@rbl777 I gotta say, everytime you explained how, the way I currently experience the world is fake, lacking in depth and i guess all together mis-understanding the universe....well i gotta say, it came off as condesending, a little bit aye? not only that but you refer to "Ego" preventing us understanding the real world? its ironic
Thanks for explaining, i recognise its hard to explain that everyone elses experience of the world is fake because of their ego - without sounding arrogant hypocrit
So Kabbalah is a jewish version of 1960's circa spiritual dance revolution where you need to free yourself from the "Fake - superficial" world to experience the "Real" world thats calling you, and you do this via getting rid of "Ego" which is preventing you from dancing like a tie dye hippie fool, once you get rid of "Ego" you can then "Experience and Understand the Real World" as opposed to this fake world im living in at the moment
@shandcunt kabbalah deals with revealing the real universe which is the meaniing of life which means godlike or Adam from the word Dome in Hebrew means "alike".
christians misiterpred it saying that man looks like god. no
like "god" meaning loving other as yourself
loving not in a sense "how do you like you fish done?"
but in a sense of loving everyone and forging everything as to your own CHILD.
coz really people dont exist its all a conciousness dream!
If it were that obvious, why, for centuries, did the Church teach otherwise? (That is, until science led religion to reinterpret "God's Word.")
Why do so many theists *continue* to believe that the 6-day creation is literal?
The website "Answers in Genesis" actually posts a very good defense of the literal interpretation—search for their article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?"
> YOU are trying to make fun of a book which language you dont understand.
I am not making fun of the bible. I'm just taking the claim that the Bible is the Word of an Omniscient Omnipotent God very seriously—because if the claim is true, it would have a profound impact on my life. This video series is part of my exploration of that claim.
the book was written by people who have discovered higher laws of universe.
im not eager to prove that to you, but let me tell you one thing mate, i was unhappy and searching for very long time. and ill tell ya that kabbalah has the most robust logic ive ever encountered.
ill add, the meaning of text was passed from teacher to student - to everyone else the text is a historic novel
there is no faith in kabbalah. its a science. best of luck
> i never said god wrote the book the book was written by people who have discovered higher laws of universe.
If you believe that humans alone—with no Supernatural Force involved—wrote the Bible, then we're on the same page. As for this human work representing the "higher laws of universe," well, I think the likes of Galileo & Newton & Einstein did a better job . . . but I guess that's just a personal preference.
@ToddAllenGates humans, who first discovered spiritual world, and described it in the form of stories and tales. coz spiritiual world doesnt have shapes or forms or colors - so u cant practially describe to some who has never felt it.
kabbalah doesnt cancel out any of humans achievements, it considers them all with even further explanation, coz its a science that based on logic. btw many great scientists and philosophers over time have turned to kabbalah, including Netwon.
@PalulukanMakto I'm a tool? And can you prove the imaginary world?
Can you see the radio wavelengths, wifi, cellphone wireless? No? Does it means its "imaginary"?
In fact the world we live in today is imaginary! It's in the back of your brain! Your reality is foolish. Because you don't see watss outside of you, you see whatever your "brain" produces and then your consciousness realizes that. So your perception of reality is distorted & everybody else on "earth" that only exists in our heads...
. . . even some genuine tidbits of history—and that the majority of the bible's contributors were creative ancient storytellers that made up tales in an attempt to explain the likes of creation, suffering, rules for living, and the afterlife. (That is, the motivation had a similar basis in religions worldwide: whether in Greece, Norway, Egypt, North America, etc.)
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION: "Here we have the perennial invocation of opposites—the white and the black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfill the recipe for spiritual life!"
> btw im not religious
do you believe there's some sort of Supernatural Deity? And if so, what role do you think this Supernatural Deity had in the creation of what's referred to as "sacred scriptures"?
> I've found this to be very true in everything from us being in a heliocentric universe to the existence of dinosaurs
Trying to interpret Bronze Age writings--no knowledge of our solar system's layout, of past extinct species, etc.--as "in harmony" with modern science is no easy task!
Shrimp, clams, mussels, oysters, scallops, lobster, and crabs all count as shellfish. According to wikipedia, shellfish are also among the most common food allergens, making it no coincidence that many religions concluded that god disapproves of them: besides Jews, there's also Shi'ite Muslims, Rastafarians, and even Seventh-day Adventists.
(2) Elsewhere in the bible: "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, BECAUSE on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Gen. 2:3)
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. THEREFORE the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex. 20:11)
The message is so plainly put forth:
The seventh day of creation = A day made holy = Sabbath = Forbidden day for work.
The reverse of this is that a lot of ignorant people lived boring, possibly hypocritical lives. & this is most likely the case regardless, but an eternal God operates w/or w/o either side's acceptance. The most important things to know about the Bible are that it was recorded by men, it involves God's promises to those men, and lastly, the events validate successive expression, not visa versa. The supposed length of a creation day is irrelevant to the actual length of physical history.
> The supposed length of a creation day is irrelevant to the actual length of physical history
Yet when multiple passages attest to creation taking place within six days (see the fundamentalist article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?" on AnswersInGenesisDOTorg), it discredits the notion that the story came from anywhere except creative storytellers: ones on the same level as the author of the Greek myths.
@Gates I don't think so. This is a slippery-slope conclusion. Genesis does not say (or tangibly imply) 24-hour periods. Also, if the sun was created on day 4, how would the first 3 days be numbered in this way? Also, as pointed out by numerous scholars (Hebrew, &/or theological) the "days" and their successive numbers are written in list form, WITHOUT articles (and there are other examples of "day" not meaning 24 hours). A two chapter-long creation account will never satiate a scientist.
@aaronwilliams4w "Day and night" were created in the very beginning of the passage, so that the following days can be numbered. The passage further confirms this just immediately with the phrase "there was morning and there was evening". There is really no better way to convey a 24-hour day period in language than the way the author has put it. The contextual identity of "day and night" in that clear passage is really beyond question.
> There is really no better way to convey a 24-hour day period in language than the way the author has put it. The contextual identity of "day and night" in that clear passage is really beyond question.
@ytubeact123 Willful ignorance is a great way to put it; how does a reiteration in Exodus change anything I'm saying? Evening and morning are the best examples you have brought up, though they still don't account for a specific period of time. Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect, these arguments exist for good reason. The Bible's consistency lies in promises made by God, not his full revelation of how Earth came to be.
Also, "Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine." & Genesis never specifies "sun" on Day 4, nor is the sun's age distinctly proven to be 4.57billion years old. How can you so boldly claim this as a contradiction that Christians just ignore selectively?
> How can you so boldly claim this as a contradiction that Christians just ignore selectively?
The bible tells of a six-day creation in multiple passages. The article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?" on AnswersInGenesisDOTorg does a good job at explaining the fundamentalist's reasoning.
@Gates See this is my point. I have zero concern for "fundamentalist reasoning". One should get along fine with his own reasoning. My above post was in response to the so-called contradiction between science and the Genesis account (Day4). My original statement was to say "[One] just never knows"; we are individually limited. This is not an excuse (as I'm sure you'll agree) to stop looking/learning. Some of the responses your video has garnered are just perfect examples of this phenomena.
> the so-called contradiction between science and the Genesis account (Day4)
I agree that there's more than one interpretation, and yes, the definition of a pre-sun "day" is flexible.
I just see it as "more probable" that the author *meant* 24 hours and had his/her facts wrong, just as the author of the Greek myth that the sun is pulled across the sky by a god had his/her facts wrong.
@ToddAllenGates Hmm, is that a scientific measurement of probability? This is sort of the problem I have with stands taken by many atheists/agnostics/etc. I have heard countless insults hurled at believers for believing one version over another (versions "created" by other men) and yet they themselves choose the version they want to believe (which is usually one they or someone else, yet again, "created"). So it always comes down to some kind of blind faith either way. We simply weren't there.
@Gates No, & thanks for asking me to clarify. Information, studies, statistics, resources, references, or anything constitutes "evidence" are common finds. It is the acceptance of this evidence that divides us. As you'll find the original question I posed was "Why is it okay for scientists to [come to any newly 'proven' conclusion about any given topic at any point in time] but believers are [mocked as brainless for believing a certain amount of evidence regarding] the God of their finding?"
I don't engage in mocking ... not only is it unnecessarily rude, it's counterproductive. But as for the difference between scientists vs. believers, science always knows its conclusions are tentative, and are subject to being revised based upon new evidence. As little as 15 years ago, *some* scientists believed the universe was only 8 billion years old. Based upon better & better evidence, 13.73 is now widely accepted. Scrutiny & revision is part of the process.
With fundamentalists, however, if this ancient book tells of a chronology in which the universe is some 6,000 years, then THAT'S IT: end of story. And when this book says all land animals were created on the same day (dinosaur & human alike): THAT'S THE TRUTH NO QUESTIONS ASKED! And all evidence is dismissed. So I'm sure why you can see that kind of "blind faith" is open to mocking. That being said, I know you are *not* a fundamentalist.
@TAG Yes & I appreciate that you present your case as genuinely and respectfully as possible. But I think these two qualities are meaningless if you allow your bias to cloud such an important topic. Science is a wonderful tool, but a fallible medium; admittance of this fact is not enough. If science (like I and many others believe) is compatible with the Hebrew God, and all varying so-called "contradictions" are misconclusions, then a lot of intelligent people are living lies. A costly gamble.
> Science is a wonderful tool, but a fallible medium
True, but much less fallible than sheer guesswork and blind faith in tradition.
