Part 6 (First Half) Temptation & Testing

An Honest Search for the Truth - Part 6 Temptation

This video is the sixth of a series that will address inconsistencies & contradictions in the Bible that we studied and researched on our way out of organized religion. The videos will be derived from a document containing that body of research which was written to answer the many inquiries we knew we would have after our deconversion was made public. Being 3rd generation Christians, the flavor of which holds that the Bible is inerrant, divinely inspired, and literally interpreted, the extrication of ourselves from organized religion was not without exit wounds.

Our hope is that this video series will help those Christians who have questions or may be "riding the fence" to allow rational discourse with regard to their religious beliefs. And that possibly, they can remove the thought constraints installed by their respective religous beliefs.

It should be noted that these videos take the perspective of a believing Christian within the context of the Bible having a divine author thereby ostensibly rendering it the perfect moral authority. Basically, these videos rationally compare what God's biblically declared nature & character are with what he says and does within Bible scripture.

All multimedia displayed is done so with fair use intended, for entirely non-profit, educational purposes. If you are the rightful owner of any material within the video and would like me to remove it, please contact me via my YouTube channel.

Music used in this video:
Octet,3rd mvt - Felix Mendelssohn
1,2,3 piano - Greendjohn
suppression - sapiens fx

Category:

Education

Tags:

• temptation
• test
• god
• satan
• christian
• bible
• inerrant
• Abraham
• binding
• Isaac
• Adam
• Eve
• tree
• knowledge
• David
• census
• immutable
• atheism
• agnosticism
• skepticism
• omniscient
• fundamentalist
• holysinecure
• heaven
• hell
• human
• sacrifice
• trick
• apologetics
• contradiction
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Tamarin

[holysinecure]

Thanks ligsom. No we haven't been to Norway, but I *have* seen pictures and it is very beautiful.

[holysinecure]

Yes, it is very much like that.

Thanks for the comment SentientSapient.

[poochz1]

You claim that man's book (Bible) shows there is no God. If you are POSITIVE there is no God, then you claim to be God (Because you would know everything in all dimensions.) Since you can't know where you came from or what happens when you die, you're walking on shaky ground. Whatever Divine Being/God you search for is fine with me, but please don't give up looking. You will find God. You are seeking truth, hence your videos, and haven't yet found it. Keep searching - ALWAYS.

[holysinecure]

I am not positive any more than you are that something higher does, in fact, exist.

My decision is to use my senses, reason, and logical understanding of the natural universe to describe the plausibility of magic or supernatural occurences versus natural, provable, explainable, and defendable phenomena.

If something truly omnipotent wills that we are at least aware of his existence, his omnipotence will allow him to convey that through more than subjective experience or revelation.

[holysinecure]

HAHA!

You know, I myself find Mrs. Holysinecure's accent appealing. It is good to hear this sort of message because I nearly had to torture her into recording the voiceovers because of her concerns over her "southern drawl".

However, once I got her behind the mic, she spontaneously recorded a few NSFW statements that unbeknownst to her, I saved ;)

[hhubble]

Hey Holysinecure, another great video. I know Dawkins book is quite popular and when I have some time I do wish to read what he has to say. The interviews I've seen with him, he seems very upset most of the time. I guess most that are intellectual have a difficult time dealing with those that don't see their point of view or have the capacity to comprehend and understand. You're videos provide a great way to transition into some understanding. Another number of fair points brought up. Good job.

[holysinecure]

Thanks hhubble.

I have a 30-45 minute commute each day to work so I listened to most of it in an audio version of the book.

I agree with *many* of the positions of the new atheists, but their fervor for pointing out what they perceive to be nonsense without regard to a believer's intimate and personal relationship with their deity of choice seems to be counterproductive to fruitful rational discourse.

[Shigren]

that would require the christians to think logically... You honestly don't expect that to happen do you. If it did they wouldn't be christians anymore.

[SentientSapient]

I wonder, concerning the tale of Genesis; if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil granted Adam and Eve this knowledge only after eating from the forbidden fruit.. how would they have known that disobeying God was evil in advance?

Isn't that rather like discovering there was a law to break only after you broke it?

[Jonstern1983]

What do they mean by partial approval? I mean, if the inhabitants of Jericho were attacking the Israelites, then I can see how taking the city by force would be justifiable, but not genocide. Genocide is never justified, it wasn't justified when the Israelites did it, It wasn't justified when the Spaniards, It wasn't justified when the Americans did it, nor the Nazis, nor the Khmer Rouge. War, conquest, even killing can be the option of least evil, but genocide never is.

[SuperMerlin100]

@yugoslaaf You seriously shouldn't quote mind your own religion.

Even if I ignore the genecide, infant, racism, sexism, homophobia ect ect ignore the old testiment the new testiment is worst.

The OT God might have been flawed in almost every possible way, but he didn't punish the dead for ETERNITY for finite crimes.

Short of sending the remaining (maybe) 1% you can't get much worst then the new testiment.

[SuperMerlin100]

@poochz1 No if God is logically impossible then you don't have to search far.

The usual idea of the monotheistic God as an "outside", anthropomorphic, omnipotent, omniscience force that created the universe is an example.

The universe is timespace and everything in it. Even if time is finite nothing can come before it. Thoughts require time and the only thing that can contain all of the imformation in existence is existence. (continued)

[MtlRedAtheist]

@LetReasonPrevail1 Another great follow-up question! I will use it.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@MtlRedAtheist PART 2: Upon hearing their pathetic aplogetic justifications for god causing children to be murdered, I then pose to them a follow-up question:

"If you can justify the murder of children & even new-born infants, then what evil action can't you justify?"

Most often, I get no response to my follow-up question. Either that, or they get angry & defensive.

Either way, I hope to shake lose just one believer's common sense & humanity in the process.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@MtlRedAtheist PART 1: Nice question. Along the same lines, I've asked many believers to explain the many instances where god either directly kills children (e.g. god murders King David & Bathsheba's newborn child as a punishment for David's sin) or commands the killing of children (e.g. telling the israel soliders to murder even infants as part of the taking of the town of Jericho).

[warren52nz]

EXCELLENT!!!!

[yugoslaaf]

he that does not love his brother is not born from god.

jesus teached us even to love our enemies and to pray for those who hate us.

jesus said on that day (judgement day) many will come to me saying LORD have we not done many things in your name and he will say unto them go away from me workers of evil i never knew you.

the whole law in one = love

[MtlRedAtheist]

"Would a heinous act not be evil, simply because the creator of the universe asked you to do it?" That is an awesome question, which provokes some of the most asinine and offensive answers from believers. So many people I've spoken with that question answered no and that yes, if God asked them to murder their child they'd be willing. I can only hope these people were being dishonest for the purpose of not conceding my point.