Thanks! About the Rhino; It's been a minute but I think the reason was because I expected a hard counter against it (a melter for example) and this way other units would get in there ahead of it. at the very least the field was thinned out by the time he arrived so he could sweep what was left... I think the only reason why i'd try to improve his survivability so much is because he had the hp regen equipment, so as long as there was not too much damage intake he would be immortal. Without it, i'd probably have left him alone

@@PastorDruski OK got it! More of a situational thing here but I see the idea. Thanks a lot for videos and advices :)

The siege map? It's already in game, just usually excluded from ranked searches since it has a clear advantage to the teams on the outside

@@PastorDruski No, I meant the very last one, with the big river in the middle.

Oh, thats in game already too, the 'Valley Meadow' 2v2 map

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. At the end, you pointed out that your goal was to be constructive, not critical - and I hope that you'll receive this response in the same way At the outset if you are trying to say that I 'completely left out' the fact that religion exercises faith then that was not my intent. Of course we have faith. These videos are all from live conversations I have unscripted over on twitch, and the context there would be that *both* the creationist and the evolutionist are exercising faith; only evolutionists generally don't like to admit it. I also wouldn't recommend looking to crowds to find truth. Appealing to the bandwagon fallacy (argumentum ad populum) of 'millions and billions of people to 'back it up'' does not determine the truth of something (nor are atheists in the majority for that matter; most estimates put the worldwide count at 400-750 million, with the other 7+ billion or so being religious). It is true that many Christians have different beliefs - and that is something I was actually addressing in the context of the video (since there are Christians who believe in a theistic version of evolution). It's human nature at work for everyone to have an opinion, and in Christianity, the danger is we end up putting our opinions in God's mouth. But thats a reflection on our own failures, not on the Bible. If we read the Bible within its historical-grammatical context (i.e. literally), it speaks for itself and is consistent Your assertion that we 'HAVE to trust a few specific people' however, is not true. We have tens of thousands of manuscripts spanning centuries demonstrating their consistency and accuracy - demonstrably more accurate than any other ancient document in all human history ...and just as you pointed out with studying medicine, if you don't want to trust a translator, all you need to do is learn the language to read it for yourself. Its all there. As to the passages you quoted as evidence that one who believes the truthfulness of the Bible ought not be allowed to criticize other views - I will trust you brought them up because you would honestly like an answer for them, not just use them as a 'gotcha' - or at least, maybe someone else would like these answered. And again, like you pointed out that if one had questions about medicine, they could study medicine to better understand; then lets briefly study the context of these offending passages to better understand: Ps 137:7-9 - Psalm 137 is an 'imprecatory' Psalm - 'to pray destruction against' which is an ancient/Old Testament practice that boils down to asking for justice. They're not usually very nice: they're human emotional responses to injustice. The context of this Psalm is following the destruction of Jerusalem and violent captivity of its people by Babylon (v1) and their subsequent torment & humiliation (v3). Babylon invaded three times in the span of 20 years. In the last invasion they besieged Jerusalem for almost 2 years, causing unimaginable suffering, starvation and death. By the end, Jerusalem is utterly destroyed and most of its people are killed. The Jewish king Zedekiah was forced to watch his sons be executed in front of him and then was blinded himself. The survivors were forced to march nearly 900 miles (1448km) to Babylon (Jeremiah 39:1-7). The Book of Lamentations and others address the profound suffering and grief the people were experiencing at this time. Psalm 137 picks up with their arrival. They were marched to the rivers of Babylon and there were ordered to sing a happy song (v3), but the captives refused (v2, 4). Jewish histories say that in response the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar killed thousands, and furthermore ordered many attractive youths to be executed so that his own people would not desire them. Then we finally reach the passage in question where, with our modern sensibilities, we wag our fingers at the humans who responded in a human way towards their tormentors when they said: “blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” (v8-9). Given this context, and the context of the ancient understanding of justice: Hammurabi's code (who was Babylonian) which taught 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' (to which the Old Testament Law agreed); This imprecatory Psalm is simply asking for justice to repay the Babylonians in kind with what was done to them: an eye for an eye. But! Even if we might understand this human response to call for justice, you might say: “Two wrongs don't make a right! killing another baby won't bring back your own, and its not the infant's fault.” Well, Jesus agrees with you. He shocked His listeners when He said: “you have heard that it was said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth...But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:38-48). The laws of reciprocal justice (eye for an eye) curtailed the ancient tendency of escalating revenge, which often led to war, but God instead wants his followers to love their enemies. Psalm 137:9 is an honest account of a hurting human heart calling out for justice, not a command to follow. Yes, the passage has a certain amount of shock value (which is why I assume you chose it) but using it to then discredit obedience to the Bible is disingenuous as it is both taken out of context and ignores the fact that the Bible teaches the opposite. “But what about when the Bible does command a shocking law like killing rebellious children in Deuteronomy 21:18-22:21?” You referenced a much longer passage here that has a number of laws which need to be understood within their cultural context and we can look at each if you would like. But for now I will focus on the part you referenced (21:18-21). First off, your paraphrase “kill their children if they don't listen” again misrepresents the passage for the 'gotcha' shock value. The context actually provides protections for children. In neighboring societies of the ancient world, it would be acceptable for a father displeased with his son to disinherit him or even kill him outright - But here, the passage just before (v15-17) makes it illegal for a patriarch to disinherit an unfavored son and now v18-21 guarantees due process of law to protect the rights of the accused son. The passage specifically says that such a case of rebellion (more on that in a minute) was not up to the parents, but to the judicial system of the day where there will be a public trial ('..bring him to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.' - v19b). The hometown would be important as it would mean the trustworthiness of the parent and character of the child would be known best. In Deut 17:6 it is required by law that any capital punishment must have at least two, better to be three, eyewitnesses. Which would be required in this case. Also in this public display, the parents themselves would be in the spotlight too, possibly even held partly responsible for the children's actions (as happened to the Priest Eli for failing to discipline his sons - 1 Samuel 3:13) - and they would need to prove the son was unresponsive to prior chastening before reaching this point (v18) But what of the crime? 'not listening'? not quite. “a stubborn and rebellious son” “...he is a glutton and a drunkard”. The charges here are not trivial. We tend to use some of these words lightly, thinking of a glutton as someone with a weakness for pizza, a stubborn son as a toddler having a tantrum, and a rebellious son as a teenager pouting and spouting off about being grounded. But the context of these words implies something far more sinister and destructive-an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness. Rebellion against proper authority is a serious matter in God's eyes. Much of the Old Testament deals with Israel's cycles of rebellion against God, repentance and restoration. But that rebellion is carried out by individuals and starts at home. I mentioned Eli not disciplining his rebellious sons earlier. Those sons led the nation into a disastrous defeat costing 30,000+ lives. Rebellion has consequences. It was rebellion against God that first brought sin and death into the world in the Garden of Eden. In fact, rebellion first originated with Satan rebelling against God. Rebellion against parents, (real rebellion, not teenage angst or some disagreement about bedtime) is following in Satan's footsteps (1 Samuel 15:23 compares rebellion with divination). God instituted 'Honor your father and mother' as one of the 10 commandments because He wants good for us, not anarchy. That said, it is interesting that there is no record of a case with this charge ever having been carried out. Furthermore, when Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son (a stubborn, rebellious, gluttonous, drunkard of a son) the father's love for the child never faltered, and he welcomed him home. This does not sound like the Bible teaches parents and society to be bloodthirsty maniacs towards their children, but instead the opposite; wanting to spare both the families and society of the dangerous consequences of unchecked rebellion. If you stuck with me this long, I applaud you! As a final note, you pointed out that that not being bound by religious beliefs makes a safer foundation to stand on - but is it really? The atheistic materialistic position would mean mental processes in the first place are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain. How can you trust your own reasoning? If you then look to others in a field as you suggested, how can you trust your senses that you're in a field at all, or that others exist at all?

