@Stuie417 True what you said. If God wrote it then it is correct to check the errors. However, the Bible is a compilation of people's experiences with God, which they wrote down in order for people who follow after to learn about God through their experiences and testimonies. In this case errors will creep in - but , the bigger message and picture tells of love amazing . Its like when my 3 yr old tells about her time at playschool. The story is full of errors but the message is priceless.
I see scrolling through the comments a user has condemned you to the lake of fire (oh boy!) then preceding to call you Hitler. May I say that Hitler in his speeches and the Mien Kampf making references to the Eternal Providence and creator and made himself sound publicly as a Christian. Thought I'd throw that out there :)
It's easy, very easy, to find mistakes when you look for it in something. I can find a few in the Bible and do the sam ething. However when you do read any book like that, you will find the errors; even the atheist ones. They call it - 'you can't see the forest for the trees , i.e. Focus only on small details and fail to understand larger plans or principles. Incidently that is what the Bible is made of larger plans and principles. - which I am afraid you are still very far from grasping.
It's kind of weird that Jesus's anscestors are whores, but the point is to show how they messed up when trying to GLORIFY Jesus. Anyway, did you say that Obed was lying on a pile of corn? CORN?!
@tempo3rd - Haha, I never really thought about impossibility of the corn. I didn't say it, the Book of Ruth in the King James says that Boaz laid down in it. Evidently, "corn" was the generic word used for any cereal crop.
@43alley you should have included my favorite part where the the widow's brother who keeps pulling it out in time and spilling his seed, and god smite him for it, before she had sex with her father in law.
What do I care who the gospels name as Jesus's descendants? What I find much more interesting is that Obed is sleeping on a pile of corn. CORN?! In Canaan B.C.?!
Just to add to the Ruth saga: Deuteronomy 23:3--"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever" Let me repeat that last part "FOR EVER". Now, if Jesus being descended from Ruth, a Moabite, cannot ever enter into God's congregation--and Jesus is really God, does that mean that God cannot enter into his own congregation? Just asking...
@Manifestatheist And for those who claim that this means ONLY to the 10th generation, Nehemiah puts it into context, 13:1--"On that day they read the Book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever...Now it came to pass, when they heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." This was written hundreds of years after "God cursed the Moabites".
I was starting to think you had a problem with prostitutes, but you make a good point about them most-likely have sex with many other men, therefor the genealogy is probably inaccurate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow...this is really misogynist and takes the heart-rending stories of biblical women out of context to promote the author's own bias. Of course Christians have done the same thing with the biblical texts in a variety of ways, but if you think this paints atheists in a superior light, think again. Luke's Gospel is a champion of women in many ways for its time. There are many ways to attack the Bible and faith, a number of which are legit. Continuing the history of misogyny is not one of them
@massbible - You are being misleading in suggesting that I am the one being misogynistic here. I am simply presenting these stories and asking "why were THESE women the ONLY ONES mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus?"
A YouTube user by the name of glazinq makes a great point below that if the OT laws were really applied, they would have all died, thus busting up Jesus's ancestry.
Someone interested in the Bible (as you claim your group is) should find this a fascinating question as well.
@43alley My beef is not with the question, it's a good one. My charge of misogyny comes from your portrayal of those women and their stories which pulls only sexual incidents out of much larger complex tales in which the women are victimized by family and/or culture time and time again. Each one faced either death or destitution by making other choices, with the exception of Rahab, who was indeed a prostitute by trade but showed her humanity by helping Israelite spies escape.
@43alley Why these women? First, the names of the other women were probably not known to Matthew. Only women passed along in story would be known, because the stories of women were neither told nor valued, unless they involved sex. How familiar that sounds. The question of why these women is no different than "Why David?" and the answer to that goes to the heart of redemption. Jesus was a product of both faithfulness and sin, as are we all. His life teaches us that the latter need not prevail
Just discovered your series. Absolutely love it! Just a thought...I felt that with this one a more appropriate and striking way to conclude the episode may have been to point out that had the LAW actually been applied in these cases, the perpetrators would have been stoned to death and Jesus would never have been born!
AMEN! you will see your sin very soon you are as bad as all these people you listed and when you see your sin you then can be saved but until then you are hell bound to the lake of fire,, ye must be born again, hitler
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think Bathsheba qualifies for "guilty of some form of sexual impropriety." It's not like you can deny the freaking KING when he sends armed guards to kidnap you and then decrees you shall have sex with him before he lets you go. Totally not her fault there, unless I've seriously missed something.
@rkyeun - Good point. I guess I should say "was involved with some form of sexual impropriety."
But she DID end up marrying David and having children with him (Wise King Solomon was their first born. God aborted the one they conceived while Uriah was still alive).
I also wonder if the Bible referring to her as "The Wife of Uriah" even though her child listed in the genealogy is Solomon ... I wonder if that is evidence of the Bible passing judgment on her?
Maybe on Samuel? I don't think anybody at the time would have blamed her like that. They'd be keenly aware of how kings rule. Women were objects. You counted them among your cows and pots and shekels to determine wealth.
I wonder more about who exactly aborted the child. After all, as a king you couldn't afford to raise as /possible prince/ someone who might actually be Uriah's son and not yours. So... she wouldn't have been the wife of Uriah when that lineage happened?
@rkyeun - Oh, no, rkyeun, God specifically killed the unborn child as punishment. It was part of David's punishment. (God had a pattern of punishing and/or killing others on behalf of David.)
Bathsheba was the wife of David when Solomon was born.
Right right, I know the Bible SAYS God killed it. But uh... God's never really been too big on the actually existing part, so to the extent to which this is a historic document, we can infer what actually happened, and it seems well in line with what we should expect of a medieval desert tyrant king.
Hello friend. I haven't visited your channel in a good while. I watching all of your videos again. I truly enjoy them and their message..
U said: " (God had a pattern of punishing and/or killing others on behalf of David.)"
I've seen this pattern throughout the OT!! God often killed the innocent for the crimes, or offences of others unrelated! Ex. The 1st born of Egypt, and many others.
And what is it with god killing so many children? What a vile & sadistic god this was!
I dunno. At some point trying to untangle the contradictions and obvious lies from the propaganda becomes a losing battle and you just have to throw the whole thing out as anything but a mythological nightmare full of plotholes the size of the Kraken.
@rkyeun - I agree. But I would point out that you and I analyzed this story more in just a few posts than 95% (if not more) of all religious people ever have.
It also seems as if Matthew wanted Jesus to seem extra special so he picked out the most notable women of the Old Testament to list as his descendants. Keep up the good work alley. Hitchens would be proud.
You just made Sunday school interesting. I'm trying to imagine the family reunion picnic? Usually after the fourth case of beer, chairs are usually flying. Or maybe that's just me?
Hilarious! I understand where you are coming from but you have to tell the whole story, the women were from the bloodlines of Isreal, that migrated to the places that they were discovered. The Bible isn't a complete story but you can fill in the blanks...
But surely this is moot? If Jesus is God then there can be no genealogy. If he's the son of God then the genealogy is 'God - Jesus' and christianity would become a polytheism. If he has a human genealogy then he's not the son of God but the son of Man which makes him the Devil according to biblical definitions... o.0
why eve one of my family members( who is a christian) asked me what was uo with Jesus's geneology and I didn't know except it could have been adoption.................lol adoption
Ok, alley. My first question is, if you don't believe in God then why do you continue to talk about the stories in the bible? Second question, what makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times? What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molestors, and etc, that are here today? Why not talk about them? The only conclusion is that you are not really an atheist.
"why do you continue to talk about the stories in the bible?" Because other people DO believe in God, and they hold out the Bible as the ultimate source of morality and truth. Truth is, they don't know what's in it. And they try to legislate the morality of others.
"what makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times?"
In some places, they aren't. In most places, we have no slavery, women are equals, children are better protected.
(2) "What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molestors, and etc, that are here today?"
At least in my country (USA) most of these people are prosecuted in the court system of our secular government.
I don't talk about the modern ones much here because they are not considered heroes like the figures in the Bible who did these same things are (prostitutes like Rahab, murderers like Moses, David, Elisha, Yahweh, et al).
@PrettyBoySexy2 43alley did a fine job of defending himself here, but the absolute absurdity of your comment prompted me to add my 2 cents worth. You asked why he talks about the bible if he doesn't believe in god. I would say it's because he's trying to point out the silliness of the outrageous claims that the bible makes. His videos also show that the bible is not the good example of morality that christians claim it is.
> What makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times? What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molesters, and etc, that are here today? Why not talk about them?
Well, since US law isn't based on the Bible, we don't condone or command those things anymore, and we punish those who do. You might say that makes us more moral that the God which commands them several times in the Bible.
@dotoree Also, the entire ID world-view treats the statement 'God exists' as though it were an axiom, an entirely self-evident fact requiring no further proof. But this is simply not the case - and it cannot be proved empirically. The logic at work here is thus 'the fact that I that I exist, is proof that God exists, because how else could I have come to be here', which would only prove the existence of God if nothing else were conceivable.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Please stop the straw men. The ID world doesn't treat the idea that God exists as an axiom ANYWHERE CLOSE to as much as atheists assume materialistic forces brought about life or as much as evolutionists assume that Darwinian evolution is responsible for all life. The reasoning ACTUALLY is that we ALWAYS see life coming from other more intelligent life and instructions always come from intelligence. DNA, biogenesis and other things strongly point to an intelligent cause.
@dotoree It's not a straw man to say that creationism requires God, as described in the Bible, to have ANY validity. And I'm pretty certain that it's a widely-held belief amongst Christians that God definitely exists. Naturalistic forces will always be a better explanation than the supernatural because they can be observed. Speciation has been observed - something being created fully formed has not.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Yes, creation theory thinks God is the designer of all life, but it's based MANY pieces of evidence, some confirmed by billions of testable cases. It is NOT an axiom requiring no proof. That allegation that you made is just blatantly untrue. It would be a LOT more accurate to say that most atheists assume without evidence that life can come from non-life and they don't care how much science (such as biogenesis) is against their view, many refuse to follow the evidence.
