"Duality means that something has two properties": I know, but the fact that we speak of wave-particle duality shows that it's not a usual property in physics. It only becomes apparent at the subatomic level. At the macroscopic level, you will never see a ball behave like a wave.
"none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses": Who do you claim are the writers of the Gospels of Jesus disciples?
"stories contradict one another": You can't expect exactly the same account from different persons.
"bible is a collection of mythical stories": This assertion needs proof. You must prove that the stories didn't happen. How can you prove that without being there at the time it supposedly happened?.
1. No one knows who wrote them; they were written anonymously.
2. Exact accounts would be impossible, but they shouldn't contradict one another; if they do, then one story is false.
3. Academic history requires primary sources and corroboration. There are no primary sources and the stories contradict one another. Where there is corroboration, the stories are exact copies of Mark's account.
By your logic, every myth could be deemed true. You believe Hercules was real?
I didn't say that. I said that it was merely impossible to prove history scientifically especially when we are discussing events that took place two thousand years ago
The greatest philosophical contradiction is with a surpeme being that at times elevates peace, turning the other cheek, love and compassion and yet is the same supreme being that required death, torture, rape, forced marriage, and slavery. That is an unresolvable contradiction.
Then how do we arrive at the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
"The greatest philosophical contradiction ..."
Here we come to the interesting part. Is the God of the NT the same as the God of the OT?. Jesus rejected the old ways of the Jewish law and was hated for it. Remember that Jesus referred to God as his father. Now, read John 8:44 and you will understand what I mean.
The names were added, if memory serves, in the 4th cent. ce. If you're interested, I suggest Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Intro to the Early Xtian Texts.
As far as christian mythology goes, the supreme being of the ot is the same as the new. If the god of ot did not resurrect this alleged Jesus, then what did. Further, alleged J said he came to fulfill Hebrew law, not abolish it. Seems to me that you're trying to cheat out of what is a blatant contradiction.
"the supreme being of the ot is the same as the new"
But if you read the OT, you will see that the Jews turned away from God as soon as they came out of Egypt. They turned their back on God numerous times and made their own laws which had nothing to do with God's Word.
"J said he came to fulfill Hebrew law"
He came to fulfill God's law, not the man made laws of the Jews.
You're avoiding the point: a god idea that includes a supreme being engaged in murder, torture, slavery, misogyny and blaming the victim is contradictory to a god idea where the supreme being articulates love, compassion, and forgiveness. This is an irreconcilable difference.
As to "god's" law: my understanding of Hebrew mythology is that the laws of the ot where the Hebrews' supreme being's laws. You can't have it both ways.
Not at all. The Jews turned away from the true God and began to conceive their own ideas of God. They needed a god who would be pleased with murder, torture and slavery so that they could defeat their enemies. We are not only talking about different laws, but a different God. Jesus said that they were worshiping the devil.
Let me get this right: you are arguing that the god idea of the old testament is not the same one in the new testament. That means the "prophecies" from the old testament that christian mythology rests on to assume that the alleged J was the messiah are irrelevant. That means that there is no reason to assume the alleged J was a messiah.
Hence, by your reasoning, if this J existed, he was nothing more than an independent mystic. All right, if he existed I'll agree to that.
"Yes, because what really matters is whether Jesus' words expand my own experience of the truth or not."
This is not the point you wade earlier. You argued that J was resurrected by a god, stated that a being can be both mortal and immortal, and that the "eyewitness" accounts of alleged J proved his existence and by extension his "miracles."
You are now stating that alleged J was just a teacher, and that you have learned from his purported sayings. I can't disagree with that.
The new testament begins with a historical contradiction: alleged Jesus was born when both Qurinius governed Syria and Herod Judea. Counldn't Herod was dead for ten years when Quirinius began his governorship.
As to you saying science is impossible to prove scientifically. Yes. It cannot be in any way tested. But, there still remains a method--a sound rational method. Your method allows any myth to be deemed true. Academic history writing does not.
You argued that even without eyewitnesses the myth of Jesus is still true. I could make the same proclamation about Hercules, Shiva, or any other mythical figure. If you're arguing that your mythology is true without using established history writing standards and the other myths are false, then you making a case for special pleading. Cases that require special pleading are dismissed.
No, I argue that even if the earliest manuscripts were not written by eyewitnesses, it doesn't mean that the accounts are completely fabricated. They could have been transmitted orally. But you didn't answer my question: How do we arrive at the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?.
Last, as far copies of Mark's account and contradiction, I had written this:
" There are no primary sources and the stories contradict one another. Where there is corroboration, the stories are exact copies of Mark's account."
Thus, that question was already answered. If you were to read them, you would be overwhelmed how exact some of the story is and how different the rest, especially the resurrection part of the myths and how embellished the story gets.
"It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship ..."
If you read the Bible, you will see that the disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. Whether you like it or not, the Bible is a historical document. Even if it was true that the earliest manuscripts were anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts, what does it change?.
If you read biblical scholarship, you would know that the earliest gospel is dated around 75 ce, that none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses, and above all, the stories contradict one another.
Whether you like it or not, the bible is a collection of mythical stories.
"that none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses"
Who do you claim are the writers of the Gospels of Jesus' disciples ?
"the stories contradict one another"
You can't expect exactly the same account from different persons.
"the bible is a collection of mythical stories"
This assertion needs proof. You must prove that the stories didn't happen. How can you prove that without being there at the time it supposedly happened ?.
I know about the experiments that suggest that light has characteristics of wave and particles. However, and again, these are not mutually exclusive properties.
Give me an example something that has mutually exclusive properties, such as something unable to die yet dies.
It doesn't depend at all. Classical mech. cannot describe subatomic particles. Hence, there is quantum mechanics where wave-like and particle-like properties are not mutually exclusive. Going back in time is not sound reasoning.
Yes it does. Classical physics deals with continuous quantities, whereas quantum mechanics shows that on the very small scale, all quantities are discrete or quantized. So, at the quantum level the distinction between wave and particle becomes blurred.
Classical mechanics couldn't describe subatomic behavior, so new investigations began. In quantum theory, wave/particles not exclusive, and it is quantum mechanics that governs our understanding of subatomic behavior.
I understand the difference, which you don't seem to grasp: classical mechanics isn't equipped to describe subatomic behavior well, hence the discipline of quantum mechanics.
"Duality means that something has two properties"
I know, but the fact that we speak of wave-particle duality shows that it's not a usual property in physics. It only becomes apparent at the subatomic level. At the macroscopic level, you won't see a ball behave like a wave.
Again, at the subatomic level waves and particles are not mutually exclusive. Subatomic particles behave differently than larger particles.
"a usual property in physics." It is only unusual in non-subatomic matter. Further, unusual properties are not synonymous with mutual exclusivity.
You have written many times that in quantum physics wave/particle is not mutually exclusive--hence they are not mutually exclusive. Further statements otherwise are going to be ignored.
"Again, at the subatomic level waves and particles are not mutually exclusive"
This is not what I said. I said that it was not a general law of physics, hence the term "wave-particle duality" to describe a phenomena that only occurs at the subatomic level.
"You have written many times that in quantum physics wave/particle is not mutually exclusive"
But anywhere outside the subatomic level, wave/particle are mutually exclusive.
In addition to what is below: with the right spin a frisby will travel in a wave pattern. Turn on a hose, move the hose side to side, and the water makes a wave pattern.
you seem confused: water is a particle. It also is a medium for waves, the same way the atmosphere is a collection of particles and is also a medium for sound waves.
All of our correspondence about physics all makes sense now.
The point is, you can't really say that a frisby exhibits wave-particle duality because YOU make it travel in a wave pattern. The same for the water from the hose. These behaviors are triggered artificially.