@@PastorDruski Okay Goodness gracious :D that was quite a ling read for youtube. i wont argue much about bible passages with you since you seem to be a pastor and obviousky would know more about the context. BUT id still like to make a pount that (like you mentioned) rants about killing babies maaaybe shouldnt be in a holy book and that killing your son after a 'trial' is still immoral from any grounded point of view. there is a reason we dont do capital punishment anymore and i dont understand why a perfect being like your god is supposed to be would ever feel the need to build his laws 'according to the times', ive heard the same argument over exodus 21 and i just have the personal opinion that a perfect and just omnipotent being should not care for that. he killed the entire world once and then an entire city for being sinful, i think if he wanted something forbidden he would just outlaw it. again, my opinion. I cant really argue with you abouz your gods intentions since (by my point of view) your vision of him is of your making so ecen pointing to the bible or scholars you are free to just disagree, i have no leg to stand on here. since im answering on mobile right now i cant really go back and look at the text so excuse me if i miss something but i wanted to adress the field thing and then the brain-chemicak thing: When i talk about the hundret people in a field helping me understand the world scientifically i dont mean that id stand there with only atheists. I would be standing there with lets say 20 atheists, 30 christians, 40 muslims and 10 people of other denominations. Yet when i ask them the color of the grass or sky we all come to the same conclusion. if i ask them about the physical laws of the universe we all come to the same conclusion. many scientists are religious yet they can still use science and our common experience of things to derive laws and methods and theories that help us build houses, create medicine or do anything else that requires a basic understanding of the universe. and we can also come to the same conclusions concerning biology and evolution or physics and how the universe works. im not appealing to atheists as a big group to stand on for viewing the universe in a scientific way, i stand on humanity in general and going with what works or has the most smart people behind it :D If you were to ask all chtistians or muslims or other denominations in the field about what god is and what he wants and how he does things i would not even get a single answer for every Religion, every religious person has a different opinion and the only thing they generally share is the superficial names and construct of their belief, just as you pointed out with people not taking the bible literally enough/having a different pov from you. so what this boils down to is that i would rather trust the scientific process of getting knowledge about something including every person on the field than going up to you specifically and trusting in what you are telling me about your beliefs and your interpretation of the book. im just much more likely to find the truth that way. (plus i totally disagree with your view on the bible being very original and supported by other documents, i had learned a lit about how and when it was changed in what way once when i was actually very interested in religion in general but i would need ages to come up with the info again) second thing was our mind just being a chemical reaction. This i actually know at least a bit about because i wrote a paper on it back in school 6 years ago that i still remember a little bit. You cant deny that your mind/self IS the chemical reaction that is going on in your brain. a neurologist can specifically turn off parts of your consciousness by damaging/blocking parts of your brain. taking away your ability to talk, feel pain, have emotions (even specific ones) or to react to things. They would be able to keep you living while taking these things away from you and it has been done in the past partly even in the general public to make children less rebellious so at what point does your 'Soul' start? what exactly goes to heaven when your emotions die with the brain? sorry to get sidetracked but id seriously love to hear your amswer to that as a christian In the end it doesnt matter if im in the matrix or experiencing the field for real we both are in the field and we both only have our own senses to trust when it comes down to experiencing other people and the world around us that doesnt mean you can equate my trust in the scientific method to your beliefs, and you dont do that in most cases if you get a vaccine against covid (specifially mRNA) you trust in the doctor and the scientific process that lead to the making of this shot including that it is partly based on the theory of evolution and biologic principles which you dont personally believe in. you dont really equate your belief to the belief of a doctor you are just doing it right now to have an excuse as to why someone should hold your worldview influenced by thousands of years of indoctrination at the same value as scientific theories that have a lot more research and knowledge about the world behind them cheers