> If science is compatible with the Hebrew God
The two are compatible where they don't overlap ... but when science says dinosaurs ruled for 160 million years, and the last dinosaur and the first human were separated by 65 million years ago ... well, I don't see how that can be reconciled with Genesis.
There have been thousands of religions throughout history, and each say all the others are wrong, so betting on *any* "one religion" is a gamble.
Suppose there *is* a god, and what S/He *really* wants is for people to use evidence and their intelligence to realize that the ancient myths are just ancient myths. Betting on a god who wants us to *reject* organized religions may be just as safe as betting on one who wants us to deny our "God-given" logic.
@ToddAllenGates Any talk of dinosaurs in the Bible is tough because our terminology will never be interchangeable with ancient text. So that is yet another contradiction that doesn't follow. It is an open-handed issue when it comes to the more convincing arguments regarding Christ, Post-exile Israel, related prophecy, or even modern zionism; all topics that believers can look to as hard, current evidence (even though it may mean nothing to someone who simply doesn't believe).
> our terminology will never be interchangeable with ancient text.
Would you say, then, that the same applies to God's alleged condemnation of homosexuality? I've heard some gay Christians say that in OT times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution ... so the condemnation, properly understood, is not about being gay, but about prostitution & idolatry.
This is similar to what you say about modern terminology vs. ancient.
@ToddAllenGates I personally would not say that it applies to homosexuality. The Bible is much more clear about it being a perversion, as opposed to whether or not 'dinosaurs' are referenced (or in what way, if so). Luckily, it doesn't affect my outlook on God or the Bible's purpose. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I did vote no on prop8. But back to the main point (ie amount of faith it takes to decide science contradicts the Hebrew God), I don't think man will ever have accurate enough
> he Bible is much more clear about it being a perversion, as opposed to .. 'dinosaurs' ...
As I read the text, all is equally clear: this is a book written in ancient times, and it says there's a god who created the earth in six days, all land animals on the same day, and BTW this god condemns homosexuality.
If your god hypothesis turns out to be true, too bad He doesn't issue updates in modern language and put an end to misinterpretations!
@Gates By clarity I mean that the Bible directly says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (a pretty universal law, not one like the eating of unclean shellfish that is pretty open-handed). The Bible only refers to a large creature of some kind (ie dinosaurs?) a few times in Job, Isaiah, and Psalms (with several symbolic references to 'dragons,' though the Jewish word is actually closer to serpent or seamonster). God tends to whisper, I think His plan is as plain as it needs to be.
As I read the text, it seems clear that the OT god forbids both shellfish and homosexuality. It seems the only way modern people can accept shellfish but continue to condemn homosexuality is via farfetched interpretations.
As for dinosaurs, the bible indeed mentions dragons & sea serpents--but nothing even remotely close to the reality of dinosaurs dominating for 160 million years, and the last dinosaur and 1st human being separated by 65 million years.
@Gates Farfetched in your opinion, but you neglect the fact that shellfish laws concerned uncleanliness and sacrificial laws (for the early Isrealites) while homosexuality is deemed adultery in multiple bible passages (New Testament included). So the one is old covenant, while the other transcends both old and new covenant. This is not a contradiction. As for dinosaurs... so what? I've already said it's arguable the Bible mentions dinosaurs at all. Why should it?
Okay, you've a valid point that shellfish is an abomination in only one OT section, but homosexuality is condemned throughout. But the Leviticus "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you" line is still bizarre. If it's about disease, why not issue cleaning and cooking instructions? Same thing with pork.
Also, what's the best passage in the NT that gives Christians the "okay to go" on pork & shellfish? Is there one?
As for dinosaurs... Why should [the bible mention them]?
Because by telling a story that sounds like it was invented by primitive man---"Big supernatural Spirit in the Sky created Universe in 6 days: first light, then heaven, earth, sun, creatures ... --- well, it sounds like a story made up by primitive man. And the fact that the bible says the earth is older than the sun further damages credibility. The Creator of the Universe would have all the facts right.
@TAG Romans14 is interesting: "Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Shellfish and other bottom-feeders were probably on a whole other level of disgusting back in Moses' day, perhaps less so even by Jesus' ministry.
The argument that "this sentence is unclear b/c it's ancient terminology" and "this sentence is fine as is" allows different believers to cherry-pick what this alleged god wants and doesn't want us to do. People who believe in direct opposites---"evolution is accurate / evolution is inaccurate" and "god tolerates gays / god hates fags" can all point to the bible and interpret what they want of it.
Again, too bad this Omnipotent god doesn't communicate clearly.
@Todd technology to correctly say how "old" Earth, or the Sun, or the universe is. Wavelengths, geology, satellites, carbon dating, or any other means of compiling data that gets published regarding "age" of such unconquerable forces as these can't make up for the type of atmosphere Earth or Space consisted of, especially over the spans of time represented. Does this mean that scientists aren't close or capable? No. I just don't assume their 80 years of Big Bang babbling nullifies my God.
> I just don't assume their 80 years of Big Bang babbling nullifies my God.
If it makes you happy, I have zero reason to try to make you change your mind. I don't make my videos to try to deconvert people. They're mainly for people who are already skeptics but who have trouble responding to pressure from proselytizers, or for believers who are tortured by doubt, cognitive dissonance (from the Problem of Suffering, Genesis vs. science, etc.), or irrational fears of hell.
Why are scientists allowed to acknowledge that "you just never know" by calling something a "theory" but Christians are ignorant, hypocritical, or rash for placing faith (whether evidence-based or not) in the God of their finding. What stubborn scrutiny CAN'T override the reality of something whose proof is unseen, or unaccepted? This is easy. Both sides are guilty of a humanly ignorance; Both inevitably place faith in another's words/ideas. Rare is the man who PURSUES both sides & then decides.
> Why are scientists allowed to acknowledge that "you just never know" by calling something a "theory" but Christians are ... rash for placing faith ...in the God of their finding.
Christians are allowed to say "you just never know" too ... but fundamentalist Christians (although not "moderate/liberal" Christians) say "WE KNOW: END OF STORY." Science is humble enough to change its mind (albeit that certain scientists can be arrogant).
1. The so called modern "literalists" are in fact NOT truly literal in their interpretation of the scripture. They are heavily compromising and choosy as to what part of the scripture they would interpret literally. The bible is JUST AS PLAIN and clear in stating a) There is a solid firmament above the earth b) The world formed out of a great ocean(the deep) and is submerged in it c) The world has edges i.e flat and so on so forth. These are the ideas the bible is firmly grounded upon.
> The so called modern "literalists" are in fact NOT truly literal in their interpretation of the scripture. They are heavily compromising and choosy as to what part of the scripture they would interpret literally.
Agreed--it's all a matter of degrees. It's just that with modern New Age Christians, they can put a modern spin on *everything*: that the 6-day creation REALLY means 13.73 billions years, that god only disapproves of "destructive homosexuality," etc.
@ytubeact123 Why do youtubers insist on affirming what "Christians" as a whole believe, or what the Bible is "firmly grounded upon"? How about a freakin quote for once? ...right, because Theologists (or believers in any collegiate field for that matter) earn doctorates, but just happen to believe the world is flat. If you say so.
@aaronwilliams4w (6) Lolz, seems like I have taken up a lot of space. I apologize to the author of this video.
As it is said: Only willful ignorance or plain intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that bible is the inerrant word of God.
My friend, ignorance is indeed bliss, keeps you going! And yes, if you don't have anything constructive to say, please don't bother me with your empty cries.
@aaronwilliams4w (5) Not only they maintained, they viewed those as absolute-core points of belief, the slightest opposition to which resulted in persecution/execution. Such a weight of unequivocalness the biblical passages carry - opposition would throw a person out of the fold of Christianity! Early Christianity (the time right before The Renaissance) is full of such events where learned ones would get persecuted for saying sky isn't solid or the sun does not go around the earth or the likes!
@act123 So the views held by this portion of people change the validity of the Bible itself? Why denounce one group for their interpretation, but choose some other non-interpretation, and then act as if the two accounts affect the overall point? I am unassociated (as is the Bible) with any qualms you and "Early Christianity" have. By this logic how should we feel about Science as a whole whilst considering Early Science? Ah, but this is yet another non-sequitor (The youtuber's choice tool).
@aaron Why do I continuously hear this*argument against Church doctrine posing as evidence against Yahweh? The Bible has always been 'single servant takes on multitude of nay-sayers' or 'Tabernacle attendants anger God, but justice prevails'; Never 'perfect gathering of righteous led by loving high-priest fulfill God's work, then Jesus comes'. There are plenty of letdowns, and restarts, and things to come, but this*sentiment is distortion and quite frankly, ignorance of (if not facts) sources.
Ignorance?- What a remarkable piece of scapegoating! Ah, all I am getting from you is empty rhetorics. Do you have anything worth listening to?
Science and bible? With the amount of eisegesis that you christians tend to do, any ancient book of anytime can be just as easily harmonized with modern science as the bible. You can turn literally anything into anything! I think this way greek myths are easier to reconcile with than bible, believe me!
