I don't beleive new wine means grape juice. Cause what Peter answer to them were. He says, "see this men are not drunk". So based on that, I can conclude that new wine here means, cheap wine, that doesn't taste very good, with the purpose only to make you drunk. Not aged, not tasty, like a wine that would be served in a wetting.

The problem is those with one foot in fantasyland pretend to know ultimate righteousness. Believers begin their crimes like Moses, becoming history's worst navigator, as if travel were best done with one foot in fantasyland. Believers fail to comprehend the saying of Jesus Christ which has lasted to this day. Believers are found among a gathering crowd, when Jesus Christ is alarmed by a wicked generation, those who seek the signs of resurrection. "The only sign given is Jonah" - who was a believer. He was outnumbered & murdered by other believers. Jesus Christ "hangeth on a tree" to celebrate the War of the Jews. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 "Render to Caesar"

Believers have no sense of humility or shame, no morals or standards. Huckaby & other pastors endorsed Trumpism. I find that believers strike out with threats, when informed of reasoned denial, of the existence of a God outside of fiction. Atheist literature goes back to 500 BC. I suspect educated men have always known Deity as a tool of fiction, a tool of state. I enjoy the ludicrous notions of faith. Believers begin their crimes like Moses, becoming history's worst navigator, as if travel were best done with one foot in fantasyland. Believers fail to comprehend the saying of Jesus Christ which has lasted to this day. Believers are found among a gathering crowd, when Jesus Christ is alarmed by a wicked generation, those who seek the signs of resurrection. "The only sign given is Jonah" - who was a believer. He was outnumbered & murdered by other believers. Jesus Christ "hangeth on a tree" to celebrate the War of the Jews. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 "Render to Caesar"

Thanks for these words

You trade your last cow for a handful of magic beans & pretend you should be respected for it.

I would like to come and visit tonight with my family.

This is so dumb lmao

Is this a parody account?

lol

Wow this is crazy

i would encourage you to examine this video of the the numerical coincidences in the bible presented here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NdQLo8UQ27M.html it is beyond coincidence. chapters and versses weren't invented until the middle ages. so to have these coincidences occur without prior knowledge is God-level

*41.56* // "we were created in his image" // When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??

*41.30* // "in god we will have a proper sense of justice and injustice" // Scholars of ethical philosophy such as national humanities medal winning moral and legal philosopher John Rawls described "justice", and especially distributive justice, as _"a form of_ *FAIRNESS"* The dictionaries define it as follows... *M Webster* JUSTICE _noun_ *1* _the maintenance or administration of what just especially by the_ *impartial* _adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments_ *2* _The quality of being just, impartial, or_ *fair* *Cambridge English* JUSTICE _noun_ ( _FAIRNESS_ ) ... _the condition of being morally correct or fair_ _He accused the police of false arrest and demanded justice_ Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology.

*41.11* // "know god from righteousness and unrighteousness" // Sorry but I'm more than skeptical with regards your God's ability to differentiate the two. You see according to the narrative when he destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah killing EVERYONE for being "immoral" ( including babies & children ) he spared Lot and his daughters. He discribed him as a "Righteous" & Good man But an omniscient god would know *IN ADVANCE* that Lot would immediately proceed to have drunken intimate relations with HIS OWN DAUGHTERS 🤮 not once but two nights running !!!! Are these the kind of morals we should aspire to ?? Do these people deserve to be called *"RIGHTEOUS"* and be spared when children and babies are slaughtered for being "immoral" ?? Just what was their punishment from god for this act ? Fireballs from the skies ?? Turned to a pillar of salt ?? No, perhaps execution was the punishment like when a man picks up sticks on the wrong day of the week ?? Nope I remember now *NOTHING* for god obviously thought drunken intimate relations with your own daughters a misdemeanor in comparisons to the gathering of sticks. 🤮

*29.20* // "Even those outside of god have this moral sense" // Lol of course, let me give you a scenario to demonstrate why moral "justification" and moral "good" do NOT depend on any "God" 👍 let's say the there is indeed a "creator god and let's say we all become aware of this one true "creator God" and understand implicitly and precisely how he wants us to live our lives and the rules that govern this but .................. We also learn that following said rules would infact lead to humanity suffering an eternity of torture and suffering. 😱😱 Would it still be a "GOOD" thing to follow said rules ??? Would we be "justified" in following them ?? 🤔 *I would emphatically say NO to both questions* Indeed the total opposite would be the case following the rules would be a "BAD" thing and we would be entirely justified in NOT following them. This is because the words "Good" and "Bad" in actuality refer to *OUR DESIRES* with regard to "WELLBEING" and the actualization of a situation that conforms with said desires, regarding wellbeing and the values it incorporates not the perceived desires or nature of a "creator" Now let's change our "God" to the Christian one, now we recognise that *EVEN IF* he exists and the things he tells us ( his laws ) would lead to an eternal paradise, it would only be "GOOD" to follow said laws because of their conforming with our perception of "WELLBEING" and we would only be "justified" in following said God if we determined this to be the case, so.......... Now call me fussy but I don't think its "Good" to kill children for making fun of baldness ( as the biblical God did ) Nor to own people as "PROPERTY" for forced labour. For the life of me I can't see how the exection of people who gather sticks on a sabath could ever be said to be "Good" 🤔 I could go on and on and on .....