At our human level water is a wave (or at least behaves as one). At the atomic level water is a particle (h20) and at the subatomic level water once again can be said to be a wave because the super strings or energy oscillations that theoretically make up the atoms of that molecule are waving energy oscillations.
Water, at the human level, is composed of particles. It acts as all liquids do: takes the form of the container, has surface tension, and can flow. It allows a mechanical wave to travel through it. A mechanical wave transfers energy from one point to another. In no manner is water synonymous with a wave.
Super string hypothesis is not close to being proven. Even if it were, what applies to subatomic H2O applies to all sub atomics.
Well, then, there you have it: according to you there is not a wave/particle contradiction at the macro level. Your misunderstanding of physics and your ability to contradict yourself is a typical of most christians I've encountered. Congrats on that. I've made my points, now I'm done.
In your mythology, this alleged Jesus was god. The christian definition of a god is quite specific: immortal. Hence, your god cannot be mortal and immortal at the same time. That would be called a contradiction, or more aptly, a cheat.
You may want to consider that there is not one eyewitness account of this alleged Jesus. Further the Jesus myth is very similar to other myths: born of a virgin, father a god, had a mission, died (usually atop a hill), and brought back to life.
As I understand the trinity, in christian myth, Jesus was god.
The books ascribed to the disciples were written anonymously. Mark comes first, which is dated to around 75 CE. Matthew and Luke come later. John is around 90. None of the writers of the books claim to be eyewitnesses.
" "Further the Jesus myth is very similar to other myths"
And so what ?"
Why should the Jesus myth be taken any more seriously than the other Mediterranean myths?
It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship that there are no eyewitness accounts. Further, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts.
I agree: the alleged Jesus never said he was divine. If you agree that alleged Jesus is not divine then there is no contradiction.
"It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship ..."
If you read the Bible, you will see that the disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. Whether you like it or not, the Bible is a historical document and therefore an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. Even if it was true that the earliest manuscripts were anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts, what does it change?.
I don't get your point, God incarnated in a human body can die. An incarnated God (or avatar in hindu terms) can feel and live like a mortal, that's kind of the point of incarnation.
christians don't really have a hindu concept of incarnation. As I understand, in buddhist and hindu thought, incarnation is a learning process. The transformation from body to "spirit" in christian mythology is about judgement. Seems like a very different fictions.
@joethemoproductions Christ Incarnate isn't about transformation from body to spirit (I don't know what that means.....and Christianity is about salvatio....and judgment exists in every religion). I'm not equating the Incarnation to hindu thought, I'm equating it to if-a-god-takes-human-form-he-can-die. Hindu Incarnations can also be about revelation.
In Buddhist thought there is no judgement, for there is no judge. At some point you become capable of connecting with the void. It is still religious bullshit, but it is a very different proposition from dying and being judged.
You don't know what it means to go from body to spirit in christian thought? You die and your spirit continues. In christian myth, your spirit is then judged by the christian idea of a god.
@joethemoproductionsOf course there is judgment in buddhism, not so much in the form of a sentient being dishing out sentences but rather a non-sentient "system" that judges where your soul ends up: karma: ie. what you'll reincarnate as in the next life depends on your deeds in this life. I'm familiar with the Christian (and pan-religious) idea that the soul moves on beyond the flesh....I am however clueless as to what that has to do with the specific subject of the Incarnation of Christ.
You are broadening definitions to the point of losing their meaning. Judgement requires a sentient being to determine whether or not you have fulfilled an obligation or requirement. A process that is impartial does not.
A sentient sphere with a radius of 2 want to get into a hole with radius three. Another sentient being has the ability to allow entrance. If allowed he me enter the hole easily. Another sphere, r=2, comes to a hole, r=1. It cannot enter. Not the same.
@joethemoproductions I was referring to a process of discrimination in all major religions. In all practicality Karma = a higher sentient judge. In Christian theology said Judge IS impartial. to say Buddhism doesn't judge serves to accomplish nothing. Because to reach Nirvana one must follow its tenets, rules, etc. Even if no "sentient being" is present the process is the same with respect to us: do good to appease some sort of higher power = some form of spiritual salvation.
@joethemoproductions If you're a ball that tries to enter a hole, the hole doesn't need to be sentient as long as it has a certain size. the result is the same as that of a sentient hole so long as the principle that any one hole maintains a certain size. who gives a frak if the hole is alive?
I was making the distinction between a system that requires a sentient judgement and a different system that has no judgement at all. It was pretty straight forward.
As far as christian mythology has is it: the christian idea of a supreme being is certainly not impartial.
In Buddhism their is no supreme being, there is no sentient being determining your fate, there is simply the nature of things.
@joethemoproductions "the christian idea of a supreme being is certainly not impartial."
Neither are the four nobles truths and the eightfold path. There are consequences for not following them strictly. I was making the assertion that all religions have a discriminatory aspect, rather it be sentient judgment or nonsentient natural system. Not all forms of Buddhism deny a God. Quite a few Mahayana traditions accept the existence of Brahman.
@joethemoproductions In Buddhism where they do have a supreme being (Brahman), said being indeed does not bring judgement directly, however, the very process of attaining an increasingly higher level of being (reaching the Brahman) creates the dichotomy of better/worse, good/bad.....consequences. if not necessarily good/sin. My point is all Right Hand Path religions inherently judges good and bad. To be truly nonjudgmental one must adhere to a Left Hand Path philosophy: anything goes.
It's all a punch of hocus-pocus. However, there is a big difference between a system that has a judge and one that doesn't. One significant difference would be the judge in christian mythology sends those that have not fulfilled the requisites to an eternity of torture. In buddhist mythology, there is no eternity of torture.
BTW, fitting into the hole is a better analogy than better/worse or good/bad.
@joethemoproductions Correction, Buddhism offers the OPTION of non-eternal torture. Rather one ends up in hell depends on his or her choices and their resultant Karma. If the Karma continues to be bad, hell will always be the result. In certain Christian cosmologies, to my understanding, such an option also exists in the form of the so-called concept of Purgatory or Limbo, while in others hell =/= eternal torment but eternal separation from God's presence.
@joethemoproductions To me it's all the same. All such religions have a good place to go if you were good, a bad place to go if you were bad. Some have a universal Judge, others a natural system that pretty much does the same thing: good folks to the left, bad folks to the furnace. Only the left hand path religions do away with all of it, since one can and do anything one so wishes, there are no moral obligations.
@joethemoproductions Brahman applies to Buddhism. But not all traditions. In some forms, it is equated arguably with Brahma, some worship either devas or bodhisatvas as gods, whereas in others the whole idea of gods is rejected.
@joethemoproductions Brahman differs even from one hindu tradition to the next. The Brahman is the "ultimate" and technically unknowable and therefore the Buddhist attitude is that it's not necessary to talk about it...much. And if you've never heard any mention of the Buddhist hells then you haven't done your homework on Buddhism. There are 16 hells in Buddhism and a number of other isolated realms of torment. The Avīci hell in some sects is considered to be inescapable.
@joethemoproductions Buddhism does preach about letting go of suffering, and the way to do so is to let go of all desires. But suffering is inescapable until such times as one's Karma is finished. There are planes of existence of varying degrees of suffering and one's achievement toward enlightenment may be done in a single lifetime or it may take several...it depends on one's will and one's karma.
I recommend google imaging buddhist hells to get an idea of what the East thinks of an afterlife in hell......it's really not that different from our own Western ideas.
If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago. Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. (Lenny Bruce)
@MrRAIDR912 you know what..in your argument you just proved how dependent religion is to even need scientific ideas to strenghten it.
YOU WERE SO WRONG WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU BELIVE IN THE BIG BANG CAUSE YOU ARE CONTRADICTING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. THEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY DISCREDITING THAT ACCOUNT..YOU ARE AGAINST YOUR OWN FAITH.