@ytubeact123 Well I try not to discuss too much biblical information with non-believers seeing as you just don't believe it. Instead I try to point out the fact that your belief in something is only as strong as the truth behind whatever it is you choose to believe. If you'll kindly notice, not once have I said, "Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong" or "Astronomers are evil" or anything remotely close to the ignorance you, no doubt, have heard from people who probably associate w/ my core
@t123 beliefs. I point this out because as you have already stated, I can't write a book in these little youtube comment boxes. So if you'd like to discuss what might lead someone to place faith in a book (and not doctrine or historical events that happen to be related to the book, though naturally erroneous) then let's dance. But my original post is what I'm trying to stick to, which is merely to say "You place faith in almost 80 years of evidence backing up the Big Bang, but without once
@123 stepping outside of our atmosphere (or probably your country), or visualizing a primary source." And yet the typical arguments echo the same BS: "Facts, evidence, verification, proof, etc" but always carefully follow up with "but new studies can always make up for any prior mistakes." And although this is true (new research can be maintain more validity) it doesn't do your arguments well. The bottom-line is that I have read the entirety of the book you castigate, and I have seen miracles.
@aaronwilliams4w (3) I'm sure god didn't want to mean that he made the 7th "epoch" holy and forbidden to work on!
Even a child can tell how inane are the arguments that you and your fellow christians bring up. Christianity is a perfect cult, willful ignorants like you feed it.
@marythesharkface The view of the expanse as a literal solid firmament was shared by virtually everyone up to the time of the Renaissance. Individuals holding a non-solid view of the sky (of course such individuals starting to arise from no earlier than late 16th century with the awakening of science) were declared heretic/unbeliever and were prosecuted.
Now, we know at least as according to ALL christians of a few hundred years ago, you are a heretic infidel! Or do you think the sky is solid?
@aaronwilliams4w (4) What is the bible "firmly grounded upon"? In 1615, a Carmelite friar by the name of Paulo Antonio Foscarini was prosecuted by the Congregation of the Holy Office for his book wherein he maintained that the heaven(sky) is thin as opposed to the established view that it is solid. Just a sample, virtually EVERYONE until The The Renaissance staunchly maintained those I referred to as "firmly grounded" (historical consensus, see westminister theological journal)
@aaronwilliams4w (3) Then why do they hold a view so hypocritical and deny every other attempts for harmonization?Because,biblical passages relating to the various aspects of the nature of the physical world are often so explicitly detailed that they leave not an atom amount of possibility for harmonization. Because,they speak on the intellectual level and evidence really leaves no room which they could have if they were amidst ignorants.
Many just can't put up with it,ever heard of B. Ehrman?
@aaronwilliams4w (2) They maintain that the events recorded in the bible are metaphors that did not take place in reality, that it does have numerous variances and contradictions, that it is impossbile to harmonize biblical passages with factual science as they merely portray cosmological beliefs of the time - so on so forth. They are yet self-proclaimed Christians. Now one may ask, has this view ever existed amongst the Christians of the past? The answer is simply - NO. (Continued)
@aaronwilliams4w (1) Ohhh look at the emotional outburst! So you want some quotes? You know I can't write books in these tiny youtube comment boxes, don't you? Oh yes, there is this much of quotes to give - they need a bookful of space at least. My good ignorant friend,if you didn't know, the huge majority of your believing "doctorate" earners hold a liberal exegetical view on the bible. They maintain that the entire bible is a piece of symbolic literature, fallible, though devinely inspired.
2. (Continued) Because belief in these will make them insane. So, what we get from them is an extremely superficial and cultic literalism. (To know more you can read from liberal christian theologians and academics)
"A Creator God" may indeed exist, but that doesn't mean that any of the world's religions--Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam, Mormonism, etc.--are anything more than man's guesswork about such a Creator. This video only discusses how theist's cope when real-life evidence (e.g. that the earth orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth) clashes with what certain theists believe to be the infallible Word of God.
@ToddAllenGates : There is a difference between God and religion. Religion is man-made, therefore being no more than man's guesswork, you are right about that.
> If there was a God, this guy might have had a full head of hair
Apparently God *loves* bald guys! Look what happened in 2 Kings 2:23. After some children were making fun of Elisha's bald head, Elisha cursed them in the name of God, and God sent two bears to come crashing out of the woods and tear up all 42 of the kids.
MORAL: If you're going to mock someone for being bald, don't do it in wooded areas.
Questions for theist. Religion has claimed science tries to pull ppl from god, only to accept its results later. Religion has also used science to back its claims. So isn't science useful. Why not let scientists work and accept the results? Are theist afraid they will be let down by religion? Differentiate religion from god, and, science cant prove/disprove any gods existence. Religion--- wont disprove and cant prove any gods existence. So why cant the two get along? Please respond.
Astronomer Robert Jastrow, who is a professing agnostic, explains in God and the Astronomers,
"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. "
>"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset.
I know of no astronomer who is upset with the evidence that our known universe began some 13.7 billion years ago. This is a strawman argument: an accusation against a fictitious stance.
@ToddAllenGates I guess you think you speak for all astronomers and know the feelings of all astronomers? Really? The is quote from an agnostic astronomer! The book is called "God and the Astrnomers" by Robert Jastrow.
And even if there are non-theists that still feel upset, "preferences" for what's true has no place in science. Over the last ten years or so, the evidence for the Big Bang (and its starting point some 13.73 billion years ago) has become more and more solid, and the nature of science is draw conclusions from the evidence, rather than look for evidence to support pre-existing conclusions.
It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
> It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
Certainly some individual scientists do that, but science itself is self-correcting: everything is open to attempts at disproving, and ideas are often disproved.
Back in the 1990s, scientists were in conflict over the age of the universe: some believed the evidence pointed to 8 billion years, others said the evidence pointed to closer to 14 billion. But they did not at all "pretend the conflict does not exist." The issue was hotly contested, and settled by additional evidence using new technology (all camps now agree that the universe is some 13.7 billion years old).
> your arguments based on the English word "day" are absurd.
Whether or not I'm wrong, it's far fetched to call the 24-hour interpretation "absurd." After all, every English translation I know of uses the word "day."
And MANY *Christians* also argue that "day" should be interpreted as 24-hour. One of the best argument is to look at the way the Hebrew word in question ("yom") should be interpreted in Genesis is to look at how the word is used in Exodus 20:9-11:
"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work ... For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."
For a good biblical defense for the 24-hour period interpretation of "yom," see the Christian site GotQuestionsDOTorg(SLASH)Genesis-daysDOThtml.
@ToddAllenGates "Heavens and Earth" in the hebrew of genesis 1 is a merism for universe. In Exodus "Heavens and earth" is within a list is not used as merism.
You can argue against the beliefs of some Christians if that makes you more comfortable with your secular faith but you are not doing any damage to the Bible - which predated science by a few thousands years by claiming the universe had a beginning.
> the Bible . . . predated science by a few thousands years by claiming the universe had a beginning
Tales of "In the Beginning" are a staple of ancient mythology. So just as I don't see an "In the beginning" story as evidence that Greek mythology is divinely inspired, I don't see it as evidence for Hebrew mythology.
Much more impressive would be an ancient book that gave an accurate account of the change of seasons, or the solar system's layout.
"Much more impressive would be an ancient book that gave an accurate account of the change of seasons, or the solar system's layout."
It was never intended to be science text but the bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle circa 1000 BCE Psalm 135:7, Job 36:27-29, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
God authenticates it by writing the future in advance which has proven to accurate.
Job 39: (9-11) Holy Bible: King James Edition: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
PRE-AGED UNIVERSE: If God, in fact, wanted to, he could have created the universe PRE-AGED, or sped up light of new stars to reach the Earth's surface. Scientists PRESUME the light age by distance is thus an optical illusion but not proof of age.
ITMtime, scientists are dishonest about linking the Exodus with Akhenaten who became a monotheist which proves the Bible and story of the Exodus is tree (see my vid). "Scientists" are controlled by grant money and can be liars.I have proof.
Yeah. But he decided to do it this way, to see what the world would actually be like ruled by Satan and mankind.
In the meantime, in order to save anyone, they have to be born, even if they die later. So being born gives you the chance on Judgment Day for eternal life, depending upon what you do and, unfortunately, also what you say.
The Bible says every word someone speaks will be held accountable on Judgment Day. So depending on what you do NOW determines your life later.
If YOU think that the Bible is the Word of the Creator of the universe, then YOU are a fucking FOOL. That's IT. If YOU can't see this obvious truth, then YOU are a fucking FOOL. If there IS a singular Creator of the universe, He has YET to come out with a book. If He DID, His book would be better than Einstein's papers on relativity. There are ENDLESS books that are more intelligently and knowledgeably written than your fucking BULLSHIT Bible, you STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.
I apologize, but God never intended to try and impress the nonbelievers. In fact, he enjoys confounding them.
ACTS 13:41 Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.
So you see, you just fulfill prophecy, that the elect would have clarity that would seem confusing and contradictory to outsiders, like yourself.
Of course. You were meant to come to that conclusion because you are cast into darkness.
I hate to waste a post so I'll just say that the restoration of the Jews to their homeland in 1947 fulfills Bible prophecy but it enabled us to determine the absolute year of ancient events, including the Exodus in 1386 BCE. When this was compared to science, archaeology, it checked out.Then Isa 19:19 was discovered that confirmed that Akhenaten converts to monotheism because of 10 plagues! HAPPINESS!
Larsinger, what a load of crap! is all i have to say about your comment. It's like being threatened by Horton who heard a Who and is angry so will come down on us. What a load of crap and the very reason why people are starting to get very disillusioned by religions. Keep the good work driving people away!
Sure, it's "crap" to you because you're out of the loop. Spiritual things are confounding and confusing to the non-spiritual, the Bible says so. In fact:
ACTS 13:41 Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.
God is not jumping through any hoops in hopes of U getting into the kingdom because, well,let's just say U probably are not his type.
