Hahahahahahah!! And by what standard do you think reason exists? Given that science primordial approach is not empirical but pure reason what do you have to say about Hegel's work on criticizing Emmanuelle's work on "Pure reason critique"?
Funny, you sound like Napoleon the Pig from Animal Farm...must be pure coincidence that your assertion is that of complete invalidation by circular argument: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"... Must be nice to reason like that and never have to prove anything.
@@einarabelc5 And your standard for reason would be... let me guess... God? And which god might that be of the thousands that have been worshiped throughout recorded history? YOUR god of course -- the one which you were indoctrinated to believe in. Please refrain from demonstrating your delusion any further.
Oh, c'mon. That's weak and lame. You disagree with him. Just say that. If he can't reason, then no one can understand him. You're not reasonable with that statement. Just prejudiced.
Hi Kirk, jus want you to know I do my best to not miss one of your video's. It's so Awesome when I came across you and Ray. I can't get enough of your sermons. I love God and I can't wait to go to heaven. Thank you for being a GREAT EXAMPLE TO ALL MEN. You and Ray along with the other shepherds are amazing. God bless you all. Much love and hugs. 🙏❤🙏 #sinnersavedbygrace
Great interview! Trying to explain Spiritual Truth to someone blind in his/her unregenerate nature is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
I'm wondering why your shows on TBN aren't available with synchronized CC. It's maddening to watch. Captions come and go so quickly there it's almost impossible to watch that show if a person has a hearing loss depending on the CC working correctly. Thanks for looking into this.
Kirk, please pray this Biblical prayer and ask all believers at your events to pray along with you. Asa prayed this prayer against his enemies when they were about to be attacked. "Then Asa called to the LORD his God and said, “LORD, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; help us, LORD our God, for we trust in You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. LORD, You are our God; do not let man prevail against You.” In Jesus’ name, AMEN
Three seconds in and it looks like it's the moral argument. If anyone here wants to discuss the moral argument for God, I can explain why it doesn't work. Morality can be easily explained as preferences individuals have. We desire things to be and we desire things to not be. If you want to talk on this, feel free to reply.
"If anyone here wants to discuss the moral argument for God, I can explain why it doesn't work." God created all this and us. God gave us rules to follow. Are you more powerful and knowledgeable than God? Show what credentials you have over God's. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block Your argument seems to be the following: P1 - God created us P2 - God gave us rules C - We have to follow those rules This argument is neither sound nor valid. P1 has not been shown to be true (Not sound). Also the conclusion does not follow (not valid). At this point you'll need to rework your argument for it to be convincing.
Bwaahaha, must be why Pedophilia is about to get instantiated as legal...Eugenics is becoming the new normative here and Canada (Dave Rubin's "fatherhood" and the Law to "assist" the mentally ill in committing suicide when one of their symptoms is suicidality which only lasts during periods of crisis). Don't worry I had a Polish descent Canadian friend who's family escaped WWII Poland who did the same mental trick as you. Nah "bro"...you just don't want to be accountable, that's all. Keep trying.
2 Corinthians 3:2- (NIV) You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
It’s amazing that Koukl wants to shift the problem of evil to the atheist. The classical problem of evil is how does one reconcile the existence of evil with a good and all powerful god?
He’s just using a debate tactic and it’s not convincing at all. I find it very telling he doesn’t reference the book of Job to answer the problem of suffering bc it’s the only book of the Bible dedicated to the problem of theodicy. The answer? We suffer bc God is testing us to see if we will remain loyal to him. So, if your wife leaves you, if your child dies of cancer, if you suffer from a chronic illness God is testing your love for him. Charming, right? But that’s what the Bible teaches.
@@jonnyw82 Actually that's completely wrong. God allows evil because he gave us free choice. God can't force us to choose good or choose him as then we don't have free will. Evil is choosing to do something that God disagrees with as he is the standard of good that all objective morality comes from. God is not testing us to see if we remain loyal to him, the Book of Job is from the Old Testament and therefore before Jesus scarified himself on a cross so that we can be redeemed of our sin and be fully reconciled with God.
Right out the gate his logic is flawed. 4000 years ago Ra was the best explanation for why the sun moved across the sky, Zeus was the best explanation for lightning, and on and on with over 20 million+ Gods that man came up with to best explain the world. Was all the other people throughout history right?????? NO, why are you any different????
@@BriceJamesHagerman yes, its the god of the gaps like the other 20 million + gods man has come up with. You have to have special exemptions to make the story work. For example: Christians say everything have to have a creator and when question is asked who created the creator the special exemption is everything except the creator have to have a creator. If the creator dont need a creator why cant the universe have been created without a creator?
@@BriceJamesHagerman do you use the same logic on the Christian god that you do all the other Gods? Have you researched any of the other gods to narrow it down to which one or ones are even possible to exist? And do you know about the pantheon of Gods in the bible and how their story fit into the story of the bible?