MAYBE YOU BIBLE NEEDS SOME REVISION...BUT FOR ALL WE KNOW. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOWED BY THE BIBLE REVISE (ADD NOR DELETE).
.. when the new world satanic order one world government comes.. you will know there is a God and the bible is the only book given thousands of years ago that warns us it is coming
@MrRAIDR912 Typical fundie-Christian gibberish. You've conflated the singularity with evolution...how original?!
You've also established that you're in the minority of Christians, those who don't "believe" in evolutionary biology (which you obviously do not understand at all). What you've written is called a straw-man argument - it is unanswerable because it makes no sense.
A majority of Christians worldwide do accept evolutionary biology b/c it is unassailable. To some, facts matter.
David Spangler and i quote “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation" you guys got alot to say about christians and jesus well what about this..is this equally foolish in your books?
@MrRAIDR912 I did not understand your babbling about Lucifer in your reply to me, but when reading this, it seems as you think we are under control of the devil when we don't share your illusion :-) Please take control over your mind and be free from that evil cult, it's insane.
Would this really bother a Christian? I doubt it. They'll just claim that in the supernatural world 'anything' is possible, Especially a Catholic, who believes God is 100% God, 100% Jesus *and* 100% Holy Spirit!! What they can't answer is that if God can do absolutely anything, no matter how irrational, why would he choose such a ridiculous form of 'salvation'? The biggest question about the cross, for me, is: if God can't die, what's so impressive about him pretending?
@DaithiDublin Exactly! Why all this wailing over one man (who's also god) "dying" on a Roman cross? He's actually going to heaven shortly thereafter...and he knows this well before it happens because he's (100%) god. Question is: Why did he agonise over "this cup" if he's god and assured of eternal paradise? Is god afraid of his finite physical torture & death?
The fact that he separates his "will" from his father's (Luke 22:42) seems a bit conflicted for a perfect being. It's a "mystery".
@Hooya6 Yeah, I block folks from time to time, says so right on my channel. Only rarely do the pest receive eternal damnation. I am happy to concede your point. It doesn't change nor rebut the thesis of the video, so it is irrelevant. I don't care how long you have been a subscriber, in fact that is not a point in your favor. Go have a beer and brag that you won a point against Netwriter over an irrelevancy. I award you the Tangent merit patch. It is baby poop green.
No one doomed to death under the claim of divine justice, who is to be completely destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed from suffering the death penalty; he shall surely be put to death.
@MrRAIDR912 What about made by dirt, but it's still dirt.
We are apes, just as the monkeys, or as AronRa say, a duck is still a bird.
Your insane holy book describe how your God make everything from nothing, Evolution say nothing like that, you are just very ignorant and don't know a shit about evolution.
If you never have seen the "why is it still monkeys" before, you have probably never seen "who created God" either. Jesus is made up, check the facts and evidences.
@ytbabbler Well, I maybe messed that up a bit :-) , in my language there are no apes and monkeys, just apes. We are still apes and monkeys, and apes are still monkeys, I hope I got it right this time.
Anyway, to believe the bible one must mess up everything completely before it make sense.
@ytbabbler yes God made us from dirt..and we return to dirt.im wondering though..out of all the "GODS" known to man..YHWH and Jesus are the only ones at question mostly..its like "jesus" is in the way of something..hmmm what could that be i wonder..well maybe this quote will answer it... “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation". David Spangler
@MrRAIDR912 Ok, so you do believe that God made us from dirt, and he made the dirt from nothing. Can you please explain how you think when you accept that and don't accept the scientific explanations that is much more exciting and sane.
Religion is not good for you, it will make you hate peoples for no reason, it's so sad.
It's fiction.
You are wasting your only life with those silly fairy tails, and it bother us that don't believe in nonsense.
You have an entirely wrong conception of Paul. He was sincere in his beliefs. It is probable that he was a high-functioning schizophrenic since he believed that the spirit of Jesus lived in him and spoke to him in a voice only he could hear (which was quite different fro m earlier concepts of possession). Se for example the arguments in Segal's Paul the Concert.
@MrRAIDR912 what you believe we were made from dust and ribs? you dont believe in Zeus, the almighty creator of the universe, king of the gods! you are a fool and may Zeus not release the kraken on you!
@MrRAIDR912 DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MAKING A POINT IN CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES IT ANY MORE RATIONAL OR INTELLIGENT ow, that hurt my fingers and my mind to write.
Growing up, as a child, when you are told something is fact by responsible adults, and other responsible adults are in total agreement , you tend not to question what you are being told, ..and so it goes, from generation to generation. It's amazing what intelligent people will accept as true.
I think whether or not a god can be killed or simply die depends on the theist's concept of whichever god he/she believes exists..or believed once existed. The cross isn't foolish because a god died on it; it is foolish because a god HAD to die on it to save us from that god's own wrath. The very idea that a god possessing characteristics attributed to the Christian god has to obey such barbaric, strange rules in order to clean us of a taint we acquired through other bizarre and strange rules.
Anyone that does a bit of digging into the history of Christianity will find that it EVOLVED (oh the irony!) from other religions such as Pagans who sacrificed goats after transferring their sins to it (scapegoat). Look up Dionysus/Bacchus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Krishna, Zarathustra, Mithras, Lao Zi, Attis, Heracles, Odin, Karna, Adonis, Prometheus and note the endless similarities to the Jesus myth.
And what sort of sacrifice is it if 3 days later you rise from the dead and live forever???
What I always found weird is that the justification is that, supposedly because it was God, in the form of a man born sinless and completely without sin, that somehow justifies the salvation through the cross.
What I hate about this explanation is that Jesus in the stories commits sins such as stealing crops on the sabbath, two things that would've gotten him killed by God's own laws... and was born not of the man married to his mother, thus meaning he should've been put to death by his laws.
@sonic8005 Jesus also committed suicide, a sin. He did the bidding of demons allowing them to kill an innocent herd of swine that did not belong to him. I am working on a video about Jesus the sinner. Might want to watch my video "The Suicidal Savior"
@Boomr616 true, gods are conceptions and ideas manifested by humans who wish to gain the impossible and control the many. Gods live and die just like men, but it is time that ends them and change within the world that changes them if they wish to survive.
Playing "the devil's advocate" here (well... Jesus' advocate technically... nevermind):
Jesus is indeed 100% human and 100% God... if you grant dualism. He is 100% materially human and 100% spiritually/essentially/soully God. What died on the cross was the body, not the soul. What was ressurected was also the body... for just a short while.
If only Christians knew what Jesus allegedly did between the crucifiction and ressurection, I think they'll have a harder time reconciling this combo.
@boenrobot Even granting your dualism scenario, what died on the cross was 100% human. Didn't he go down to hell to party with his betting and camping buddy Satan?
@Netwriter "Didn't he go down to hell to party with his betting and camping buddy Satan?"
Yeah, kind'a. My last point exactly. He went there to save souls which were falsely sent there... which means God once made mistakes (=> he's not infallible) that he could only fix with this loophole (=> he's not omnipotent).
If Jesus was 100% human and 100% God, there are more "plot holes" in the story than if Jesus was simply the son of God (a separate entity).
@boenrobot After a time trying to find any evidences that Jesus ever existed, I believe that Jesus was 0% human and 0% God.
Not even Paul existed, it was probably old apostles from Apollonius of Tyana that the authors of Jesus changed from gnostic to Christian, they even added a few more in his name to make it more convincing. He never write about Jesus he did not even know who that was and still he was living at the same time. They just stole his text and changed it's meaning.
@ytbabbler "After a time trying to find any evidences that Jesus ever existed, I believe that Jesus was 0% human and 0% God."
IMHO, it makes no difference whether Jesus existed or not. His "supernatural credentials" are what matters.