@ dotoree It is always the way that those whose research doesn't withstand the savage criticism of peer-review accuse the scientific community of bias, but even ideas that become generally accepted are assaulted with the same vigour. Science, like evolution, is survival of the fittest.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Don't expose your ignorance. I and my mentor have presented at MANY conferences, trained many teachers&taught from nearly all the best textbooks in the world. His rejection had NOTHING to do with scientific reasons whatsoever. He uses same methods for other topics that are accepted. Finally he got a chance to present. One of the most famous EFL authors in the world listened. His reaction was basically "I can't see any problem with your research. But, you're wrong." HUH???
@ In what way does the Bible have a better track record than science? From a point-of-view of benefitting the human race? Science has given us modern pharmaceuticals saving countless millions of lives, industrial chemistry producing modern fertilisers and pesticides providing food for billions, microprocessors allowing mass storage and access to data. I simply don't believe the Bible has contributed more - and it certainly didn't give us morality if evidenced by the conduct of many believers.
@triskaidekaphobe13 The Bible has a far better record of being accurate in it's statements about reality (scientific, historical, etc.)over the last 2,000 years than any type of human beings have. Whether it's biogenesis,its statements that the universe had a beginning,its detailed rules on hygiene that were used to stop the plagues in Europe when scientists had no idea what to do,its lists of clean &unhealthy animals &ideal vegetarian diet that add decades to life, the Bible is unmatched.
@dotoree - Yeah, that's right, the scientific community is conspiring against you by repeatedly proving you wrong. From what I've read, science can explain every one of the ID movements objections to evolutionary theory - whereas those in the ID movement have read only the Bible, and base their entire world-view on it.
@triskaidekaphobe13 The scientific community has conspired against MANY things it is biased against. A nobel prize winner in physics complained that scientific journals would not publish criticisms of the Big Bang. My mentor has been teaching English for 25+ years&is one of the best EFL professors in the world. He did research on using Korean to help students acquire English faster. His solid research was taboo& has been rejected MANY times because its taboo. Many other cases.
@dotoree You dont go around crying like a little girl when your articles get rejected. you fight harder, you trye other papers, you show up at scientific meetings to argue your case. Have you ever considered the guy was simply wrong? There is a reason the peer review exists, it's so that it all doesnt depend on one guy saying something but actually his ability to convince others of his claim. whining about how hard it is to get new stuff published is just going to make you look like an idiot.
@Korkzor Please don't spout ignorant accusations. My mentor used the EXACT same techniques and research methods on different topics. When the topic was not taboo, it was accepted. When it was taboo it was rejected even though the methods were the SAME. My mentor was finally able to present the taboo idea at a conference. One of the biggest names in the field came. His response. "I can't fault your research, but I just KNOW you're wrong."
@triskaidekaphobe13 With all due respect, Don't believe or trust ANY critics until you've checked primary evidence MANY times and seen that they are consistently honest. Most critics distort their targets or blatantly lie about them. It is blatantly false that ID is not science and it is a gigantic falsehoods that IDers or creationists have read only the Bible...nothing could be further from the truth.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Science has incredible benefits and has done some amazing things. One of my part time jobs is correcting papers for medical journals for doctors I teach. God gave us minds and ability to use them. But, sciences have bias just like everyone else and this is a fact of science both history and present. The Bible btw has a FAR better track record than science does.
@dotoree I'm afraid you're wrong. Creationists place a ludicrous burden of proof on scientific claims relating to evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of papers supporting evolutionary theory - there are fewer publications on the universal gravitation, yet no-one questions that theory. The only papers supporting ID have been published in journals related to the movement, which are critical of standard scientific peer review.
@triskaidekaphobe13 No Trisk, we don't place a ludicrous burden of proof on scientific claims relating to evolution. Science places the burden of proof on BOTH evolution and creation to provide evidence of their major claims (use bacterial evidence if you wish). Creation has provided billions of testable confirmations of its major claims (biogenesis, natural selection up to the family level, etc.). Evolution has not provided even ONE. NO,ID papers have NOT only been published in ID journals.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Scientific journals can easily be biased in MANY fields. It's as difficult to get any paper on ID or creation science published as it would be to publish a paper advocating democracy in Stalinist Russia. Creation science is NOT rejected because it doesn't have testable claims. It's often dogmatically&with grossly injustice rejected SOLELY because it has religious connections. Would you like anything to be rejected SOLELY because the idea came from Darwin? Same injustice.
@dotoree - Actually abiogenesis is IN NO WAY crucial for Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution explains only the speciation of life on Earth, not it's origins. Also belief in evolution does not automatically mean that one is an atheist, in fact the majority of Christians accept evolution (the last 3 popes), and many people believe in evolution AND god. Abiogenesis is a relatively new field of serious enquiry, with several leading theories. All more plausible than literal reading of Genesis.
@triskaidekaphobe13 I never said abiogenesis is crucial for evolution (and by the way, it's NOT a new field. It's very old) and I know evolutionists aren't always atheists. Abiogenesis (or something very similar) is however REQUIRED in order for atheism to be rational-scientific. Genesis has BILLIONS more testable evidences than there are for abiogenesis. There's no contest.
@dotoree - The original ideas about abiogenesis are old (and not to be confused with the debunked idea of spontaneous generation, which is not the same) but intensive enquiry into abiogenesis form a biochemical point of view is a relatively modern science. And just because we do not fully understand one aspect of science does not invalidate the entire process, it merely means we need to keep searching. Cite one example of science, not faith, supporting Genesis.
A) The main difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is time as even top evolutionists have admitted.
B) I have NEVER said that science is not a valid process. The problem is that evolution and atheism are just as mythical and lacking in evidence as spontaneous generation and yet some people think they are scientific...very untrue.
There R MANY ways science confirms Bible. Here R 3.
1) Genesis stated biogenesis idea in contrast to the scientific establishments of millennia. The Bible was right & has billions of confirmations.
2) The Bible said the universe had beginning in contrast to steady state theory. If the Big Bang is correct, it's one of the best evidences of this & that there is a Creator.
3) There R billions of confirmations of creationist natural selection. NONE of Darwin's distinguishing claims.
@dotoree If you accept the Big Bang, then the universe is 13 billion years old. So do you accept stellar evolution and biological evolution as well? Just curios. Because it looks like you are cherrypicking science as well but I might be wrong.
@Korkzor The Big Bang has some evidence for it, but it could only produce life if it was a God directed Big Bang. It has tremendous scientific problems if it was not directed by God. The Bible does not say much about the start of the universe or stellar evolution other than that God created them and "stretched them out", the Hebrew word for that having some similarities to the Big Bang theory, which was invented by a Christian and which convinced Einstein that a Creator exists.
@dotoree The big bang has nothing to do with the origin of life. sorry.
I find it hilarious as well that you accept science whenever it fits with your preconcieved notions of the bible being completely true and when science says something else it must be completely wrong and you are willing to accept any pseudoscientific explanation instead like ID simply because it fits with your world view. evolution has been accepted by the same method all your scientifss what,ic facts in the bible has
@Korkzor No, God is not the only reason I or others think killing is wrong. People can have moral beliefs and standards without God. But, they are subjective and based on opinions and if one is clever or strong, you can avoid responsibility for your actions without any change of heart. I suggest you stop making allegations about things you don't know much about. I use consistent standards and accept science based on those standards. NONE of my evidence is pseudo science. Most of yours is.
@dotoree - What do you mean there are no confirmations for Darwin's claims? If you mean that the theory of evolution is unsupported by evidence then you are in factual error, plain and simple. Few areas of science are SO WELL supported by the empirical evidence as evolution. The fossil record, taxonomy, phylogenetic cladistics, comparative morphology and genetic theory ALL point towards evolution by natural selection and a common ancestry. NO credible journal has published papers supporting ID.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Creation scientists like Edward Blyth and Alfred Wallace published the ideas of natural selection based on Genesis statements long before Darwin (and Darwin borrowed from some of them and didn't tell people he did). All speciation up to the family level falls within creation science limits. Darwin's unique claims, that speciation is unlimited MUST at LEAST provide many examples of speciation past the family boundary to be proven.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Pretty much ALL areas of science are FAR better supported than evolution. The fossil record has enormous problems for evolution. Morphology is just as good evidence for a common designer as it is a common ancestor. Genetics is the sam. It's not true that ID scientists have not published in science. Indeed, the question can be asked what Creation scientist has NOT published.
@dotoree I never asked for the evidence. I heard all that before... So consider one who has not seen that evidence. Never heard of God. That person does not believe in God, never even considered it. Then someone tries to convince him God exists and fails, either due to not knowing what you know or being unreasonable in general. Then that person is still an atheist... You dont have to prove zeus does not exist either in order not to believe in him.
@Korkzor@Korkzor Someone not knowing how life started is not atheism. It's ignorance (or you might be able to call it agnosticism). Both linguistically from the Greek AND historically, atheism is the denial that Gods exist and the affirmation that all life has developed without gods by materialistic processes alone. Your islander is also ignorant, NOT an atheist. No, you haven't seen or heard all the evidence, I'm 99.9% sure you have not :)..as I have time I'll share some you have NOT heard.
@dotoree So it comes down to how you define atheism.. there are only two positions you can hold in this aspect. Either you are a theist, meaining you believe in a god, a personal one as well, or you are not. If you dont believe, that makes you an atheist. You dont have deny the existance of god to be an atheist. Denying God is compatible with atheism but not depended and there is a difference.
The guy would be an ignorant atheist but he would be an atheist nontheless..
@Korkzor The Stanford Encyclopedia and 1000s of references of history define atheism as a specific denial that gods exist. It is only in the last couple decades that atheists have tried to dilute the meaning because they realize there is no testable evidence for abiogenesis. Your islander could be ignorant of science as well. If you wish to equate ignorance with atheism, I won't object to that ;).