Its true that was a long post. I actually hit the character limit and had to cut back, so rather than debate maybe I'll just help explain a few things I ran out of space for (plus geek out a bit over ancient manuscripts. Be warned) One of the unique things about the Bible that speaks to its authenticity is that it does not sanitize the 'heroes' to be beacons of perfection. King David is one of the greatest heroes of the Old Testament yet he was an adulterer and murderer. He admitted his guilt on these things and was forgiven (the consequences were still severe, mind). But the point is that if he can be forgiven, we can be too. When Psalm 137 is calling for justice against their enemies, it does not sanitize the raw human emotion for better 'holy book' appeal. It is demonstrating the real response much like a person might feel towards someone guilty of committing crimes against their own family today. It does not make the response moral, but it is human. For His part, God reminds his people that they are not to take revenge, he is in charge of justice. Regarding the law about killing the rebellious son. Idealistically (so corrupt government aside), Do we make laws to curtail moral behavior or immoral behavior? We make laws to try to stop immoral behavior of course. So here's a law to stop the immoral behavior that was already active in the ancient world of parents towards children. It's purpose was to protect the children, not give reason to kill them. Now, through court, there is a legal means of protection for the child (and lets not forget that 'child' can - and likely did - mean adult children were the ones being accused given the type of offense). Why not just say that it is not ok under any circumstance? Well, sadly today we regularly see examples of people committing acts of evil and crime. In some of these cases, it is the parents who turn in their own children because they are closest to them and therefore the first to recognize what is happening and realize they must be stopped. Should they not be permitted to put a stop to something wrong on the basis that it is their children committing it? of course not. So we have a law that protects children from a frivolous accusation, and at the same time protects society if the child is causing real harm. The following consequence of capital punishment you might dismiss as barbaric and that's a different discussion, but as a deterrence, again, there's no record of this ever having to be enforced. As far as the accuracy of the Biblical manuscripts this really is a documented fact. I encourage you to read more into it, but just for anyone else reading: The general accusation is that the Bible must not be trustworthy because it is really old. and everyone knows that when you make a copy of a copy of a copy, with each transmission you lose information or gain incorrect information (like the 'telephone game' when you pass a message around a circle by whispering it into each other's ear and at the end, find out how much it changed) only, this is not the case for the Bible. This is not my fanatical religious position talking, it's the documented fact. I Love this sort of history so forgive me for getting excited: The most copies of any [secular] ancient work in all of human history is the 'the Illiad' by homer. as of the last count I am aware of, archaeology has found a total of 1,757 copies of the book. It was originally written in 900 BC. the oldest copy we have found is from 400 BC. Meaning a time gap of 500 years. So we know what our manuscripts say, but don't know if they are the same as the original. 500 years is a long time, a lot can change. Here's the top 5 ancient literature by manuscripts: - Homer's 'Illiad': 1757 copies, written 900 BC, oldest 400 BC, gap of: 500 years - Demosthenes 'speeches': 340 copies, written 383-322 BC, oldest 1100 AD, gap of: 1,300 years - Caesar's 'Gallic Wars': 251 copies, written 100-44 BC, oldest 900 AD, gap of: 1,000 years - Plato 'Tetralogies': 210 copies, written 400 BC, oldest 900 AD, gap of 1,200 years - Pliny the Elder 'History': 200 copies, written 49-79 AD, oldest 850 AD, gap of 750 years For good measure: - Aristotle (all works): 49 copies, written 384-322 BC, oldest 1100 AD, gap of 1,400 years That's a lot of telephone game! I don't remember my literature class taking a moment to remind us that we cant really know if the Illiad is really Homer's words because of the 500 year gap, or my philosophy class casting doubt on Aristotle's works because we only have a few dozen copies and they're 1,400 years off from the original. (and oh by the way, not one manuscript agrees with another, for any of these. Again, the Illiad is the best represented and has the least textual 'variations' at a rate of 5% (meaning changes from one manuscript to another) - but all of these are considered reliable to the point that we treat them as accurate to the originals in education. But then if we compare with the Bible (The Old and New Testaments considered separately) we find: - The New Testament (Original Greek language): 5838 copies, written 50-100 AD, oldest 125 AD, gap of 25 years - The New Testament (Translated into other languages): 18,524 copies, same as above^ - The Old Testament (both scrolls & Codices) 42,000 copies, written 1400-450 BC, oldest 125 BC, 300-1300 years Ah ha! the Old testament, with its tens of thousands of copies still is 1300 years off? Lets remember the Bible is not a single book but a collection of books. The books of the Old Testament were written across a span of 1000 years. so the gap to the first books is naturally that much further. That said, are they accurate? Well, with the New Testament, which was being mass produced to share across the ancient world, we only have a textual variation of 0.5% That's 10x less than the Illiad, which, remember, is the most accurate of all ancient literature aside from the Bible. Not only that, the Since the copies we have in hand are only 25 years off from the original writings, this means that eyewitnesses would still be alive to verify/deny the claims made. They also spread geographically so fast that there is no way for someone to come along later in one town and alter the text for some nefarious purpose and have it be incorporated into the manuscripts being copied on the other side of the Mediterranean. People may disagree on the content of the Bible & its claims, but there is no argument against it being transmitted accurately. We have more copies and better accuracy than Shakespeare who lived in the age of the printing press! For the Old Testament, we have an interesting situation where up until the 1950s the oldest manuscript we had was from 900 AD. But with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated to 125 BC, we suddenly got to jump 1,000 years closer to the original. One of the best preserved scrolls was that of Isaiah (google the 'great Isaiah scroll'), so naturally we compared 125 BC Isaiah to 900 AD Isaiah and found they are nearly identical. Actually, you can check all of the Dead Sea Scrolls online for yourself. The extremely rigid, formal process employed by Jewish scribes to copy manuscripts paid off. There is no telephone game with the Bible, and it really is the most accurate ancient work in all human history.