"Not even Paul existed"
Well, that might be too much of a stretch here if we're talking about the same Paul who's letters are the foundation of the Bible. Jesus might have been a product of his imagination, but for Paul not to exist sounds more odd.
"Paul who's letters are the foundation of the Bible" Yes, amazing isn't it.
The very foundation of the bible is just made up, and peoples still believe it and base their life on it. The explanation about Paul in the empty cross video make sense for me, and that is what I wrote, "Paul" was Apollonius of Tyana, but he did not write about Jesus, so they had to adjust some details. watch?v=8_UCPi2pKUI at 2:35
Like the miracles he allegedly did, or his parent being the very being we're supposed to believe. I'm not saying any of those miracles are true... on the contrary, and that's exactly my point - even if Jesus existed, if these other things are not proven, Jesus could easily be regarded as a bronze age cult leader and nothing more.
As for Paul... whether you call him "Paul" or "Apollonius", he did existed and told those fairy tales.
@boenrobot Well, yes there was an Apollonius, but he newer wrote about anything that Jesus did. When he wrote that stuff, it was fiction and about crucifixion. This is at least what I have seen on Internet, I'm no expert or even educated about this things, but I find it crazy that so many believe all this without any knowledge or even a sane reason, and they even refuse to find out.
@Netwriter While I completely agree with you the whole concept of Christianity is absurd, my imagination tells me a being with unlimited power could create some mechanism so that upon death in his human form he would return to his god like state. But I mean that does not excuse the utter stupidity of needing to sacrifice yourself to yourself so that you can forgive people for shit you knew they would do when you created shit the way you did.... *scratches head* its stupid lol
It's rather bold to claim that they are con-men. Why not just claim that they were delusional, misguided fools and leave it at that? What evidence do you have of a religious conspiracy?
Two plus two equals four. That is a fact. We don't go to Mathematics Church every Sunday to renew our belief that 2+2=4. We know 2+2=4. Been there. Done that. Forgetaboutit. Religions are faith-based. The Christian religion is based on the belief that there is a magic invisible man living in the sky who will grant us wishes if we stay on his good side and entrust 10% of our lifetime earnings to a human self-appointed religious leader. Since this belief defies logical thinking, we must
@geyser (continued) ...renew our faith by attending religious get-togethers, by reciting religious connotations, by engaging in self-deceit, and by banding together with like-minded persons holding the same belief. Any lapse in this continual renewel of faith would raise doubts that there is a magic invisible man in the sky, and cause us to view our beliefs as absurd.
The "an object cannot be 100% two different objects" argument lacked support, but other than that good video, I still knew what you were getting at , but some christians don't want to understand how mathematical percentages work, that will come back to bite them at some point.
Comment removed
visceralzen 3 weeks ago
The verse I use that contradicts or REAVEALS the true meaning of 1 Cor 1:18 is...
1 Cor 3: 18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.
julzabro 1 month ago
Excellent.....as always! :)
julzabro 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To: joethemoproductions
"Duality means that something has two properties": I know, but the fact that we speak of wave-particle duality shows that it's not a usual property in physics. It only becomes apparent at the subatomic level. At the macroscopic level, you will never see a ball behave like a wave.
chemerich 2 months ago
To: joethemoproductions
"none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses": Who do you claim are the writers of the Gospels of Jesus disciples?
"stories contradict one another": You can't expect exactly the same account from different persons.
"bible is a collection of mythical stories": This assertion needs proof. You must prove that the stories didn't happen. How can you prove that without being there at the time it supposedly happened?.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
1. No one knows who wrote them; they were written anonymously.
2. Exact accounts would be impossible, but they shouldn't contradict one another; if they do, then one story is false.
3. Academic history requires primary sources and corroboration. There are no primary sources and the stories contradict one another. Where there is corroboration, the stories are exact copies of Mark's account.
By your logic, every myth could be deemed true. You believe Hercules was real?
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"they were written anonymously"
How do you prove that?
"but they shouldn't contradict one another"
Where do you see important contradictions?
"the stories are exact copies of Mark's account"
I thought the stories contradicted each other
"every myth could be deemed true"
I didn't say that. I said that it was merely impossible to prove history scientifically especially when we are discussing events that took place two thousand years ago
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
anonymous: earliest manuscripts state no author.
The greatest philosophical contradiction is with a surpeme being that at times elevates peace, turning the other cheek, love and compassion and yet is the same supreme being that required death, torture, rape, forced marriage, and slavery. That is an unresolvable contradiction.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"earliest manuscripts state no author"
Then how do we arrive at the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
"The greatest philosophical contradiction ..."
Here we come to the interesting part. Is the God of the NT the same as the God of the OT?. Jesus rejected the old ways of the Jewish law and was hated for it. Remember that Jesus referred to God as his father. Now, read John 8:44 and you will understand what I mean.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
The names were added, if memory serves, in the 4th cent. ce. If you're interested, I suggest Bart Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Intro to the Early Xtian Texts.
As far as christian mythology goes, the supreme being of the ot is the same as the new. If the god of ot did not resurrect this alleged Jesus, then what did. Further, alleged J said he came to fulfill Hebrew law, not abolish it. Seems to me that you're trying to cheat out of what is a blatant contradiction.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"the supreme being of the ot is the same as the new"
But if you read the OT, you will see that the Jews turned away from God as soon as they came out of Egypt. They turned their back on God numerous times and made their own laws which had nothing to do with God's Word.
"J said he came to fulfill Hebrew law"
He came to fulfill God's law, not the man made laws of the Jews.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
You're avoiding the point: a god idea that includes a supreme being engaged in murder, torture, slavery, misogyny and blaming the victim is contradictory to a god idea where the supreme being articulates love, compassion, and forgiveness. This is an irreconcilable difference.
As to "god's" law: my understanding of Hebrew mythology is that the laws of the ot where the Hebrews' supreme being's laws. You can't have it both ways.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"You're avoiding the point: a god idea ..."
Not at all. The Jews turned away from the true God and began to conceive their own ideas of God. They needed a god who would be pleased with murder, torture and slavery so that they could defeat their enemies. We are not only talking about different laws, but a different God. Jesus said that they were worshiping the devil.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Let me get this right: you are arguing that the god idea of the old testament is not the same one in the new testament. That means the "prophecies" from the old testament that christian mythology rests on to assume that the alleged J was the messiah are irrelevant. That means that there is no reason to assume the alleged J was a messiah.
Hence, by your reasoning, if this J existed, he was nothing more than an independent mystic. All right, if he existed I'll agree to that.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"that the alleged J was the messiah are irrelevant"
Yes, because what really matters is whether Jesus' words expand my own experience of the truth or not.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
"Yes, because what really matters is whether Jesus' words expand my own experience of the truth or not."
This is not the point you wade earlier. You argued that J was resurrected by a god, stated that a being can be both mortal and immortal, and that the "eyewitness" accounts of alleged J proved his existence and by extension his "miracles."
You are now stating that alleged J was just a teacher, and that you have learned from his purported sayings. I can't disagree with that.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@chemerich
The new testament begins with a historical contradiction: alleged Jesus was born when both Qurinius governed Syria and Herod Judea. Counldn't Herod was dead for ten years when Quirinius began his governorship.
As to you saying science is impossible to prove scientifically. Yes. It cannot be in any way tested. But, there still remains a method--a sound rational method. Your method allows any myth to be deemed true. Academic history writing does not.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"Your method allows any myth to be deemed true"
Absolutely not. They are things that can neither be established as certainly true nor certainly false.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
You argued that even without eyewitnesses the myth of Jesus is still true. I could make the same proclamation about Hercules, Shiva, or any other mythical figure. If you're arguing that your mythology is true without using established history writing standards and the other myths are false, then you making a case for special pleading. Cases that require special pleading are dismissed.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joethemoproductions
"You argued ..."