@@defenestratefalsehoods If I understand your query correctly, it seems you would not agree with the philosophy that there needs to be an uncreated creator? If so, why not? If not, please elaborate.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*Let's briefly run through the 'ten plagues':* First the rivers are turned to blood, all the fish die and the waters stink. No one has any water to drink. This lasted for seven days and would have resulted in mass deaths due to dehydration. Amongst the first to die would have been the children. *The author doesn't think to explain how the Hebrews were saved from this. No record of it was made anywhere in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 7:17-25. This is followed by a plague of frogs which had somehow survived the rivers of blood that had killed all the fish. A mere inconvenience, nothing more, and a big stink when they all died, *but no record anywhere.* Exodus 8:2-13. Next we have the plague of lice about which very little is said *and of course no record was made.* To a people who would have been accustomed to lice this would probably have been nothing remarkable. Exodus 8:16-18. Then the flies. Apart from the land being 'corrupted', whatever that means, there don't appear to have been any ill effects from this and they disappear as quickly as they came a few days later. *Nothing worth recording there, obviously.* Exodus 8:21-31. Now the author seems to begin to lose the plot and describes a 'grievous murrain' *which kills all the Egyptians' cattle, horses, camels and sheep.* ***They all died - hold that thought.*** *No Egyptian historian or keeper of official records deems it worthy of mention.* Exodus 9:3-6. Next come the boils which afflict everyone and everything, including all the livestock ***even though they had been killed by the 'grievous murrain' a few days earlier,*** *apparently, and yet no-one thought to write anything down anywhere.* Of course, anyone who understood anything about microorganisms and the aeteology of boils would have described this as an infestation with Staphylococcus - the signs of faecal contamination - but the author was obviously unaware of these. Maybe he was just in too much of a muddle by now to care. Exodus 9:8-11. Now it's hailstones so bad that every plant, every tree, every servant (for servant read slave) ***and even the livestock (that our story-teller has forgotten already that he killed off in the fifth plague before given them boils in the sixth) were harmed.*** It looks like our story-teller has learned from his earlier silly mistake with killing all the livestock too soon then having to resurrect them later. He mentions that some plants survive. Do I smell stinking fish again? *The greatest hail storm in all Egyptian history, apparently, but not worthy of being recorded.* Exodus 9:18-25. It's the turn of the locusts and it's suddenly obvious why some plants had to survive. *How could the locusts turn Egypt into a barren desert if the hail storm had done it earlier?* Good thinking there. Shame about the earlier boob! *Mysteriously, no Egyptian scribe appears to notice any of this or the inevitable famine and mass starvation which would have ensued.* Exodus 10:4-15. And for the penultimate trick, it's going to be dark for three days. *No one makes a record of this, obviously.* Exodus 10:21-23. The last 'plague' is not so much a plague as a ritual genocide. *Here our tale takes a nasty turn and the true character of the Hebrew god is revealed in all its glory - a petty, vindictive, homicidal psychopath who has not yet acquired the omniscience he will be granted later. He kills every firstborn Egyptian in a single night,* ***including the firstborn of all the cattle that died in the fifth plague.*** *For some reason he needs the Hebrews to leave a secret sign so he doesn't kill them too. Weirdly, he can't tell his own chosen people from ordinary Egyptians and doesn't even know where they live.* And he had been leading up to this, apparently, because after every plague he 'hardens the heart' of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't let the Hebrews go. He had actually been planning this genocide all along just to impress people with his powers. *And still no-one thought even this mass killing in a single night worth making a note of in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 12:1-30. And then, of course, Pharaoh could muster up 600 horses to pull the chariots ***from amongst all the dead livestock from the 5th plague*** (Exodus 14:7). Google *"Rosa Rubicondior: Origins Of The Exodus Myth"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH- A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus"* *"For you were (not) slaves in Egypt: The ancient memories behind the Exodus myth - Archaeology - **Haaretz.com**"* *"Why the Exodus Story Has Value Despite Being Complete Myth - Psychology Today Australia"* *"Is the Exodus a Myth? - Worlds Beyond"* *"Historicity of Exodus and Moses - The Creatively Maladjusted"* *"Biblical Contradiction #81. When did the Exodus allegedly happen: during the reign of Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) OR in 1447 BC?"* *"Ten Reasons Why the Bible’s Story of the Exodus is Not True - by Tim Zeak - ExCommunications - Medium"* *"Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah - Thomas Shoemaker"* *"Sargon the Great and Moses - The Word of Me… Wordpress"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
well said. I'm Christian and know Jesus is my way but why should God loving and human loving good people burn in hell based on what region they're from or religion they are born into. we all worship the same creator and are trying to get into the same party. spreading the true meaning(love) of any of these books is doing Gods work. love is answer to every single problem plaguing planet Earth. God bless
@@andrewtroye1313 I believe faith in Jesus is the only way too, not by any works we could do. That is God's love, that He would send His Son to die for our sins and raise Him up in our victory. About other people being born into certain religions who may never hear about Jesus, I understand your point and I trust God. I believe the Bible is the only God's Word, the only book of truth. God does not send people to hell, sin does. Like the Bible tells us, Jesus is the only way to be safe from sin's punishment. Therefore, we are called to preach the only way and great news of Jesus. Have a great day friend.
His other flawed logic about atheists cannot judge God because they are not religious is like saying you can't judge cars because you're not a mechanic or you can't judge food because you're not a chef, you can't judge politics because you're not a politician, you can't judge paintins because your not a painter. See how dumb and illogical it sounds? If we agree murder is wrong how can you justify a god telling his people to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath?
Are you saying it is illogical to assume a moral law- giver given we have a moral law? If so, how? But if not, I misunderstood & I’m interested in understanding.
@@BriceJamesHagerman yes, there has been over 20 million gods that man has come up with that no one has proven to actually exist. Many with their own creation stories. Most went out as we learned more about the science of the earth. For example the sun being pulled across the sky by Ra or lightning bolts being thrown by Zeus. If the other 20 million + gods couldn't be proven then why is the idea of a god still in play and furthermore how do we narrow it down to the Christian God? The idea of the hindu gods have been around 500 years longer then christianity who also have a holy book and creation story. Most religions throughout history have the same: a God, creation story, and a holy text.
@@BriceJamesHagerman so the question is how do we go about proving this moral law giver? Right now you have a book of old laws and stories passed down through generations of people that dont conform to reality or show actual history.