​@@PastorDruski Okay first an apology, i was out camping the since friday and only got access to internet again today so please forgive me if i lost track of the points we were discussing for some reason youtube wont show me my last comment either. I feel like i wrote you about the field and how a combined view of people with different worldviews can give us a more accurate worldview to work with if we apply the scientific method? something like that? was that a fever dream or did you just gloss over it? Id beg you to stay on point and divide your opinions/arguments (i dont view yt comments as a debate so calling it arguments almost seems too official :D ) into smaller paraghraphs. While my english IS good enough to keep track its tiresome to read a wall of text exspecially if you drift off into topics i dont really care about like how much of the bible is accurate to its original form. While i DO think its interesting how well the text has been preserved/ not preserved that alone doesnt mean much to me the reason i brought up the translations and manipulation/ different versions is because as a mere mortal i (a person uneducated in bible studies) cant just read and comprehent it or its origin. it was originally written by people from a different culture, in a different language with a completly different vocabulary and understanding of the world (these are UNIMPORTANT examples: afaik wales are described as fish and bats as birds somewhere in the old testament) now that doesnt mean its impossible to understand the scripture but it means that there is a wide variety of opinions and intepretations on it by a lot of people with more or less education on it than we both have since you must not only be able to read you also have to take the historic context into account this means that there will be people who spend much more time on this topic and know much more about it than you who will have a much more leanient interpretation that doesnt involve creationism or old testament moral. I think the pope would be an example/ the catholic church in general since they changed their mind a lot after the whole 30 year war thing happened and even in just the past 20 years. this just means "I" cant rely on "you" specifically to construct a worldview, but i also cant just read it and construct myself a worldview based on that. And you probably sure as hell wont tell me to ask the catholics to help me with that :D (at least i think your not catholic? either way both sides dont like the others interpretation much) a book like this was not made by a perfect being to convey to as many people as possible whatever it wants to tell them. its honestly a pretty bad option to convey anything remembering that up to a hundret years ago most people could not read and before it was translated from latin even fewer were able to read it ( again 30 years of "loving your neighbour" quickly ensued once it was) So im sorry to say that you telling me that the most famous book in history being translated as well as possible doesnt make me think that it is in fact holy. and i dont really want to go over the rebellious son thing again because i will stand by my point that capital punishment is not something a benevolent being would order. it failed horribly as a deterrent and just because there is no recorded evidence of villages doing this that doesnt mean anything. it means that either the people in the villages didnt do it because they dealt withit in their own way and NOT the biblical way because they thought it was a bit much or it means there was noone around who was able to write ( again, bronce age, not many who could) Im happy you are sharing your love for the written text but even if i wanted to fact check anything in particular google spits out only studies and articles from christian sources which are biased from the get-go, because historians dont really care for the bible all that much as a source for details and unbiased articles just get buried in the raw masses of data So just for this instance and because its much more efficient to move on to the points i actually wanna talk about: I will entrust YOU as my personal Bible-Dude! Whatever you say about it and however you interpret it will be also MY understanding of the Bible! Okay. So we have this incredibly well preserved vastly famous book that tells us stories about a god and his doings and commands. And somehow its even way better preserved and kept in check than any other religious book. How do we construct a working worldview from this or even more important in the first place: How does this show us god might exist?

