Thanks for watching and smash that bell like I smash the fundamentalist. For the epic apocalyptic tale of what Yeshua would be like if he did return, check out THE SECOND FALL. The offbeat story that may offend a few, and then a few more. www.amazon.com/SECOND-FALL-Charles-Hurst/dp/B08RR9SJFM
mr DC, if all people of religion were like you, you wouldn’t hear a peep from atheist; all vocal atheism is in response to the people you are criticizing
Here is THE KEY. I can help you with this but you or anyone can work this out for yourself: the key is understanding the nature of human belief. The origins, the belief pathways that you build, the rationalizations you embrace. Not just in Christianity or religion but these are certainly prime examples. No, examine how beliefs in your thinking develop and why you utilize them. More if you wish, but that is the key to understanding EVERYONE you know of.
The motivation for a belief is often not a clear indicator of its _truth_ value . That would be the genetic fallacy . It is the claim itself that should be evaluated , not how it originated .
@@1CASSIODORUS YOU MISSED IT: I am not addressing any one belief. It is the nature of belief in a person's thoughts....the deconstructing of the process of believing. It is the same for everyone, regardless of the belief whether it be Islam, Christianity or what have you. Once the properties of belief are known then ALL beliefs can be understood,....... not necessarily validated.
@@1CASSIODORUS by the way, there is no such thing as "truth" so there is no "truth value". "truth" is an invention of a person trying to substantiate something they believe.
@@MrJetmech "by the way, there is no such thing as "truth"" There might not be any such thing as 100% verifiable truth (hence no proofs in Science), but let's face it, we know some things to be true beyond reasonable doubt. It would be true that if someone stuck a red hot poker in your face it's going to hurt you (unless you have the condition a few are born with where they literally can't feel pain), right?
A cosmic designer who likes or cares about humans is... odd. We are so susceptible to countless things that if there is one it does not care or perhaps even know we exist. Something coming from nothing, okay. But what is nothing? I don't find the idea of nothingness to be coherent.
One of the reasons why I came to reject my christian faith and religion in general was the rampant hypocrisy that I witnessed in many religious people. I found that religious hypocrites were very good at compartmentalizing their faith. They were pious in places of worship. They were good at creating very fine optics, knew all the tricks. Outside the places of worship and outside their faith days, they were no better than non-believers. Many were in fact worse because they fervently believed that as long as they repented their god/gods would make things right. They were also quite repressed - especially children and teens - and they let loose in big ways. I've had so many interactions with children of preachers/ministers and church leaders. At worst they were nasty bullies, and at best they told lies and did unfavourable things.
"Something can't be created out of nothing". No rational atheist is making that argument. It's the theist who when asked, who or what created god, answer "nothing", or what did god create the universe out of, answer "nothing". I simply point to the scientific consensus, as I am too dumb to understand the insanely complex math that underpins, for example, the fluctuation in the quantum vacuum field hypothesis for the origin of our observable universe. If you're going to call yourself a theist, at least present some falsifiable criteria for your deistic god. Every sceptic knows that it is irrational to believe in an unfalsifiable proposition.
@@debunkingthefundamentalist So it was nothing more than a click bait title to your video, because there is nothing hopeful about being a sceptic. Fyi, proof is for math, this isn't math, you don't need "proof" to believe in the truth of a proposition, just sufficient evidence to justify that belief.
This is weird to me . The scientific evidence currently points to an absolute beginning of the universe . This supports the claim of creation from nothing . Granted , this doesn’t rise to the level of a proof because there’s always new scientific findings. As far as falsifiability goes , there are, and have always been positive arguments for the nonexistence of God .
It is just an indication that atheism is fundamentally irrational. As to who created God, which is the old schoolboy question, the answer is, of course that the Christian does not believe in creating gods, because created gods, are not gods at all! God, by definition is not a created being. If he were he would not be creator God. And if I can get round that with my 3lb brain, he would not be worth worshipping
Thank you for the reminder that one can be a non-specified theist without being a Christian, nor an atheist. I left the church 5 years ago after being in it for 23 years but my 'deconversion' didn't lead to atheism. It's not like there's just the two options (the existence of all the other religions proves that as well, but I don't buy any of those either). However I tend to not get into debates on this point. The atheists could maybe handle it okay - they may balk at the theism part and the (admitted) lack of proof, but they don't tend to be aggressive or emotional on it. Contrast with the fundamentalist theists, many of whom get really set off by any version of theism other than theirs (and of course even these tend to not agree with each other a lot of the time). It can get quite nasty so I generally don't bother engaging with people that I know won't understand this or any other kind of nuance in perspectives. But I'm glad to raise the point here as it's directly discussed in the video.