@@defenestratefalsehoods “why is the idea of a god still in play..” - this depends. Do you believe the Christian God should have gone out like the other gods you mentioned as we learned more about the science of the earth, as you put it? If so, how? “…and furthermore how do we narrow it down to the Christian God?” - This also depends. You may or may not be aware of the alleged arguments for the Biblical God’s or historical Jesus’ existence. As a Christian theist, the data I’ve used for my conclusion is not limited to the Bible. I haven’t simply chosen the Biblical God or Jesus out of a proverbial hat, as if all theistic worldviews have the same weight or merit. As far as I’m concerned, belief in different gods other than the Biblical One don’t hold the philosophical values that make it worth investing in. & therefore, I believe philosophical means provide enough reason to narrow my belief down to the timeless, spaceless, immaterial God of the Bible as opposed to any other gods who have a beginning, take up space or are affected by time.
@@BriceJamesHagerman the only problem with your logic is the same all all theist, you cant prove most of what is in the bible, Its just a bunch of claims. The sun cant stop in the sky, the is no evidence of the Noah flood, and during the time period stated there was no Israelites who was slaves in Egypt or a Moses character in Egyptian history or from the surrounding region. Dead saints never marched on the city and then its the rip off story of sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19: 1-8 vs Judges 19:15-30 where all the men in the city just go out to rape traveling men at night. The stories are fictional and most have little to no proof that they happened. What year did the Moses story take place, who was pharaoh, and why is it not recorded anywhere in Egyptian history?
Given that the atheist claim is that God or gods do not exist, as opposed to the theist claim that they do exist, then it's hard to see how an atheist can make a moral claim that contradicts his world view. The claim "God and gods do not exist" is no more of a world view than is the claim "God or gods do exist". I don't see how a theist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God exists. I don't see how an atheist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God or gods do not exist. World views are based on far, far more than just those two claims. When it comes to "explanation", consistency of expectation is the big problem for folk like Greg and Kirk. AFAICT, they want atheists and folk of other religions to actually explain something, while allowing that they only need assert their argument, presumably for the reason that they (Kirk and Greg), know the Truth. Thus they require the atheist or a person of another faith to provide an evidence based, logical and testable description for some phenomenon, while they themselves ought to get a pass for providing little more than an assertion (e.g. "God did it, and we know this because we have the Truth"). I'd be surprised if it's any more than this.
It seems to me it is *much* more than an assertion, as opposed to a little more. As a Christian, I still have my doubts just as any honest truth-seeker, but I believe my worldview is more probable than the alternative. I’m sure those who disagree with me could say the same, albeit with a different result. Which is why I attempt to give a little more credit to opposing worldviews than brushing it off as merely an assertion or something similar. I may fail to do so mentally, but publicly in a forum or comment section I feel I give each person & their views their due diligence.
" I don't see how a theist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God exists." I can, it's being honest with the evidence rather than ignoring it. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block The point I am trying to make is this. The two claims:- a) "God/gods exist" - theism b) "God/gods do not exist" - atheism - are nothing more than claims. They cannot be worldviews in their own right because if the Aztec gods exist then your actions and behaviours would be different to your actions and behaviours if Allah exists which would be different to your actions and behaviours if the Christian God exists. So if your actions and behaviours change, depending on which God or gods exist, there must be more to a world view than the simple claim - "God/gods exist." Does that help you understand my point? //So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means.// I have no idea how existence came to be by natural means. (I have three speculations for how existence may have come to be. But I have no good scientific theory. If you like I can tell you of those speculations.) So rather than linking me to a few hours of videos (some of which are missing) which presumably I am to watch, why not explain to me how existence came to be from your perspective, given that you appear to know. Explain it to the same degree and depth you expect me to explain it. Show me what the true explanation looks like. Show me what a good explanation looks like, given that I have only speculations. But don't link me to hours of videos. That only suggests that you cannot explain it yourself.
Christianity is the best explanation for you. And for you that works and that’s fine. But please don’t make it out like it’s “the best” out of all of the philosophies out there and nothing else works to explain things. As long as you don’t go there then no problem.
This is such a moronic word salad. If you try to step on a cockroach, he runs away. If you leave food on the ground he will approach it. Do cockroaches have God's morality? All creatures want to be treated well and not harmed. Humans are EXACTLY the same. This is the actual basis of our morality - we try to treat people as we want to be treated. Those who don't do this demonstrate, depending upon to what extent they violate this morality, various degrees of "evil". You don't need an invisible flying man with a beard and sandals to teach you to care and be nice to others. It is in ALL CREATURE'S common sense or instincts (unless the other creature is food or prey). Stop with this nonsense!
That man with the beard and sandals did shed His blood so that we can get saved from our sins and transgretions. He came, He lived, He died and was resirected.. He is coming back to reign as King of Kings and the Lord of all!! The world is a mess everything is falling into place but bottomline is if you want it or not He loves you and if you open your heart He will reveal Himself to you!! Don't be deceived by the father of all lies at the end of your life you will know the truth but please do not wait until then it maybe to late!! God doesn't get shocked by non-believers. No one good ever proof that God doesn't exist but millions of souls would confirm.. I know my Redeemer lives as He became real to me in my hour of need and changed my heart and my life. And even if I die I am not afraid because He is always with me!! Go ask the people who has so many testimonies on RUclips why they love the Man with the sandals and beard with all their hearts!! He became real to them. I will not get in a debate with you but maybe one day you will think about this I do hope so even if you hate God with everything inside of you right now. That is very strange that ateists hate someone so much that they don't even believe exists. And stop blaming everything on religion there is one thing that must get the blame and it is the black wicked sinful hearts of men without Salvation!
