Added: 5 years ago
From: BlasphemyChallenge
Views: 1,039,542
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (86,580)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • This is a sad attempt at getting attention

  • I deny the holy spirit.

  • @IPartyToBlink So, what?

  • Comment removed

  • youtube.com/watch?v=0CI4P7ZXPf­4

  • PEOPLE WHO GET OFFENDED BY CAPS HAVE MENTAL ISSUES!

  • LETS MAKE VIDEOS AGAINST THIS FALSE FASHION-THAT WE GOING TO SAY-I ACCEPT THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A GOD,I BELIEVE IN HOLY TRINITY!

  • @jmatthe29 cool story bro, less caps please

  • @jmatthe29 I agree. Let's all take the Critical Thinking Challenge. I deny Critical Thinking. Magical Thinking is God gift to us so we dont' have to think at all. Just believe. Believe. Believe. Believe. Oh look a pretty angel.

  • im confused, where did we come from if there is no God? Obviously all paintings have a painter, any RATIONAL person agrees with that 100%. something cant come from nothing thus the big bang is a no go, that is a RATIONAL perspective. so there must be a creator, a higher being. Faith is a wonderful thing. for all of you who want proof of God.... YOU are the proof, you are Gods masterpiece.

  • @finnfox5 So you think anthropomorphizing cosmology is rational? You think everything in existence must have the same causal relationship that human beings have with there immediate environment? The first law of thermodynamics states that energy (which is what everything is made of) can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed (take on different forms). If you can get around that, you just might have a leg to stand on.

  • @VENOM3RDUM Therefore, "energy" implicates the existence of God since it can neither be created nor destroyed. God is eternal.

  • @WinteRest49

    We have thermal energy, light energy, electrical energy, solar energy, kinetic energy and potential energy. Last time I checked, 'Jesus energy' didn't exist.

    Seriously, what are you playing at? JESUS = MC^2 is not a valid equation.

  • @foojuice101 You've never heard the statement that energy is neither created nor destoyed?

  • @WinteRest49

    Yes, and is that somehow meant to be "proof" of god? I'm sorry, but you can't just say "Hey, energy can't be destroyed, so that must mean that energy is god!"

    That's ridiculous. God is not a substitute for the scientific definition of energy.

  • @foojuice101 No, you misunderstood. I'm saying that the definition of energy *implies* the existence of God. I agree that energy is not God per se.

  • @WinteRest49

    Of course not. Energy is proof of energy, not god and certainly not the Biblical god.

  • @foojuice101 I agree, but the implication is there.

  • what the hell?some videos are just retarded...!

  • Thumbs up if you want a Richard Dawkins bobble head!

  • What do you like about the Koran?

  • Is your god willing but not able to stop evil? Then he's not omnipotent. Is your god able but not willing? Then he's malevolent. Is your god both willing and able? Then from whence cometh evil? I believe in Isaiah 45:7 this is what was written. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." so why is it that your god allows evil to exist? Is he not able to change it or is he such a malevolent spirit that he refuses to?

  • @Rgg1031 Perceptions of God were different in the Old Testament, and changed throughout. We are the ones who allow evil.

  • Atheism is nothing but a religion as atheist keep proselytizing their belief system.

  • you have not created the blood that runs in your veins

    you do not handle the beating of your heart

    you have no control of the sea, wind and earth movements

    tell me who create the air you breath

    sony ? mc donald ? oh maybe is toyota lol

    hitler and Maria Teresa of Calcutta is the Same

    there will be no punishment for the wicked

    in almost 100 years you will know god

    maybe you need say death not exist lol

  • people do not know how many hairs are on the head

    but you know god does not exist

    lol

  • hey atheists !

    what year is this ??

    trololololollolololololooolol

  • Comment removed

  • Lol sweet blasphemy

  • I do not deny the Holy Spirit, and nothing will make me do so. Jesus Christ is my Savior, and I will follow Him. I have a place in Heaven, and so can all of you. The reason that blasphemy is unforgivable is because when you truly experience God, you are NOT going to deny Him. That's what makes Christianity a relationship more than a religion.This video has made me feel SO much. I'm not angry as much as I am sad. I will keep you all in my prayers. Please, open up your hearts to the only Savior.

  • @detoxwalk I can't tell if you're trolling, or just incredibly stupid.

