I pointed out, I think religion, and specifically Christianity, and the natural world can be agreeable. The operative question rather is: Is the religion you're looking at warranted? I think Christianity is and I don't think any others are for MANY reasons.
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Furthermore Jesus Christ was a human how do you intend to reconcile this with your other definition ( immaterial,timeless, spaceless, ect.)?"
God can do whatever is logically possible; as such, He can enter the world as a man if He so desires. Wow, and it only took one sentence.
@M3PanoS It isn't logical to change your state if you are immutable, you can't enter time and be timeless, and you can't be immaterial if you become material, and by making yourself human you give yourself all the flaws of being a human. This is making a square circle and trying to have your cake and eat it too.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "It isn't logical to change your state if you are immutable, you can't enter time and be timeless, and you can't be immaterial if you become material, and by making yourself human you give yourself all the flaws of being a human. This is making a square circle and trying to have your cake and eat it too."
Yea you can because God didn't become ONLY Jesus -there was still the Father and the Holy Spirit. No, Jesus had no flaws, but He endured as only a human can.
Very -not because you question something but because you say your objection, the theist takes it seriously and answers it, but you still think you have an unanswered objection. Lolwut? You think your questions are unanswerable and therefore already disregard all answers. You're not here to have a fruitful discourse but a pissing match -it gets old buddy.
I'm aware that Christians DO accept the same Big Bang Theory as us freethinkers. Where Christians and freethinkers differ on that, however, is that the former think that their God caused the singularity (the universe) to expand, while the latter think that there was a natural cause.
Most 'freethinkers' will tell you that you cannot be a 'freethinker' unless an already validated 'freethinker' agrees that you can be called a 'freethinker'! Don't ask them about the first 'freethinker' - they don't like that. The rules were different then!!
@SPR4GOD Non-religious theists, deists, agnostics, and atheists are freethinkers. Religious theists are not, because they have to think according to how their god/s tells them to think (or should I say, how organized religion tells them how to think).
@TheCartesianTheist I see. Can you expand on the meaning of these words and how they should be used? Personally I agree with you, but I want to know your reasons for thinking this.
But CT, you're it's not enough for us religious people to accept the Big Bang Theory. According to ProfessorAnton, in order for us to truly accept modern day say, we must get rid of our dogmas about virgin births, resurrections, and afterlife beliefs so we can come to "death acceptance." We won't ever accept modern day science unless we do so!! X-P
Yes, of course. Nevermind all the scientists with Nobel Prizes who fail to adopt metaphysical naturalism [you'll have to go diggin for those names yourself because you won't EVER hear them on the lips of the atheists and some deny they even exist]! Of course, in order to be a good scientist one must adopt what has been the LEAST favourable and least supported metaphysical view of the last two millennia. ;)
@EnlightenedReader Hahahahaha! He deserves serious ridicule, I am so eager to do a video on his stupid claims aswell, as it may be so that many more Atheists on Youtube believe that also.
Awesome CT! His claims are complete nonsense, and I can't take him seriously. I'll also do a video on Big Bang Cosmology and Christianity. They do not themselves know anything about Cosmology and I'm pretty sure he would have hold to the same view of Fred Hoyle when you could 'choose' between the Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory.
Yes you're right and that is the sublime irony here. If there were any reasonable acceptable steady-state theory the atheist would be ridiculing the big bang more than the theist would be!
This has been flagged as spam show
The Big Bang seems to be one of those things that theists and non-theists agree on, but simply differ on the cause thereof. While Abrahamic theists believe that the Big Bang was caused by their *God*, secularists believe that the Big Bang was caused *naturally*. I don't know how ANYBODY can deny the Big Bang.
beneathdatrees0 1 month ago
Comment removed
beneathdatrees0 1 month ago
Wait how does the 'watch-maker' big bang God equate to the God of christianity? Seriously, what distinguishes xian scientists or whoever as correct or at least more correct than muslim or jewish scholars?
I reject any claim to know about the 'super-set' of meta-reality from our subjective position within the 'set' of reality.
unkledanbot 1 month ago
Yeah, only creationists reject the BBT.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia Didn't you watch the video fella? He also said there are certain atheist scientist who do not believe in the big bang theory mate.