Amazing how you waste your time trying to recruit Christians to be on Satan’s team! Why even bother watching Kirk? Surely your mind is as closed as an oyster! Go and live your life but he’s trying to help you here and YOU NEED IT THE MOST! ❤️
@Antoinette Do you hate Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Just because you have NO evidence for something's existence does NOT mean you hate them. I do realize Christians LOVE to hate anyone different than themselves, but please TRY to restrain yourself in this instance. I do not hate God - I feel the same for him as I do for Zeus or Apollo.
@The Morgane Club Sorry, but the only one blinded and brainwashed here is you. BTW, what uniforms does Satan's Team wear? I watched Kirk because (unlike you) I try to listen to all sides of a debate and examine evidence before I make up my mind. I noticed that none of you actually tried to answer my questions - you just spout out your mindless propaganda.
He wears vile words and a rotten soul , guess you must know him better than God unfortunately! If you don’t like Kirk go watch other preachers, but why even bother you’re right uhm? This is YOUR soul in jeopardy not mine or his ;) I won’t be any more time trying to convince the sky is blue and water is transparent, for it is ALL AN ILLUSION to you! Good day to you
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation. How can you possibly trust Christ alone for salvation when you are also trusting in your performance (repenting of sins/obedience)? You absolutely can't. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything, to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ "alone" for salvation. When you have believed on Christ alone for salvation then you have repented unto life!!! God immediately declares you justified and gives you everlasting life as a free gift. Salvation is absolutely free, instant, and eternal, recieved solely by trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone, and is certainly not conditional upon service to God. Service (discipleship) if you choose it can cost you everything if you go all out in serving God. Our good works, repenting of sins, and obedience, are for temporal fellowship with God here on earth and for rewards in Heaven or a lack thereof and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all. The only reason anyone will ever be in Heaven is solely by the perfect life, shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ alone. Anything added or subtracted from this is another gospel. False teachers redefine faith as obedience and belief as total commitment. The Biblical definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Let's review: What must I do to be saved? Make a commitment? Promise to follow Jesus? Surrender my will? Pick up my cross daily? Make Jesus Lord and Master of my life? Repent of my sins? Give my life to Christ? Etc??? No!!!, those are works of service and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 16:31, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That means to put all of your confidence (trust) in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. You and your mentor Ray Comfort have another gospel of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense.
*Jesus falsely prophesied his return in the 1st century* Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God Luke 9:27 Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Mark 13:30 The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Matthew 24:29-34 There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Luke 21:25-32 *Jesus promised to return over 2, 000 years ago and he still hasn’t.* Jesus and the angels never appeared from Heaven, the stars never fell from the sky, none of these things happened. Nothing he prophesied happened. ***Apologists can try to spin this, but the simple fact is that Jesus was either wrong or misquoted.*** According to the Bible that makes Jesus a false prophet or misquoted (and if Jesus is misquoted than the Bible is not inerrant or the word of God) How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken Deuteronomy 18:21-22 *Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin* Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal) You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** Matthew 26:64 Mark 14:62 Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing. *Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel* Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathanael when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** John 1:50-51 *Nathanael never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.* The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, look up the following. *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
*CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RATIONALIZATIONS* To anyone not already indoctrinated into Christianity reading the above passages it is crystal clear that according to the Bible Jesus was supposed to return in the first century of the Christian Era. That has not happened. Yet the Christian religion persists with the majority of its adherents still awaiting the return of their savior. How have they reconciled their scriptures to reality? There are several lines of thought in Christendom about this. *Rationalization #1: Matthew 16:28 refers to Jesus’ transfiguration, not his second coming.* The transfiguration of Jesus is a story recorded in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. The first problem is that these Gospels place the transfiguration at different times. In Matthew, it occurs after Jesus made the prediction about his second coming. That might make it seem reasonable to think that it was a fulfillment of the earlier prediction. However, Mark and Luke place the transfiguration event before Jesus made spoke the prophecy. Laying aside the obvious discrepency in timing, we can say for certain that an event occurring before a prediction is made can’t be fulfilling the prediction. The “prediction” wouldn’t be a prediction at all. The preceding verse (verse 27) starts off the description of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. That is not what happened in the transfiguration stories. Therefore, the explanation doesn’t work. Some try to make it work by separating verse 28 from the preceding verse so that the two verses talk about different “comings”. This is a baseless tinkering with the passage in order to make a doctrine fit the scripture. The same Christians who do this will accuse other of taking verses out of context when they disagree with an interpretation. Yet, this is exactly what they do here. *Rationalization #2: The word translated “generation” can mean “race”. So, Jesus meant the Jewish race would not die out before he returns.* This is a manufactured definition to suit doctrinal purposes. When you see “generation” in the New Testament is means just that - people living in a particular era, not a race of people. Elsewhere when he speaks of the Jews, he does so by saying “Jews”. It’s rather strange that he would speak cryptically in just this one instance. *Rationalization #3: When Jesus said “this generation shall not pass away” he meant the generation living at the time of the end times tribulation.