@triskaidekaphobe13 Majority opinion does not mean something is true. Some Christians, esp. Catholic church which an enemy of the Bible in MANY areas, sadly have followed popular opinion at different times in history&it's been extremely harmful. They followed Greek thinking&developed the demonic doctrine that hell burns forever which is 100% unbiblical. They followed Greek medicine in thinking that bloodletting was a great medical technique when the Bible said life was in the blood.
@dotoree. for 150years scholars have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible.
archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people. Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so
@Darusdei Archaeological data is used to document many sources as accurate ranging from secular historians to the Bible. Just watch a TINY bit of the History channel and the many experts there and how they use archaeology. No, archaeology does not raise more questions for the Bible,and especially not the literal parts. It consistently confirms it as accurate. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
@dotoree Right you are - majority opinion does not mean something is true. Remember that the majority of people believe in God. This does not mean God exists or not, it is simply a belief. Knowledge is arrived at by studying the evidence and using reasoned logic to interpret findings, all of which supports the theory of evolution.
@triskaidekaphobe13 Correct, just because a majority believes in God doesn't make it correct. And just because a majority of scientists believe in evolution or atheism doesn't make that corerct either. If quite a lot of very intelligent people WHO HAVE CHECKED THE EVIDENCE FOR ALL MAJOR ALTERNATIVES (this is VERY seldom done) believe something, then it's worth serious investigation and consideration and we need to follow the weight of evidence WHEREVER it leads.
All of these stories were of people having children by extramarital sex. We get to Mary and Joseph where the miraculous "virgin birth" occurs. The punishment for extramarital sex was death by stoning. Being pregnant, Mary could not hide the evidence. There is the implication that she and Joseph conceived Jesus before marrying-in fact this may have followed BECAUSE of that, to prevent Mary being killed for it. This is a subtle implication, true, but it's still there. So much for a virgin birth.
Great video, but this won't change the mind of a committed Christian. It's a simple rationalization. Mary had an immaculate conception therefore the improprieties in the bloodlines are really irrelevant. If this is true, name one Christian person on this planet who hasn't been perfect. This video may prove why the Jews rejected Jesus as Savior, but Christians have invented a God that can do anything with consequence because the creator of the universe is the rule maker.
7) It's kind of ironic that atheism condemns the Bible for being against sex (that's false),then criticizes it for being too sexual. We're damned if we do&damned if we don't ;).
Its easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. But, in science, new theories dont triumph just by criticizing. They have to provide BETTER evidences that their worldview explains more of the evidence than competing views. This is something that atheism has failed to do. It prefers to use coercion, bias and propaganda.
5) It was Judah's or Judah's son's responsibility in that culture to marry Tamar to help carry on the brothers name. Judah refused to do this. What she did is not commended by God. But, it was a way to carry on her husbands name.
6) Boaz is not a sexual tyrannosaurus of any sort. He acted very honorably. What Ruth did was a way of proposing in that culture and Boaz followed the proper custom in his culture and soon married her.
@Unknnnnn Fiction?? Historical accuracy of the scriptures are far superior to the written records of Egypt and other early nations. No other book from the ancient world has more, earlier, or better copied manuscripts than the Bible. Also archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century.
I recommend gaining some knowledge on this book before commenting
on it. If you rely on amateur video clips for your info, you'll remain misinformed.
@clintj32 We need to get falchion49 in here to talk to you a bit about Biblical archaeology and all these "innumerable confirmations" that you heard about from answers in genesis or some other crackpot website.
2) Geneology in Israeli culture can follow the fathers line,the mothers line or even position in some cases. Also, father of and son of are interchangeable with ancestor and descendent.
3) All sorts of great people have had some crazy ancestors. I can tell you some in-out of the Bible just as bad or worse than these.
4) You may be trying to discredit the immaculate conception idea. That idea is not biblical, but this wouldn't help even if it were.
Its unfortunate that youre using your skills to misrepresent-discredit the religion that pioneered the scientific method, most fields of science,started MANY famous universities, numerous hospitals, etc.
1) Yes,the Bible has some colorful people. That's one GREAT evidence it's true. If people made it up,they wouldn't write about their heroes having all these flaws. Almost NO other ancient historians wrote like this. If they did,the king,their employer,would have lopped off their heads.
Sorry, but claiming that the bible pioneered the Scientific method is so laughable it hurts.
Dont know if that was a new or old comment, but now that I seen that, I know you are so brainwashed, there is no need to further debate or respond to you, brainwashed sheep.
Misinformation is you friend, lies you speak, but truth doesn't change due to your opinion.
Christians who are fundamentalist enough to follow the Bible health principles (not many do), live 10 years longer than the average American confirming Pascal's statement that Christians can't lose since the live better even on this earth and have a chance at living forever. I ACTUALLY said the Christian religion pioneered the modern scientific method. Ever hear of Francis Bacon? But, Daniel, ~600 BC or so, did one of the first scientific experiments in history.
Sorry,but I teach logic units sometimes at the university level. I lost ~$150,000 to dishonest non-religious business partners. I detest dishonesty since it has ruined many years of my life as well as hurting my marriage&family a lot. Don't talk foolishly about things you know nothing about. Don't use apriori think either and falsely judge things you haven't investigated hardly at all. I have changed many ideas based on evidence. Have you?
We need to get falchion49 in here to talk to you a bit about all these "innumerable confirmations" that you heard about from crackpot websites.
-
And what makes you think falchion isn't a crackpot? No one on your side could possibly be wrong huh? Numerous topnotch historians, including some who were prejudiced against the Bible, have confirmed the Bible's history INNUMERABLE times.
@clintj32 The bible has been utterly discreditted, everybody with a bit of common sense and without emotional attachment to it, knows how extremely silly and false it is.
And you got to purchase it to read it and laugh at it as well....
@mhrby1985 The Bible is the greatest and most influential book ever written, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised. There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this.
No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects on its readers and you think its silly? You Europeans have lost more
1) Most Biblical slavery was nothing like these days slavery. It was a welfare system with most of it being voluntary and kidnapping being a capital crime.
2) Women were not property.
3) Never says that childen should be killed for mocking authority.
4) Does NOT encourage rape.
-
God had to make some severe rules at first to get slaves to pay attention. They were supposed to become an example nation. They couldn't do that while disobeying basics of strong nations.
@dotoree 1) Bible Slavery was excatly as bad. You was allowed to beat them to death, as long as it took them a day or two to die, you was allowed to beat them up, as long as they didnt die instantly, you owned them, a human being being owned by another. That you defend that, shows that you are amazingly ignorant, arrogant and a horrible person that I have no need to talk with.
1) WRONG. If even a tooth was knocked out, they were freed.
2) Yes, AND husbands should sacrifice for their wives just as much as Jesus' sacrificed for the church...you kinda left out that part...intentionally?
3) Wrong. Flat out wrong.
4) Wrong. Rape was a capital crime.
I'm a professor, religion major and volunteer pastor. You are good at cherry picking and straw manning. I know what you're referring to, but you're severely misrepresenting things.
Give me a non-biblical source as well for yours claims that slavery was not so bad in those days.
Also, give me 1 good reason that it is okay for one person to OWN another person, even if the person owned is well treated in all ways, it is NOT okay to own another person.
1) AGAIN, slavery was VOLUNTARY as a general rule. If someone got in trouble financially, instead of taking the money from some other hard working person (like socialism), the person could choose to become a servant for a while...AND they could buy back their freedom at any time. This is FAR better than any modern welfare system which enables laziness and causes the government to charge the population high taxes (Isreali kings were not supposed to charge higher than ~2% taxes).
4) If a man is caught with lying with a women against her will inside the city and she has not yet known man by lying with him, the man must give 50 silver to the girls father and marry the girl and he cannot divorce her.
Oh yeah, sounds like capital punishment alright?
You are grossly misinformed, I do not care about your supposed authority, I can read what the bible says and when it directly says to pay rape victims father money and marry the rape victim, then thats what it says
"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."
He who loves his wife loves himself." BOTH man and wife should do their best to make the other happy. Quite an ideal system.
4) Deut. 22:25 " if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country,&he rapes her,then only the man must die."
Ex.22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married&sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, &she shall be his wife. 17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him,he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
1) Ex. 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another&either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." Slaves,actually servants, could CHOOSE to be slaves, but were freed after 7 years,unless they liked slavery&chose to stay longer which they symbolize by piercing their ears (Ex 21:6).
2) Eph. 5:25"Husbands,love your wives, just as Christ loved the church&gave himself up for her 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
Deuteronomy 22&Exodus 22:16-17 must BOTH be considered as well as others. Cherry picking in modern law or ancient is deceitful. If the father agreed (&the daughter was supposed to be involved in that decision) that his daughter could marry the guy,then he had to do it. But, it was conditional upon the agreement of the father&family. You do realize that was a communal culture& when it says the head of some group,it usually means that they consulted with the group as to the best choice first.
You said "unruly kids" were to be killed. Sorry, but that's not even close to what Leviticus 20:9 says. Lev. may seem harsh, I agree. But, God had to deal very severely with them esp. at first, since they were used to doing things only when whipped, etc.
-
YES, we are to submit to others, & put others wishes first. That's one of the most basic essenses of Christianity. If all do that, it's pretty close to utopia. One example is that Paul tells husbands and wives never to deny each other sex.
@dotoree went by your channel as well now and damn, you are really seriously brainwashed and a fundamentalistic person.
You are so misinformed and know so little about the world, it is painful
I feel truly sorry that your life was ruined by fundamentalism, that what could have been a beautiful mind was corrupted by evil and so throughoutly taken over by it, that you are blind to the evil that religion is.
I hope the very best for you, althrough I think it is too late
You are really seriously brainwashed and a fundamentalistic person.