@debunkingthefundamentalist I think humans are only special in one way, compared to other animals. Our intelligence. We can't do many things as well as other species do them. Other species have better eyesight, more strength, can breathe under water, can swim better, can climb better, can run faster, have better stamina, can hear better, can smell better than us... It's only our intelligence that separates us.
I coincide with your approach quite a lot. I come from the point of view of Alan Watts that we are each of us apertures through which the Consciousness/Beloved/One/Universe/Tao experiences itself. I imagine it as one of those tin cans that you can put holes in, drop a tealight inside, and the light shines through each in a slightly different angle and intensity. I didn't examine the Christianity that I was brought up in with alignment to how I believed until 41 years ago my pastor's wife held my days' old newborn son and declared him fit for hell. I was shocked. And then I had to dig into what EXACTLY the church was preaching. I had "heard" it through the lens previously described, but that wasn't it at all. Then I went on a search to find the "right" Christianity. Pre-internet that took a long time, many fits and starts. I still hold Alan Watts' conception to be as true as anything else and I read a lot of ibn Arabi (Sufi master), but Christianity...super-nah. No need for salvation, no goal of enlightenment, no secret knowledge or life hereafter. The purpose of life is living it.
Watts was an eloquent speaker and had many important insights . But ultimately his philosophy devolved into a kind of sanitized / westernized stew of Asian religion and philosophy . No salvation ( because of his monistic commitments ) but also no enlightenment because of his nihilistic interpretation of concepts like maya and Sunyata
@@1CASSIODORUS I find it hard to pin down a single coherent worldview from his writings, and i would say I agree with you to some extent. I think he was quite good at translating eastern ideas to the western mind. I'll grant that at times he could come off as a pop guru, with a sort of "California Zen" style. But he could also be quite deep and insightful, and I always got the feeling that he did have some true understanding of the philosophies he spoke about. Anyway, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for him because he was such a catalyst to my spiritual journey when I was young.
@@93komuso I fully agree with your last comment . He was deeper and more insightful than many people give him credit for . My favorite work of his was “ The Supreme Identity” which does a fabulous job of unpacking Advaita Vedanta and how it’s misunderstood by Western philosophy . That said , I think his views ultimately veered off from a true fidelity to the teachings of unqualified nondualism .
When I left Christianity, I couldn't become an Atheist. I experienced and knew to much. That's what I identify myself with now. A Divine source that doesn't get involved, with what we all chose in the first place. To have this human experience.
As a human myself, I think humans are special. Were I any other species on the planet I would likely disagree. I the bigger picture, is the existence of humans, a benefit to life on this planet? In the long term we may be the only way life on this planet gets to other habitable planets. But once we get there, what will we find?
I considered myself to be an atheist in my teen years, but still attended church out of respect for my father. I eventually reconverted because it felt like something was looking out for me. I converted to Nichiren Buddhism in my 20s because the idea of karma based a law of cause and effect made more sense than sin and a personal god. I eventually deconverted during 2020 because even Buddhism requires faith, and faith isn't something I'm good at. I now consider myself a skeptic, I admit that I don't know if there is anything supernatural out there, and have no idea what any supernatural entity might be. It may be Reverend Ed Trevors' loving God who wants us to love and take care of each other, or it may be something more akin to Cthulhu. I guess we'll all find out what, if anything is going on upstairs when we die.
Buddhism can be an intriguing religion for atheists and agnostics because it includes aspects that align well with scientific understandings especially like the ultimate impermanence of all materials forms. Also, the psychological and health benefits of meditation are now well-established by science. Yet, it is true, many different forms of traditional Buddhism still include elements of magical thinking.