No, I argue that even if the earliest manuscripts were not written by eyewitnesses, it doesn't mean that the accounts are completely fabricated. They could have been transmitted orally. But you didn't answer my question: How do we arrive at the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?.
chemerich 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chemerich
Last, as far copies of Mark's account and contradiction, I had written this:
" There are no primary sources and the stories contradict one another. Where there is corroboration, the stories are exact copies of Mark's account."
Thus, that question was already answered. If you were to read them, you would be overwhelmed how exact some of the story is and how different the rest, especially the resurrection part of the myths and how embellished the story gets.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@chemerich
That should have been: "As to you saying history is impossible to prove scientifically. . ."
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
To: joethemoproductions
"It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship ..."
If you read the Bible, you will see that the disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. Whether you like it or not, the Bible is a historical document. Even if it was true that the earliest manuscripts were anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts, what does it change?.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
If you read biblical scholarship, you would know that the earliest gospel is dated around 75 ce, that none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses, and above all, the stories contradict one another.
Whether you like it or not, the bible is a collection of mythical stories.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"that none of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses"
Who do you claim are the writers of the Gospels of Jesus' disciples ?
"the stories contradict one another"
You can't expect exactly the same account from different persons.
"the bible is a collection of mythical stories"
This assertion needs proof. You must prove that the stories didn't happen. How can you prove that without being there at the time it supposedly happened ?.
chemerich 2 months ago
Wow, I really enjoyed the video. Thanks for taking the time to create it.
TheMassdistortion 2 months ago
He was Saul.
Corinthians is talking about....Heaven.!
Networker has,nt understood.
raystopher 2 months ago
Can somebody get a "foolishness" word count
GhettoBlaster100 2 months ago
The world leaders sacrifice their people for their own interest. Christ sacrificed himself for the interest of the people.
chemerich 2 months ago
"Somthing cannot be 100% of two things who's properties are mutually exclusive"
Why ?
chemerich 2 months ago 2
@chemerich
Give me a testable example of something that has mutual exclusive properties.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
For example, electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light) has both particle and wave properties.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Those two are not mutually exclusive.
Try again.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
Have you heard about the wave-particle duality ?
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
I know about the experiments that suggest that light has characteristics of wave and particles. However, and again, these are not mutually exclusive properties.
Give me an example something that has mutually exclusive properties, such as something unable to die yet dies.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"these are not mutually exclusive properties"
It depends:
Classical mechanics:
Waves have only wave-like properties. Particles have only particle-like properties. So the properties ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Quantum mechanics:
Particles have particle-like and wave-like properties. The properties are NOT mutually exclusive
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
It doesn't depend at all. Classical mech. cannot describe subatomic particles. Hence, there is quantum mechanics where wave-like and particle-like properties are not mutually exclusive. Going back in time is not sound reasoning.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"It doesn't depend at all"
Yes it does. Classical physics deals with continuous quantities, whereas quantum mechanics shows that on the very small scale, all quantities are discrete or quantized. So, at the quantum level the distinction between wave and particle becomes blurred.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Yes, exactly, at the quantum level waves and particles are not mutually exclusive. This has been what I've been arguing.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
In classical (non-quantum) physics, ripples on the surface of a pond are as different from ball bearings as chalk is from cheese
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Classical mechanics couldn't describe subatomic behavior, so new investigations began. In quantum theory, wave/particles not exclusive, and it is quantum mechanics that governs our understanding of subatomic behavior.
You're becoming childish now.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"You're becoming childish now ..."
What you don't seem to understand is the difference between classical and modern interpretation of waves and particles.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
I understand the difference, which you don't seem to grasp: classical mechanics isn't equipped to describe subatomic behavior well, hence the discipline of quantum mechanics.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
No, you don't understand that waves and particles are mutually exclusive, hence the wave-particle duality of light.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Duality is not synonymous with mutual exclusivity. Duality means that something has two properties.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joethemoproductions
"Duality means that something has two properties"
I know, but the fact that we speak of wave-particle duality shows that it's not a usual property in physics. It only becomes apparent at the subatomic level. At the macroscopic level, you won't see a ball behave like a wave.
chemerich 2 months ago
Again, at the subatomic level waves and particles are not mutually exclusive. Subatomic particles behave differently than larger particles.
"a usual property in physics." It is only unusual in non-subatomic matter. Further, unusual properties are not synonymous with mutual exclusivity.
You have written many times that in quantum physics wave/particle is not mutually exclusive--hence they are not mutually exclusive. Further statements otherwise are going to be ignored.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joethemoproductions
"Again, at the subatomic level waves and particles are not mutually exclusive"
This is not what I said. I said that it was not a general law of physics, hence the term "wave-particle duality" to describe a phenomena that only occurs at the subatomic level.
"You have written many times that in quantum physics wave/particle is not mutually exclusive"
But anywhere outside the subatomic level, wave/particle are mutually exclusive.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
In addition to what is below: with the right spin a frisby will travel in a wave pattern. Turn on a hose, move the hose side to side, and the water makes a wave pattern.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"a frisby will travel in a wave pattern"
With the right spin and only for a short time
"the water makes a wave pattern"
Water doesn't behave as a particle
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
you wrote:
""a frisby will travel in a wave pattern"
With the right spin and only for a short time"
That is essentially what I wrote.
you also wrote:
"Water doesn't behave as a particle"
you seem confused: water is a particle. It also is a medium for waves, the same way the atmosphere is a collection of particles and is also a medium for sound waves.
All of our correspondence about physics all makes sense now.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"That is essentially what I wrote"
The point is, you can't really say that a frisby exhibits wave-particle duality because YOU make it travel in a wave pattern. The same for the water from the hose. These behaviors are triggered artificially.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
It is the spin that allows the wave pattern whether it be artificially triggered or not. The point being that objects can exhibit a wave pattern.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"The point being that objects can exhibit a wave pattern"
Yes, through human intervention
chemerich 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"water is a particle"
At our human level water is a wave (or at least behaves as one). At the atomic level water is a particle (h20) and at the subatomic level water once again can be said to be a wave because the super strings or energy oscillations that theoretically make up the atoms of that molecule are waving energy oscillations.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Water, at the human level, is composed of particles. It acts as all liquids do: takes the form of the container, has surface tension, and can flow. It allows a mechanical wave to travel through it. A mechanical wave transfers energy from one point to another. In no manner is water synonymous with a wave.
Super string hypothesis is not close to being proven. Even if it were, what applies to subatomic H2O applies to all sub atomics.
Done talking about waves with you.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"Water, at the human level, is composed of particles"
Yes, but behaves as a wave
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
Well, then, there you have it: according to you there is not a wave/particle contradiction at the macro level. Your misunderstanding of physics and your ability to contradict yourself is a typical of most christians I've encountered. Congrats on that. I've made my points, now I'm done.
Good bye and good luck.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
I don't consider an artificially created wave/particle duality as a proof of inherent wave-particle duality at the macro level.
chemerich 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
Could you answer my comment below ?.
chemerich 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"Give me an example something that has mutually exclusive properties, such as something unable to die yet dies"
If you refer to Christ, he died and was then resurrected by the power of his Father (God).
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
In your mythology, this alleged Jesus was god. The christian definition of a god is quite specific: immortal. Hence, your god cannot be mortal and immortal at the same time. That would be called a contradiction, or more aptly, a cheat.
You may want to consider that there is not one eyewitness account of this alleged Jesus. Further the Jesus myth is very similar to other myths: born of a virgin, father a god, had a mission, died (usually atop a hill), and brought back to life.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"In your mythology, this alleged Jesus was god"
First, it's not my mythology. Secondly, Jesus is not God, but the son of God (in a spiritual sense).