* Correct! Jesus told his followers that they would go through persecution. So, he apparently thought they would be the generation living at the time of the end. It is evident in the writings of the New Testament that first century Christians saw the tribulations they were going through as a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the end times and the tribulation. If they saw it as such, modern Christians have no real justification not to see it that way as well. Notice that Jesus didn’t say “that generation” - which would be the normal way of referring to a future generation. He said “this generation”. Besides through a plain common sense reading of the text, we know he meant the people alive while he was speaking because he said that some of his listeners (and the high priest at his trial) would still be alive to see his return to Earth. *Rationalization #4: When Jesus said that some of his listeners would be alive to see him return, he was talking about the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church.* This is another explanation that is so far from rational that is it hard to accept that anyone sincerely believes it. The Book of Acts tells the story of the Holy Spirit appearing over the heads of the saints as tongues of fire endowing them with the magical ability to speak in unlearned languages. There is no mention of them seeing Jesus in the clouds with angels. The supposed event did not accompany the final judgment. None of the things Jesus said would occur at his return happened on the Day of Pentecost. *Rationalization #5: When it was revealed to John in his visions that Jesus would come quickly, it is to happen on God’s time scale, not a human time scale. “The time is near” and “coming quickly” are not to be taken literally. To God a thousand years is a day.* This is actually the first Christian attempt (found in 2 Peter 3) to explain away the fact that Jesus had not come as expected. Believers of the time had begun to waver in their faith because Jesus had not come back as promised. The writer tells them not to listen to people who say, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) By “fathers”, he evidently means the founding fathers of the faith who had all died by that time. This is evidence that almost from the start of Christianity, believers have been wrestling with the apparent failure of their savior’s end times prophecy. In verse 8, the writer tries to reassure them by saying, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” and continues in the next verse to say that the Lord is not slacking on his promise. He basically tries to make the argument that time is meaningless to God. This passage is in obvious contradiction to what Jesus himself said about his return and everything else written in the New Testament about it. This contradiction raises the question: Did the Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ personal disciples, actually write this book? The most truthful answer: Not likely. When reading 2 Peter, we must keep in mind when it was written. It is well-known that many of the writings floating around the early church were not written by the people claimed to have written them, but were forged by believers to push their particular doctrines. This is most likely the case with the book of 2 Peter. The first clue is that the writer acknowledged that “the fathers” have died. Since Peter was one of those founding fathers of the church, he couldn’t have written this book. It has proven difficult for scholars to pinpoint exactly when the book was written, but they all place its origin sometime between 60 and 160 A.D. This means that it was written at least 30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion is believed to have taken place when he was 33. Assuming his disciples were somewhere around his own age and taking into account average life expectancy of that time and that, according to church tradition, the apostles were all killed, none of them would have likely been alive in 60 A.D. (the earliest date scholars say the book would have been written). So, what can we make of the fact that this is in the Bible? It was written by a believer who didn’t want Jesus’ failure to come to cause the faith to die out. Knowing that Peter was a founding apostle and a personal disciple of Jesus who was deemed to be the first Pope of the Christian faction that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church, the writer forged this book in Peter’s name. It seems likely that this was an attempt to keep believers in the nascent Catholic churches in the fold. This is not the only case of forgery to uphold Catholic doctrine. (There are other forgeries in the New Testament that have been recognized by scholars as such.) Whether written by the apostle Peter or something else, it is an obvious rationalization to try to deal with the failure of a prediction that came to be central to the Christian religion. We do not accept similar rationalizations from modern-day doomsdayers and we shouldn’t accept them from ancient religious people either. *Rationalization #6: In Matthew 16 when Jesus said some of his listeners would see him “coming in his kingdom”, he was talking about his coming into his kingdom in Heaven after his resurrection when he went back to Heaven. Many saw this event through visions.* This fails to take into account what Jesus said his “coming in his kingdom” would be connected to the day of judgment when he would “reward each according to his works”. As far as I know, no Christian apologists say the judgment occurred when Jesus supposedly went back to Heaven in the first century. Everything in the New Testament places judgment day at the end of the world. Even if we were to throw the Matthew 16 passage completely out of the Bible, there would still be the problem of other passages where Jesus said “this generation will not pass” before he comes and New Testament writers testifying to their belief that he would come in their lifetime. It is no wonder that this rationalization has largely been dropped by Christian theologians. *Rationalization #7: Maybe in our human understanding we don’t know what Jesus meant when he said “this general would not pass away” and that “some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. He couldn’t have meant he was coming in the first century because he hasn’t come back yet and that would make him a false prophet.* This rationalization is nothing more than interpreting the Bible by a doctrine you want to be true. If you’re going to believe in the Jesus of the Bible, shouldn’t you base your doctrines on what the Bible actually says? It is self-deceit to look at Jesus’ “prophecy” detailing his return in the lifetime of his disciples and rationalize why it didn’t happen. Only a mind interested in maintaining the illusion of faith could twist and mangle the plain words of the Bible the way Christians have in an attempt to make the incredible credible. An honest mind looking at the facts would have no choice but to admit that Jesus’ prophecy of the end of days has failed to come true.
"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. *"The First Easters: Death and Resurrection Before Christ | atheologica"* *"The Christs Before Christ: Tammuz-Adonis | atheologica"* Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* *"Rising Gods, Pagan Parallels, and Cultural Context: A Response to M. David Litwa | atheologica"* *"An Evidence Attested Resurrection? - chromosome two"* *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* *"Theological Dodgeball: On the Posturing of Faith over Reason | atheologica"* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
No, being an atheist is all on you. You chose to be a loser so don't blame God. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
CANNOT WAIT!! Thank you Kirk for being truthful! You inspire me A LOT ❤️ hope you know you make a difference!
For Greg Koukl to "reason" with an atheist he would first have to understand how to reason; an inability he demonstrates with every word he says.
Hahahahahahah!! And by what standard do you think reason exists? Given that science primordial approach is not empirical but pure reason what do you have to say about Hegel's work on criticizing Emmanuelle's work on "Pure reason critique"?