You are so misinformed and know so little about the world
-
ROFL. Most republicans say similar things to me because I don't follow their party line. I detest Fox news for it's serial dishonesty and propaganda, campaigned for Obama,etc. (but am not a democrat). I follow EVIDENCE where it leads, not propaganda. And I'm far more of a fundamentalist than any of the fakers on TV :).
Daniel humbly requested that he be allowed to test God's ideal diet, which was vegetarian against the Babylonian diet and see which one produced the better results. God's diet won easiy and with that, hard studying and other factors he got the best grade in the top university of the world of that time. I followed the same principles&scored in the top 2% in America on my SATs. So have many others. Re: my channel...I've done almost nothing with it except click on a few favorites.
What happens when people use only sources with the same bias (ex: Fox Channel and WND)? They have great difficulty following facts&recognizing error. Same thing happens when students ONLY learn one side of the story, the evolution side. Same in Russia when they only tell the Russian side of history &in Iran when newspapers only tell the Iranian version of the nuclear conflict. Cant you see any problem with people only listening to one sided info? They make apriori anti-fact decisions.
@dotoree Sorry, but when one side is utter lies, fabricated evidence and misinformation, there is no need to present it to children who does not yet have the critical thinking skills to rightfully process the faults of it, just because some adults dont have the critical thinking skills to see it either.
Evolution is a FACT, things evolved, the earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, those are all FACTS
Even if there isn't a God, Pascal was right when he said Christians can't lose since even on earth they have the best life. Christians who follow the Bible's health principles (not many do), live 10 years longer than other Americans. Google buettner and "How to live to be 100" for a secular video documenting this. DEAL IN FACTS, NOT FICTION. I could cherry pick just like you and say that Stalin or Kim Jung Il is what atheism is all about. How would you like that?
There is also toxic atheism. And atheism has had a direct influence on causing extreme intolerance in many places. In fact, there's close to a 1 to 1 correspondence between extreme intolerance and atheism being the official religion of a country. 1 to 1 correspondence's are not common in history or science.
@dotoree Sorry, but that is utter bullshit, saying that there is a 1 to 1 correspondance between extreme intolerance and atheism, that justs propaganda, would love to see a source for this claim of yours.
Sure there was the Communist regime which practiced high atheism and was extremely intolerant, but if you say only atheist regimes has had extreme intolerance, then you are full of bullshit, just for instance would you call the actions of Nazi germany? Christian nation that was
Re: bullshit about 1 to 1 correspondance between extreme intolerance&atheism
-
I'm REALLY sick of the straw men that 90%+ of atheists continually use. Do atheists learn this from some atheist guru master? It's CRUCIAL that you represent things correctly. I ACTUALLY said that there is ~ a 1 to 1 correspondence between atheism being the official nation of a religion&extreme intolerance. That's true starting from the French Revolution(not communist),to Cuba,Russia,China¤tly in North Korea.
but if you say only atheist regimes has had extreme intolerance,
-
I didn't say only atheistic regimes were extremely intolerant. The Catholic regime has been about as bad (and it's a cousin to atheism in its rejection of God's word and instituting man's ideas instead). Hitler was of course extremely intolerant, but he was QUITE hostile to religion as evidenced by quite a few quotes he made, although he was good at manipulating religion.
@dotoree Also, there is a big contradcition between your defense of slavery at the time and what the bible says about slavery at the time.
Now, I personally belive that sources besides the bible more accurately depicts how slavery actually was back then, but the bible clearly endorses the kind of slavery it describes itself.
And in that kind of slavery, a slave owner (master) was clearly NOT punished for removing the eye nor teeth of their servant
I think you need to study up more on what worldviews are and how they influence people. Your worldview has an extremely powerful influence on your views and thus also on your actions. Jesus, Buddha, Confucius and others wrote that we need to be careful about how we think because that has a direct influence on our actions, esp. over time. My dad's a pastor and speaks of toxic religion which there definitely is.
@dotoree I am not saying that Jesus did not say some wise things that are worth considering, that would be like saying being a vegetarian is bad because Hitler was it, not to compare Jesus to Hitler, as I in no way will say that he was as horrible a person as Hitler, at least not until deeper thought is put into it.
Also the whole worldview thing is also why I do not subscribe to any dogmatic beliefs, I have beliefs based on reason, logic and evidence to the best possible degree I can archive
you started out saying the bible did not endorse slavery at all, then went to slavery was not so bad...
-
No,I did not. Please get your facts straight. From the beginning I said that biblical slavery&modern slavery cannot be equated. Most biblical slavery was a welfare system&voluntary and I conclusively proved that. About beating, I suppose you're referring to this verse:
Ex. 21 20If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.
@dotoree Sorry, but the verse clearly says he can be beaten to death, as long as it takes him more and a day to die, the master shall not be blamed.
We know today that blunt force trauma can kill several days later, hence we know that if you hit someone in the head with a stick, he gets up and dies a few days later, you are to blame.
But this supposedly divinely inspired word of God did not know this fact of life, and decided the master should not be blamed
Sorry, but the verse clearly says he can be beaten to death
-
No, it most certainly does not. It doesn't in the KJV (although the vocabulary can be misunderstood here because of the bad translation), it does not in the NLT and it does not in the original language.
-
Yes, North Korea IS an atheistic regime. They have killed MANY 1000s of Christians. I've lived in Korea for 17 years. You need to ask questions a LOT more instead of speaking falsely about things you don't know about.
Just hearing her name would make a man ejaculate? I wish I could meet this woman.
chillwill120 6 months ago
Comment removed
Amashkitotamoes 7 months ago in playlist An Atheist Reads the Bible series
This is my least favourite of the series as it has no valid point
hostyle0 10 months ago
@Stuie417 True what you said. If God wrote it then it is correct to check the errors. However, the Bible is a compilation of people's experiences with God, which they wrote down in order for people who follow after to learn about God through their experiences and testimonies. In this case errors will creep in - but , the bigger message and picture tells of love amazing . Its like when my 3 yr old tells about her time at playschool. The story is full of errors but the message is priceless.
1025720210 1 year ago
I love the last few seconds of this video. LoL
Stuie417 1 year ago
I see scrolling through the comments a user has condemned you to the lake of fire (oh boy!) then preceding to call you Hitler. May I say that Hitler in his speeches and the Mien Kampf making references to the Eternal Providence and creator and made himself sound publicly as a Christian. Thought I'd throw that out there :)
EliseVintage 1 year ago
It's easy, very easy, to find mistakes when you look for it in something. I can find a few in the Bible and do the sam ething. However when you do read any book like that, you will find the errors; even the atheist ones. They call it - 'you can't see the forest for the trees , i.e. Focus only on small details and fail to understand larger plans or principles. Incidently that is what the Bible is made of larger plans and principles. - which I am afraid you are still very far from grasping.
cliffeliamatt 1 year ago
@cliffeliamatt If the Bible is the word of God, then shouldn't he of double-checked his works to make sure that these errors wouldn't be in there?
Stuie417 1 year ago
It's kind of weird that Jesus's anscestors are whores, but the point is to show how they messed up when trying to GLORIFY Jesus. Anyway, did you say that Obed was lying on a pile of corn? CORN?!
tempo3rd 1 year ago
@tempo3rd - Haha, I never really thought about impossibility of the corn. I didn't say it, the Book of Ruth in the King James says that Boaz laid down in it. Evidently, "corn" was the generic word used for any cereal crop.
You learn something everyday ...
43alley 1 year ago 2
@43alley you should have included my favorite part where the the widow's brother who keeps pulling it out in time and spilling his seed, and god smite him for it, before she had sex with her father in law.
emancoy 9 months ago
What do I care who the gospels name as Jesus's descendants? What I find much more interesting is that Obed is sleeping on a pile of corn. CORN?! In Canaan B.C.?!
tempo3rd 1 year ago 2
"Rahab was an authentic fire-breathing whore." ROFL
Charlesincharge42 1 year ago
Just to add to the Ruth saga: Deuteronomy 23:3--"An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever" Let me repeat that last part "FOR EVER". Now, if Jesus being descended from Ruth, a Moabite, cannot ever enter into God's congregation--and Jesus is really God, does that mean that God cannot enter into his own congregation? Just asking...
Manifestatheist 1 year ago 5
@Manifestatheist And for those who claim that this means ONLY to the 10th generation, Nehemiah puts it into context, 13:1--"On that day they read the Book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever...Now it came to pass, when they heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." This was written hundreds of years after "God cursed the Moabites".
Manifestatheist 1 year ago
I was starting to think you had a problem with prostitutes, but you make a good point about them most-likely have sex with many other men, therefor the genealogy is probably inaccurate.
chadd990 1 year ago
Buncha slack-jawwed faggots! This stuff'll make ya a sexual tyrannosaurus! Just like me : )
Kincajou 1 year ago
@Kincajou So you have ridiculously small arms, and a cloaca when aroused?
mmmmmarcus 1 year ago
@mmmmmarcus
Exactly!
Kincajou 1 year ago
lol i love the reference to a mexican soup opera...they are very catholic u know
gussy1d5 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow...this is really misogynist and takes the heart-rending stories of biblical women out of context to promote the author's own bias. Of course Christians have done the same thing with the biblical texts in a variety of ways, but if you think this paints atheists in a superior light, think again. Luke's Gospel is a champion of women in many ways for its time. There are many ways to attack the Bible and faith, a number of which are legit. Continuing the history of misogyny is not one of them
massbible 1 year ago
@massbible - You are being misleading in suggesting that I am the one being misogynistic here. I am simply presenting these stories and asking "why were THESE women the ONLY ONES mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus?"
A YouTube user by the name of glazinq makes a great point below that if the OT laws were really applied, they would have all died, thus busting up Jesus's ancestry.
Someone interested in the Bible (as you claim your group is) should find this a fascinating question as well.