This great. Now use ACTS 13:41 again to prove no point. Watch my video on the story of Jesus and how it does not add up. God likes confsing people (non believers)? No, it more like poeple that wrote the bible could tell the future and got the shit wrong.
Why don't you give me the NAME of the alleged video you have in mind and I'll look it up on your site, or better yet, provide a link? I'm truly interested in what what you think you have to say. Thaks! That is, on the history of Jesus, details, etc.
It simply confirms that God creates confusion to stumble the non-believers. So God makes the truth so unbelievable in the context that they will make the right choice but God will be LEGALLY free from obligation, because I warned you, but I'm not believable.
Anyway, everything in the Bible checks out though it is misrepresented. I tried find your vid on the story of Jesus but didn't see it, but I'd like to because many contradictions are misconceptions.
I don't recognize the bible as an authority on anything bar a a few round the fire yarns, if one is bored enough to sift through the verbosity. Other than that, please don't quote scripture to me. LOL @ being confounded by the spiritual. If there is anyone here confused about ANYTHING it's those that profess to know everything yet know NOTHING. ie YOU sir!
Listen, you have made this your choice, I trust you have your reasons, so just stick with your convinctions. Sometimes we're wrong. I know I am and have to reset.
Thanks for sharing your (ROFL!!!!!!! AHAAAAAAA) your opinion.
Aww you poor dude, it's okay *pats you on the head* Once you discover it was all bullshit i'm sure you will be okay, but then again theists hate being wrong :( I mean their entire lives and *chuckles* afterlives are based on blind faith...*clears throat* but it;s fine okay you will be just fine :D
HAHAHAHAHAHA Judgement day...*calms down* yes yes, judgement day and 72 virgins day, oh wait that's muslim oh who cares you guys are all the same HAHAHAAAA
The Bible cannot be responsible for incompetent literary interpretation by scientists, including how long the Creative days were. Each Creative Day was 7000 years long per the Bible. The Creative Days are the preparation of the preexisting earth for life. It does not limit the age of the Earth or sun, universe, etc.
Even so, it is a moot point since God is powerful enough to create the univere PRE-AGED, that is to speed up the light reaching earch of a new universe.
The earth was ALREADY in existence when it was TRANSFORMED for life. When God said, "Let there be light" it just meant the earth was moved close enough to the sun to create night and day, etc. It's not the Bible's fault if scientists are not capable of understanding metaphor or allegory. Literalists are able to get around the incompetence of those inept in literary comprehension.
It didn't say the sun wasn't there. Interpreting the days of creation can be done in different ways, some in which there is zero contradiction. But the Bible is such that if someone wants to make something a contradiction by some narrow interpretation then that's possible. In which case I would agree.
Bottom line, everything that was created fits the REALITY we know now so the interpretation of what happened should be consistent with that.
Gen 1:1 says in the beginning God created heaven and earth. With statement we can presume both the earth and sun were already created. The Creative days have to do with CONVERTING the earth from a wasteless planet into one conducive for life, again confirming the earth existed before the specific "creative days". So basically when God said "let there be light", he didn't create the sun, just moved the earth nearer to the sun to create the effect we have now. Cont...
On the 4th day he adjusted the Moon's orbit so that it dominated the night. The moon travels in a parallel plane of the Earth and sun so that it is visible from the dark side of the earth. If the orbit was more vertical, then we'd have a different effect, essentially, the moon would be invisible from the dark side of the earth at night. The planets were also brought into the solar system and put into their special orbits in the same plane for timekeeping, which it does do so!
Scientists tend to be dumb or liars when it comes to the Bible. Case in point, the Exodus. The Exodus happened in the 1st year of Akhenaten, who after experiencing the 10 plagues converted to monotheism. But archaeologists don't discuss the chronology that would date the Exodus during the reign of Akhenaten because it is too obvious Akhenaten tends to prove the ten plagues. This is in spite of the fall of Jericho by archaeologists dated to point to Amenhotep III/Akhenaten. Politics!
I cant take anyone serious who takes this guy serious. Science has proved the bible correct. The bible doesnt say the earth isnt round. The Bible never said the earth doesnt rotate, or that the sun isnt the center of our solar system. Keep believing your evolution religion. And dont let your evolved emotions get in the way.
When someone lays his opinions out with such clarity and does so in a polite dignified manner, it seems to beg for a similar response. If you disagree and have new arguments, state them.
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.....HOW? WHEN IT IS A SPHERE??
"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." THEY THOUGHT THE SKY WAS MADE OF WATER!
The word of the creator is truely written in the bible...
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." WHAT??? That makes no sence. If you were the creator of the earth then you would understand the very basics os astronomy...the sun DOES NOT go round the earth and it most certainly doe not hasten ANYWHERE!
The fossil record does not support DinoHuman cohabitation. Find a relative of mankind that exceeds 60 millions years, If you cant keep looking. But dont interject dogma into science.
@rbl777 I gotta say, everytime you explained how, the way I currently experience the world is fake, lacking in depth and i guess all together mis-understanding the universe....well i gotta say, it came off as condesending, a little bit aye? not only that but you refer to "Ego" preventing us understanding the real world? its ironic
Thanks for explaining, i recognise its hard to explain that everyone elses experience of the world is fake because of their ego - without sounding arrogant hypocrit
shandcunt 2 months ago
@shandcunt
Your last two comments were posted to me instead of rbl777 (so s/he won't receive any notification about your reply).
ToddAllenGates 2 months ago
@rbl777 Ohh, okay.
So Kabbalah is a jewish version of 1960's circa spiritual dance revolution where you need to free yourself from the "Fake - superficial" world to experience the "Real" world thats calling you, and you do this via getting rid of "Ego" which is preventing you from dancing like a tie dye hippie fool, once you get rid of "Ego" you can then "Experience and Understand the Real World" as opposed to this fake world im living in at the moment
shandcunt 2 months ago
@rbl777 What is it about the spiritual world that kabblah deals with?
shandcunt 8 months ago
@shandcunt
> What is it about the spiritual world that kabblah deals with?
FYI -- you responded to me instead of rbl777 (so s/he won't be notified of your reply).
ToddAllenGates 8 months ago
@shandcunt meaning of life. you only know the universe through ur senses
so in fact you dont know the "universe" u know the "interpretation of your sense" of it
rbl777 2 months ago
@shandcunt only humans united
rbl777 2 months ago
@shandcunt kabbalah deals with revealing the real universe which is the meaniing of life which means godlike or Adam from the word Dome in Hebrew means "alike".
christians misiterpred it saying that man looks like god. no
like "god" meaning loving other as yourself
loving not in a sense "how do you like you fish done?"
but in a sense of loving everyone and forging everything as to your own CHILD.
coz really people dont exist its all a conciousness dream!
but thx to your ego you cannot
rbl777 2 months ago
OBVIOUSLY 7 DAYS IS AN ALLEGORY
and the whole books is!
torah doesnt speak about earth events or places. its called the language of branches
so YOU are basically try ing to make fun of a book which language you dont understand.
what if i start bashing at a c++ book - bu it wouldn't be valid, coz i dont know the language
rbl777 10 months ago
@rbl777
1 of 2:
> OBVIOUSLY 7 DAYS IS AN ALLEGORY
If it were that obvious, why, for centuries, did the Church teach otherwise? (That is, until science led religion to reinterpret "God's Word.")
Why do so many theists *continue* to believe that the 6-day creation is literal?
The website "Answers in Genesis" actually posts a very good defense of the literal interpretation—search for their article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?"
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
2 of 2:
> YOU are trying to make fun of a book which language you dont understand.
I am not making fun of the bible. I'm just taking the claim that the Bible is the Word of an Omniscient Omnipotent God very seriously—because if the claim is true, it would have a profound impact on my life. This video series is part of my exploration of that claim.
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
@ToddAllenGates language of branches was only known by kabbalists,
as you know, the church burned and killed all the non believers back in the day.
so kabbalah was hidden, pratly for that reason, partly for not being in demand
.
christians who take holy books literally have no clue what they are talking about.
adam -first man with godlike qualities of altruism. not an old guy that looks like human
egypt - slavery to the EGO.
and many more. btw im not religious
rbl777 10 months ago
@rbl777
1 of 4:
> language of branches was only known by kabbalists,
It seems implausible to me to believe that a god would write a book but make it so cryptic that only secret groups could "properly" understand it.
It seems much more plausible to conclude that the book is a highly varied collection of stories, legends, morality tales, and . . .
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
@ToddAllenGates i never said god wrote the book
the book was written by people who have discovered higher laws of universe.
im not eager to prove that to you, but let me tell you one thing mate, i was unhappy and searching for very long time. and ill tell ya that kabbalah has the most robust logic ive ever encountered.
ill add, the meaning of text was passed from teacher to student - to everyone else the text is a historic novel
there is no faith in kabbalah. its a science. best of luck
rbl777 10 months ago
@rbl777
1 of 2:
> i never said god wrote the book the book was written by people who have discovered higher laws of universe.
If you believe that humans alone—with no Supernatural Force involved—wrote the Bible, then we're on the same page. As for this human work representing the "higher laws of universe," well, I think the likes of Galileo & Newton & Einstein did a better job . . . but I guess that's just a personal preference.
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
2 of 2:
> i was unhappy and searching for very long time. and ill tell ya that kabbalah has the most robust logic ive ever encountered.
Hey if it works for you, then I'll just shut my big skeptical mouth! Peace of mind & happiness are good things.