  • @detoxwalk What is sad is that you don't under stand that everyone thinks the same about their religion as you do of yours. In 1,000 years, christianity will be commonly known as mythology, because that's what it is.

  • @IOutDoSyndicate With God as author, Christianity is myth become fact.

  • @WinteRest49 You mean, With *insert name of god here* as author, *insert religion here* becomes fact?

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Christ fulfilled myth: the sacrifice of the hunt, the dying and rising gods. Both Israelite law and Gentile myth are fulfilled. He came to reconcile all things to Himself.

  • @WinteRest49 Right..

  • @WinteRest49 Make a little sense next time

  • @IOutDoSyndicate 'Makes sense to me. It just takes a little thought.

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Really?People as yourself have attempted to wipe out Christianity for thousands of years and haven't done it, so it's not going anywhere, just sayin.

  • @rockthejungle That's what the greeks said.

  • @rockthejungle Give it a couple hundred years when science proves religion impossible. Then(and now), only the 100% naive would still believe in such stupid tales

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Again science has been used to try prove Christianity wrong and yet again it hasn't worked.

  • @rockthejungle Just like science hasn't disproven the tooth fairy. it's up to the believers to prove it. Also, calling atheism a religion is like saying: Not collecting stamps is a hobby.

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Yes, another stupid atheist equates God with the tooth fairy. No one is under any obligation to explain God for you. The "burdon of proof" which atheists ask for is evidence that their stance is a matter of faith.

  • @WinteRest49 Before yo go preaching your god is real, you have to prove it. It's in american schools....on my money.. etc. You would think the human race would be smart enough to go "hey.. religion only started because some desert people wanted to give a bs explanation to something they couldn't explain, exactly like the greeks and their gods. Those are now known to be common mythology and the "god" now is just the modern version". Are you blind?

  • @IOutDoSyndicate No thanks, I'm under no obligation to prove God for someone else. There is myth in the Old Testament, but the context of the myths in the passages are unique in relation to the surrounding texts (i.e., historical), as are the messages of the myths. The Greek pantheon is different from Hebrew henotheism.

  • @WinteRest49 Until your god proves himself with some solid evidence(Nothing controversial.. He's omnipresent, isn't he? He created the world in a week a few thousand years ago, didn't he? Well then it should be easy for him to show himself.), he's only a way to explain something you dont know with nothing. We have *proof* of the world being older than 6,000 years and we have *proof* of human evolution. You're a dumbass to still believe in 2,000 year old myths that have clearly been debunked

  • @IOutDoSyndicate I'm not a fundamentalist like yourself. I have no problem with evolution or the geological age of the Earth. What does "...he's only a way to explain something you don't know with nothing" supposed to mean?

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Yet another atheist assumes that all believers in a God everywhere believe that he created everything in 7 days. Also, you are right. It should be easy for him to show himself. But why the fuck should he have to? If we go by what that one book that makes you so mad says, then he doesn't want to be believed in that way. He wants to be believed in by faith. You like to make sweeping generalizations to try to hide your anti-theism under a guise of intelligence.

  • @IOutDoSyndicate Sarcasm is the weakest form of argument. Also, good job putting words in my mouth about denying science and such. I never said such things. I'm guessing that's why it was flagged as spam. The idiocy. You are so defensive, so insecure about your belief that you lash out against someone who pointed out a flaw in your argument. If you actually have an argument that makes sense, please make it known. Otherwise, keep your childish antics out of smart discussion.

  • @Rinscher If it involves someone "debunking" science with religion, it's not what you would call a "smart discussion". More like a deluded moron using a character from some fictional realm to "prove" science wrong. Yawn.

  • @IOutDoSyndicate And once again, you assume too much, as I've never said anything pertaining to "debunking science with religion." You make sweeping generalizations based off your hatred for anyone believing anything other than what you do. And you show your immaturity quite blatantly with your unneeded, typed (like that was necessary) yawn. Your attempt to make yourself seem bored to try to elevate yourself over me, only shows how deluded you yourself are with pride.

  • @Rinscher Sarcasm is a good response to a weak argument.

  • @WinteRest49 Lol I don't have to explain the tooth fairy to you either. Its a matter of faith!

  • @Deckster216 I understand; it's your preogative to put your faith in the existence of a tooth fairy. Are all atheists not really such, but actually believe in God as the tooth fairy?