43alley 1 year ago 19
@43alley My beef is not with the question, it's a good one. My charge of misogyny comes from your portrayal of those women and their stories which pulls only sexual incidents out of much larger complex tales in which the women are victimized by family and/or culture time and time again. Each one faced either death or destitution by making other choices, with the exception of Rahab, who was indeed a prostitute by trade but showed her humanity by helping Israelite spies escape.
massbible 1 year ago
@43alley Why these women? First, the names of the other women were probably not known to Matthew. Only women passed along in story would be known, because the stories of women were neither told nor valued, unless they involved sex. How familiar that sounds. The question of why these women is no different than "Why David?" and the answer to that goes to the heart of redemption. Jesus was a product of both faithfulness and sin, as are we all. His life teaches us that the latter need not prevail
massbible 1 year ago
Just discovered your series. Absolutely love it! Just a thought...I felt that with this one a more appropriate and striking way to conclude the episode may have been to point out that had the LAW actually been applied in these cases, the perpetrators would have been stoned to death and Jesus would never have been born!
glazinq 1 year ago 2
lmao "a sexual Tyrannosaurus"... I immediately thought of "Tyrannosaurus sex" :D
dprice1291 1 year ago
AMEN! you will see your sin very soon you are as bad as all these people you listed and when you see your sin you then can be saved but until then you are hell bound to the lake of fire,, ye must be born again, hitler
ncbookz 1 year ago
Sexual tyrannosaurus, LOL! Predator reference win!
jackstorm777 1 year ago
Haha. The VIRGIN Mary, yeah right...
arpee9216 1 year ago
What's the sound track at the beginning?
Giuvannuzzeddu 1 year ago
nicely done. they never said anything about this at church :D
cheetmeister 1 year ago
6:39
Maybe I missed it, but I don't think Bathsheba qualifies for "guilty of some form of sexual impropriety." It's not like you can deny the freaking KING when he sends armed guards to kidnap you and then decrees you shall have sex with him before he lets you go. Totally not her fault there, unless I've seriously missed something.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun - Good point. I guess I should say "was involved with some form of sexual impropriety."
But she DID end up marrying David and having children with him (Wise King Solomon was their first born. God aborted the one they conceived while Uriah was still alive).
I also wonder if the Bible referring to her as "The Wife of Uriah" even though her child listed in the genealogy is Solomon ... I wonder if that is evidence of the Bible passing judgment on her?
43alley 1 year ago
@43alley
Maybe on Samuel? I don't think anybody at the time would have blamed her like that. They'd be keenly aware of how kings rule. Women were objects. You counted them among your cows and pots and shekels to determine wealth.
I wonder more about who exactly aborted the child. After all, as a king you couldn't afford to raise as /possible prince/ someone who might actually be Uriah's son and not yours. So... she wouldn't have been the wife of Uriah when that lineage happened?
rkyeun 1 year ago
@rkyeun - Oh, no, rkyeun, God specifically killed the unborn child as punishment. It was part of David's punishment. (God had a pattern of punishing and/or killing others on behalf of David.)
Bathsheba was the wife of David when Solomon was born.
43alley 1 year ago
@43alley
Right right, I know the Bible SAYS God killed it. But uh... God's never really been too big on the actually existing part, so to the extent to which this is a historic document, we can infer what actually happened, and it seems well in line with what we should expect of a medieval desert tyrant king.
rkyeun 1 year ago
@43alley
Hello friend. I haven't visited your channel in a good while. I watching all of your videos again. I truly enjoy them and their message..
U said: " (God had a pattern of punishing and/or killing others on behalf of David.)"
I've seen this pattern throughout the OT!! God often killed the innocent for the crimes, or offences of others unrelated! Ex. The 1st born of Egypt, and many others.
And what is it with god killing so many children? What a vile & sadistic god this was!
Later
Cootabux 1 year ago
@43alley
I dunno. At some point trying to untangle the contradictions and obvious lies from the propaganda becomes a losing battle and you just have to throw the whole thing out as anything but a mythological nightmare full of plotholes the size of the Kraken.
rkyeun 1 year ago 3
@rkyeun - I agree. But I would point out that you and I analyzed this story more in just a few posts than 95% (if not more) of all religious people ever have.
43alley 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
rkyeun 1 year ago
@43alley
Well that's almost tautological, isn't it? ( X ∈ ( People who are religious ) ) → ( X ∉ ( People who analyze their beliefs ) )
rkyeun 1 year ago
It also seems as if Matthew wanted Jesus to seem extra special so he picked out the most notable women of the Old Testament to list as his descendants. Keep up the good work alley. Hitchens would be proud.
ShelvedAndDusty 1 year ago
You just made Sunday school interesting. I'm trying to imagine the family reunion picnic? Usually after the fourth case of beer, chairs are usually flying. Or maybe that's just me?
granddad2002 1 year ago
Hilarious! I understand where you are coming from but you have to tell the whole story, the women were from the bloodlines of Isreal, that migrated to the places that they were discovered. The Bible isn't a complete story but you can fill in the blanks...
monopolydevil 1 year ago
But surely this is moot? If Jesus is God then there can be no genealogy. If he's the son of God then the genealogy is 'God - Jesus' and christianity would become a polytheism. If he has a human genealogy then he's not the son of God but the son of Man which makes him the Devil according to biblical definitions... o.0
stamboni316 1 year ago
Anyone ever notice that the Bible or Book of Mormon or pretty much any religion has a MILLION stories of mistaken identity...
...alot like the fiction of Shakespeare. Its good story telling, but thats all it is.
xtcx2e 1 year ago
I think you should make a video on the Exodus from Egypt.
winner0loser 1 year ago
I didn't know that about Rahab... oh. Shit. Now I need a Kleenex.
rationalmuscle 1 year ago
My mom gave me my middle name, Tamara, because it's a biblical name. I find it hilarious what Tamar is known for in the bible. Thanks, mom. lol
ScaperSteph 1 year ago
this one is really brilliant, well done.
GalinorGustave 1 year ago
why eve one of my family members( who is a christian) asked me what was uo with Jesus's geneology and I didn't know except it could have been adoption.................lol adoption
christianshounen101 1 year ago
how can u prove jesus waz real if he waz born from a virgin?? exactly u cant
k1ll3r 1 year ago
Ok, alley. My first question is, if you don't believe in God then why do you continue to talk about the stories in the bible? Second question, what makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times? What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molestors, and etc, that are here today? Why not talk about them? The only conclusion is that you are not really an atheist.
PrettyBoySexy2 1 year ago
@PrettyBoySexy2
(1)
"why do you continue to talk about the stories in the bible?" Because other people DO believe in God, and they hold out the Bible as the ultimate source of morality and truth. Truth is, they don't know what's in it. And they try to legislate the morality of others.
"what makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times?"
In some places, they aren't. In most places, we have no slavery, women are equals, children are better protected.
43alley 1 year ago 7
@PrettyBoySexy2
(2) "What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molestors, and etc, that are here today?"
At least in my country (USA) most of these people are prosecuted in the court system of our secular government.
I don't talk about the modern ones much here because they are not considered heroes like the figures in the Bible who did these same things are (prostitutes like Rahab, murderers like Moses, David, Elisha, Yahweh, et al).
Your final conclusion is extremely weak.
43alley 1 year ago 13
@43alley Speaking of Moses, you didn't do an Exodus video yet, did you? Chronicling Moses the traitor and terrorist?
DarkAdonisVyers 1 year ago
@43alley " I find your lack of faith quite disterbing. "
Gemeni3insane 5 months ago
@PrettyBoySexy2 43alley did a fine job of defending himself here, but the absolute absurdity of your comment prompted me to add my 2 cents worth. You asked why he talks about the bible if he doesn't believe in god. I would say it's because he's trying to point out the silliness of the outrageous claims that the bible makes. His videos also show that the bible is not the good example of morality that christians claim it is.
whoopiman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrettyBoySexy2
> What makes human beings any better today, morally than they were in biblical times? What about the prostitutes, murderers, child molesters, and etc, that are here today? Why not talk about them?
Well, since US law isn't based on the Bible, we don't condone or command those things anymore, and we punish those who do. You might say that makes us more moral that the God which commands them several times in the Bible.
rkyeun 1 year ago
so covering the face back in the day was a sign of prostitution? hmmm interesting.
kendrawhisp 1 year ago
@kendrawhisp I wonder if the muslims know this?
dawkinsbeagle 1 year ago
@dotoree Also, the entire ID world-view treats the statement 'God exists' as though it were an axiom, an entirely self-evident fact requiring no further proof. But this is simply not the case - and it cannot be proved empirically. The logic at work here is thus 'the fact that I that I exist, is proof that God exists, because how else could I have come to be here', which would only prove the existence of God if nothing else were conceivable.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Please stop the straw men. The ID world doesn't treat the idea that God exists as an axiom ANYWHERE CLOSE to as much as atheists assume materialistic forces brought about life or as much as evolutionists assume that Darwinian evolution is responsible for all life. The reasoning ACTUALLY is that we ALWAYS see life coming from other more intelligent life and instructions always come from intelligence. DNA, biogenesis and other things strongly point to an intelligent cause.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree It's not a straw man to say that creationism requires God, as described in the Bible, to have ANY validity. And I'm pretty certain that it's a widely-held belief amongst Christians that God definitely exists. Naturalistic forces will always be a better explanation than the supernatural because they can be observed. Speciation has been observed - something being created fully formed has not.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Yes, creation theory thinks God is the designer of all life, but it's based MANY pieces of evidence, some confirmed by billions of testable cases. It is NOT an axiom requiring no proof. That allegation that you made is just blatantly untrue. It would be a LOT more accurate to say that most atheists assume without evidence that life can come from non-life and they don't care how much science (such as biogenesis) is against their view, many refuse to follow the evidence.
dotoree 1 year ago
@ dotoree It is always the way that those whose research doesn't withstand the savage criticism of peer-review accuse the scientific community of bias, but even ideas that become generally accepted are assaulted with the same vigour. Science, like evolution, is survival of the fittest.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Don't expose your ignorance. I and my mentor have presented at MANY conferences, trained many teachers&taught from nearly all the best textbooks in the world. His rejection had NOTHING to do with scientific reasons whatsoever. He uses same methods for other topics that are accepted. Finally he got a chance to present. One of the most famous EFL authors in the world listened. His reaction was basically "I can't see any problem with your research. But, you're wrong." HUH???