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
@ToddAllenGates humans, who first discovered spiritual world, and described it in the form of stories and tales. coz spiritiual world doesnt have shapes or forms or colors - so u cant practially describe to some who has never felt it.
kabbalah doesnt cancel out any of humans achievements, it considers them all with even further explanation, coz its a science that based on logic. btw many great scientists and philosophers over time have turned to kabbalah, including Netwon.
good luck
rbl777 10 months ago
@rbl777 Newton? The alchemist? I take it that when you say 'a great many' you mean 'one'.
gamesbok 6 months ago
@rbl777 Spiritual world? You mean "Imaginary land".
Either that or you're a total tool.
Oh yeah! Not that it's a good thing, but Newton was a Christian. Just an FYI.
PalulukanMakto 6 months ago
@PalulukanMakto I'm a tool? And can you prove the imaginary world?
Can you see the radio wavelengths, wifi, cellphone wireless? No? Does it means its "imaginary"?
In fact the world we live in today is imaginary! It's in the back of your brain! Your reality is foolish. Because you don't see watss outside of you, you see whatever your "brain" produces and then your consciousness realizes that. So your perception of reality is distorted & everybody else on "earth" that only exists in our heads...
rbl777 6 months ago
@rbl777
1 of 4:
> language of branches was only known by kabbalists
It seems implausible to me to believe that a god would write a book but make it so cryptic that only secret groups could "properly" understand it.
It seems much more plausible to conclude that the book is a highly varied collection of stories, legends, morality tales, and . . .
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
2 of 4:
. . . even some genuine tidbits of history—and that the majority of the bible's contributors were creative ancient storytellers that made up tales in an attempt to explain the likes of creation, suffering, rules for living, and the afterlife. (That is, the motivation had a similar basis in religions worldwide: whether in Greece, Norway, Egypt, North America, etc.)
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
3 of 4:
> adam -first man with godlike qualities of altruism. not an old guy that looks like human
> egypt - slavery to the EGO.
With such freedom to interpret the text, who's to say which interpretation is correct? What makes the Kabbalists the authority?
And with freedom like that, one can find equally divine truths in Greek mythology.
Sam Harris points out that with enough imagination, one can find deep allegorical meanings even in the recipes in a cookbook.
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
4 of 4:
DIRECTIONS: add salt and pepper.
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION: "Here we have the perennial invocation of opposites—the white and the black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfill the recipe for spiritual life!"
> btw im not religious
do you believe there's some sort of Supernatural Deity? And if so, what role do you think this Supernatural Deity had in the creation of what's referred to as "sacred scriptures"?
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
I love his voice
MsPrincessCaroline 10 months ago
@MsPrincessCaroline
> I love his voice
Thank you Princess!
ToddAllenGates 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek
Yeah, and 'celebate' was actually 'celebrate'. Man, I'll bet those monks are kicking themselves for misreading THAT one.
TelcontartheFirst 10 months ago
I've found this to be very true in everything from us being in a heliocentric universe to the existence of dinosaurs.
RogerWazup007 11 months ago
@RogerWazup007
> I've found this to be very true in everything from us being in a heliocentric universe to the existence of dinosaurs
Trying to interpret Bronze Age writings--no knowledge of our solar system's layout, of past extinct species, etc.--as "in harmony" with modern science is no easy task!
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
The Institution for Creation Reaserch? Wtf do they do there?
Plaguechild258 11 months ago
@Plaguechild258
> Wtf do they do there?
Come up with bizarre interpretations to try to shoehorn modern scientific knowledge into Bronze Age texts.
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
science FTW :D
bellyzbad 11 months ago
Though I don't know of many people who eat shellfish, I don't think it's an issue.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> I don't know of many people who eat shellfish
Shrimp, clams, mussels, oysters, scallops, lobster, and crabs all count as shellfish. According to wikipedia, shellfish are also among the most common food allergens, making it no coincidence that many religions concluded that god disapproves of them: besides Jews, there's also Shi'ite Muslims, Rastafarians, and even Seventh-day Adventists.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
silver2screen 1 year ago
(2) Elsewhere in the bible: "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, BECAUSE on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Gen. 2:3)
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. THEREFORE the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex. 20:11)
The message is so plainly put forth:
The seventh day of creation = A day made holy = Sabbath = Forbidden day for work.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
Comment removed
ytubeact123 1 year ago
The reverse of this is that a lot of ignorant people lived boring, possibly hypocritical lives. & this is most likely the case regardless, but an eternal God operates w/or w/o either side's acceptance. The most important things to know about the Bible are that it was recorded by men, it involves God's promises to those men, and lastly, the events validate successive expression, not visa versa. The supposed length of a creation day is irrelevant to the actual length of physical history.
marythesharkface 1 year ago
@marythesharkface
> The supposed length of a creation day is irrelevant to the actual length of physical history
Yet when multiple passages attest to creation taking place within six days (see the fundamentalist article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?" on AnswersInGenesisDOTorg), it discredits the notion that the story came from anywhere except creative storytellers: ones on the same level as the author of the Greek myths.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Gates I don't think so. This is a slippery-slope conclusion. Genesis does not say (or tangibly imply) 24-hour periods. Also, if the sun was created on day 4, how would the first 3 days be numbered in this way? Also, as pointed out by numerous scholars (Hebrew, &/or theological) the "days" and their successive numbers are written in list form, WITHOUT articles (and there are other examples of "day" not meaning 24 hours). A two chapter-long creation account will never satiate a scientist.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w "Day and night" were created in the very beginning of the passage, so that the following days can be numbered. The passage further confirms this just immediately with the phrase "there was morning and there was evening". There is really no better way to convey a 24-hour day period in language than the way the author has put it. The contextual identity of "day and night" in that clear passage is really beyond question.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@ytubeact123
> There is really no better way to convey a 24-hour day period in language than the way the author has put it. The contextual identity of "day and night" in that clear passage is really beyond question.
Very well said!!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ytubeact123 Willful ignorance is a great way to put it; how does a reiteration in Exodus change anything I'm saying? Evening and morning are the best examples you have brought up, though they still don't account for a specific period of time. Just because you've heard an argument before doesn't mean it is automatically incorrect, these arguments exist for good reason. The Bible's consistency lies in promises made by God, not his full revelation of how Earth came to be.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
Comment removed
ytubeact123 1 year ago
Also, "Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine." & Genesis never specifies "sun" on Day 4, nor is the sun's age distinctly proven to be 4.57billion years old. How can you so boldly claim this as a contradiction that Christians just ignore selectively?
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> How can you so boldly claim this as a contradiction that Christians just ignore selectively?
The bible tells of a six-day creation in multiple passages. The article "Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?" on AnswersInGenesisDOTorg does a good job at explaining the fundamentalist's reasoning.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Gates See this is my point. I have zero concern for "fundamentalist reasoning". One should get along fine with his own reasoning. My above post was in response to the so-called contradiction between science and the Genesis account (Day4). My original statement was to say "[One] just never knows"; we are individually limited. This is not an excuse (as I'm sure you'll agree) to stop looking/learning. Some of the responses your video has garnered are just perfect examples of this phenomena.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> the so-called contradiction between science and the Genesis account (Day4)
I agree that there's more than one interpretation, and yes, the definition of a pre-sun "day" is flexible.
I just see it as "more probable" that the author *meant* 24 hours and had his/her facts wrong, just as the author of the Greek myth that the sun is pulled across the sky by a god had his/her facts wrong.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Hmm, is that a scientific measurement of probability? This is sort of the problem I have with stands taken by many atheists/agnostics/etc. I have heard countless insults hurled at believers for believing one version over another (versions "created" by other men) and yet they themselves choose the version they want to believe (which is usually one they or someone else, yet again, "created"). So it always comes down to some kind of blind faith either way. We simply weren't there.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> So it always comes down to some kind of blind faith either way.
So when it comes to comparing:
- a consensus from the fields of biology, geology, paleontology, cosmology (etc.)
- a story from the bible
- a story from the Koran
- a story from the Greek myths
---you would say it's all a matter of blind faith (or in other words, they're all evidence-free)?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Gates No, & thanks for asking me to clarify. Information, studies, statistics, resources, references, or anything constitutes "evidence" are common finds. It is the acceptance of this evidence that divides us. As you'll find the original question I posed was "Why is it okay for scientists to [come to any newly 'proven' conclusion about any given topic at any point in time] but believers are [mocked as brainless for believing a certain amount of evidence regarding] the God of their finding?"
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
1 of 2:
I don't engage in mocking ... not only is it unnecessarily rude, it's counterproductive. But as for the difference between scientists vs. believers, science always knows its conclusions are tentative, and are subject to being revised based upon new evidence. As little as 15 years ago, *some* scientists believed the universe was only 8 billion years old. Based upon better & better evidence, 13.73 is now widely accepted. Scrutiny & revision is part of the process.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
With fundamentalists, however, if this ancient book tells of a chronology in which the universe is some 6,000 years, then THAT'S IT: end of story. And when this book says all land animals were created on the same day (dinosaur & human alike): THAT'S THE TRUTH NO QUESTIONS ASKED! And all evidence is dismissed. So I'm sure why you can see that kind of "blind faith" is open to mocking. That being said, I know you are *not* a fundamentalist.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@TAG Yes & I appreciate that you present your case as genuinely and respectfully as possible. But I think these two qualities are meaningless if you allow your bias to cloud such an important topic. Science is a wonderful tool, but a fallible medium; admittance of this fact is not enough. If science (like I and many others believe) is compatible with the Hebrew God, and all varying so-called "contradictions" are misconclusions, then a lot of intelligent people are living lies. A costly gamble.
marythesharkface 1 year ago
1 of 2:
@marythesharkface
> Science is a wonderful tool, but a fallible medium
True, but much less fallible than sheer guesswork and blind faith in tradition.