"You may want to consider that there is not one eyewitness account of this alleged Jesus"
The disciples were all eyewitnesses, that's why they wrote down his words.
"Further the Jesus myth is very similar to other myths"
And so what ?
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
As I understand the trinity, in christian myth, Jesus was god.
The books ascribed to the disciples were written anonymously. Mark comes first, which is dated to around 75 CE. Matthew and Luke come later. John is around 90. None of the writers of the books claim to be eyewitnesses.
" "Further the Jesus myth is very similar to other myths"
And so what ?"
Why should the Jesus myth be taken any more seriously than the other Mediterranean myths?
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions
"As I understand the trinity, in christian myth, Jesus was god"
Jesus never claimed to be God
"The books ascribed to the disciples were written anonymously"
No, the disciples had names and they followed Jesus during his ministry
"Why should the Jesus myth be taken any more seriously than the other Mediterranean myths?"
Eyewitnesses !
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship that there are no eyewitness accounts. Further, the earliest manuscripts are anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts.
I agree: the alleged Jesus never said he was divine. If you agree that alleged Jesus is not divine then there is no contradiction.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joethemoproductions
"It is common knowledge in biblical scholarship ..."
If you read the Bible, you will see that the disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. Whether you like it or not, the Bible is a historical document and therefore an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. Even if it was true that the earliest manuscripts were anonymous and not written as eyewitness accounts, what does it change?.
chemerich 2 months ago
@chemerich
For scholarship on the early christian church, see Bart Ehrman.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
Comment removed
nicopopoify 2 months ago
I don't get your point, God incarnated in a human body can die. An incarnated God (or avatar in hindu terms) can feel and live like a mortal, that's kind of the point of incarnation.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
christians don't really have a hindu concept of incarnation. As I understand, in buddhist and hindu thought, incarnation is a learning process. The transformation from body to "spirit" in christian mythology is about judgement. Seems like a very different fictions.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions Christ Incarnate isn't about transformation from body to spirit (I don't know what that means.....and Christianity is about salvatio....and judgment exists in every religion). I'm not equating the Incarnation to hindu thought, I'm equating it to if-a-god-takes-human-form-he-can-die. Hindu Incarnations can also be about revelation.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
In Buddhist thought there is no judgement, for there is no judge. At some point you become capable of connecting with the void. It is still religious bullshit, but it is a very different proposition from dying and being judged.
You don't know what it means to go from body to spirit in christian thought? You die and your spirit continues. In christian myth, your spirit is then judged by the christian idea of a god.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductionsOf course there is judgment in buddhism, not so much in the form of a sentient being dishing out sentences but rather a non-sentient "system" that judges where your soul ends up: karma: ie. what you'll reincarnate as in the next life depends on your deeds in this life. I'm familiar with the Christian (and pan-religious) idea that the soul moves on beyond the flesh....I am however clueless as to what that has to do with the specific subject of the Incarnation of Christ.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
You are broadening definitions to the point of losing their meaning. Judgement requires a sentient being to determine whether or not you have fulfilled an obligation or requirement. A process that is impartial does not.
A sentient sphere with a radius of 2 want to get into a hole with radius three. Another sentient being has the ability to allow entrance. If allowed he me enter the hole easily. Another sphere, r=2, comes to a hole, r=1. It cannot enter. Not the same.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions I was referring to a process of discrimination in all major religions. In all practicality Karma = a higher sentient judge. In Christian theology said Judge IS impartial. to say Buddhism doesn't judge serves to accomplish nothing. Because to reach Nirvana one must follow its tenets, rules, etc. Even if no "sentient being" is present the process is the same with respect to us: do good to appease some sort of higher power = some form of spiritual salvation.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions If you're a ball that tries to enter a hole, the hole doesn't need to be sentient as long as it has a certain size. the result is the same as that of a sentient hole so long as the principle that any one hole maintains a certain size. who gives a frak if the hole is alive?
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
I was making the distinction between a system that requires a sentient judgement and a different system that has no judgement at all. It was pretty straight forward.
As far as christian mythology has is it: the christian idea of a supreme being is certainly not impartial.
In Buddhism their is no supreme being, there is no sentient being determining your fate, there is simply the nature of things.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joethemoproductions "the christian idea of a supreme being is certainly not impartial."
Neither are the four nobles truths and the eightfold path. There are consequences for not following them strictly. I was making the assertion that all religions have a discriminatory aspect, rather it be sentient judgment or nonsentient natural system. Not all forms of Buddhism deny a God. Quite a few Mahayana traditions accept the existence of Brahman.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions In Buddhism where they do have a supreme being (Brahman), said being indeed does not bring judgement directly, however, the very process of attaining an increasingly higher level of being (reaching the Brahman) creates the dichotomy of better/worse, good/bad.....consequences. if not necessarily good/sin. My point is all Right Hand Path religions inherently judges good and bad. To be truly nonjudgmental one must adhere to a Left Hand Path philosophy: anything goes.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
It's all a punch of hocus-pocus. However, there is a big difference between a system that has a judge and one that doesn't. One significant difference would be the judge in christian mythology sends those that have not fulfilled the requisites to an eternity of torture. In buddhist mythology, there is no eternity of torture.
BTW, fitting into the hole is a better analogy than better/worse or good/bad.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions Correction, Buddhism offers the OPTION of non-eternal torture. Rather one ends up in hell depends on his or her choices and their resultant Karma. If the Karma continues to be bad, hell will always be the result. In certain Christian cosmologies, to my understanding, such an option also exists in the form of the so-called concept of Purgatory or Limbo, while in others hell =/= eternal torment but eternal separation from God's presence.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions To me it's all the same. All such religions have a good place to go if you were good, a bad place to go if you were bad. Some have a universal Judge, others a natural system that pretty much does the same thing: good folks to the left, bad folks to the furnace. Only the left hand path religions do away with all of it, since one can and do anything one so wishes, there are no moral obligations.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
I replied about judgement below. I think you've made a mistake about Brahman; that is a hindu term. I don't think it applies to buddhism.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions Brahman applies to Buddhism. But not all traditions. In some forms, it is equated arguably with Brahma, some worship either devas or bodhisatvas as gods, whereas in others the whole idea of gods is rejected.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@snillocgrom
Brahman in Buddhism is not the same as in Hinduism.
Buddhism offers an escape from human suffering, never heard any mention of hell.
joethemoproductions 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions Brahman differs even from one hindu tradition to the next. The Brahman is the "ultimate" and technically unknowable and therefore the Buddhist attitude is that it's not necessary to talk about it...much. And if you've never heard any mention of the Buddhist hells then you haven't done your homework on Buddhism. There are 16 hells in Buddhism and a number of other isolated realms of torment. The Avīci hell in some sects is considered to be inescapable.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
@joethemoproductions Buddhism does preach about letting go of suffering, and the way to do so is to let go of all desires. But suffering is inescapable until such times as one's Karma is finished. There are planes of existence of varying degrees of suffering and one's achievement toward enlightenment may be done in a single lifetime or it may take several...it depends on one's will and one's karma.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
I recommend google imaging buddhist hells to get an idea of what the East thinks of an afterlife in hell......it's really not that different from our own Western ideas.
snillocgrom 2 months ago
If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago. Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. (Lenny Bruce)
Dwicker64 2 months ago
Oh, that all christians (and muslims) see through the bluff of their scriptures and authorities.
Almamater8888 2 months ago
the bible is just a book written by man for man with the soul intention of suppressing him,and so is the koran and all other religious books.
How would any sane person let a 2000 year old belief system rule their lives,its a ridiculous concept only worthy of ridicule.
Okokokokokokoko,what about MORALITY you all ask.
I say that its innate because without innate morality mankind could not have got this far.Now do you understand.