dotoree 1 year ago
@ In what way does the Bible have a better track record than science? From a point-of-view of benefitting the human race? Science has given us modern pharmaceuticals saving countless millions of lives, industrial chemistry producing modern fertilisers and pesticides providing food for billions, microprocessors allowing mass storage and access to data. I simply don't believe the Bible has contributed more - and it certainly didn't give us morality if evidenced by the conduct of many believers.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 The Bible has a far better record of being accurate in it's statements about reality (scientific, historical, etc.)over the last 2,000 years than any type of human beings have. Whether it's biogenesis,its statements that the universe had a beginning,its detailed rules on hygiene that were used to stop the plagues in Europe when scientists had no idea what to do,its lists of clean &unhealthy animals &ideal vegetarian diet that add decades to life, the Bible is unmatched.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree - Yeah, that's right, the scientific community is conspiring against you by repeatedly proving you wrong. From what I've read, science can explain every one of the ID movements objections to evolutionary theory - whereas those in the ID movement have read only the Bible, and base their entire world-view on it.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 The scientific community has conspired against MANY things it is biased against. A nobel prize winner in physics complained that scientific journals would not publish criticisms of the Big Bang. My mentor has been teaching English for 25+ years&is one of the best EFL professors in the world. He did research on using Korean to help students acquire English faster. His solid research was taboo& has been rejected MANY times because its taboo. Many other cases.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree You dont go around crying like a little girl when your articles get rejected. you fight harder, you trye other papers, you show up at scientific meetings to argue your case. Have you ever considered the guy was simply wrong? There is a reason the peer review exists, it's so that it all doesnt depend on one guy saying something but actually his ability to convince others of his claim. whining about how hard it is to get new stuff published is just going to make you look like an idiot.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor Please don't spout ignorant accusations. My mentor used the EXACT same techniques and research methods on different topics. When the topic was not taboo, it was accepted. When it was taboo it was rejected even though the methods were the SAME. My mentor was finally able to present the taboo idea at a conference. One of the biggest names in the field came. His response. "I can't fault your research, but I just KNOW you're wrong."
dotoree 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 With all due respect, Don't believe or trust ANY critics until you've checked primary evidence MANY times and seen that they are consistently honest. Most critics distort their targets or blatantly lie about them. It is blatantly false that ID is not science and it is a gigantic falsehoods that IDers or creationists have read only the Bible...nothing could be further from the truth.
dotoree 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Science has incredible benefits and has done some amazing things. One of my part time jobs is correcting papers for medical journals for doctors I teach. God gave us minds and ability to use them. But, sciences have bias just like everyone else and this is a fact of science both history and present. The Bible btw has a FAR better track record than science does.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I'm afraid you're wrong. Creationists place a ludicrous burden of proof on scientific claims relating to evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of papers supporting evolutionary theory - there are fewer publications on the universal gravitation, yet no-one questions that theory. The only papers supporting ID have been published in journals related to the movement, which are critical of standard scientific peer review.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 No Trisk, we don't place a ludicrous burden of proof on scientific claims relating to evolution. Science places the burden of proof on BOTH evolution and creation to provide evidence of their major claims (use bacterial evidence if you wish). Creation has provided billions of testable confirmations of its major claims (biogenesis, natural selection up to the family level, etc.). Evolution has not provided even ONE. NO,ID papers have NOT only been published in ID journals.
dotoree 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Scientific journals can easily be biased in MANY fields. It's as difficult to get any paper on ID or creation science published as it would be to publish a paper advocating democracy in Stalinist Russia. Creation science is NOT rejected because it doesn't have testable claims. It's often dogmatically&with grossly injustice rejected SOLELY because it has religious connections. Would you like anything to be rejected SOLELY because the idea came from Darwin? Same injustice.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree - Actually abiogenesis is IN NO WAY crucial for Darwinian Evolution. Darwinian Evolution explains only the speciation of life on Earth, not it's origins. Also belief in evolution does not automatically mean that one is an atheist, in fact the majority of Christians accept evolution (the last 3 popes), and many people believe in evolution AND god. Abiogenesis is a relatively new field of serious enquiry, with several leading theories. All more plausible than literal reading of Genesis.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 I never said abiogenesis is crucial for evolution (and by the way, it's NOT a new field. It's very old) and I know evolutionists aren't always atheists. Abiogenesis (or something very similar) is however REQUIRED in order for atheism to be rational-scientific. Genesis has BILLIONS more testable evidences than there are for abiogenesis. There's no contest.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree - The original ideas about abiogenesis are old (and not to be confused with the debunked idea of spontaneous generation, which is not the same) but intensive enquiry into abiogenesis form a biochemical point of view is a relatively modern science. And just because we do not fully understand one aspect of science does not invalidate the entire process, it merely means we need to keep searching. Cite one example of science, not faith, supporting Genesis.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13
A) The main difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is time as even top evolutionists have admitted.
B) I have NEVER said that science is not a valid process. The problem is that evolution and atheism are just as mythical and lacking in evidence as spontaneous generation and yet some people think they are scientific...very untrue.
dotoree 1 year ago
There R MANY ways science confirms Bible. Here R 3.
1) Genesis stated biogenesis idea in contrast to the scientific establishments of millennia. The Bible was right & has billions of confirmations.
2) The Bible said the universe had beginning in contrast to steady state theory. If the Big Bang is correct, it's one of the best evidences of this & that there is a Creator.
3) There R billions of confirmations of creationist natural selection. NONE of Darwin's distinguishing claims.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree If you accept the Big Bang, then the universe is 13 billion years old. So do you accept stellar evolution and biological evolution as well? Just curios. Because it looks like you are cherrypicking science as well but I might be wrong.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor The Big Bang has some evidence for it, but it could only produce life if it was a God directed Big Bang. It has tremendous scientific problems if it was not directed by God. The Bible does not say much about the start of the universe or stellar evolution other than that God created them and "stretched them out", the Hebrew word for that having some similarities to the Big Bang theory, which was invented by a Christian and which convinced Einstein that a Creator exists.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree The big bang has nothing to do with the origin of life. sorry.
I find it hilarious as well that you accept science whenever it fits with your preconcieved notions of the bible being completely true and when science says something else it must be completely wrong and you are willing to accept any pseudoscientific explanation instead like ID simply because it fits with your world view. evolution has been accepted by the same method all your scientifss what,ic facts in the bible has
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor No, God is not the only reason I or others think killing is wrong. People can have moral beliefs and standards without God. But, they are subjective and based on opinions and if one is clever or strong, you can avoid responsibility for your actions without any change of heart. I suggest you stop making allegations about things you don't know much about. I use consistent standards and accept science based on those standards. NONE of my evidence is pseudo science. Most of yours is.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree - What do you mean there are no confirmations for Darwin's claims? If you mean that the theory of evolution is unsupported by evidence then you are in factual error, plain and simple. Few areas of science are SO WELL supported by the empirical evidence as evolution. The fossil record, taxonomy, phylogenetic cladistics, comparative morphology and genetic theory ALL point towards evolution by natural selection and a common ancestry. NO credible journal has published papers supporting ID.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Creation scientists like Edward Blyth and Alfred Wallace published the ideas of natural selection based on Genesis statements long before Darwin (and Darwin borrowed from some of them and didn't tell people he did). All speciation up to the family level falls within creation science limits. Darwin's unique claims, that speciation is unlimited MUST at LEAST provide many examples of speciation past the family boundary to be proven.
dotoree 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Pretty much ALL areas of science are FAR better supported than evolution. The fossil record has enormous problems for evolution. Morphology is just as good evidence for a common designer as it is a common ancestor. Genetics is the sam. It's not true that ID scientists have not published in science. Indeed, the question can be asked what Creation scientist has NOT published.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I never asked for the evidence. I heard all that before... So consider one who has not seen that evidence. Never heard of God. That person does not believe in God, never even considered it. Then someone tries to convince him God exists and fails, either due to not knowing what you know or being unreasonable in general. Then that person is still an atheist... You dont have to prove zeus does not exist either in order not to believe in him.
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor @Korkzor Someone not knowing how life started is not atheism. It's ignorance (or you might be able to call it agnosticism). Both linguistically from the Greek AND historically, atheism is the denial that Gods exist and the affirmation that all life has developed without gods by materialistic processes alone. Your islander is also ignorant, NOT an atheist. No, you haven't seen or heard all the evidence, I'm 99.9% sure you have not :)..as I have time I'll share some you have NOT heard.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree So it comes down to how you define atheism.. there are only two positions you can hold in this aspect. Either you are a theist, meaining you believe in a god, a personal one as well, or you are not. If you dont believe, that makes you an atheist. You dont have deny the existance of god to be an atheist. Denying God is compatible with atheism but not depended and there is a difference.
The guy would be an ignorant atheist but he would be an atheist nontheless..