MultiSamwel 1 month ago
@MultiSamwel I was saying that the only Christians who reject the BBT are creationists.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
@StygianDysnomia So sorry for misconception,Have a good day :)
MultiSamwel 1 month ago
Requiemxtoxinnocence is a troll and his logic module is broken. Don't give him the time of day.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I responded to his sarcastic comment with a perfectly logical question, one M3PanoS assumes must be christianity which is a poor answer.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I responded to his sarcastic comment with a perfectly logical question, one M3PanoS assumes must be christianity which is a poor answer."
The second part of this sentence, after the comma, isn't even coherent. I'd love to answer you, but I kind of can't...
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Jewfaq? are you a jew or an atheist? jewfaq argues in favor of judaism it doesn't prove atheism true what prophecies did he not fulfill?
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn I'm an agnostic with buddhistic influences. Jewfaq specifically states the requirements to be the jewish messiah one of which is to not be supernatural. I can give you a number of unfulfilled prophecies.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I can give you a number of unfulfilled prophecies." they are going to be the same old ones I've heard.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus died before he was able to fulfill ANY prophecies. No coincidence involved. Reference to men gods is not present in the tanakh because they didn't exist in Judaism. Try paganism where the Christian story has its basis."
So, you have no evidence that Messiah is required to be only a man. Also, you are wrong in your claim about Jesus.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn
The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles(
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Are these supposed the be the list of unfulfilled prophecies?
Most of these you could have simply googled.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Isaiah 53 isn't about Jesus. The sufffering servant is Israel, mat. ". But you, Israel , are my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called you from its farthest corners, and said to you, You are my servant; I have chosen you, and not cast you away. ?"
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence It is about the Messiah, at least, that's what Jews believed/believe. How can the suffering servant be Israel when it is speaking of a person? Was Israel pierced for their own transgressions and crushed for their own iniquities or for someone else? What peace was brought from their chastisement? Whose iniquity was laid upon Israel?
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Whose soul made an offering for guilt? You see, it doesn't make sense applying it to Israel. It applies to a person, the Messiah. Clearly, the language in ch. 53 is different from that in ch. 41.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn If you look at it in a metaphorical way it seems to make sense, as though it were speaking to the whole of the nation. But the bible is so complex in its mix of pseudohistory/ mythology/ allegory/ scientific understandings/ contradictions/ political manipulation and a number of other things that you have to sift through it all for any of it to make sense.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "But the bible is so complex in its mix of pseudohistory/ mythology/ allegory/ scientific understandings/ contradictions"
That means you better get to it then and start studying.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus wasn't the suffering servent, mat. Again, you're trying to put a Christian slant on verses that have nothing to do with Christianity."
He wasn't because...you said so? OK, let's compare using the Gospel of Matthew, since that is the only one Ebionites accept:
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. Is. 53:3-4 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him. Matt. 27:27-31
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. Is. 53:5
"His blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified...And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Matt. 27:26-26,35-37
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? Is. 53-7-8
And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent...Then Pilate said to him,
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?" But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed. Matt. 26:63; 27:13
And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Is. 53:9
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. Matt. 27:57
The similarities are uncanny.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Chronicles 16: O ye seed of Israel His servant, ye children of Jacob, His chosen ones.
Isaiah 49:3 "You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory"
Isaiah 44:21 you are My servant, O Israel" "
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence That's nice, but choosing three out of all the verses I gave to you doesn't exactly make your case. Maybe you can take the rest of the verses and passages and continue to make the case.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn The three monotheistic groups are all babbling about this vague prophecy all with different interpretations, views, and agendas on this subject. What makes any of this correct in any sense? Especially when you consider all of you are fighting to be god's "chosen people" and all of you think you are right, and god hasn't bothered to show himself to sort this confusion out when it may lead to destruction and war over such a thing.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Matthew's Gospel, the one you claim is reliable, records many instances of fulfilled prophesy by Jesus and he quotes the prophesies as he writes. Start with chapter 1, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 and says that Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophesy.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Then go to Matt. 2, where he quotes Micah 6:8 and says that Jesus is the fulfillment of that prophesy. Then in the same chapter, Matthew quotes from Jeremiah 31. Matthew records no less than 24 individual prophesies that Jesus fulfilled.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Want to read the REAL words,before mistranslation of Isaiah 53?