@@PastorDruski sorry for the poor punctuation, its 11pm and i i had an exhausting day :D

I am glad we are taking the messages of Jesus as the truth. -Jesus said John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" to which his Jewish opponents picked up stones because they understood he was claiming to be God (v31-32). -Jesus said in John 8:58 "Before Abraham was born, 'I AM'" to which his Jewish opponents picked up stones because they understood he was claiming to be God (v59). -The Gospel of John begins with a statement of Jesus' deity: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) - to which it explains "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the father, full of grace and truth (v14) -The disciples understood Jesus to be God: Thomas, after seeing Jesus resurrected declared "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28) -The disciples worshipped Jesus after He walked on water (Matt 14:33) and when he appeared after the resurrection (Matt 28:9) - All Jews were very aware that worship was reserved for God alone -The rest of the New Testament affirms Jesus to be God. Paul eagerly awaited 'the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13) and encouraged us to do the same. -Both Paul and John declare Jesus created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17), something God did (Gen 1:1) -God Himself even says about Jesus: "of the Son He says, your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" (Heb 1:8, cf.Ps 45:6) Additionally, Jesus applied the names and attributes of God to himself. He demonstrated it by his words, miracles and ultimately, his resurrection. I am sorry, but if you consider Christianity to be valid without Jesus as God, then you do not understand Christianity. If Jesus was just a man; there is no salvation in the Cross, there is no salvation at all. There is no Christianity without Jesus being God. As to your follow up comment, thank you for quoting John 1:18, but I would ask you to finish the quote. "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Meaning no one can see God the spiritual being - but God took the first step: Jesus, who is also God, revealed God to us. The author of Hebrews also affirms this "In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom also He made the universe" (Heb 1:1-2).