Funny, you sound like Napoleon the Pig from Animal Farm...must be pure coincidence that your assertion is that of complete invalidation by circular argument: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"... Must be nice to reason like that and never have to prove anything.
@@einarabelc5 And your standard for reason would be... let me guess... God? And which god might that be of the thousands that have been worshiped throughout recorded history? YOUR god of course -- the one which you were indoctrinated to believe in. Please refrain from demonstrating your delusion any further.
Oh, c'mon. That's weak and lame. You disagree with him. Just say that. If he can't reason, then no one can understand him. You're not reasonable with that statement. Just prejudiced.
I’m enjoying your insightful interviews Kirk! Keep ‘em coming!
Hi Kirk, jus want you to know I do my best to not miss one of your video's. It's so Awesome when I came across you and Ray. I can't get enough of your sermons. I love God and I can't wait to go to heaven. Thank you for being a GREAT EXAMPLE TO ALL MEN. You and Ray along with the other shepherds are amazing. God bless you all. Much love and hugs. 🙏❤🙏 #sinnersavedbygrace
Great interview! Trying to explain Spiritual Truth to someone blind in his/her unregenerate nature is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
Really enjoyed this conversation ! Kirk I love the thought provoking topics and people you bring on the show . Praise be to God in the Highest .
Greg is amazing.. thank you
Agreed!
- The Kirk Cameron on TBN Team
I'm wondering why your shows on TBN aren't available with synchronized CC. It's maddening to watch. Captions come and go so quickly there it's almost impossible to watch that show if a person has a hearing loss depending on the CC working correctly. Thanks for looking into this.
Kirk, please pray this Biblical prayer and ask all believers at your events to pray along with you. Asa prayed this prayer against his enemies when they were about to be attacked. "Then Asa called to the LORD his God and said, “LORD, there is no one besides You to help in the battle between the powerful and those who have no strength; help us, LORD our God, for we trust in You, and in Your name have come against this multitude. LORD, You are our God; do not let man prevail against You.” In Jesus’ name, AMEN
thanx brothers
Three seconds in and it looks like it's the moral argument. If anyone here wants to discuss the moral argument for God, I can explain why it doesn't work. Morality can be easily explained as preferences individuals have. We desire things to be and we desire things to not be. If you want to talk on this, feel free to reply.
"If anyone here wants to discuss the moral argument for God, I can explain why it doesn't work."
God created all this and us. God gave us rules to follow. Are you more powerful and knowledgeable than God? Show what credentials you have over God's.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block Your argument seems to be the following:
P1 - God created us
P2 - God gave us rules
C - We have to follow those rules
This argument is neither sound nor valid. P1 has not been shown to be true (Not sound). Also the conclusion does not follow (not valid).
At this point you'll need to rework your argument for it to be convincing.
That pretty much describes our current society, works well on a superficial level.
Bwaahaha, must be why Pedophilia is about to get instantiated as legal...Eugenics is becoming the new normative here and Canada (Dave Rubin's "fatherhood" and the Law to "assist" the mentally ill in committing suicide when one of their symptoms is suicidality which only lasts during periods of crisis). Don't worry I had a Polish descent Canadian friend who's family escaped WWII Poland who did the same mental trick as you. Nah "bro"...you just don't want to be accountable, that's all. Keep trying.
This should be good.
Well if you are Kirk Cameron, you first need to learn what reason is.
How can you tell snakes talking, donkeys talking, walking in water, change water in wine is the best way to describe reality??? 😳😳
Thank God I'm an atheist
2 Corinthians 3:2- (NIV)
You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
It’s amazing that Koukl wants to shift the problem of evil to the atheist. The classical problem of evil is how does one reconcile the existence of evil with a good and all powerful god?
He’s just using a debate tactic and it’s not convincing at all. I find it very telling he doesn’t reference the book of Job to answer the problem of suffering bc it’s the only book of the Bible dedicated to the problem of theodicy. The answer? We suffer bc God is testing us to see if we will remain loyal to him. So, if your wife leaves you, if your child dies of cancer, if you suffer from a chronic illness God is testing your love for him. Charming, right? But that’s what the Bible teaches.
@@jonnyw82 you sure love being a pretend bible expert.
ruclips.net/video/2L-66Yy7gXQ/видео.html
@@jonnyw82 Actually that's completely wrong. God allows evil because he gave us free choice. God can't force us to choose good or choose him as then we don't have free will. Evil is choosing to do something that God disagrees with as he is the standard of good that all objective morality comes from. God is not testing us to see if we remain loyal to him, the Book of Job is from the Old Testament and therefore before Jesus scarified himself on a cross so that we can be redeemed of our sin and be fully reconciled with God.
@@acurisur Ww have free choice? So we can choose to be good?
@@jonnyw82 And we can and do choose to be evil too.
Right out the gate his logic is flawed. 4000 years ago Ra was the best explanation for why the sun moved across the sky, Zeus was the best explanation for lightning, and on and on with over 20 million+ Gods that man came up with to best explain the world. Was all the other people throughout history right?????? NO, why are you any different????
Are you assuming the Biblical God is no different than Ra or Zeus? 🤔 Just attempting to understand your view more fully.
@@BriceJamesHagerman yes, its the god of the gaps like the other 20 million + gods man has come up with. You have to have special exemptions to make the story work. For example: Christians say everything have to have a creator and when question is asked who created the creator the special exemption is everything except the creator have to have a creator. If the creator dont need a creator why cant the universe have been created without a creator?
@@BriceJamesHagerman do you use the same logic on the Christian god that you do all the other Gods? Have you researched any of the other gods to narrow it down to which one or ones are even possible to exist? And do you know about the pantheon of Gods in the bible and how their story fit into the story of the bible?