*31.10* // "thats what you will have if you throw god out of the picture" // You present the false dichotomy that without YOUR SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE GOD there can be no moral reference standard and all things somehow become permissable ( shakes head in disgust 🤬 ) this is not only false its *DEMONSTRABLY FALSE* Can you name me some countries or societies that regard murder, "grape", theft, as moral and legal actions ??? No of course not, but why ? for according to your reasoning those societies that do not adhere to YOUR GODS moral dictates ( other religions, and the atheistic, secular ect ) should be examples of depravity and lawlessness, yet this is plainly NOT the case and It would be a demonstration of hubris to assert otherwise. Not just that do you know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders, "grapes", abortions, D use, single parents, even wealth and health America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST prison population rate per capita anywhere in the world 🤔🤔🤔 It also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories. Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, Sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. Hmmm.🤔🤔🤔 For example one of many ........ *"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*

*23.40* // "objective moral values do exist" // Nonsense "values" are subjective BY DEFINITION. The word "value" discribes a relationship of worth between a "valuer" and that which is "valued." When we discuss moral values WE are the "valuer" To a man dying of thirst and stranded in the midst of a vast desert a cup of water would hold immense incalculable "value" However to a man drowning in the midst of a vast lake the same cup of water would hold no "value" whatsoever. It is however possible to make statements of objective value from with a pre defined subjective or arbitrarily concieved of framework. For example......... An old photo or memento of a lost loved one may hold real "intrinsic" value from within the subjective perspective of said lost loved ones family and friends. However once one leaves this reference framework the same photo or memento may well be something thats thrown into the bin without a second thought by others.

A little more on *21.56* and _"accountability"_ How telling that if Christian soteriology is correct the most important factor that differentiates those deserving eternal paradise and those deserving eternal torment is the geographical location one is born into. If one is born in Saudi Arabia there is about a 95% chance that you will belive in the "wrong" God and reject jesus and thus receive eternal damnation in a lake of fire. However be born into America and magically there is about a 95% chance that you will believe in the "right" God and thus receive eternal salvation. 👏👏 Aledgedly this is the justice of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient loving God. The fact that many people who reject jesus often lead devout pious lives and follow very strict and demanding religious practices with regards to worship, diet, clothing and relationships is not a factor, these people seemingly reject jesus because they *"want to sin"* 🤔🤫 Some live lives of isolation and quiet contemplation taking vows of celibacy and silence but the loving jesus still deems these people unworthy of anything other than eternal torment. Conversely however a murderer so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his death bed he can spend an eternity in paradise with those he murdered. Unless of course those people also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case the murderer would be looking down from paradise on the people he killed as they too suffered for eternity with me 😡

*21.56* // "mans demand for accountability or reconing" // Oh the irony 🙄 Christian soteriology is the very antithesis and negation of our perception of "accountability" and justice. One is *NOT* judged upon their actions in life or their consequences with regards the wellbeing of others but rather upon their *"BELIEFS"* with regards the acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck through vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) *John 5 24* _“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_ The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they. Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral.

*21.10* // "man might disagree about what we should and should not do" // Humanity and society's as a whole can and do agree on a vast array of moral issues that have wellbeing and the values it incorporates at the heart. These are reflected in our laws murder "grape" theft ect are standard throughout societies (even secular ) For the most part, it's is only with respect to the concept of SIN ( percieved transgressions against the perceived desires or nature of subjective gods ) that the disagreement occur. Most people do NOT think it immoral for a female to uncover her hair in public or to not face a specific landmark and pray five times a day. Most people in the world are just fine with eating bacon, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and even picking up sticks on any day of the week. We do NOT think that our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) are deserving of the death penalty and we recognise that an instruction to _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ could never represent guidance from a perfect omnibenevolent unifying moral standard. We do however all have commonly held values found the world over irrespective of which religion or NO religion. These value all conform with our ideas about human wellbeing. Im not speculating here or just giving you my "opinion" the above is all *FACT* regardless of the existence or non existence of ANY "God". Given this, should humanity adhere and aspire to the common values that unite us all and have real impacts on real people here in the real world. ? Alternatively should we continue on trying to impose the perceived whims of our own subjectively determined invisible "one true God" that divide humanity and have no positive impact on wellbeing that can't also be attained via secular morality ?? Come on surely we are better than this, the sooner the world throws out like old furniture these gods and their barbaric religious ideological baggage the better.