@@PastorDruski Your reply is WRONG ON ALL POINTS: I and the father are one as well, we all are, that doesn't make us God. "Before Abraham, I am," doesn't mean he's God, he was sent by God, not God himself, just as Jesus said. You're looking to dissuade us from the actual statement of Jesus himself when he said "NEITHER CAME I OF MYSELF" which slams the door shut on the issue. YOU couldn't get past the very statement by Jesus. ""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)" That is a faulty circular illogical statement, and it comes from a man, not from Jesus, and THE VERY WORD ITSELF cannot be Jesus, as Jesus was not a word, nor was he many words, he was an individual who was probably a direct representative of God's, but a man cannot be a word. You said, "The rest of the New Testament affirms Jesus to be God." NOPE. It does no such thing. Not one word of the New Testament says that Jesus is God, in fact, Jesus directly said he was NOT God in John 8:42. Why are you willfully and wrongfully denying the words of Jesus? How can you be a Christian when Christ himself said ""I proceeded forth and came from God, NEITHER CAME I OF MYSELF, but He who sent me." (John 8:42.) "NEITHER CAME I OF MYSELF?" So, NOT actually God. Got it. You posted: ""No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." = Said a man, and it doesn't help you, since it stands. Nobody has seen God, many have seen Jesus, therefore Jesus = not God. You take the words of men, I take the words of Jesus. -You said, "Himself even says about Jesus: 'of the Son He says, your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever'" (Heb 1:8, cf.Ps 45:6) = NOPE. PAUL said that, not God. One cannot be a true Christian and a trinitarian at the same time as you are DENYING the words of Jesus himself, you're DENYING the scripture's logic: No one has seen God at any time, and no man has, which means Jesus cannot be God, just as he says. And let's not forget when Jesus says on the cross: "Father, why have YOU forsaken ME?" = Another end-of-story comment by Jesus that slams the door shut on the role of Jesus. You can keep running around and insisting Jesus was God, but I'm going to go with what Jesus said instead.