Korkzor 1 year ago
@Korkzor The Stanford Encyclopedia and 1000s of references of history define atheism as a specific denial that gods exist. It is only in the last couple decades that atheists have tried to dilute the meaning because they realize there is no testable evidence for abiogenesis. Your islander could be ignorant of science as well. If you wish to equate ignorance with atheism, I won't object to that ;).
dotoree 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Majority opinion does not mean something is true. Some Christians, esp. Catholic church which an enemy of the Bible in MANY areas, sadly have followed popular opinion at different times in history&it's been extremely harmful. They followed Greek thinking&developed the demonic doctrine that hell burns forever which is 100% unbiblical. They followed Greek medicine in thinking that bloodletting was a great medical technique when the Bible said life was in the blood.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree. for 150years scholars have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible.
archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people. Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so
Darusdei 1 year ago
@Darusdei Archaeological data is used to document many sources as accurate ranging from secular historians to the Bible. Just watch a TINY bit of the History channel and the many experts there and how they use archaeology. No, archaeology does not raise more questions for the Bible,and especially not the literal parts. It consistently confirms it as accurate. Remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Right you are - majority opinion does not mean something is true. Remember that the majority of people believe in God. This does not mean God exists or not, it is simply a belief. Knowledge is arrived at by studying the evidence and using reasoned logic to interpret findings, all of which supports the theory of evolution.
triskaidekaphobe13 1 year ago
@triskaidekaphobe13 Correct, just because a majority believes in God doesn't make it correct. And just because a majority of scientists believe in evolution or atheism doesn't make that corerct either. If quite a lot of very intelligent people WHO HAVE CHECKED THE EVIDENCE FOR ALL MAJOR ALTERNATIVES (this is VERY seldom done) believe something, then it's worth serious investigation and consideration and we need to follow the weight of evidence WHEREVER it leads.
dotoree 1 year ago
Whores! The Bible wouldn't be the same without them.
Angel0Martinez 1 year ago
All of these stories were of people having children by extramarital sex. We get to Mary and Joseph where the miraculous "virgin birth" occurs. The punishment for extramarital sex was death by stoning. Being pregnant, Mary could not hide the evidence. There is the implication that she and Joseph conceived Jesus before marrying-in fact this may have followed BECAUSE of that, to prevent Mary being killed for it. This is a subtle implication, true, but it's still there. So much for a virgin birth.
mcc1789 1 year ago
Your videos always have the best friggin' music.
SmashTactics 1 year ago
Bible fail.
aartvegan 1 year ago
Great video, but this won't change the mind of a committed Christian. It's a simple rationalization. Mary had an immaculate conception therefore the improprieties in the bloodlines are really irrelevant. If this is true, name one Christian person on this planet who hasn't been perfect. This video may prove why the Jews rejected Jesus as Savior, but Christians have invented a God that can do anything with consequence because the creator of the universe is the rule maker.
TheMathgeek37 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMathgeek37 1 year ago
lmfao @Tamar. This is absolutley hilarious!
babyhorsey6 1 year ago
Just a thought. If god impregnated mary, there is no blood line. If in fact there is a blood line, then jesus is not the son of god.
jackfin 1 year ago
Bible is so repulsive that has no place in a modern civilized society.
Dwinetz 1 year ago
fire breathing whore... awesome.
lucasoptura 1 year ago
Where can I find the music in this video? What's the name of the song the choir sings? Could someone please tell me?
rakeshmanmohan 1 year ago
@rakeshmanmohan - Check the video's description.
43alley 1 year ago
@43alley Thanks, I should've known.
rakeshmanmohan 1 year ago
7) It's kind of ironic that atheism condemns the Bible for being against sex (that's false),then criticizes it for being too sexual. We're damned if we do&damned if we don't ;).
Its easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. But, in science, new theories dont triumph just by criticizing. They have to provide BETTER evidences that their worldview explains more of the evidence than competing views. This is something that atheism has failed to do. It prefers to use coercion, bias and propaganda.
dotoree 1 year ago
5) It was Judah's or Judah's son's responsibility in that culture to marry Tamar to help carry on the brothers name. Judah refused to do this. What she did is not commended by God. But, it was a way to carry on her husbands name.
6) Boaz is not a sexual tyrannosaurus of any sort. He acted very honorably. What Ruth did was a way of proposing in that culture and Boaz followed the proper custom in his culture and soon married her.
dotoree 1 year ago
ISLAM IS THE ONLY SOLUTION
firsttruth154 1 year ago
READ QURAN
firsttruth154 1 year ago
This is the most ridiculous video I've seen yet.
lol For centuries people have tried to discredit
the Bible....but to no avail . To this date, the Bible
still sells more than any other book in history.
Onward Christian soldiers!
clintj32 1 year ago
@clintj32
The most ridiculous you've seen yet? Wow, that's high praise. Because judging from your comment, I bet you watch a lot of dumb ones.
43alley 1 year ago
@clintj32 its right up there with other fiction and bullshit like:
Quaran, Lord of the Rings, etc.
Unknnnnn 1 year ago
@Unknnnnn Fiction?? Historical accuracy of the scriptures are far superior to the written records of Egypt and other early nations. No other book from the ancient world has more, earlier, or better copied manuscripts than the Bible. Also archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century.
I recommend gaining some knowledge on this book before commenting
on it. If you rely on amateur video clips for your info, you'll remain misinformed.
clintj32 1 year ago
@clintj32 We need to get falchion49 in here to talk to you a bit about Biblical archaeology and all these "innumerable confirmations" that you heard about from answers in genesis or some other crackpot website.
43alley 1 year ago
cannot be improved upon?
well we HAVE already improved upon it.
like outlawing pedophilic sex
Paradoxical003 1 year ago
2) Geneology in Israeli culture can follow the fathers line,the mothers line or even position in some cases. Also, father of and son of are interchangeable with ancestor and descendent.
3) All sorts of great people have had some crazy ancestors. I can tell you some in-out of the Bible just as bad or worse than these.
4) You may be trying to discredit the immaculate conception idea. That idea is not biblical, but this wouldn't help even if it were.
dotoree 1 year ago
Its unfortunate that youre using your skills to misrepresent-discredit the religion that pioneered the scientific method, most fields of science,started MANY famous universities, numerous hospitals, etc.
1) Yes,the Bible has some colorful people. That's one GREAT evidence it's true. If people made it up,they wouldn't write about their heroes having all these flaws. Almost NO other ancient historians wrote like this. If they did,the king,their employer,would have lopped off their heads.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree now you are just being deceitfull.
Sorry, but claiming that the bible pioneered the Scientific method is so laughable it hurts.
Dont know if that was a new or old comment, but now that I seen that, I know you are so brainwashed, there is no need to further debate or respond to you, brainwashed sheep.
Misinformation is you friend, lies you speak, but truth doesn't change due to your opinion.
I stick with reality over evil religion any day
mhrby1985 1 year ago
Christians who are fundamentalist enough to follow the Bible health principles (not many do), live 10 years longer than the average American confirming Pascal's statement that Christians can't lose since the live better even on this earth and have a chance at living forever. I ACTUALLY said the Christian religion pioneered the modern scientific method. Ever hear of Francis Bacon? But, Daniel, ~600 BC or so, did one of the first scientific experiments in history.
dotoree 1 year ago
Misinformation is you friend, lies you speak.
-
Sorry,but I teach logic units sometimes at the university level. I lost ~$150,000 to dishonest non-religious business partners. I detest dishonesty since it has ruined many years of my life as well as hurting my marriage&family a lot. Don't talk foolishly about things you know nothing about. Don't use apriori think either and falsely judge things you haven't investigated hardly at all. I have changed many ideas based on evidence. Have you?
dotoree 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need to get falchion49 in here to talk to you a bit about all these "innumerable confirmations" that you heard about from crackpot websites.
-
And what makes you think falchion isn't a crackpot? No one on your side could possibly be wrong huh? Numerous topnotch historians, including some who were prejudiced against the Bible, have confirmed the Bible's history INNUMERABLE times.
dotoree 1 year ago
@clintj32 You mean like the evidence that showed that egyptians didn't use slavery for the construction of the pyramids?
Really doesn't support the entire moses thing very well, does it?
mhrby1985 1 year ago
@clintj32 The bible has been utterly discreditted, everybody with a bit of common sense and without emotional attachment to it, knows how extremely silly and false it is.
And you got to purchase it to read it and laugh at it as well....
mhrby1985 1 year ago
@mhrby1985 The Bible is the greatest and most influential book ever written, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised. There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this.
No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects on its readers and you think its silly? You Europeans have lost more
sense than I thought.
clintj32 1 year ago
@clintj32 Most perfect moral code ever devised? Really? So you're saying that cannot be improved upon?
43alley 1 year ago
@clintj32 any book that claims existence of angels is fiction by default.
Unknnnnn 1 year ago
@clintj32 Sorry, but a perfect moral code?
A book which:
Encourage slavery
Encourage vieweing women as property of the men
States that killing children is a fair judgement if they make fun of a bald person
Encourage RAPING virgin girls who are not engaged as then they have to marry you, if you are caught raping them
States you should kill people working on specific days
No, the bible is immoral and filled with contradictions and is a horrible thing.
Only the blind see that book as good
mhrby1985 1 year ago 5
@mhrby1985 The Bible neither condones nor condemns slavery. It does however describe how slaves should be treated(Deut 15:12-15;Eph 6:9;Col 4:1).
It also states we are all equal (Gal 3:28).
I don't care how many contradictions you come up with, they have all been addressed before and refuted many times over. Argue and debate all you
want, the peace and joy I have in Christ is undeniable. Once attained.... its
irreplaceable. Take care.
clintj32 1 year ago
1) Most Biblical slavery was nothing like these days slavery. It was a welfare system with most of it being voluntary and kidnapping being a capital crime.
2) Women were not property.
3) Never says that childen should be killed for mocking authority.
4) Does NOT encourage rape.
-
God had to make some severe rules at first to get slaves to pay attention. They were supposed to become an example nation. They couldn't do that while disobeying basics of strong nations.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree 1) Bible Slavery was excatly as bad. You was allowed to beat them to death, as long as it took them a day or two to die, you was allowed to beat them up, as long as they didnt die instantly, you owned them, a human being being owned by another. That you defend that, shows that you are amazingly ignorant, arrogant and a horrible person that I have no need to talk with.
mhrby1985 1 year ago
1) WRONG. If even a tooth was knocked out, they were freed.
2) Yes, AND husbands should sacrifice for their wives just as much as Jesus' sacrificed for the church...you kinda left out that part...intentionally?
3) Wrong. Flat out wrong.
4) Wrong. Rape was a capital crime.