The Hebrew Tanakh says “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.”
But the KJV says:: “thou shall make his soul an offering for sin "ISN'T IN THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS, MAT. More Christian interpolation/ "
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't use the KJV, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. However, let's look to the Septuagint for how it is translated, since that is not a Christian interpolation as you claim the KJV is. It reads,
O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We brought a report as a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed. 4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;and by his bruises we were healed. 6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins. And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death. 9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth. 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence 11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. 12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death:
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.
There, you cannot accuse of Christian interpolation here as this is the work of seventy Jewish translators.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Where is world peace, mat. Where is the temple?"
That's a good question, if there is no temple, then you are dead in your sins according to Judaism. You have no sacrificial system, no way to atone for your sins. We believe that Jesus will return to establish his reign and bring in a time of peace before the final battle and final judgment, ...
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence ...then the new heavens and new earth will establish everlasting peace in the new Jerusalem, where the Holy of Holies will be established permanently in the New Jerusalem. But again, where is your Temple, your hope for world peace, your hope for peace with God? On what do you base any of this in your system? *Paul.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@DarthLordSpawn Requiemxtoxinnocence is a troll and his logic module is broken. He is not here to have a productive discussion. Don't waste your time with him.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Yes I'm aware the always make good target practice.
DarthLordSpawn 1 month ago
@damntull How disrespectful, I like any other skeptic is questioning the validity of these religious texts to see if they hold any truth value and how accurate they are when dealing with reality. Calling me a troll is an assertion, and questioning my questions when they deal specifically with your religions is a bit defensive. It's as if you are too afraid to answer them or simply dismiss them without reason.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence But you ARE a troll, and I remember this because I tried to have a conversation with you, until you asserted that God has a gender. You're just a combative nut.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Don't Christians commonly refer to god as "the father" and in the form of he? This suggests that god is a male, even the bible speaks of god's gender in many passages. I also don't remember having any conversation with you, but if you want to suggest the biblical god has no gender then that's fine by me. Also in early judaism yahweh was the male counterpart to Asherah the wife of god as archaeology suggests.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Thanks for proving my point, TROLL.
damntull 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Thanks for proving my point.
damntull 1 month ago
Comment removed
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damntull I gave you three examples for my reasoning, you just asserted that I was a troll without evaluating my reasoning. I'd say its far more likely you are a troll since you can't back up any of your claims with valid reasoning or evidence.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think what you offered were actual reasons. You're just combative for the sake of being combative. Which makes you a troll.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull " I don't think you offered actual reasons" Then you obviously didn't read what I wrote.
As for being combative, i'm just asking questions. If that makes me a troll then I guess all skeptics are trolls by your logic. How about looking up the information i've provided or give me an explanation as to why you think god is genderless.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence I don't think so. The fact that you're offering the "gender" of God as an issue for discussion proves you're a Troll.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull Think what you will. My original question had nothing to do with god's gender or lack there of. If you do feel like debating how about instead of continuously calling someone a troll you debunk my claims. Anyway this conversation is going nowhere. peace.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull I agree with his point. If you are asserting that the biblical depiction which uses "he" is incorrect. I recommend changing all references of he and other gender notions to it or something that is genderless. Since, the use of gender based language changes MANY connotations in the bible. I doubt many people even consider the word as problematic until someone actually brings it up, since, there is so much anthropomorphizing of the notion in so many ways.
MyContext 4 weeks ago
@MyContext However, there are many notions that are built on the idea of gender that are absolutely fraudulent if he is removed, since, the analogies commonly use play on the ideas of various experiences to craft a notion which has no support beyond claims. So, the idea of heavenly father represents what exactly? Since, I won't say that any two fathers are the same. Fathers range from worthless scum to the best that circumstance could offer.