  • @WinteRest49 duh the tooth fairy isn't god, she's just the tooth fairy! and I believe in her just as much as magic zombie jesus.

  • @Deckster216 If the tooth fairy isn't God, then why use such an analogy? So, in what sense do you believe that the tooth fairy exists in relation to magic zombie Jesus? I didn't know Christ was a zombie. Can you give me evidence that Christ was a zombie? I think your evidence goes no further than Walt Disney and Michael Jackson's Thriller video way back in the day.

  • @WinteRest49 der cause both the tooth fair and walking-dead jesus require faith, as well as god (all of them), and unicorns. I don't have any evidence that jesus was a zombie, but a priest told me that the guy woke up from the dead. BAM zombie.

  • @Deckster216 Your appeal to faith will not do. I want proof that God is the tooth fairy and Christ was a zombie. The burden of proof is on you.

  • @WinteRest49 That's not fair! I just believe it. You can't disprove it. You have to disprove zombie jesus, or else its real.

  • @Deckster216 The tooth fairy and zombie Christ can't be disproven? 

  • @WinteRest49 To say they could be would be blasphemy

  • @Deckster216 To disprove the existence of the tooth fairy/zombie Christ isn't blasphemy, it's simply disproving their existence.

  • @WinteRest49 Then proceed, if you must, and risk the angry toothy wrath of holy zombie jesus and the magic tooth fairy!

  • @Deckster216 There's no risk.

  • @WinteRest49 So go ahead, disprove just the tooth fairy.

  • @Deckster216 'No reason to disprove the tooth fairy; the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

  • @WinteRest49 All jokes aside, the tooth fairy obviously doesn't exist, and neither does any god named jesus. It doesn't matter if I have an old book saying either of them do. that doesnt make either of them more real. this goes for the god of any old book, or the god who doesnt have a book. it would be interesting if there was a god sending guys out to write books for us, but real life is better.

  • @Deckster216 You're just giving me opinions, to which you're entitled.

  • @WinteRest49 Just as you are, good sir.

  • @Deckster216 No, there are facts which support the testimony of the New Testament.

  • @WinteRest49 I like the Koran better.

  • @WinteRest49 Yeah like stars are oil lamps. Even NASA says all stars are oil lamps hanging on a firmament. That's a proven scientific fact. It's in the Bible and science agrees. Just like the Bible says there are giants and dragons. Those exist too. It's a fact. And snakes and burning bushes can talk too. It's a fact. Everything in the Bible is true. It's a fact.

  • @nebogipfel11 I didn't know NASA thought the stars were oil lamps. Cite your source. I was referring to the New Testament as literaure, not as a contempory science textbook.

  • Comment removed

  • @nebogipfel11 I already responded to your criticism by stating that the Bible is not a science textbook. Therefore, what is your point when repeating the same descriptions while not addressing my reply?

  • @WinteRest49 It may be true but a literature, let's face it, it's shit. At the very least it's needs an editor with a chainsaw. It is the most unread book ever given away by the millions. Too bad it's the Word of God. I'll pray for you.

  • @nebogipfel11 All writing is literature. The Bible is a collection of books within one cover, i.e. both composed and compiled. The end result of the compositions, redactions, and compilations have been considered definitive enough of the Judeo-Christian tradition that they became canon. The Bible's read quite a bit, but I wish the audience was more critical of its contents, i.e. Christian fundamentalism is an object of mockery. The Word of God was written by people. Thank you for your prayers.

  • @WinteRest49 I did some research and discovered praying is a waste of time and utterly pointless. So I'll save us both an ebarassment and stop praying. Yes the bible is literature. It's one of the worst reads I ever had. I discovered that while people claim there is a God there is absolutely no evidence a rational person would accept that would prove that claim. I've wasted my life believing in something that is non existent. What a fool I've been. Sorry to take up your time.

  • @nebogipfel11 If I thought you taking up my time, I wouldn't have responded.

  • @WinteRest49 Therefore, the Blasphemy Challenge is erroneous.

  • @rockthejungle The idiocy is strong with you. It's the 21st century and you still believe in gods? You must have been brought to this world through inbreeding because your brain clearly hasn't fully developed.