Have you ever looked in-depth into the *Shroud of Turin,* which recently came back into the limelight? I and many other Christians (not all) believe it to be the genuine burial cloth of Jesus Christ that was left with an imprint of him due to the miracle of his resurrection that occured in the tomb. The Shroud itself is a tangible artifact that's intrigued and baffled even the experts for many years. But the main theory on its existence put forth by skeptics is that it was the work of what must've been some super genius medieval artist that somehow managed to create something we can't even explain or replicate today with modern technology, and knowledge. I also have a playlist on my channel dedicated to the Shroud if you'd care to take a look at that. God bless. ✝️
@@milkfirstisgross9200but you can't defend that you require presuppositions that he was resurrected. There is no credible evidence a possible creator has anything to do with the horrors of the bible.
@@ericreed4535 you'd have to read the Gospels and read how the Disciples were killed to understand Christ even a bit, you have to genuinely seek the truth. as for the "horrors" when I first read some OT stuff I was shook by what I saw, until I read John 15:22 and the context behind what the people were doing to deserve being taken over, I think any normal person should be concerned, but also look at why God made such orders. and why it's actually justified please tell me what horrors you're referring to and ill help clear it up
@@milkfirstisgross9200 "as for the "horrors" when I first read some OT stuff I was shook by what I saw, until I read John 15:22 and the context behind what the people were doing to deserve being taken over" This is the typical apologist excuse for horrendous crimes - including genocides - perpetrated by god-loving believers in the OT. It's a very simple rationale for obeying god's command; that those who are to be put to sword deserve it because they rebel against god. Of course, if you were on the sharp end of the proverbial sword, I don't think you'd agree with the wielder. Think of suicide bombers who absolutely believe those who will die at their hands deserve their fate because they rebel against allah. Would you or any of your loved ones be happy to be their victims? If they killed babies and children, would you be comforted by their belief that they were sent straight to heaven by the loving allah?
Its the right call. Those who are not truly Christian should not call themselves that. I wish more Christians who didn't genuinely believe were honest with themselves like you are.
Love your content. I wasn't raised with any religious indoctrination thankfully, but from an early age was interested in spirituality and philosophy. I'd similarly consider myself an agnostic/unspecified deist, with a bent for eastern ideas. I find fundamentalist Christianity to be extremely toxic and repulsive, and it should be rejected. Having had the freedom from a young age to explore the ideas of many traditions and philosophies, I do subscribe to a very ecumenical and universalist approach, and like to seek out threads of wisdom that run through all religion. I do see some beauty and truth in the Christian theology, but only if understood in very esoteric and symbolic terms. Taking the Bible literally strips away the power of its religious mythology, and turns it into a very dark and incoherent belief system.
what mythology is in the bible? I can also help you understand the more complex parts of the Bible if you want, i like hearing from tons of people, it helps me learn about the Bible and I'd love to answer any questions
@@milkfirstisgross9200 Well, most of the stories in the bible are religious mythology. The creation story, the garden, the fall, the flood, tower o babel, exodus, etc. Some are a mixture of mythology and the historical legends of the early Hebrew people. And then with the New Testament we see the very Greco-Roman inspired mythologies of the God-Man who redeems the world. The Bible is soaked with religious mythology and symbolism. I don't claim to be an expert on deciphering these mythologies, I'm only pointing out that we should recognize the mythology and engage it that way, not literally.
I find the position sketched out here about evidence and arguments to be strange . The notion that only physical evidence counts as real evidence seems to be an appeal to scientism . This is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge - that there is no convincing rational form of inquiry that is not a branch of science . But scientism has a serious problem : it is either self refuting or trivial . The claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim , not something that can be established using scientific methods .
My understanding is that science, is just a way of studying the world around us in a way that minimizes the effect of personal bias. We are emotional beings with imperfect senses and faulty memories. The scientific method gives us away to correct for that, by forcing us to study the evidence, come up with a hypothesis and work at testing it before sending our hypothesis and evidence out to a community of our peers to see what they have to say. If the hypothesis is tested repeatedly and is not disproven it becomes a theory. I prefer physical evidence and the scientific method to arguments and myths.