> If science is compatible with the Hebrew God
The two are compatible where they don't overlap ... but when science says dinosaurs ruled for 160 million years, and the last dinosaur and the first human were separated by 65 million years ago ... well, I don't see how that can be reconciled with Genesis.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
> A costly gamble.
There have been thousands of religions throughout history, and each say all the others are wrong, so betting on *any* "one religion" is a gamble.
Suppose there *is* a god, and what S/He *really* wants is for people to use evidence and their intelligence to realize that the ancient myths are just ancient myths. Betting on a god who wants us to *reject* organized religions may be just as safe as betting on one who wants us to deny our "God-given" logic.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Any talk of dinosaurs in the Bible is tough because our terminology will never be interchangeable with ancient text. So that is yet another contradiction that doesn't follow. It is an open-handed issue when it comes to the more convincing arguments regarding Christ, Post-exile Israel, related prophecy, or even modern zionism; all topics that believers can look to as hard, current evidence (even though it may mean nothing to someone who simply doesn't believe).
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> our terminology will never be interchangeable with ancient text.
Would you say, then, that the same applies to God's alleged condemnation of homosexuality? I've heard some gay Christians say that in OT times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution ... so the condemnation, properly understood, is not about being gay, but about prostitution & idolatry.
This is similar to what you say about modern terminology vs. ancient.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates I personally would not say that it applies to homosexuality. The Bible is much more clear about it being a perversion, as opposed to whether or not 'dinosaurs' are referenced (or in what way, if so). Luckily, it doesn't affect my outlook on God or the Bible's purpose. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I did vote no on prop8. But back to the main point (ie amount of faith it takes to decide science contradicts the Hebrew God), I don't think man will ever have accurate enough
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> he Bible is much more clear about it being a perversion, as opposed to .. 'dinosaurs' ...
As I read the text, all is equally clear: this is a book written in ancient times, and it says there's a god who created the earth in six days, all land animals on the same day, and BTW this god condemns homosexuality.
If your god hypothesis turns out to be true, too bad He doesn't issue updates in modern language and put an end to misinterpretations!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Gates By clarity I mean that the Bible directly says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" (a pretty universal law, not one like the eating of unclean shellfish that is pretty open-handed). The Bible only refers to a large creature of some kind (ie dinosaurs?) a few times in Job, Isaiah, and Psalms (with several symbolic references to 'dragons,' though the Jewish word is actually closer to serpent or seamonster). God tends to whisper, I think His plan is as plain as it needs to be.
radi0dave25 1 year ago
@radi0dave25
As I read the text, it seems clear that the OT god forbids both shellfish and homosexuality. It seems the only way modern people can accept shellfish but continue to condemn homosexuality is via farfetched interpretations.
As for dinosaurs, the bible indeed mentions dragons & sea serpents--but nothing even remotely close to the reality of dinosaurs dominating for 160 million years, and the last dinosaur and 1st human being separated by 65 million years.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Gates Farfetched in your opinion, but you neglect the fact that shellfish laws concerned uncleanliness and sacrificial laws (for the early Isrealites) while homosexuality is deemed adultery in multiple bible passages (New Testament included). So the one is old covenant, while the other transcends both old and new covenant. This is not a contradiction. As for dinosaurs... so what? I've already said it's arguable the Bible mentions dinosaurs at all. Why should it?
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
1 of 2:
@aaronwilliams4w
Okay, you've a valid point that shellfish is an abomination in only one OT section, but homosexuality is condemned throughout. But the Leviticus "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you" line is still bizarre. If it's about disease, why not issue cleaning and cooking instructions? Same thing with pork.
Also, what's the best passage in the NT that gives Christians the "okay to go" on pork & shellfish? Is there one?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
As for dinosaurs... Why should [the bible mention them]?
Because by telling a story that sounds like it was invented by primitive man---"Big supernatural Spirit in the Sky created Universe in 6 days: first light, then heaven, earth, sun, creatures ... --- well, it sounds like a story made up by primitive man. And the fact that the bible says the earth is older than the sun further damages credibility. The Creator of the Universe would have all the facts right.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@TAG Romans14 is interesting: "Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." Shellfish and other bottom-feeders were probably on a whole other level of disgusting back in Moses' day, perhaps less so even by Jesus' ministry.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> Romans14 is interesting
Okay - thanks for the reference!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
The argument that "this sentence is unclear b/c it's ancient terminology" and "this sentence is fine as is" allows different believers to cherry-pick what this alleged god wants and doesn't want us to do. People who believe in direct opposites---"evolution is accurate / evolution is inaccurate" and "god tolerates gays / god hates fags" can all point to the bible and interpret what they want of it.
Again, too bad this Omnipotent god doesn't communicate clearly.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@Todd technology to correctly say how "old" Earth, or the Sun, or the universe is. Wavelengths, geology, satellites, carbon dating, or any other means of compiling data that gets published regarding "age" of such unconquerable forces as these can't make up for the type of atmosphere Earth or Space consisted of, especially over the spans of time represented. Does this mean that scientists aren't close or capable? No. I just don't assume their 80 years of Big Bang babbling nullifies my God.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> I just don't assume their 80 years of Big Bang babbling nullifies my God.
If it makes you happy, I have zero reason to try to make you change your mind. I don't make my videos to try to deconvert people. They're mainly for people who are already skeptics but who have trouble responding to pressure from proselytizers, or for believers who are tortured by doubt, cognitive dissonance (from the Problem of Suffering, Genesis vs. science, etc.), or irrational fears of hell.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
are*
radi0dave25 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w the substance of the universe is not matter, its consciousness
rbl777 6 months ago
@rbl777 "Citation Needed"
NorthForkFisherman 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NorthForkFisherman
scientists claim that there is a universe that is independent of the agent's mind, the agent can only ever know of this universe through its senses.
logic only
rbl777 2 months ago
Why are scientists allowed to acknowledge that "you just never know" by calling something a "theory" but Christians are ignorant, hypocritical, or rash for placing faith (whether evidence-based or not) in the God of their finding. What stubborn scrutiny CAN'T override the reality of something whose proof is unseen, or unaccepted? This is easy. Both sides are guilty of a humanly ignorance; Both inevitably place faith in another's words/ideas. Rare is the man who PURSUES both sides & then decides.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
Comment removed
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w
> Why are scientists allowed to acknowledge that "you just never know" by calling something a "theory" but Christians are ... rash for placing faith ...in the God of their finding.
Christians are allowed to say "you just never know" too ... but fundamentalist Christians (although not "moderate/liberal" Christians) say "WE KNOW: END OF STORY." Science is humble enough to change its mind (albeit that certain scientists can be arrogant).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
1. The so called modern "literalists" are in fact NOT truly literal in their interpretation of the scripture. They are heavily compromising and choosy as to what part of the scripture they would interpret literally. The bible is JUST AS PLAIN and clear in stating a) There is a solid firmament above the earth b) The world formed out of a great ocean(the deep) and is submerged in it c) The world has edges i.e flat and so on so forth. These are the ideas the bible is firmly grounded upon.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@ytubeact123
> The so called modern "literalists" are in fact NOT truly literal in their interpretation of the scripture. They are heavily compromising and choosy as to what part of the scripture they would interpret literally.
Agreed--it's all a matter of degrees. It's just that with modern New Age Christians, they can put a modern spin on *everything*: that the 6-day creation REALLY means 13.73 billions years, that god only disapproves of "destructive homosexuality," etc.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ytubeact123 Why do youtubers insist on affirming what "Christians" as a whole believe, or what the Bible is "firmly grounded upon"? How about a freakin quote for once? ...right, because Theologists (or believers in any collegiate field for that matter) earn doctorates, but just happen to believe the world is flat. If you say so.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (6) Lolz, seems like I have taken up a lot of space. I apologize to the author of this video.
As it is said: Only willful ignorance or plain intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that bible is the inerrant word of God.
My friend, ignorance is indeed bliss, keeps you going! And yes, if you don't have anything constructive to say, please don't bother me with your empty cries.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (5) Not only they maintained, they viewed those as absolute-core points of belief, the slightest opposition to which resulted in persecution/execution. Such a weight of unequivocalness the biblical passages carry - opposition would throw a person out of the fold of Christianity! Early Christianity (the time right before The Renaissance) is full of such events where learned ones would get persecuted for saying sky isn't solid or the sun does not go around the earth or the likes!
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@act123 So the views held by this portion of people change the validity of the Bible itself? Why denounce one group for their interpretation, but choose some other non-interpretation, and then act as if the two accounts affect the overall point? I am unassociated (as is the Bible) with any qualms you and "Early Christianity" have. By this logic how should we feel about Science as a whole whilst considering Early Science? Ah, but this is yet another non-sequitor (The youtuber's choice tool).
marythesharkface 1 year ago
@aaron Why do I continuously hear this*argument against Church doctrine posing as evidence against Yahweh? The Bible has always been 'single servant takes on multitude of nay-sayers' or 'Tabernacle attendants anger God, but justice prevails'; Never 'perfect gathering of righteous led by loving high-priest fulfill God's work, then Jesus comes'. There are plenty of letdowns, and restarts, and things to come, but this*sentiment is distortion and quite frankly, ignorance of (if not facts) sources.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
Comment removed
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwi -> ignorance of (if not facts) sources.