  • This is...PATHETIC. Jesus is the Son of God. He was nailed to the cross because of OUR sins. HE LOVES YOU. Why can't you see that? You gave into the devil, that makes you a freaking low life, you're blinded by him. DUH. WAKE UP. the devil is NOT good. no comprende REAL LIFE? Jesus is Love. You NEED to repent and understand He died for YOU. Can you say that to for the devil? uh....NO. he doesnt give a CRAPPP about you. He just wants your soul. you discust me. I WILL BE PRAYING FOR YOUR SALVATION.

  • Lolz I like God <3

  • And thus when people stand up and say “says who? “ ..... freedom will be in sight.

  • Why isn't anti-theism in the tags, again?

  • lol @ u if you think you have the answers to the big questions

    agnostic 4 lyfe \m/

  • proof that God exists. org

  • Are you a good person? goodpersontest

    Proof That God Exists.com

  • Hey people congratulations you are officially retarded first you create this blasphemy challenge to get one up on God but frankly he could send right to Hell who the hell are you to judge a person's beliefs because of a natural event or death, its a way of life that we got to deal with but I'm not happy with it. Just think how did you get here? Or you scientists thinking of the Big Bang Theory, tell me how did the rock get here? Just think about it and getting even with God isn't worth it

  • say to just be happy where you are now. As if people born into poverty and hardship should be content while looking upon those born into wealth and not wish to have more. On the whole the commandments are either utterly useless, serving only a god's ego and wish to be recognized by a primitive group of superstitious peasants or just parrot already well established human values. I would sooner look to magna carta or bill of rights.

  • @lololololol47 Would the magna carta or bill of rights come about without the decalogue preceding them?

  • @WinteRest49 It is very possible they wouldn't have, purely because of the influence religion has had on humanity from it's earliest roots, it is involved in just about everything we do. However that neither makes it a worthy predeccesor to these texts nor does it mean that were religion not to exist or at at least have had a diminished effect on history that something like the magna carta would have come about. Who knows without religion these may not have had to come about.

  • @lololololol47 The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights came about because of the abuses of power by monarchical systems. There will always be someone who wants absolute power, which is why if religion never existed documents like the Magna Carta would have still been drafted. However, the "what ifs" of history does not detract from the influence of the decalogue. A predecessor can't be unworthy of what proceeds it, the predecessor being the cause and what proceeds being the effect.

  • @WinteRest49

    The Magna Carta came about to limit the monarchy because of the concept of "Divine Right" and that it allowed the monarchy to do as it wished. The ten commandments, like many other religious texts before and after have had profound influence on human history. This does not mean it should be revered as anything more than the peak of bronze age morality. I would also regard the middle ages as unworthy in terms of human morality and society of preceding the Renaissance.

  • @lololololol47 The same analogy applies to the ten commandments and documents like the Bill of Rights. There are some things unworthy of giving birth to something. As in the enlightenment coming about because of religious oppression.

  • @lololololol47 Antecedents (causes) bring about their consequences (effects). An antecendent being deemed "worthy" or "unworthy" is irrelevant. Without the former the latter changes wouldn't be. How would you consider the transition from the classic Greco-Roman era to the so-called Dark Ages? Which one is worthy of the other?

  • Well the first four commandments are utterly useless, concerning Yahweh's ego more than anything. The next four ,dont't kill, commit adultery, honor mother n father and steal are more respectable but these are things you humanity has followed by and large since long before the commandments were introduced. The ninth one is probably the most enlightened one, not to bear false witness to your neighbor is surprisingly noble. However the last commandment ruins this. To tell people to not covet is to

  • This is probably the most immature thing I've ever seen that has mature consequences

  • @TheRealOnlineBabbler Mature consquences?? Maybe mature for superstitious bronze age peasants..

  • @lololololol47 What a snob and/or prig.

  • @WinteRest49

    It very well may be but it still doesn't detrach from the observation.

  • @lololololol47 Your observation defines my terminology.

  • @WinteRest49

    Your terminology defines your ability to make observations.

  • @lololololol47 You already agreed with both my terminology and observations, i.e. "It very well may be...." There is a progression of theological development beyond the Bronze Age. Referring to the Bronze Age in the 21st century is both insulting and untrue.

  • @WinteRest49

    I didn't agree i said it very may well be, theres a difference. To refer to theological development as progression is not how I would describe it. Like saying there is progression in alchemy or astrology. Besides what would that progression be?

  • @lololololol47 I don't see the difference between agreement and saying, "...it very well may be," but that's alright. The Bronze Age is ca. 3300-1200 BCE. Theology has progressed beyond those years. Is "developed" a better term?