MyContext 4 weeks ago
@MyContext Buh?
damntull 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence TROLL. GET A LIFE.
damntull 1 month ago
@damntull A bit angry are we? I'm just trying to find clarity in this confusion over which religion is right when many seem to think its important. So please if you want to have a civil discussion talk, if not then stop replying. As for a troll, nope.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
"The more your refuse to admit their existence the more ignorant you make yourselves look..."
Once I ready that, I immediately thought that the atheists do the SAME exact thing with God haha.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS The reason god is refused is because it hasn't been identified, no cultures agree on who or what this being is and all claim to be correct. God can only seemingly be placed in the unknown and until we can identify this thing we have no way of accepting its existence. Yet you call people ignorant for questioning it?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "The reason god is refused is because it hasn't been identified"
Jesus Christ.
"no cultures agree on who or what this being is and all claim to be correct."
Critical thinking precedes cultural context.
"God can only seemingly be placed in the unknown and until we can identify this thing we have no way of accepting its existence."
Again, Jesus Christ is hardly "unknown." Same goes for the classical God of theism -as revealed in Jesus Christ.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS "Jesus Christ." - a cultural claim from a specific religion, not an objective god. An objective god would be agreeable with all people across the planet and not up for debate as we can't identify what exactly god is, its unknown. Religion is subjective based not objective. Furthermore Jesus Christ was a human how do you intend to reconcile this with your other definition ( immaterial,timeless, spaceless, ect.)?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "a cultural claim from a specific religion, not an objective god."
The claim that Jesus resurrected may be a "cultural" claim only in the sense that ALL events that occur happen within certain background noise, but at it's essence, like all claims on knowledge, it is a factual claim -that is to say, it is a 100% objective claim and thus must either be true or false. Trying to "relativize" it won't help you get past that.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS I only point out the cultural part because, many other cultures claim their religion to be true without looking into the cultural origins of gods/legends of specific cultures. Next we need evidence that supports that its even medically possible to do such a thing. We should also compare this story to past god concepts which makes this story very mundane and unoriginal. Furthermore a cultural god isn't an objective god apart from the other disagreements.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I only point out the cultural part because, many other cultures claim their religion to be true without looking into the cultural origins of gods/legends of specific cultures."
Well then, why don't we look into the origins of the "Jesus legend" and debunk it instead of giving me these general objections. And by the way, Jesus was rejected by His culture lol -so yea...
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS Rejected by the jewish culture yes he did not fulfill the requirements needed to be the jewish messiah. Now as for claims of the origins of this you have to dig deeper, especially around the time of the crucifixion when many people were claiming to be messiah's and many other religions were in a cultural mix making it likely that it could've been influenced by them.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Rejected by the jewish culture yes he did not fulfill the requirements needed to be the jewish messiah."
One of the prophecies was that He would be rejected by His own people... -_-
"Now as for claims of the origins of this you have to dig deeper...making it likely that it could've been influenced by them."
Thanks for making my point for me: If there were so many Messianic movements at the time, why did Jesus' movement live on and not die with the rest?
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS I'd suggest you check out jewfaq before saying he fulfilled any prophecies, most of what christians claim are either not there or are easily do able or unfulfilled.
That's easy, the roman's were in a state of turmoil because of the civil unrest over which religion would take over. Christianity won because of the emperor's like constantine and in doing so lead to its acceptance. Rome's power grew and so did its religion as it spread out through the globe.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "I'd suggest you check out jewfaq before saying he fulfilled any prophecies, most of what christians claim are either not there or are easily do able or unfulfilled."
Yea, it's called the Second Coming bro...
"Christianity won because of the emperor's like constantine and in doing so lead to its acceptance. Rome's power grew and so did its religion as it spread out through the globe."
Yea man, you're only missing a 300 year chunk there...
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "The only way to base your religion on reality is to see if it fits with science/ universe, lane craig and plantinga even debated about how we could somehow use god and religion as an answer to scientific problems with gale and quentin smith."