I am sorry, but the point still stands. No amount of using caps for emphasis changes it. When Jesus said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) You really cannot come to the conclusion that he meant a metaphysical statement about all of us being one with God. Why? the context. The very next verse the Jews took up stones to stone him (v31). Jesus asked them directly “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” (v32) and the Jews answered in no uncertain terms “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” (v33). They wanted to kill him because he claimed to be God. Your answer to the Biblical authors stating Jesus is God is that they are only men; Friend, the entire Bible was written by men - Inspired by God, yes - but penned by man. You originally quoted John 8, but then deny John 1 because John was a man. John wrote both, He was eyewitness to Jesus, and it his opening thesis for the entire book is that Jesus is, in fact, God. The concept of Jesus being 'the Word' in John 1:1 is not in the English sense of a written word on a page. It is the Greek word 'Logos' which means 'the essence of something' (worth a study, that). When John says 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was With God, and the Word was God' He is explaining that the very essence of Jesus - that which he is entirely made up of - is God. it is not circular at all. He uses this term specifically so there could be no doubt the one he was talking of is made of the same 'stuff' as God Himself, equal to yet separate from the Father. By saying he is the 'Logos' of God he cannot be talking about a good man, a good teacher, or even a prophet sent by God, but IS God - who also became man and walked among us. John writes his book (including 8:42) to bear witness and demonstrate this claim. Its the entire reason for the book existing - it's no coincidence most of our quotes are from John's gospel since that was his purpose for writing. When Jesus said 'before Abraham was, I AM', he is using the very name of God for himself; the name God gave Moses when he asked what his name was (Ex. 3:14). When he says 'before Abraham was' he is saying before Abraham was 'brought into being' (i.e. created). He already, and had always, existed. The phrase 'I AM' means eternal existence, which is why God chose it for Himself with Moses. Jesus here was claiming the same eternality as God. If he meant anything else, there was no reason for the Jews to try to stone him then and there. If he was telling them he's just another guy, they would not have been enraged, but instead, they took up stones to kill him because they understood the claim and had it not been true, it would have been blasphemy. Ultimately, the Jewish leaders put Jesus on the cross for the 'blasphemy' of claiming to be God. In Mark 14:61-64 we read: "the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death." As far as John 8:42, the phrase 'neither came I of myself' is not a denial of deity. The context show the religious leaders claimed they had been obeying God, and so Jesus was making a point that if that were true, they would listen to him, since God is the one who sent Him. It is about authority. He is not currently asserting his authority, since they already demonstrated they will not listen to it, he is making the claim on the Father's authority. This just demonstrates Son's relationship with the Father: the Father sent Him, He submitted to the Father. Just as Jesus continued to demonstrate this submission to the Father throughout His ministry all the way to the Cross. There is considerable discussion to be had about the relationship of God the Father and God the Son, as you pointed out about Jesus on the Cross, but this is not slamming the door on deity, rather, once again, it affirms it. Jesus, who lived a perfect, sinless life, and was of an infinite, eternal nature, had the entirety of the guilt of all man's sin placed on him while on the cross, no finite man could do that. Because of this sin, God had to turn away, prompting Jesus' human outcry (and yes, he was indeed still human - he was born, ate, drank, bled and died - God becoming human was the entire point after all). There would have been no payment for sin had he just been a man. A man would have his own sins to pay for, and therefore cannot pay for another's, yet our holy, perfect, infinite God becoming human could both be our representative as one of us, and take our guilt upon himself. Had he only been man, then God would never have been able to place all our sins on him, but as evidenced by Jesus' response, Jesus really did receive our sins and pay for them; something only God could do. And of course, if he were only a man, he could never have resurrected himself. Yes, men like Lazarus were resurrected, but they could not do it themselves. "I lay down my life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." (John 10:17-18). Jesus is not saying someone else will resurrect him, He will resurrect himself. If Jesus were not God, then he was just another man who died on a cross, and we have no savior, no salvation, and no Christianity. As to John 1:18, 'no one has seen God', the idea is of seeing him in his natural, spiritual form (John 4:24a). God is the creator of the universe, he is not contained within his universe. We therefore cannot see Him. However, God stepped into his creation, he revealed himself to us as Jesus, which, again, is literally the meaning of John 1:18 -KJV: "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" -NASB: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." -ESV: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Jesus 'declared him [God]', 'explained him', 'made him known': As God, Jesus revealed God to us by revealing himself. In other words, Yes, we cannot see God the Spirit, but we can see the Son, who is God, and came from God, and became human. Philip the disciple wondered about exactly this in John 14:8-9: "Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" Frankly, all this does is demonstrate my point in the video. You insist that you believe the words of Jesus, but you reject the writings of the very men who wrote Jesus' words down. What words of Jesus do you have left? You reject Jesus' own claims to deity, but without it, he was just a man who died and cannot offer salvation, so what salvation can you have? You claim the name Christian (Christ follower) but reject the majority of the New Testament (John, Paul and Matthew that you've already dismissed so far on account of being men wrote 60% of the NT), so what teachings do you have left to follow? My point is, Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is God who became man, died for our sins and rose again offering eternal life. I understand that you reject this, but I cannot understand why you insist on claiming the title of Christianity when you clearly don't want what Christianity is. This was the point of the video.

Thanks for the response! Sounds to me that you would not be an atheist at all, but an agnostic. Indeed, most people who are just living each day not really thinking about these topics are probably agnostic; they're willing to shug and say 'I don't really know whether or not there is a God'. An atheist, by contrast, says 'there is no God'. In other words, agnostics allow room for doubt, atheists do not (a position which has a certain amount of irony; as it is a truth claim that goes something like this: 'I have absolute knowledge that there is no being in the universe that can possess absolute knowledge) The format of my content is simply an AMA; being available for questions in a setting that they are comfortable in (Twitch in this case). A number of conversations we've had are about what constitutes faith, and a number of those conversations point out how the atheist (and agnostic) positions are exercising faith that certain things can just work even though we know of no mechanism to explain them (which I touched on in the video and had gone into greater depth in the past) You mentioned looking into physics, which is great since its actually what I was trying to refer to -and forgive me for explaining since others may read this too-. The evolutionary big-bang idea that everything exploded out of nothing is contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy - matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed) - trusting that it must have just done so anyway is an act of faith. We also have faith that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics (entropy - that everything moves towards disorder, chaos) was skipped over to build up the orderly cosmos we have now. Furthermore, there's faith that the law of biogenesis (life only comes from life) took the day off for life to begin and entropy didn't meddle when information (DNA - which is encoded and decoded) came from non-information, or when it became more and more complex and so on. Rather than having faith that these things just happened, even if contrary to the laws we observe today, I have faith that there they are instead better explained by a designer, a creator. I believe the laws of physics demand a law-giver; and that it stands to reason to ask: what was it all created *for*? I believe that many people are asking that very question, and I believe the Bible both answers this question, and gives meaning, purpose, value, hope, belonging and love for people along the way. I don't want that to be accessible only to people who agree with me, I want that for everyone. So I make myself available to answer questions (sometimes awkwardly as it is spontaneous, not scripted), as best I can, even from Atheists. I don't see it as arguing, I see it as a joy and a privilege to have these conversations