  • @WinteRest49 Changed would probably be a more accurate term depending on your point of view. I don't understand what your trying to imply however? Are you trying to say that religion has improved in human values since the Bronze age?

  • @lololololol47 I'll use "changed" for you, unless I think it's not applicable -- but I see no problem. Yes, to your second question. You don't think human values have improved since the Bronze Age?

  • @WinteRest49

    Religon's value of human values have not. Any values we have were done in spite of religion. You need not look any farther than monotheism's rise to the modern day to see that.

  • @lololololol47 What about the decalogue? How does the decalogue figure with your statement, "Any values we have were done in spite of religion."? 

  • @lololololol47 Well after looking at your screen name, it seems you have no concept of what "mature" even means, but the only consequences of that is never being taken seriously.

  • @TheRealOnlineBabbler

    Oh you got me, obviously you've seen through me and my lies evidenced by my wildy immature and childish screen name. Nice try but sorry that doesn't work any more than whining about someones "snobbish" statement as if that makes it go away.

  • @lololololol47 I'd love to hear what you believe in; it'll probably read like a joke and then a cry for help

  • @TheRealOnlineBabbler

    i don't believe in mythology and gods if thats what your asking? I'm taking it that you do? At the very least your sympathetic towards religion?

  • You can't/won't summarize in a sentence or two?

  • @WinteRest49 I compared two verses of the old testament to show how immoral the old testament "god" is. One verse says the penalty for gay sex is death, the other verse says the penalty for raping a young girl is a fine. No just and loving God, and certainly no normal human being, could possibly believe that consensual gay sex is worse than the rape of a young girl.

  • @KayBeeEee1983 The penalty for the rape of a betrothed woman is death. The penalty for having relations with an unbetrothed woman is a fine, but they must get married (Deut. 22:25-28). Regardless, the laws of ancient Israel were extreme, e.g. the death penalty for cursing either your mother or father (Lev. 20:9). Cultures change over time, as do a culture's perception of God.

  • @WinteRest49 The penalty for RAPING a young girl is a fine. Read Deuteronomy 22:25-28. It's very clear. It doesn't just say "lay with", it says "lay hold of, and lay with". Obviously that means it's nonconsensual.

  • @KayBeeEee1983 The betrothed woman cries out for help, i.e. nonconsensual. The unbetrothed woman does not. The passage implies that the relations with the unbetrothed woman was consensual; the penalty was a fine paid to the father and the two getting married. The passage also reads "...*their* deed was discovered."

  • @WinteRest49 Verses 28-29 don't say whether she cries out or not, so the penalty is the same either way. He must pay her father 50 shekels and marry her. Read Deuteronomy 22:22-29.

    It doesn't say "their deed", it says "they have been found" (YLT) or "they be found" (KJV) or "they are found" (ESV).

  • @KayBeeEee1983 I know verses 28-9 don't mention the unbetrothed woman crying out, for reasons stated in the previous reply -- which is why only a fine is necessary to the father, along with marriage. You can go on forever arguing about different Bible translations regarding the phrasing of specific words. 

  • @WinteRest49 Show me the verse that describes the penalty if the unbetrothed woman DOES cry out.

    YLT is a literal translation. YLT, KJV, and ESV are supposedly the most "reliable" english translations.

  • @KayBeeEee1983 The point of comparing the verses within this passage is that the unbetrothed woman doesn't cry out, thus making a distinction between the punishments of consensual/nonconsensual relations. There isn't such a thing as a literal translation; something is always lost in translation. You'll find discrepancies when comparing/contrasting translations.

  • @WinteRest49 And for the last time, it doesn't say if the unengaged woman cries out. It says what happens when an engaged woman cries out (she gets to live) and when an engaged woman DOESN'T cry out (she dies). The verses regarding sex with an unengaged woman are totally silent about whether she cries out or not. Therefore, the penalty is the same.

  • @KayBeeEee1983 I know the text doesn't describe an unbetrothed woman crying for help, the implication being that the relations were consensual for an additional reason previously stated. The text describes the betrothed woman crying out for help during relations, the implication is rape, the sentence is death for the rapist. There's quite a distinction between a fine and capital punishment.