Actually, although a religion should be agreeable with our understanding of the universe -notice I didn't say congruent because our understanding isn't infallible or complete -it's primary function is to understand existence.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Next we need evidence that supports that its even medically possible to do such a thing. We should also compare this story to past god concepts which makes this story very mundane and unoriginal. Furthermore a cultural god isn't an objective god apart from the other disagreements."
Alright, I see this coming from a mile away -the whole Horus, Mithra, whatever else Jesus is a copy-pasta god type of deal. Yea, I'm not even going to go there with you.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "An objective god would be agreeable with all people across the planet and not up for debate as we can't identify what exactly god is, its unknown."
And I think, if properly understood, Jesus Christ is the most agreeable and most intrinsically satisfying answer that the human soul yearns for. If you disagree, you have something wrong in your theology, I guarantee it. And I'll even go so far as to say you sabotaged your own theology so as to not see Christ for what He is.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Religion is subjective based not objective."
No, it's not. Religions claim to have the objectively correct view on how ultimate reality is -even religions that teach reality is what you make it have the objective view that it's up to the individual. Since religions disagree, there can only be one right one, or they can all be wrong -including atheism.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective."
The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is an objective claim -I cannot make it anymore black and white for you.
"Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway."
I think Christianity is the only religion with a legitimate foundation for the claims it makes actually -the rest seem to be either vain philosophies or fabrications.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS Jesus rising from the dead is merely the popular view, there are other theories as to what actually happened. So it isn't an objective claim, in order for it to be objective it would have to be agreed upon by historians that it actually happened but that's unlikely.
That's pretty strange considering all the scientific inaccuracies with it. Especially since we know adam and eve is genetically impossible, that alone makes it unworthy.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Jesus rising from the dead is merely the popular view, there are other theories as to what actually happened."
Jesus' resurrection is the view that most adequately explains the facts AND the most popular view -maybe it's the most popular because of the first part, but go figure...
"So it isn't an objective claim...but that's unlikely."
You don't understand what objective means. It mean there's only one correct answer, not that I know 100% what the answer is.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "That's pretty strange considering all the scientific inaccuracies with it. Especially since we know adam and eve is genetically impossible, that alone makes it unworthy."
I'm assuming you're talking about the Bible? The Bible isn't meant to be a scientific textbook. If you want to object with: "Oh, you retard Christians are just saying that because your retarded book got it wrong," then I advise you to educate yourself on church history to find this was the original view.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
@M3PanoS The only way to base your religion on reality is to see if it fits with science/ universe, lane craig and plantinga even debated about how we could somehow use god and religion as an answer to scientific problems with gale and quentin smith. So it seems you either think religion can be based in reality apart from conflicting evidence or it is merely meant to be allegorical/metaphorical.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
Comment removed
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence " So it seems you either think religion can be based in reality apart from conflicting evidence or it is merely meant to be allegorical/metaphorical."
No, like I pointed out, I think religion, and specifically Christianity, and the natural world can be agreeable. The operative question rather is: Is the religion you're looking at warranted? I think Christianity is and I don't think any others are for MANY reasons.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS Yes but those views are subjective to each culture, not objective. Since religions disagree its far more likely they are all wrong since they are built upon primitive knowledge anyway. The objective god could still exist we just wouldn't know it or it may not exist at all.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Furthermore Jesus Christ was a human how do you intend to reconcile this with your other definition ( immaterial,timeless, spaceless, ect.)?"
God can do whatever is logically possible; as such, He can enter the world as a man if He so desires. Wow, and it only took one sentence.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
Comment removed
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
@M3PanoS It isn't logical to change your state if you are immutable, you can't enter time and be timeless, and you can't be immaterial if you become material, and by making yourself human you give yourself all the flaws of being a human. This is making a square circle and trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "It isn't logical to change your state if you are immutable, you can't enter time and be timeless, and you can't be immaterial if you become material, and by making yourself human you give yourself all the flaws of being a human. This is making a square circle and trying to have your cake and eat it too."
Yea you can because God didn't become ONLY Jesus -there was still the Father and the Holy Spirit. No, Jesus had no flaws, but He endured as only a human can.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Requiemxtoxinnocence "Yet you call people ignorant for questioning it?"
