3 of 3: The Bizarre Hilarious Disturbing Marvelous Things I Learned When I Read the Bible
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (58)
-
4 of 4: "Faith" may be a good enough reason for the believer, but it's a useless argument to base proselytizing on, because "faith" is a flexible enough reason to support EVERY religion: from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to Mormonism to Scientology (etc.)
-
3 of 4:
My videos are more for those who are already unbelievers, but are having trouble responding to Christian proselytizers who tell them they need to accept Christ or spend eternity in hellfire. That's an extraordinary claim--and one that should be heeded if true--but what reason is there that we should accept the idea that the Bible--or any other ancient scripture--has Divine Authority?
-
2 of 4:
> It's Faith, why try to accuse people for their Faith?
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you when it comes to people whose faith is a source of comfort or strength to them, and don't try to convert others. When I'm around such people (like 95% of my neighbors and co-workers), I keep my big mouth shut.
But my videos are not aimed at picking on theists who are minding their own business.
-
1 of 4:
> Maybe it's because there have been many, many large floods on Earth?
Could be! (Also, when people experienced floods in ancient times, people may have assumed the floods were worldwide rather than local.)
> I honestly don't even want to argue.
Okay, understood.
-
Maybe it's because there have been many, many large floods on Earth? I honestly don't even want to argue. It's Faith, why try to accuse people for their Faith?
-
3 of 3:
But if I'm ignoring some important legitimate and objective source that tells us the Flood is historical fact, please let me know. I don't mind admitting it when I'm wrong.
A decent debunking of the Flood myth (if you're interested) is on potholer54's channel, called "Noah's Flood debunked - 1": youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=e5ElhX38
w3Q. (I find potholer54's science to be quit solid, although I confess he uses a bit too much sarcasm for my tastes).
-
2 of 3:
... and interpret whatever evidence they find in a way that supports that conclusion.
Real science, on the other hand, looks at the evidence, and lets the evidence itself dictate the conclusion. And no non-religious scientist / historian accepts the story as literal. Even many Christian scientists & historians acknowledge this, and interpret the whole story as symbolic only.
-
1 of 3:
> They do have evidence for The Flood, actually.
If there really was a flood, it seems to me that mainstream scientists and historians would acknowledge it (even if they didn't attribute the flood to an angry god). But as far as I know, the only people who claim there's physical evidence of the Flood are those who also feel the Bible is the Word of God, and thus *need* the story to be true. Accordingly, they KNOW what their conclusion is ...
-
They do have evidence for The Flood, actually. Whatever though.
-
enjoyable videos my good Sir.All 5stared.
Maghetti 2 years ago 13
Same here.
helgihg 2 years ago 8