  • @WinteRest49 For a rational human, the implication is that the penalty is the same whether the unbetrothed girl screams or not

    None of this even matters because verses 28-29 make it crystal clear that it's talking about raping a young girl, no matter what translation you use. It uses the word "seize" or some similar word/phrase (indicating force), and it says the girl has been violated. The penalty for raping a young girl is 50 shekels. Only a person ignorant of Deuteronomy would argue otherwise

  • @KayBeeEee1983 The distinction is made in the text itself between rape and consent. The penalty for consensual relations between an unbetrothed woman and an interested man is a fine and marriage.

  • @WinteRest49 Incorrect. Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

  • @emailpobox666 Just saying "incorrect" means nothing. I'm referring to the context of the passage Deuteronomy 22: 25-29.

  • @WinteRest49 So you dispute the passage I referred ?If you don't then you are incorrect. If you do ,please state the reason why you dispute it.

  • @emailpobox666 I've already stated my understanding of the passage.

  • @WinteRest49 Your understanding of the passage you refer to or the passage I refer ?

  • @emailpobox666 I am referring to the context of the passage Deut 22:25-9.

  • @WinteRest49 So you choose not to address the passages I mentioned. Anyone a\can pick and choose out of the bible or man. There are I'm sure moments of Hitler's life where he should compassion and kindness does that mean we should over look the atrocities

  • @emailpobox666 The passages you mentioned were written by people, and their interpretation of their history. Atrocities of war are common to every culture.

  • @emailpobox666 You're the one who has been picking and choosing passages from the Bible. I'll leave your Hitler analogy to yourself.

  • @WinteRest49 Your right Hitler was an ameteur at extermination. Your God killed every human on the planet minus 8(.999999%)  while Hitler killed .3 % of the world population

  • @emailpobox666 I didn't know that. What weapon did God use?

  • @WinteRest49 Water. (the Great Flood)

  • @emailpobox666 I wouldn't know; I'm not a fundamentalist like most YouTube atheists.

  • @WinteRest49 If you rather the numbers instead of the percentage your God got Hitler beat by over a million

  • @emailpobox666 Should I ask God to try harder?

  • @WinteRest49 You missed the point god won outright with murder 

  • @emailpobox666 Well alrighty then. I missed the point.

  • @WinteRest49 My bad . I assumed you understood the genocide -8 reference. I should have been more clear

  • @emailpobox666 I'm not interested in passing the buck to God for our own actions.

  • @WinteRest49 Our own actions?

  • @WinteRest49 Every man every women every child every fetus was destroyed (-8) . Not all of them evil or deserving death by any stretch of imagination . Seems an inefficient way of weeding out the bad apples and them impose incest on the remaining humans to repopulate

  • @emailpobox666 I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't take the story of Noah literally.

  • @WinteRest49 I get it you cherry pick what you want out of the bible. Must be nice to choose the good parts and ignore all the bad parts

  • @emailpobox666 I'm referring to literature; the Bible is literature. Flood myths are not peculiar to ancient Israel.

  • @WinteRest49 You don't believe that the bible is the word of god?

  • @emailpobox666 I think the actual word of God works on people. I see the Bible as a collection of books consisting of different genres, written by people describing such an experience.

  • @WinteRest49 So it it's the word of god and your stuck seeing your god through the lens of an ignorant superstitious people

  • @emailpobox666 The word of God works on people directly. To me, the most relevant part of the Bible is the New Testament. The message of the New Testament is simply to love one another. I don't see any ignorance or superstition in such a message.

  • @WinteRest49 Like I said before cherry pick what you wish. But ask your self this what need do you have for a religion that you have to customize? Why not take the best from all the religions? What need do you have a created god?

  • @emailpobox666 Okay.

  • @emailpobox666 Your questions are irrelevant and unchallenging.

  • @WinteRest49 Considering your response I'll assume that my questions really did hit home

  • @emailpobox666 You can assume that if you want.

  • @WinteRest49 Thank you for confirming that

  • @emailpobox666 Yes, I recieved the sacrament of Confirmation many moons ago.

  • @WinteRest49 Another confirmation beside my questions and your non answer

  • @emailpobox666 Yes, but my confirmation confirms your confirmation which are your nonanswers beside my question -- third shelf on the left.

  • @WinteRest49 I was correct those question pose serious problems for you.Otherwise you wouldn't have answered then instead of avoiding them.

  • @emailpobox666 Those questions pose serious problems for yourself, which you should be addressing. What were the questions?