*21.00* // "they don't have a moral conscience these are not animal features" // I suggest you read the paper entitled *"The Evolution Of Morality" - Evolution Education and Outreach* it goes into great depth on the subject. It cites multiple studies and research papers across a variety of social species. It is rather lengthy but well worth the read and gets more interesting and informative as it goes on. It gives multiple examples of the traits and values we associate with morality ( equality, fairness, altruism, empathy ect ) that can all be found throughout the animal kingdom. For example frequently animals will show displeasure at the unequal distribution of food amongst the group ( *even when it favours them individually* ) One study involved two dogs kept separated but in view of each other. Every time dog *A* ate food dog *B* received an electric shock. Once dog *A* realised and associated his eating with the other dog suffering pain it would then refuse to eat, even to the point of starvation. This was repeated multiple times with other groups if animals *Scientific America* also have an informative article entitled "The Origins of Human Morality" and there are many many others from the likes of MIT out there if you are really interested. Though I appreciate it involves hundreds of studies and thousands of pages of data. Do you have ANYTHING observable, testable, repeatable that's comparable and indicative of our moral status actually being the result of your specific subjective God ?? 🤔

*18.30* // "man has a built in conscience" // Well my "conscience" tells me that *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree *YES or NO* ?? 🤔

*18.18* // "this makes man different than animals" // I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.

*16.45* // "this pulpit doesn't believe anything" // Your "pulpit" is an inanimate object incapable of thought or reasoning as it has not undergone evolution ( self replication and decent with inherent modification ) a process that took place over bilions of years of success and failure triumph and disaster resulting in a creature with a brain that enables consciousness, abstract thought, imagination and possess the ability to reason and empathise with others. This consciousness that gives us the ability to reason and conceive of things like morality, beauty, and "God" is an emergent property from the electro chemical interactions of billions of neurons within a physical brain, its as simple as that. If you want to claim that such interactions are incapable of creating concepts like morality, beauty, altruism, reciprocity, love, equality ect and that they can only arise as the result as a result of "creation" from your "God" then one also has to believe that concepts like ugliness, hatred, immorality, jealousy, racism, evil, bigotry, depravity, must also have arisen as the result of said God's "creation" dear 🤔

*16.20* // "the atheists rejects the existence of god" // *Nope* atheism is not necessarily even the claim that god does not exist, but rather it's about being unconvinced by the evidence provided saying he does To use a courtroom analogy. You the prosecution accuse god of being guilty of Existing I the jury find him not guilty of existing ( because of lack of evidence) that DOES NOT MEAN I definitely know he is INNOCENT of existing. Merely that you have not provided enough evidence to prove him guilty ,,,, ,,, I find god not guilty of existing Both atheism and theism are epistemological claims about one's "belief" status. Agnostic and Gnostic are subsets of both Atheism and Theism. One can be a Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist just as one can be a Agnostic Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist.

*14.45* // "and your opinion is just as good as anyone else's" // 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔

*14.15* // "there is no such thing as right and wrong" // "RIght and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. Values are socially approved desires that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔

*12.50* _"God is immoral so we do not believe in god"_ *NO* its more a case of.... the god of biblical narratives does not exhibit behaviour that conforms with our perception of morality. Therefore if the God of biblical narratives does exist he is not the perfect omnibenevolent loving God that Christians claim.

Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments. We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in your specific subjective invisible God

Thank U for word and verses for living everyday with the Lord in mind and deed.

God is everything. By and through Jesus ALONE may we "know Him" The holy ghost will come and guide you on to all truth. THANK YOU JESUS Christ for being ALIVE! You can truly be free by being a slave to Christ! I get it! Shalom! Praise God! Jesus IS GOD incarnate!

Thanks! Praise Jesus

Great lesson! This chapter has always intrigued me. Conversely, the absence of greetings in Ephesians.

Thank you

Hallelujah ^^

Blessed is the 28

Lord protect us

Great Job Matt!

😜 "promosm"

The Bible is incomprehensible. If a statement is so vague it can be interpreted many different ways and there is no standard to determine which interpretation is correct, the communication is a failure. The Bible constantly contradicts itself (Thou shalt not Kill, then God orders the Jews to massacre all the people in neighboring villages. 1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”). The Bible is fill with information easily demonstrated to be false (the earth was created in seven days). The Bible is filled with ethical advice that is appallingly immoral (captive virgins can be used as sex slaves & slavery is Ok.) Apologists argue that at one time the Bible should be interpreted poetically, at another time factually, that at one time it is historical and another a parable and the reader has to figure that out by himself, it's not stated in the Bible. Prophesies are usually not declared to be prophesies so the vaguest reference can be interpreted as a prophesy after the fact. The books of the Bible are written by authors with dramatically conflicting agendas (Peter claimed Christianity is only for the Jews while Paul claimed it was for the gentiles). There are thousands of versions of the Bible, which include or exclude various books, each which can be interpreted differently. There is not a passage in the Bible that theologians agree on its message. In that anyone can interpret the Bible to say anything, it says nothing. And because the Bible is the word of God, who are you to question it? This is not a trivial issue. If you get the message wrong, you burn in Hell. God's love for you is infinite, but he will burn you in Hell without mercy or forgiveness at the drop of a hat. That my friend is not true love.

I really really enjoyed this sermon!

Great lesson 😅

great lighting bar but echo chamber sound?

microphone is too far away

bad choice of sound recording

no sound?

You already know I had to click on this as soon as youtube recommended it for me. Keep it up.

Can I be a part of these meetings via Zoom?

Israel, Joseph, Ephraim, Bethlehem, David, Messiah were all first-born sons.

Joseph had more in common with Messiah than Isaac, who was blind.