100%
@@defenestratefalsehoods If I understand your query correctly, it seems you would not agree with the philosophy that there needs to be an uncreated creator? If so, why not? If not, please elaborate.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her first lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from approx. 8:50.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"*
*"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"*
*"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"*
*"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"*
*"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"*
(A Christian organisation)
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*Let's briefly run through the 'ten plagues':*
First the rivers are turned to blood, all the fish die and the waters stink. No one has any water to drink. This lasted for seven days and would have resulted in mass deaths due to dehydration. Amongst the first to die would have been the children. *The author doesn't think to explain how the Hebrews were saved from this. No record of it was made anywhere in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 7:17-25.
This is followed by a plague of frogs which had somehow survived the rivers of blood that had killed all the fish. A mere inconvenience, nothing more, and a big stink when they all died, *but no record anywhere.* Exodus 8:2-13.
Next we have the plague of lice about which very little is said *and of course no record was made.* To a people who would have been accustomed to lice this would probably have been nothing remarkable. Exodus 8:16-18.
Then the flies. Apart from the land being 'corrupted', whatever that means, there don't appear to have been any ill effects from this and they disappear as quickly as they came a few days later. *Nothing worth recording there, obviously.* Exodus 8:21-31.
Now the author seems to begin to lose the plot and describes a 'grievous murrain' *which kills all the Egyptians' cattle, horses, camels and sheep.* ***They all died - hold that thought.*** *No Egyptian historian or keeper of official records deems it worthy of mention.* Exodus 9:3-6.
Next come the boils which afflict everyone and everything, including all the livestock ***even though they had been killed by the 'grievous murrain' a few days earlier,*** *apparently, and yet no-one thought to write anything down anywhere.* Of course, anyone who understood anything about microorganisms and the aeteology of boils would have described this as an infestation with Staphylococcus - the signs of faecal contamination - but the author was obviously unaware of these. Maybe he was just in too much of a muddle by now to care. Exodus 9:8-11.
Now it's hailstones so bad that every plant, every tree, every servant (for servant read slave) ***and even the livestock (that our story-teller has forgotten already that he killed off in the fifth plague before given them boils in the sixth) were harmed.*** It looks like our story-teller has learned from his earlier silly mistake with killing all the livestock too soon then having to resurrect them later. He mentions that some plants survive. Do I smell stinking fish again? *The greatest hail storm in all Egyptian history, apparently, but not worthy of being recorded.* Exodus 9:18-25.
It's the turn of the locusts and it's suddenly obvious why some plants had to survive. *How could the locusts turn Egypt into a barren desert if the hail storm had done it earlier?* Good thinking there. Shame about the earlier boob! *Mysteriously, no Egyptian scribe appears to notice any of this or the inevitable famine and mass starvation which would have ensued.* Exodus 10:4-15.
And for the penultimate trick, it's going to be dark for three days. *No one makes a record of this, obviously.* Exodus 10:21-23.
The last 'plague' is not so much a plague as a ritual genocide. *Here our tale takes a nasty turn and the true character of the Hebrew god is revealed in all its glory - a petty, vindictive, homicidal psychopath who has not yet acquired the omniscience he will be granted later. He kills every firstborn Egyptian in a single night,* ***including the firstborn of all the cattle that died in the fifth plague.*** *For some reason he needs the Hebrews to leave a secret sign so he doesn't kill them too. Weirdly, he can't tell his own chosen people from ordinary Egyptians and doesn't even know where they live.* And he had been leading up to this, apparently, because after every plague he 'hardens the heart' of Pharaoh so that he wouldn't let the Hebrews go. He had actually been planning this genocide all along just to impress people with his powers. *And still no-one thought even this mass killing in a single night worth making a note of in any Egyptian records.* Exodus 12:1-30.
And then, of course, Pharaoh could muster up 600 horses to pull the chariots ***from amongst all the dead livestock from the 5th plague*** (Exodus 14:7).
Google *"Rosa Rubicondior: Origins Of The Exodus Myth"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH- A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus"*
*"For you were (not) slaves in Egypt: The ancient memories behind the Exodus myth - Archaeology - **Haaretz.com**"*
*"Why the Exodus Story Has Value Despite Being Complete Myth - Psychology Today Australia"*
*"Is the Exodus a Myth? - Worlds Beyond"*
*"Historicity of Exodus and Moses - The Creatively Maladjusted"*
*"Biblical Contradiction #81. When did the Exodus allegedly happen: during the reign of Rameses II (1279-1213 BC) OR in 1447 BC?"*
*"Ten Reasons Why the Bible’s Story of the Exodus is Not True - by Tim Zeak - ExCommunications - Medium"*
*"Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah - Thomas Shoemaker"*
*"Sargon the Great and Moses - The Word of Me… Wordpress"*
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
well said. I'm Christian and know Jesus is my way but why should God loving and human loving good people burn in hell based on what region they're from or religion they are born into. we all worship the same creator and are trying to get into the same party. spreading the true meaning(love) of any of these books is doing Gods work. love is answer to every single problem plaguing planet Earth. God bless
@@andrewtroye1313 I believe faith in Jesus is the only way too, not by any works we could do. That is God's love, that He would send His Son to die for our sins and raise Him up in our victory. About other people being born into certain religions who may never hear about Jesus, I understand your point and I trust God. I believe the Bible is the only God's Word, the only book of truth.
God does not send people to hell, sin does. Like the Bible tells us, Jesus is the only way to be safe from sin's punishment. Therefore, we are called to preach the only way and great news of Jesus. Have a great day friend.