Of course you dont u stand,you never will bcos you have faith LOL
naybobdenod 2 months ago 2
@MrRAIDR912 you know what..in your argument you just proved how dependent religion is to even need scientific ideas to strenghten it.
YOU WERE SO WRONG WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU BELIVE IN THE BIG BANG CAUSE YOU ARE CONTRADICTING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. THEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY DISCREDITING THAT ACCOUNT..YOU ARE AGAINST YOUR OWN FAITH.
MAYBE YOU BIBLE NEEDS SOME REVISION...BUT FOR ALL WE KNOW. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOWED BY THE BIBLE REVISE (ADD NOR DELETE).
SO MUCH FOR RELIGION..
akosihelbert 2 months ago
.. when the new world satanic order one world government comes.. you will know there is a God and the bible is the only book given thousands of years ago that warns us it is coming
MrRAIDR912 2 months ago
Impossible in religious beliefs? Sure, what's the problem?
Oh dear... you are attempting to use logic to figure out religion. Now that IS foolishness.
GreatG0dOm 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 Typical fundie-Christian gibberish. You've conflated the singularity with evolution...how original?!
You've also established that you're in the minority of Christians, those who don't "believe" in evolutionary biology (which you obviously do not understand at all). What you've written is called a straw-man argument - it is unanswerable because it makes no sense.
A majority of Christians worldwide do accept evolutionary biology b/c it is unassailable. To some, facts matter.
luvsbooks 2 months ago 3
David Spangler and i quote “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation" you guys got alot to say about christians and jesus well what about this..is this equally foolish in your books?
MrRAIDR912 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 I did not understand your babbling about Lucifer in your reply to me, but when reading this, it seems as you think we are under control of the devil when we don't share your illusion :-) Please take control over your mind and be free from that evil cult, it's insane.
ytbabbler 2 months ago
Would this really bother a Christian? I doubt it. They'll just claim that in the supernatural world 'anything' is possible, Especially a Catholic, who believes God is 100% God, 100% Jesus *and* 100% Holy Spirit!! What they can't answer is that if God can do absolutely anything, no matter how irrational, why would he choose such a ridiculous form of 'salvation'? The biggest question about the cross, for me, is: if God can't die, what's so impressive about him pretending?
DaithiDublin 2 months ago 2
@DaithiDublin Exactly! Why all this wailing over one man (who's also god) "dying" on a Roman cross? He's actually going to heaven shortly thereafter...and he knows this well before it happens because he's (100%) god. Question is: Why did he agonise over "this cup" if he's god and assured of eternal paradise? Is god afraid of his finite physical torture & death?
The fact that he separates his "will" from his father's (Luke 22:42) seems a bit conflicted for a perfect being. It's a "mystery".
luvsbooks 2 months ago
@Hooya6 Yeah, I block folks from time to time, says so right on my channel. Only rarely do the pest receive eternal damnation. I am happy to concede your point. It doesn't change nor rebut the thesis of the video, so it is irrelevant. I don't care how long you have been a subscriber, in fact that is not a point in your favor. Go have a beer and brag that you won a point against Netwriter over an irrelevancy. I award you the Tangent merit patch. It is baby poop green.
Netwriter 2 months ago
Christian belief is all men are sinners.
The wages of sin is death.
All men are condemned to die for their sins.
But Christians believe that by dying, Jesus redeemed all men from the condemnation of sin.
Jesus ransomed all believers from death.
The Bible reveals this is foolishness.
Leviticus 27:29
No one doomed to death under the claim of divine justice, who is to be completely destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed from suffering the death penalty; he shall surely be put to death.
ebaltrace 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 What about made by dirt, but it's still dirt.
We are apes, just as the monkeys, or as AronRa say, a duck is still a bird.
Your insane holy book describe how your God make everything from nothing, Evolution say nothing like that, you are just very ignorant and don't know a shit about evolution.
If you never have seen the "why is it still monkeys" before, you have probably never seen "who created God" either. Jesus is made up, check the facts and evidences.
ytbabbler 2 months ago
@ytbabbler Well, I maybe messed that up a bit :-) , in my language there are no apes and monkeys, just apes. We are still apes and monkeys, and apes are still monkeys, I hope I got it right this time.
Anyway, to believe the bible one must mess up everything completely before it make sense.
ytbabbler 2 months ago
@ytbabbler yes God made us from dirt..and we return to dirt.im wondering though..out of all the "GODS" known to man..YHWH and Jesus are the only ones at question mostly..its like "jesus" is in the way of something..hmmm what could that be i wonder..well maybe this quote will answer it... “No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation". David Spangler
MrRAIDR912 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 Ok, so you do believe that God made us from dirt, and he made the dirt from nothing. Can you please explain how you think when you accept that and don't accept the scientific explanations that is much more exciting and sane.
Religion is not good for you, it will make you hate peoples for no reason, it's so sad.
It's fiction.
You are wasting your only life with those silly fairy tails, and it bother us that don't believe in nonsense.
ytbabbler 2 months ago 2
You have an entirely wrong conception of Paul. He was sincere in his beliefs. It is probable that he was a high-functioning schizophrenic since he believed that the spirit of Jesus lived in him and spoke to him in a voice only he could hear (which was quite different fro m earlier concepts of possession). Se for example the arguments in Segal's Paul the Concert.
HConstantine 2 months ago
BeaUtifully done, keep up the fine work!
flovell1 2 months ago
Good work as always, thanks.
errbud 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 what you believe we were made from dust and ribs? you dont believe in Zeus, the almighty creator of the universe, king of the gods! you are a fool and may Zeus not release the kraken on you!
IamKingOfHearts 2 months ago
@MrRAIDR912 DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MAKING A POINT IN CAPITAL LETTERS MAKES IT ANY MORE RATIONAL OR INTELLIGENT ow, that hurt my fingers and my mind to write.
StealthMarmot 2 months ago
@StealthMarmot i pray to zeus that he may have found him as his real god
IamKingOfHearts 2 months ago
interesting video man
confusedcarlos 2 months ago
Good to see another excellent video from you my friend.
bigboy45454545 2 months ago
nice video
wideosvatcher 2 months ago
Another gem! I'm always excited when I see that you've made a new video.
MyGrammarRules 2 months ago
Growing up, as a child, when you are told something is fact by responsible adults, and other responsible adults are in total agreement , you tend not to question what you are being told, ..and so it goes, from generation to generation. It's amazing what intelligent people will accept as true.
Great video.
bonnie43uk 2 months ago
Christianity, the original greasy infomercial..."Here's how to order!"
fifh89 2 months ago
Was Jesus a Jew? Did Mary and Jesus share genetic material?
If so, he was not (a) God.
iamTheSnark 2 months ago
I think whether or not a god can be killed or simply die depends on the theist's concept of whichever god he/she believes exists..or believed once existed. The cross isn't foolish because a god died on it; it is foolish because a god HAD to die on it to save us from that god's own wrath. The very idea that a god possessing characteristics attributed to the Christian god has to obey such barbaric, strange rules in order to clean us of a taint we acquired through other bizarre and strange rules.
CaptainSmallFoot 2 months ago
the Jews know that god cant be killed. that is why they dont follow jesus
guaflar 2 months ago
You all wanna see GOD? Bend over and I'll show you.
warrkrymez 2 months ago
Anyone that does a bit of digging into the history of Christianity will find that it EVOLVED (oh the irony!) from other religions such as Pagans who sacrificed goats after transferring their sins to it (scapegoat). Look up Dionysus/Bacchus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Krishna, Zarathustra, Mithras, Lao Zi, Attis, Heracles, Odin, Karna, Adonis, Prometheus and note the endless similarities to the Jesus myth.