Very -not because you question something but because you say your objection, the theist takes it seriously and answers it, but you still think you have an unanswered objection. Lolwut? You think your questions are unanswerable and therefore already disregard all answers. You're not here to have a fruitful discourse but a pissing match -it gets old buddy.
M3PanoS 1 month ago
Im love how atheists don't even watch your videos properly and just automatically click dislike
gogolplex74 1 month ago
Semantic dispute, then appeal to authority fallacy, and then some quote mining. This video is so full of fail.
bishop8000 1 month ago
@bishop8000
I notice you fail to substantiate but prefer to gloss. Worried you'll get replied to? ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago 2
I'm aware that Christians DO accept the same Big Bang Theory as us freethinkers. Where Christians and freethinkers differ on that, however, is that the former think that their God caused the singularity (the universe) to expand, while the latter think that there was a natural cause.
beneathdatrees0 1 month ago
@beneathdatrees0 Am I not a freethinker?
SPR4GOD 1 month ago
@SPR4GOD
No!
Most 'freethinkers' will tell you that you cannot be a 'freethinker' unless an already validated 'freethinker' agrees that you can be called a 'freethinker'! Don't ask them about the first 'freethinker' - they don't like that. The rules were different then!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@SPR4GOD Non-religious theists, deists, agnostics, and atheists are freethinkers. Religious theists are not, because they have to think according to how their god/s tells them to think (or should I say, how organized religion tells them how to think).
beneathdatrees0 1 month ago
@beneathdatrees0 I don't agree with that, because if it was so I would agree with the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.
SPR4GOD 1 month ago
Hey CT quick question.
Do you think it's safe to use the word 'theology' in place of 'religion' in both common and philosophical dialogue?
axemurderah17 1 month ago
@axemurderah17
Well they're not synonymous so no. But there can be overlap in meaning depending on context.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist I see. Can you expand on the meaning of these words and how they should be used? Personally I agree with you, but I want to know your reasons for thinking this.
axemurderah17 1 month ago
But CT, you're it's not enough for us religious people to accept the Big Bang Theory. According to ProfessorAnton, in order for us to truly accept modern day say, we must get rid of our dogmas about virgin births, resurrections, and afterlife beliefs so we can come to "death acceptance." We won't ever accept modern day science unless we do so!! X-P
thunderbolt94 1 month ago
@thunderbolt94
Yes, of course. Nevermind all the scientists with Nobel Prizes who fail to adopt metaphysical naturalism [you'll have to go diggin for those names yourself because you won't EVER hear them on the lips of the atheists and some deny they even exist]! Of course, in order to be a good scientist one must adopt what has been the LEAST favourable and least supported metaphysical view of the last two millennia. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader yay for George Lemaitre
LogicalThinker667 1 month ago
Do you think meridianfrost specifically meant fundamentalist/YEC's?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
Comment removed
FoliesdEspangne 1 month ago
Wow! If only I have a nickel for someone to say, I hate science.
cguevara12 1 month ago
Comment removed
FoliesdEspangne 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader Hahahahaha! He deserves serious ridicule, I am so eager to do a video on his stupid claims aswell, as it may be so that many more Atheists on Youtube believe that also.
TheisticThinker 1 month ago
@EnlightenedReader
Really? LOL
Fingers in the ears time again!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
LOL. The old "Christians hate science" nonsense.
karozans 1 month ago
@karozans
It is a boring mantra eh?
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist Not to mention "Christians don't even know the bible."
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat
Shall we line them up and shoot them? ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist naw stoning them is biblical remember :P
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat
No way! Cool. But wait - will I have to trim my beard a certain way and not be allowed to put a roof on my house too? Darn!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Awesome CT! His claims are complete nonsense, and I can't take him seriously. I'll also do a video on Big Bang Cosmology and Christianity. They do not themselves know anything about Cosmology and I'm pretty sure he would have hold to the same view of Fred Hoyle when you could 'choose' between the Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory.
TheisticThinker 1 month ago 2
@TheisticThinker
Yes you're right and that is the sublime irony here. If there were any reasonable acceptable steady-state theory the atheist would be ridiculing the big bang more than the theist would be!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago 10