You are looking for the perfect church and or perfect Christian there is no such thing. The church is full of imperfect Christians making the church imperfect. That perfection is just your opinion and it is just as imperfect as any church or Christian in this world.
I'm a Mystic Pantheist who follows the teachings of Jesus to love God (meaning to be thankful for your existence and to love all people unconditionally). Pantheism is pretty much the only way I have found to "prove" God exists and is what many tern "Einstein's God". From this point of view God is the Totality of Existence. Everything that exists is God. Every atom, every molecule, even the laws of nature itself is God or the Totality of Existence. If you consider all the traditional omni qualities traditionally attributed to God, it also applies to the Universe or existence. It's all powerful, all knowing (all information in the Universe is contained within it) and is everywhere (is there anywhere you can go to escape the Totality of Existence). We have all proceeded from the Universe and we all will return to it and forever be part of it for all eternity, either in this Universe or in another. We are the Universe experiencing itself, as Carl Sagan once said. As for the afterlife, the same odds that brought you into existence before you were born are the same odds of you existing again after death. Although this doesn't "prove" God everything I've said are factual statements. Now, by faith I believe that the Universe is intelligent and just and when we live a life of love, compassion and kindness we will be reborn into a similar world. But If you live a life of anger and hatred and mistreat others you will be reborn into a similar type of world. The Universe always gives you what you desire. I can't prove this - I believe it by faith.
It is interesting to see the video and comments which as usual are based on ignorance on what the New Testament actually teaches. The greatest denouncements of Jesus were against hypocrisy - those who did not practice what they preached. And these were the people who were his out, spoken opponents. I always find that people who denounce hypocrisy in the church, are often found wanting in this department themselves. The fact is that everyone is less than perfect, and that is why God puts us in churches so that we can grow together. You cannot learn patience without people, besides you to learn patience off. It is hilarious to me to see these groups who advocate kindness, and they are the most vicious in criticising others
Speaking of ignorance. Have you looked into the origins and evolution of Yahweh? --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
DCF , You say that there are arguments for God’s existence that are not terrible arguments . But then you on to say that they are not “ evidence “ What do you mean by that ?
I mean I can see the point of view as the person not being a lunatic (hopefully myself as well) But I can't declare them proof nor would try to convince someone of that---that's all. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist Hey, Thanks for your response . So, are you basically saying that you think that there are rational arguments for God but they're just not _convincing_ arguments that rise to the level of proof ? Am I following you right ? But if that's the case , there are very few arguments in philosophy that rise to the level of proof. So , respectfully , why beat up on Christian apologists as if what they are doing is different than what any defender of a controversial philosophical position does ?
Because I am addressing the ones who state they have proof ---IE Craig, Strobel, etc. Worse yet a great deal of what they speak of is historically not true at all. Cheers, DCF
@@debunkingthefundamentalist Hey DCF , I see what you’re saying . But it seems to me that, generally speaking , those who claim to have “proof” about any subject are simply describing a high level of confidence in their position . That is , they are 100% or close to 100% certain. I grant you that there are many apologists who express a high level of confidence in the existence of God . But then again , there are many atheists who are equally sure of the nonexistence of God. Would you say both are being equally irrational ?
My beliefs are supernatural as well so hence by standard would be considered irrational by the atheist as well as any religion. And I don't have a counterargument. Everyone has their own threshold. My point of contention is the apologists trying to prove it and worse yet insisting I should follow. Cheers, DCF
Here are the passages where YAHWEH commands that little babies must be chopped up with swords - which were the weapons used by the ancient Israelites when they went to war. Numbers 31 v 17 1 Samuel 15 v 2 Joshua 6 v 21 Joshua 10 v 28, 30 Deutoronomy 2 v 34 Evangelicals always claim that the YAHWEH commanded that the babies must be chopped up with swords as a punishment for their parents committing sins. Their parents were from surrounding nations that were NOT followers of YAHWEH. One of the claims is that the babies would have been sacrificed on satanic altars by their parents. So chopping the little babies up with swords was actually irrelevant as the little babies went straight to heaven anyway. Remember that Jesus is YAHWEH according to the Evangelicals. So it was actually Jesus who commanded that the little babies must be chopped up with swords. Well Jesus must be schizophrenic because in the New Testament he says suffer the little babies to come unto me. YAHWEH and his alter ego Jesus is definitely a schizophrenic war God.