I'm a professor, religion major and volunteer pastor. You are good at cherry picking and straw manning. I know what you're referring to, but you're severely misrepresenting things.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Give a source for all your claims then.
Give me a non-biblical source as well for yours claims that slavery was not so bad in those days.
Also, give me 1 good reason that it is okay for one person to OWN another person, even if the person owned is well treated in all ways, it is NOT okay to own another person.
mhrby1985 1 year ago
1) AGAIN, slavery was VOLUNTARY as a general rule. If someone got in trouble financially, instead of taking the money from some other hard working person (like socialism), the person could choose to become a servant for a while...AND they could buy back their freedom at any time. This is FAR better than any modern welfare system which enables laziness and causes the government to charge the population high taxes (Isreali kings were not supposed to charge higher than ~2% taxes).
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
4) If a man is caught with lying with a women against her will inside the city and she has not yet known man by lying with him, the man must give 50 silver to the girls father and marry the girl and he cannot divorce her.
Oh yeah, sounds like capital punishment alright?
You are grossly misinformed, I do not care about your supposed authority, I can read what the bible says and when it directly says to pay rape victims father money and marry the rape victim, then thats what it says
mhrby1985 1 year ago
@dotoree Lets go through this, with bible quotes
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."
mhrby1985 1 year ago
He who loves his wife loves himself." BOTH man and wife should do their best to make the other happy. Quite an ideal system.
4) Deut. 22:25 " if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country,&he rapes her,then only the man must die."
Ex.22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married&sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, &she shall be his wife. 17If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him,he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
dotoree 1 year ago
Here are some facts for u:
1) Ex. 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another&either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." Slaves,actually servants, could CHOOSE to be slaves, but were freed after 7 years,unless they liked slavery&chose to stay longer which they symbolize by piercing their ears (Ex 21:6).
2) Eph. 5:25"Husbands,love your wives, just as Christ loved the church&gave himself up for her 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
dotoree 1 year ago
Deuteronomy 22&Exodus 22:16-17 must BOTH be considered as well as others. Cherry picking in modern law or ancient is deceitful. If the father agreed (&the daughter was supposed to be involved in that decision) that his daughter could marry the guy,then he had to do it. But, it was conditional upon the agreement of the father&family. You do realize that was a communal culture& when it says the head of some group,it usually means that they consulted with the group as to the best choice first.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree
Disrespecting the father and death: Leviticus 20:9 NLT
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. "
Obeying the Husband: Ephesians 5, 22
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. "
mhrby1985 1 year ago
You said "unruly kids" were to be killed. Sorry, but that's not even close to what Leviticus 20:9 says. Lev. may seem harsh, I agree. But, God had to deal very severely with them esp. at first, since they were used to doing things only when whipped, etc.
-
YES, we are to submit to others, & put others wishes first. That's one of the most basic essenses of Christianity. If all do that, it's pretty close to utopia. One example is that Paul tells husbands and wives never to deny each other sex.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree went by your channel as well now and damn, you are really seriously brainwashed and a fundamentalistic person.
You are so misinformed and know so little about the world, it is painful
I feel truly sorry that your life was ruined by fundamentalism, that what could have been a beautiful mind was corrupted by evil and so throughoutly taken over by it, that you are blind to the evil that religion is.
I hope the very best for you, althrough I think it is too late
mhrby1985 1 year ago
You are really seriously brainwashed and a fundamentalistic person.
You are so misinformed and know so little about the world
-
ROFL. Most republicans say similar things to me because I don't follow their party line. I detest Fox news for it's serial dishonesty and propaganda, campaigned for Obama,etc. (but am not a democrat). I follow EVIDENCE where it leads, not propaganda. And I'm far more of a fundamentalist than any of the fakers on TV :).
dotoree 1 year ago
Daniel humbly requested that he be allowed to test God's ideal diet, which was vegetarian against the Babylonian diet and see which one produced the better results. God's diet won easiy and with that, hard studying and other factors he got the best grade in the top university of the world of that time. I followed the same principles&scored in the top 2% in America on my SATs. So have many others. Re: my channel...I've done almost nothing with it except click on a few favorites.
dotoree 1 year ago
What happens when people use only sources with the same bias (ex: Fox Channel and WND)? They have great difficulty following facts&recognizing error. Same thing happens when students ONLY learn one side of the story, the evolution side. Same in Russia when they only tell the Russian side of history &in Iran when newspapers only tell the Iranian version of the nuclear conflict. Cant you see any problem with people only listening to one sided info? They make apriori anti-fact decisions.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Sorry, but when one side is utter lies, fabricated evidence and misinformation, there is no need to present it to children who does not yet have the critical thinking skills to rightfully process the faults of it, just because some adults dont have the critical thinking skills to see it either.
Evolution is a FACT, things evolved, the earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, those are all FACTS
mhrby1985 1 year ago
Even if there isn't a God, Pascal was right when he said Christians can't lose since even on earth they have the best life. Christians who follow the Bible's health principles (not many do), live 10 years longer than other Americans. Google buettner and "How to live to be 100" for a secular video documenting this. DEAL IN FACTS, NOT FICTION. I could cherry pick just like you and say that Stalin or Kim Jung Il is what atheism is all about. How would you like that?
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree A person being an atheist and doing something bad doesn't affect what Atheism is.
Someone being christian and doing something bad doesn't affect what Christianity is.
Now, replace "bad" with "good", and it is the same deal in both those sentences.
Now, if someone does something based upon what something is, then it says something about it.
I think your defenses of the horrible stuff from the bible was pathethic and was just a way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting
mhrby1985 1 year ago
There is also toxic atheism. And atheism has had a direct influence on causing extreme intolerance in many places. In fact, there's close to a 1 to 1 correspondence between extreme intolerance and atheism being the official religion of a country. 1 to 1 correspondence's are not common in history or science.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Sorry, but that is utter bullshit, saying that there is a 1 to 1 correspondance between extreme intolerance and atheism, that justs propaganda, would love to see a source for this claim of yours.
Sure there was the Communist regime which practiced high atheism and was extremely intolerant, but if you say only atheist regimes has had extreme intolerance, then you are full of bullshit, just for instance would you call the actions of Nazi germany? Christian nation that was
mhrby1985 1 year ago
Re: bullshit about 1 to 1 correspondance between extreme intolerance&atheism
-
I'm REALLY sick of the straw men that 90%+ of atheists continually use. Do atheists learn this from some atheist guru master? It's CRUCIAL that you represent things correctly. I ACTUALLY said that there is ~ a 1 to 1 correspondence between atheism being the official nation of a religion&extreme intolerance. That's true starting from the French Revolution(not communist),to Cuba,Russia,China¤tly in North Korea.
dotoree 1 year ago
but if you say only atheist regimes has had extreme intolerance,
-
I didn't say only atheistic regimes were extremely intolerant. The Catholic regime has been about as bad (and it's a cousin to atheism in its rejection of God's word and instituting man's ideas instead). Hitler was of course extremely intolerant, but he was QUITE hostile to religion as evidenced by quite a few quotes he made, although he was good at manipulating religion.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Also, there is a big contradcition between your defense of slavery at the time and what the bible says about slavery at the time.
Now, I personally belive that sources besides the bible more accurately depicts how slavery actually was back then, but the bible clearly endorses the kind of slavery it describes itself.
And in that kind of slavery, a slave owner (master) was clearly NOT punished for removing the eye nor teeth of their servant
mhrby1985 1 year ago
@mhrby1985 (ignore the last of my comments, I made a interpretation mistake and know that I am wrong about that last bit)
mhrby1985 1 year ago
I think you need to study up more on what worldviews are and how they influence people. Your worldview has an extremely powerful influence on your views and thus also on your actions. Jesus, Buddha, Confucius and others wrote that we need to be careful about how we think because that has a direct influence on our actions, esp. over time. My dad's a pastor and speaks of toxic religion which there definitely is.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree I am not saying that Jesus did not say some wise things that are worth considering, that would be like saying being a vegetarian is bad because Hitler was it, not to compare Jesus to Hitler, as I in no way will say that he was as horrible a person as Hitler, at least not until deeper thought is put into it.
Also the whole worldview thing is also why I do not subscribe to any dogmatic beliefs, I have beliefs based on reason, logic and evidence to the best possible degree I can archive
mhrby1985 1 year ago
...21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.
There is nothing about losing limbs, etc. Furthermore atheist gurus never include this verse right in the same place:
And if a man knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
If a slave goes free for a tooth, its foolish to think a master can beat a slave to death with no punishment.
dotoree 1 year ago
you started out saying the bible did not endorse slavery at all, then went to slavery was not so bad...
-
No,I did not. Please get your facts straight. From the beginning I said that biblical slavery&modern slavery cannot be equated. Most biblical slavery was a welfare system&voluntary and I conclusively proved that. About beating, I suppose you're referring to this verse:
Ex. 21 20If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Sorry, but the verse clearly says he can be beaten to death, as long as it takes him more and a day to die, the master shall not be blamed.
We know today that blunt force trauma can kill several days later, hence we know that if you hit someone in the head with a stick, he gets up and dies a few days later, you are to blame.
But this supposedly divinely inspired word of God did not know this fact of life, and decided the master should not be blamed
mhrby1985 1 year ago
Sorry, but the verse clearly says he can be beaten to death
-
No, it most certainly does not. It doesn't in the KJV (although the vocabulary can be misunderstood here because of the bad translation), it does not in the NLT and it does not in the original language.
-
Yes, North Korea IS an atheistic regime. They have killed MANY 1000s of Christians. I've lived in Korea for 17 years. You need to ask questions a LOT more instead of speaking falsely about things you don't know about.
dotoree 1 year ago
@dotoree Sorry, I am simply refering to that Kim Jong-Il rules in a way, much like he himself is a God and the people should worship him as one.
That they are officially atheist, I am well aware, but it is an utterly dogmatic system of belief with extremely many simularities to god worship
mhrby1985 1 year ago