Out of curiosity, how do you deal with science when it conflicts with your believes, for example when it comes to creation vs evolution theory? Do you check as careful those scientific findings that challange your believes as you did with the accuracy of the gospels?

That's a great question! It may be surprising to hear but I have no problem with reconciling science and the Bible. We forget that evidence is interpreted through presuppositions. If one already believes in evolution and billions of years, they will interpret the evidence to support it. However there are many scientists who see the same evidence and come to different conclusions; conclusions that support the Bible, not challenge it. Then there are things for which there is no evidence and the scientific method cannot replicate; Otherwise known as faith. It takes faith to believe everything came out of nothing. It takes faith to believe that chaos produced order, faith that randomness produced extreme precision, faith that non-life produced life, faith that information (DNA) was produced without intelligence to program it. Everyone believes in something. Many prefer to believe there is no God, but that belief is still an act of faith As to your first question, whether or not Christians take the whole Bible as literally true, or only parts; the core of Christianity is belief that Jesus is God, that He took on human form to die in our place as our substitute; taking onto himself the penalty of our sins; that He demonstrated his deity by arising from the dead, and offers eternal life to all who would believe this about Him. If they choose to trust Jesus, rather than their own good merits or deeds, they are Christians. The rest is secondary.

@@PastorDruski Thank you for your detailled answer, it gave me a lot think about. So far I was not aware that there is a group of scientiest who support creation over evolution theory. When I google it I find this on Wiki:"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]" I then tried to find some of the scientist who support the bible creation theory. I found one written by scientiest: Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II) BY DUANE GISH, PH.D. | To be honest, I am not sure how honest he is in his science. It seems he refuses many established scientific methods without providing much evidence and then makes up his own theory that always supports his believes. One could argue that other scientiest do something similar because of their believes, which is kinda your point with "evidence is interpreted through presuppositions". But is this binary? Isnt there a, lets call it propability, how close to the truth an argument is? For example if you can replicate something then you are very close to the truth. If you can make reasonable assumptions based on obversations then u are still close but a bit less and so on. And to bring it all home, some things in the bible appear fantastic to me and I find it odd that there is not much scientific support for it while at the same time we got a lot for a different world view. Maybe this is my "presuppositions" but I tend to believe the more likely versions of all things.

@@PastorDruski I just saw, my answer was probably too long and ended up in your automatic spam filter.

​@@CasterMedicus on the subject of the numbers and statistics of scientists, I don't doubt those are the numbers reported, but it may be worth pointing out that many scientists have found that if they do not 'toe the line' of what has been decreed as accepted doctrine of the evolutionary religion they are ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even stripped of their credentials. This is an effective means of keeping others silent as well - and therefore, I suspect, affects reported statistics. Here's a documentary from a few years ago on the subject: 'Expelled: No Intelligence allowed' - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gZPtE4wZ_IM.htmlsi=jjfZMqzfHCiY9Zjg Since you seem genuinely curious about scientists who do not support evolution, here's something practical: The Institute of Creation Research's (ICR) archive of publications of their technical papers, which has a number of Ph. D. authors - www.icr.org/articles/search/?f_typeID=12 Obviously, these are subjects that are bigger than the RU-vid comment section can really accommodate, but if I could encourage you to check out one further link, here's a video that interviews prominent evolutionist university professors about evidence for evolution, and their answers may surprise you - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jeSxIqAYP4M.htmlsi=oiH6r1Nw_Xv6AytU

The thing is basically OP.

I like it quite a bit, it has a chess-like feel with play/counterplay. As far as getting the game, timing might be a factor; my understanding is that it will be free-to-play when it leaves early access, so some might want to wait till then (microtransactions look like they'll be cosmetic only).

Mechabellum!

Thanks for the reminder! The game name is in the description. Its called Mechabellum