Ignorance?- What a remarkable piece of scapegoating! Ah, all I am getting from you is empty rhetorics. Do you have anything worth listening to?
Science and bible? With the amount of eisegesis that you christians tend to do, any ancient book of anytime can be just as easily harmonized with modern science as the bible. You can turn literally anything into anything! I think this way greek myths are easier to reconcile with than bible, believe me!
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@ytubeact123 Well I try not to discuss too much biblical information with non-believers seeing as you just don't believe it. Instead I try to point out the fact that your belief in something is only as strong as the truth behind whatever it is you choose to believe. If you'll kindly notice, not once have I said, "Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong" or "Astronomers are evil" or anything remotely close to the ignorance you, no doubt, have heard from people who probably associate w/ my core
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@t123 beliefs. I point this out because as you have already stated, I can't write a book in these little youtube comment boxes. So if you'd like to discuss what might lead someone to place faith in a book (and not doctrine or historical events that happen to be related to the book, though naturally erroneous) then let's dance. But my original post is what I'm trying to stick to, which is merely to say "You place faith in almost 80 years of evidence backing up the Big Bang, but without once
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@123 stepping outside of our atmosphere (or probably your country), or visualizing a primary source." And yet the typical arguments echo the same BS: "Facts, evidence, verification, proof, etc" but always carefully follow up with "but new studies can always make up for any prior mistakes." And although this is true (new research can be maintain more validity) it doesn't do your arguments well. The bottom-line is that I have read the entirety of the book you castigate, and I have seen miracles.
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (3) I'm sure god didn't want to mean that he made the 7th "epoch" holy and forbidden to work on!
Even a child can tell how inane are the arguments that you and your fellow christians bring up. Christianity is a perfect cult, willful ignorants like you feed it.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@marythesharkface The view of the expanse as a literal solid firmament was shared by virtually everyone up to the time of the Renaissance. Individuals holding a non-solid view of the sky (of course such individuals starting to arise from no earlier than late 16th century with the awakening of science) were declared heretic/unbeliever and were prosecuted.
Now, we know at least as according to ALL christians of a few hundred years ago, you are a heretic infidel! Or do you think the sky is solid?
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (4) What is the bible "firmly grounded upon"? In 1615, a Carmelite friar by the name of Paulo Antonio Foscarini was prosecuted by the Congregation of the Holy Office for his book wherein he maintained that the heaven(sky) is thin as opposed to the established view that it is solid. Just a sample, virtually EVERYONE until The The Renaissance staunchly maintained those I referred to as "firmly grounded" (historical consensus, see westminister theological journal)
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (3) Then why do they hold a view so hypocritical and deny every other attempts for harmonization?Because,biblical passages relating to the various aspects of the nature of the physical world are often so explicitly detailed that they leave not an atom amount of possibility for harmonization. Because,they speak on the intellectual level and evidence really leaves no room which they could have if they were amidst ignorants.
Many just can't put up with it,ever heard of B. Ehrman?
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (2) They maintain that the events recorded in the bible are metaphors that did not take place in reality, that it does have numerous variances and contradictions, that it is impossbile to harmonize biblical passages with factual science as they merely portray cosmological beliefs of the time - so on so forth. They are yet self-proclaimed Christians. Now one may ask, has this view ever existed amongst the Christians of the past? The answer is simply - NO. (Continued)
ytubeact123 1 year ago
@aaronwilliams4w (1) Ohhh look at the emotional outburst! So you want some quotes? You know I can't write books in these tiny youtube comment boxes, don't you? Oh yes, there is this much of quotes to give - they need a bookful of space at least. My good ignorant friend,if you didn't know, the huge majority of your believing "doctorate" earners hold a liberal exegetical view on the bible. They maintain that the entire bible is a piece of symbolic literature, fallible, though devinely inspired.
ytubeact123 1 year ago
2. (Continued) Because belief in these will make them insane. So, what we get from them is an extremely superficial and cultic literalism. (To know more you can read from liberal christian theologians and academics)
ytubeact123 1 year ago
God does exist.
SummerSunshine1988 1 year ago
@SummerSunshine1988
> God does exist.
"A Creator God" may indeed exist, but that doesn't mean that any of the world's religions--Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Islam, Mormonism, etc.--are anything more than man's guesswork about such a Creator. This video only discusses how theist's cope when real-life evidence (e.g. that the earth orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth) clashes with what certain theists believe to be the infallible Word of God.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago 5
@ToddAllenGates : There is a difference between God and religion. Religion is man-made, therefore being no more than man's guesswork, you are right about that.
SummerSunshine1988 1 year ago
If there was a God, this guy might have had a full head of hair.
Beatnick79 2 years ago
> If there was a God, this guy might have had a full head of hair
Apparently God *loves* bald guys! Look what happened in 2 Kings 2:23. After some children were making fun of Elisha's bald head, Elisha cursed them in the name of God, and God sent two bears to come crashing out of the woods and tear up all 42 of the kids.
MORAL: If you're going to mock someone for being bald, don't do it in wooded areas.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago 20
I have a real hard on to believe in a virgin giving birth.
Beatnick79 2 years ago
ZING
STFUNOWlol 2 years ago
Questions for theist. Religion has claimed science tries to pull ppl from god, only to accept its results later. Religion has also used science to back its claims. So isn't science useful. Why not let scientists work and accept the results? Are theist afraid they will be let down by religion? Differentiate religion from god, and, science cant prove/disprove any gods existence. Religion--- wont disprove and cant prove any gods existence. So why cant the two get along? Please respond.
UrDevilsAdvocate 2 years ago
Comment removed
SadChristian 2 years ago
Comment removed
SadChristian 2 years ago
Astronomer Robert Jastrow, who is a professing agnostic, explains in God and the Astronomers,
"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. "
continued
LogosApologia 2 years ago
>"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset.
I know of no astronomer who is upset with the evidence that our known universe began some 13.7 billion years ago. This is a strawman argument: an accusation against a fictitious stance.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
@ToddAllenGates I guess you think you speak for all astronomers and know the feelings of all astronomers? Really? The is quote from an agnostic astronomer! The book is called "God and the Astrnomers" by Robert Jastrow.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> I guess you think you speak for all astronomers
I wrote that I never heard of an astronomer upset with the evidence—not "No astronomer is upset."
> The book is called "God and the Astrnomers" by Robert Jastrow
I just looked up the book, and okay, yes—now I *do* see there were some astronomers that were upset!
But that book was published in 1978 . . . I still know of no contemporary scientists who are "upset."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
And even if there are non-theists that still feel upset, "preferences" for what's true has no place in science. Over the last ten years or so, the evidence for the Big Bang (and its starting point some 13.73 billion years ago) has become more and more solid, and the nature of science is draw conclusions from the evidence, rather than look for evidence to support pre-existing conclusions.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
Certainly some individual scientists do that, but science itself is self-correcting: everything is open to attempts at disproving, and ideas are often disproved.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
Back in the 1990s, scientists were in conflict over the age of the universe: some believed the evidence pointed to 8 billion years, others said the evidence pointed to closer to 14 billion. But they did not at all "pretend the conflict does not exist." The issue was hotly contested, and settled by additional evidence using new technology (all camps now agree that the universe is some 13.7 billion years old).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The Bible has survived 2000 years of skeptics and is still going strong. It is God word. You misunderstand and misinterpret Genesis 1 badly.
The Bible was written in Hebrew - so your arguments based on the English word "day" are absurd.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
Comment removed
LogosApologia 2 years ago
Comment removed
LogosApologia 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> your arguments based on the English word "day" are absurd.
Whether or not I'm wrong, it's far fetched to call the 24-hour interpretation "absurd." After all, every English translation I know of uses the word "day."
And MANY *Christians* also argue that "day" should be interpreted as 24-hour. One of the best argument is to look at the way the Hebrew word in question ("yom") should be interpreted in Genesis is to look at how the word is used in Exodus 20:9-11:
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work ... For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."
For a good biblical defense for the 24-hour period interpretation of "yom," see the Christian site GotQuestionsDOTorg(SLASH)Genesis-daysDOThtml.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
@ToddAllenGates "Heavens and Earth" in the hebrew of genesis 1 is a merism for universe. In Exodus "Heavens and earth" is within a list is not used as merism.
You can argue against the beliefs of some Christians if that makes you more comfortable with your secular faith but you are not doing any damage to the Bible - which predated science by a few thousands years by claiming the universe had a beginning.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
> the Bible . . . predated science by a few thousands years by claiming the universe had a beginning
Tales of "In the Beginning" are a staple of ancient mythology. So just as I don't see an "In the beginning" story as evidence that Greek mythology is divinely inspired, I don't see it as evidence for Hebrew mythology.
Much more impressive would be an ancient book that gave an accurate account of the change of seasons, or the solar system's layout.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
"Much more impressive would be an ancient book that gave an accurate account of the change of seasons, or the solar system's layout."
It was never intended to be science text but the bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle circa 1000 BCE Psalm 135:7, Job 36:27-29, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
God authenticates it by writing the future in advance which has proven to accurate.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
i have bad news. not only is there no god, but the virgin mary is his mother.
hctsbj 2 years ago
Job 39: (9-11) Holy Bible: King James Edition: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
JakeBartlam 2 years ago
PRE-AGED UNIVERSE: If God, in fact, wanted to, he could have created the universe PRE-AGED, or sped up light of new stars to reach the Earth's surface. Scientists PRESUME the light age by distance is thus an optical illusion but not proof of age.