And what sort of sacrifice is it if 3 days later you rise from the dead and live forever???
warren52nz 2 months ago
And thank you for doing this vid =)
sorensofos 2 months ago
What I always found weird is that the justification is that, supposedly because it was God, in the form of a man born sinless and completely without sin, that somehow justifies the salvation through the cross.
What I hate about this explanation is that Jesus in the stories commits sins such as stealing crops on the sabbath, two things that would've gotten him killed by God's own laws... and was born not of the man married to his mother, thus meaning he should've been put to death by his laws.
sonic8005 2 months ago
@sonic8005 Jesus also committed suicide, a sin. He did the bidding of demons allowing them to kill an innocent herd of swine that did not belong to him. I am working on a video about Jesus the sinner. Might want to watch my video "The Suicidal Savior"
Netwriter 2 months ago
Great video!
DavidRandallCurtis 2 months ago
My God! His Son thinks that a 3-day timeout is a sacrifice!
He is no sacrifice at all if'n He ain't dead, Bubba.
George4943 2 months ago
only gods can kill other gods, just look at the greek pantheon overthrowing the titans. But for a man to kill a god is pretty stupid.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence
a lack of belief kills gods- quickly and easily
Boomr616 2 months ago
@Boomr616 true, gods are conceptions and ideas manifested by humans who wish to gain the impossible and control the many. Gods live and die just like men, but it is time that ends them and change within the world that changes them if they wish to survive.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Boomr616
IMO the thing that kills gods most effectively is laughing at them... for much the same reasons you have expressed.
formless777 2 months ago
I mock anything thats stupid..
kaxitaksi 2 months ago
hey great catch !
i completely missed this when i was "verse-mining"
(verse mining -> things you do to shut up oversealous christian famaily members that get in your face every chrismas)
unamaxify 2 months ago
Playing "the devil's advocate" here (well... Jesus' advocate technically... nevermind):
Jesus is indeed 100% human and 100% God... if you grant dualism. He is 100% materially human and 100% spiritually/essentially/soully God. What died on the cross was the body, not the soul. What was ressurected was also the body... for just a short while.
If only Christians knew what Jesus allegedly did between the crucifiction and ressurection, I think they'll have a harder time reconciling this combo.
boenrobot 2 months ago
@boenrobot Even granting your dualism scenario, what died on the cross was 100% human. Didn't he go down to hell to party with his betting and camping buddy Satan?
Netwriter 2 months ago
@Netwriter Eat a mushroom. you'll know. we are all God.
restlesspride666 2 months ago
@Netwriter "Didn't he go down to hell to party with his betting and camping buddy Satan?"
Yeah, kind'a. My last point exactly. He went there to save souls which were falsely sent there... which means God once made mistakes (=> he's not infallible) that he could only fix with this loophole (=> he's not omnipotent).
If Jesus was 100% human and 100% God, there are more "plot holes" in the story than if Jesus was simply the son of God (a separate entity).
boenrobot 2 months ago
@boenrobot After a time trying to find any evidences that Jesus ever existed, I believe that Jesus was 0% human and 0% God.
Not even Paul existed, it was probably old apostles from Apollonius of Tyana that the authors of Jesus changed from gnostic to Christian, they even added a few more in his name to make it more convincing. He never write about Jesus he did not even know who that was and still he was living at the same time. They just stole his text and changed it's meaning.
ytbabbler 2 months ago
@ytbabbler "After a time trying to find any evidences that Jesus ever existed, I believe that Jesus was 0% human and 0% God."
IMHO, it makes no difference whether Jesus existed or not. His "supernatural credentials" are what matters.
"Not even Paul existed"
Well, that might be too much of a stretch here if we're talking about the same Paul who's letters are the foundation of the Bible. Jesus might have been a product of his imagination, but for Paul not to exist sounds more odd.
boenrobot 2 months ago
@boenrobot supernatural credentials ? like what?
"Paul who's letters are the foundation of the Bible" Yes, amazing isn't it.
The very foundation of the bible is just made up, and peoples still believe it and base their life on it. The explanation about Paul in the empty cross video make sense for me, and that is what I wrote, "Paul" was Apollonius of Tyana, but he did not write about Jesus, so they had to adjust some details. watch?v=8_UCPi2pKUI at 2:35
ytbabbler 2 months ago
@ytbabbler "supernatural credentials ? like what?"
Like the miracles he allegedly did, or his parent being the very being we're supposed to believe. I'm not saying any of those miracles are true... on the contrary, and that's exactly my point - even if Jesus existed, if these other things are not proven, Jesus could easily be regarded as a bronze age cult leader and nothing more.
As for Paul... whether you call him "Paul" or "Apollonius", he did existed and told those fairy tales.
boenrobot 2 months ago
@boenrobot Well, yes there was an Apollonius, but he newer wrote about anything that Jesus did. When he wrote that stuff, it was fiction and about crucifixion. This is at least what I have seen on Internet, I'm no expert or even educated about this things, but I find it crazy that so many believe all this without any knowledge or even a sane reason, and they even refuse to find out.
ytbabbler 2 months ago
You would think that the last thing Jesus would want to see if he ever did come back was another fucking cross.
Enlightenedopinion92 2 months ago
gud stuff man, keep it up
DAVIADAVID 2 months ago
ggreat man. so true. Thanks Netwriter
MrPacnman 2 months ago
Don't forget to quote 1 Timothy 6:20 too, where knowledge or science is seen as bad.
AtheismTV 2 months ago
The church: Making $ off the stupidity of others for thousands of years.
nightmathzombieethan 2 months ago
sparticus died for our sins.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
The Koran uses the same tactic.
SpookyFan 2 months ago
@Netwriter While I completely agree with you the whole concept of Christianity is absurd, my imagination tells me a being with unlimited power could create some mechanism so that upon death in his human form he would return to his god like state. But I mean that does not excuse the utter stupidity of needing to sacrifice yourself to yourself so that you can forgive people for shit you knew they would do when you created shit the way you did.... *scratches head* its stupid lol
CtheWolfe 2 months ago
Great video as always.
coloradojoey 2 months ago 4
Fuck god.
JohanBomholt 2 months ago 2
It's rather bold to claim that they are con-men. Why not just claim that they were delusional, misguided fools and leave it at that? What evidence do you have of a religious conspiracy?
Typhoonbladefist 2 months ago 2
Been ages
memrjohnno 2 months ago
Two plus two equals four. That is a fact. We don't go to Mathematics Church every Sunday to renew our belief that 2+2=4. We know 2+2=4. Been there. Done that. Forgetaboutit. Religions are faith-based. The Christian religion is based on the belief that there is a magic invisible man living in the sky who will grant us wishes if we stay on his good side and entrust 10% of our lifetime earnings to a human self-appointed religious leader. Since this belief defies logical thinking, we must
geyser 2 months ago
@geyser (continued) ...renew our faith by attending religious get-togethers, by reciting religious connotations, by engaging in self-deceit, and by banding together with like-minded persons holding the same belief. Any lapse in this continual renewel of faith would raise doubts that there is a magic invisible man in the sky, and cause us to view our beliefs as absurd.
geyser 2 months ago
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion."
~ Robert M. Pirsig
MrPersianpoetry 2 months ago
The cross became the symbol of christianity between 200 and 300 years after Christ's death.
When Jesus does return the last thing he is going to want to see is a cross.
pchtermino1 2 months ago
@pchtermino1, so true. The first thing Jesus will see when he returns is a Starbucks.
Turandot29 2 months ago
Of course you can be 100% of conflicting terms. You just have to throw reason out of the windows and that's it.
rgzdev 2 months ago
The "an object cannot be 100% two different objects" argument lacked support, but other than that good video, I still knew what you were getting at , but some christians don't want to understand how mathematical percentages work, that will come back to bite them at some point.
sciwiz12 2 months ago