The holy trinity wasn’t part of it until early christians until they found out how married to the idea some of the gnostics were - hence the split personality.
@@justanotheropinion5832 Excellent point. I forgot about the gnostics. There is actually a Bible of Scholar called Bart Erhman that talks a lot about them.
@@shaunigothictv1003 yes I know Barts work 😀 Another channel that dives into the evolution of religions is Useful Charts. Looking at it with more pieces to the puzzle as civilizations rise and fall is really interesting.
I put it simply: If you can't SHOW that your claims are true, then you don't KNOW that your claims are true. Meaning you have no reason whatsoever to believe that they are . Any and all beliefs must be backed up with Objective, testable, repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence. Beliefs inform actions, so ones not based in reality have a chance to cause harm as a result. What a person believes doesn’t matter, all that matters is WHY they believe it.
I don’t think so. Again , scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge - that there is no rational objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science . As I said , the claim that scientism is true is not itself a scientific claim , not something that can be established using scientific methods .
@@1CASSIODORUS No one says scientisim other than thiests that don't know what they are talking about. You don't like science because it shows religious beliefs are false. This is all I will say. I'm leaving this convo
What is so hard to believe about the creation account in Genesis? It's the only thing that makes sense and is actually consistent with the observable evidence. The creation account makes infinitely more sense and is by far more plausible than the evolutionary story. I find it strange when people just dismiss the creation account as "myth" when its the only thing that makes logical sense.
@@timothykeith1367 I mean it literally involves magic. Jesus breathes life into Adam, Adam is in essence a Golem of clay... yes like in D&D, in fact, identical to that. Then you have the fact we have in real-time seen animals evolve and that evolution is more well-understood than gravity
What is so hard to believe about the creation account in Eridu Genesis? It's the only thing that makes sense and is actually consistent with the observable evidence. I find it strange when people just dismiss the Sumerian creation account as "myth" when its the only thing that makes logical sense. I hope this helped.
The Biblical creation myth (there's actually two versions in the bible) is just one of many, not the oldest, makes no sense unless you have the limited scientific understanding of 2000+ years ago, and absolutely NOT consistent with observable evidence. You haven't observed the evidence if you think it is.
I am a Christian Fundamentalist. I believe God created the universe and life in six literal days. I believe Jesus Christ died on a Roman cross and rose from the dead. But, it makes no difference to me what you believe. I don't care. That is up to you.
Just because you believe fairy tales it doen't make them true. Truth needs evidence, and the evidence for all the claims in the Bible are lacking. If this was the real God, creator of the universe, I'm sure they would've had the intelligence and understanding to have that evidence. We also wouldn't have this 'god' commanding genocides, slavery and much worse. Looking at the claims and what we know of the understanding of the people of the era when these books were written, we can safely conclude that the Bible, like many other 'script'ures are just mind control scripts to keep humanity controlled. Most of the OT is also fake history created by borrowing the narratives of their neighbours and renaming characters. No matter what you 'believe', facts don't care about these and these facts will trump 'belief' any day.
If you are a "true" Christian, you should care very deeply about others salvation. Evangelism is a cornerstone concept in the Bible. The Bible calls on believers to share the gospel and spread God's love through evangelism, which is the act of teaching or preaching the gospel with the goal of persuasion. Some Bible verses that mention evangelism include: the Bible defines what Good News or Gospel means (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and how it is communicated; verbal (Luke 7:22; Romans 10:14-17) and/or written (Luke 1:1-4) form. It is a very Secular, Non-Christian way of thinking to not care about what others believe or how they live their lifestyle
@@tx_7134 You are probably correct, however, according to the Biblical gospels, we are all born sinners till we receive salvation by believing in Jesus.
guess what, you're not really a true fundamentalist. real fundamentalists believe in the message to spread the gospel. you should be trying to save us heathens.
The problem is the NT was originally written in Hebrew not Greek or Latin and they were not faithful in their translation, when or if you read the Gospels translated from the Hebrew you will find many lies are in the Greek version..