ITMtime, scientists are dishonest about linking the Exodus with Akhenaten who became a monotheist which proves the Bible and story of the Exodus is tree (see my vid). "Scientists" are controlled by grant money and can be liars.I have proof.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Oh my God that's so funny! Wow where the hell do you idiots come up with this stuff. By the way I was born at a ripe old age of 57 back in '77.
vashcat 2 years ago
If God, in fact, wanted to, he could have jerked off and the earth came out, and Scientists are working for Satan.
cogar48 2 years ago
Yeah. But he decided to do it this way, to see what the world would actually be like ruled by Satan and mankind.
In the meantime, in order to save anyone, they have to be born, even if they die later. So being born gives you the chance on Judgment Day for eternal life, depending upon what you do and, unfortunately, also what you say.
The Bible says every word someone speaks will be held accountable on Judgment Day. So depending on what you do NOW determines your life later.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
If YOU think that the Bible is the Word of the Creator of the universe, then YOU are a fucking FOOL. That's IT. If YOU can't see this obvious truth, then YOU are a fucking FOOL. If there IS a singular Creator of the universe, He has YET to come out with a book. If He DID, His book would be better than Einstein's papers on relativity. There are ENDLESS books that are more intelligently and knowledgeably written than your fucking BULLSHIT Bible, you STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago 12
I apologize, but God never intended to try and impress the nonbelievers. In fact, he enjoys confounding them.
ACTS 13:41 Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.
So you see, you just fulfill prophecy, that the elect would have clarity that would seem confusing and contradictory to outsiders, like yourself.
But we UNDERSTAND. Trust me.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
YOU are just a STUPID MOTHERFUCKER.
lotanddaughters 2 years ago
Of course. You were meant to come to that conclusion because you are cast into darkness.
I hate to waste a post so I'll just say that the restoration of the Jews to their homeland in 1947 fulfills Bible prophecy but it enabled us to determine the absolute year of ancient events, including the Exodus in 1386 BCE. When this was compared to science, archaeology, it checked out.Then Isa 19:19 was discovered that confirmed that Akhenaten converts to monotheism because of 10 plagues! HAPPINESS!
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Comment removed
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
Comment removed
aaronwilliams4w 1 year ago
Larsinger, what a load of crap! is all i have to say about your comment. It's like being threatened by Horton who heard a Who and is angry so will come down on us. What a load of crap and the very reason why people are starting to get very disillusioned by religions. Keep the good work driving people away!
CosmicMutty 2 years ago
Sure, it's "crap" to you because you're out of the loop. Spiritual things are confounding and confusing to the non-spiritual, the Bible says so. In fact:
ACTS 13:41 Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.
God is not jumping through any hoops in hopes of U getting into the kingdom because, well,let's just say U probably are not his type.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
This great. Now use ACTS 13:41 again to prove no point. Watch my video on the story of Jesus and how it does not add up. God likes confsing people (non believers)? No, it more like poeple that wrote the bible could tell the future and got the shit wrong.
HoustonAtheist 2 years ago
My video is above... Just for you.
HoustonAtheist 2 years ago
There is no video responses to this video. Sorry.
Why don't you give me the NAME of the alleged video you have in mind and I'll look it up on your site, or better yet, provide a link? I'm truly interested in what what you think you have to say. Thaks! That is, on the history of Jesus, details, etc.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
It simply confirms that God creates confusion to stumble the non-believers. So God makes the truth so unbelievable in the context that they will make the right choice but God will be LEGALLY free from obligation, because I warned you, but I'm not believable.
Anyway, everything in the Bible checks out though it is misrepresented. I tried find your vid on the story of Jesus but didn't see it, but I'd like to because many contradictions are misconceptions.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
If you look in the video responses to this video. There is my video.
HoustonAtheist 2 years ago
FOUND IT. SORRY! I was on the comments only page. Thanks! Will get back to you!!!!!
Larsinger58 2 years ago
I don't recognize the bible as an authority on anything bar a a few round the fire yarns, if one is bored enough to sift through the verbosity. Other than that, please don't quote scripture to me. LOL @ being confounded by the spiritual. If there is anyone here confused about ANYTHING it's those that profess to know everything yet know NOTHING. ie YOU sir!
CosmicMutty 2 years ago
roooooofl!!! Oh, sorry..
LMHO!!!
LMAO!!!
oHHH, sorry. I didn't mean to laugh so hard.
Listen, you have made this your choice, I trust you have your reasons, so just stick with your convinctions. Sometimes we're wrong. I know I am and have to reset.
Thanks for sharing your (ROFL!!!!!!! AHAAAAAAA) your opinion.
:>
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Aww you poor dude, it's okay *pats you on the head* Once you discover it was all bullshit i'm sure you will be okay, but then again theists hate being wrong :( I mean their entire lives and *chuckles* afterlives are based on blind faith...*clears throat* but it;s fine okay you will be just fine :D
CosmicMutty 2 years ago
You should keep a copy of this speech so you can recite it on Judgment Day.
LS
Larsinger58 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA Judgement day...*calms down* yes yes, judgement day and 72 virgins day, oh wait that's muslim oh who cares you guys are all the same HAHAHAAAA
CosmicMutty 2 years ago
Comment removed
igoling 2 years ago
The Bible cannot be responsible for incompetent literary interpretation by scientists, including how long the Creative days were. Each Creative Day was 7000 years long per the Bible. The Creative Days are the preparation of the preexisting earth for life. It does not limit the age of the Earth or sun, universe, etc.
Even so, it is a moot point since God is powerful enough to create the univere PRE-AGED, that is to speed up the light reaching earch of a new universe.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
The earth was ALREADY in existence when it was TRANSFORMED for life. When God said, "Let there be light" it just meant the earth was moved close enough to the sun to create night and day, etc. It's not the Bible's fault if scientists are not capable of understanding metaphor or allegory. Literalists are able to get around the incompetence of those inept in literary comprehension.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
but the sun wasn't there till the 4th day
cheetmeister 2 years ago
It didn't say the sun wasn't there. Interpreting the days of creation can be done in different ways, some in which there is zero contradiction. But the Bible is such that if someone wants to make something a contradiction by some narrow interpretation then that's possible. In which case I would agree.
Bottom line, everything that was created fits the REALITY we know now so the interpretation of what happened should be consistent with that.
Larsinger58 2 years ago
ok so how would you interpret it so that the sun was there before the earth?
cheetmeister 2 years ago
Gen 1:1 says in the beginning God created heaven and earth. With statement we can presume both the earth and sun were already created. The Creative days have to do with CONVERTING the earth from a wasteless planet into one conducive for life, again confirming the earth existed before the specific "creative days". So basically when God said "let there be light", he didn't create the sun, just moved the earth nearer to the sun to create the effect we have now. Cont...
Larsinger58 2 years ago
On the 4th day he adjusted the Moon's orbit so that it dominated the night. The moon travels in a parallel plane of the Earth and sun so that it is visible from the dark side of the earth. If the orbit was more vertical, then we'd have a different effect, essentially, the moon would be invisible from the dark side of the earth at night. The planets were also brought into the solar system and put into their special orbits in the same plane for timekeeping, which it does do so!
Larsinger58 2 years ago
Scientists tend to be dumb or liars when it comes to the Bible. Case in point, the Exodus. The Exodus happened in the 1st year of Akhenaten, who after experiencing the 10 plagues converted to monotheism. But archaeologists don't discuss the chronology that would date the Exodus during the reign of Akhenaten because it is too obvious Akhenaten tends to prove the ten plagues. This is in spite of the fall of Jericho by archaeologists dated to point to Amenhotep III/Akhenaten. Politics!
Larsinger58 2 years ago
/watch?v=pqR7cT0XZVM
Watch all 7 bitches, Stop hiding from science.
MG42pillbox 2 years ago
next
user/CreationMinistries#play/uploads/31/mU_orwlj8Eo
MG42pillbox 2 years ago
I cant take anyone serious who takes this guy serious. Science has proved the bible correct. The bible doesnt say the earth isnt round. The Bible never said the earth doesnt rotate, or that the sun isnt the center of our solar system. Keep believing your evolution religion. And dont let your evolved emotions get in the way.
MG42pillbox 2 years ago
Is there anything in particular that you disagree with? Examples?
carloz1 2 years ago
When someone lays his opinions out with such clarity and does so in a polite dignified manner, it seems to beg for a similar response. If you disagree and have new arguments, state them.
carloz1 2 years ago
Earth isnt roud?
Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.....HOW? WHEN IT IS A SPHERE??
"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." THEY THOUGHT THE SKY WAS MADE OF WATER!
Search for the truth... dont just listen and nod!
mattie690 2 years ago
The word of the creator is truely written in the bible...
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." WHAT??? That makes no sence. If you were the creator of the earth then you would understand the very basics os astronomy...the sun DOES NOT go round the earth and it most certainly doe not hasten ANYWHERE!
And before you reply....a circle is NOT a sphere.
NEXT turkey for stuffing!!!
mattie690 2 years ago
The fossil record does not support DinoHuman cohabitation. Find a relative of mankind that exceeds 60 millions years, If you cant keep looking. But dont interject dogma into science.
cycimian 2 years ago 4
if humans and dinosaurs co-existed thne humans would go the same way as the dodo's ^_^
xXxj3susxXx 2 years ago 3
Thank you so much for creating this video series. You have done a service for your fellow human being.
willmeditateforfood 2 years ago
> Thank you so much for creating this video series. You have done a service for your fellow human being.
TOO kind but thank you!!
ToddAllenGates2 2 years ago
Where