His other flawed logic about atheists cannot judge God because they are not religious is like saying you can't judge cars because you're not a mechanic or you can't judge food because you're not a chef, you can't judge politics because you're not a politician, you can't judge paintins because your not a painter. See how dumb and illogical it sounds? If we agree murder is wrong how can you justify a god telling his people to stone a man to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath?
Are you saying it is illogical to assume a moral law- giver given we have a moral law? If so, how? But if not, I misunderstood & I’m interested in understanding.
@@BriceJamesHagerman yes, there has been over 20 million gods that man has come up with that no one has proven to actually exist. Many with their own creation stories. Most went out as we learned more about the science of the earth. For example the sun being pulled across the sky by Ra or lightning bolts being thrown by Zeus. If the other 20 million + gods couldn't be proven then why is the idea of a god still in play and furthermore how do we narrow it down to the Christian God? The idea of the hindu gods have been around 500 years longer then christianity who also have a holy book and creation story. Most religions throughout history have the same: a God, creation story, and a holy text.
@@BriceJamesHagerman so the question is how do we go about proving this moral law giver? Right now you have a book of old laws and stories passed down through generations of people that dont conform to reality or show actual history.
@@defenestratefalsehoods “why is the idea of a god still in play..” - this depends. Do you believe the Christian God should have gone out like the other gods you mentioned as we learned more about the science of the earth, as you put it? If so, how?
“…and furthermore how do we narrow it down to the Christian God?” - This also depends. You may or may not be aware of the alleged arguments for the Biblical God’s or historical Jesus’ existence. As a Christian theist, the data I’ve used for my conclusion is not limited to the Bible. I haven’t simply chosen the Biblical God or Jesus out of a proverbial hat, as if all theistic worldviews have the same weight or merit. As far as I’m concerned, belief in different gods other than the Biblical One don’t hold the philosophical values that make it worth investing in. & therefore, I believe philosophical means provide enough reason to narrow my belief down to the timeless, spaceless, immaterial God of the Bible as opposed to any other gods who have a beginning, take up space or are affected by time.
@@BriceJamesHagerman the only problem with your logic is the same all all theist, you cant prove most of what is in the bible, Its just a bunch of claims. The sun cant stop in the sky, the is no evidence of the Noah flood, and during the time period stated there was no Israelites who was slaves in Egypt or a Moses character in Egyptian history or from the surrounding region. Dead saints never marched on the city and then its the rip off story of sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19: 1-8 vs Judges 19:15-30 where all the men in the city just go out to rape traveling men at night. The stories are fictional and most have little to no proof that they happened. What year did the Moses story take place, who was pharaoh, and why is it not recorded anywhere in Egyptian history?
It looks like they're wearing the same shoes.
Given that the atheist claim is that God or gods do not exist, as opposed to the theist claim that they do exist, then it's hard to see how an atheist can make a moral claim that contradicts his world view. The claim "God and gods do not exist" is no more of a world view than is the claim "God or gods do exist". I don't see how a theist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God exists. I don't see how an atheist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God or gods do not exist.
World views are based on far, far more than just those two claims.
When it comes to "explanation", consistency of expectation is the big problem for folk like Greg and Kirk. AFAICT, they want atheists and folk of other religions to actually explain something, while allowing that they only need assert their argument, presumably for the reason that they (Kirk and Greg), know the Truth. Thus they require the atheist or a person of another faith to provide an evidence based, logical and testable description for some phenomenon, while they themselves ought to get a pass for providing little more than an assertion (e.g. "God did it, and we know this because we have the Truth").
I'd be surprised if it's any more than this.
It seems to me it is *much* more than an assertion, as opposed to a little more. As a Christian, I still have my doubts just as any honest truth-seeker, but I believe my worldview is more probable than the alternative. I’m sure those who disagree with me could say the same, albeit with a different result. Which is why I attempt to give a little more credit to opposing worldviews than brushing it off as merely an assertion or something similar. I may fail to do so mentally, but publicly in a forum or comment section I feel I give each person & their views their due diligence.
" I don't see how a theist can make a moral claim based on the assertion that God exists."
I can, it's being honest with the evidence rather than ignoring it.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block
The point I am trying to make is this. The two claims:-
a) "God/gods exist" - theism
b) "God/gods do not exist" - atheism
- are nothing more than claims. They cannot be worldviews in their own right because if the Aztec gods exist then your actions and behaviours would be different to your actions and behaviours if Allah exists which would be different to your actions and behaviours if the Christian God exists. So if your actions and behaviours change, depending on which God or gods exist, there must be more to a world view than the simple claim - "God/gods exist."
Does that help you understand my point?
//So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means.//
I have no idea how existence came to be by natural means. (I have three speculations for how existence may have come to be. But I have no good scientific theory. If you like I can tell you of those speculations.)
So rather than linking me to a few hours of videos (some of which are missing) which presumably I am to watch, why not explain to me how existence came to be from your perspective, given that you appear to know. Explain it to the same degree and depth you expect me to explain it.
Show me what the true explanation looks like. Show me what a good explanation looks like, given that I have only speculations.
But don't link me to hours of videos. That only suggests that you cannot explain it yourself.
Christianity is the best explanation for you. And for you that works and that’s fine. But please don’t make it out like it’s “the best” out of all of the philosophies out there and nothing else works to explain things. As long as you don’t go there then no problem.
no its not lol, in fact, its one of the worst ways to make sense of the world, other than islam
This is such a moronic word salad.
If you try to step on a cockroach, he runs away. If you leave food on the ground he will approach it. Do cockroaches have God's morality?
All creatures want to be treated well and not harmed. Humans are EXACTLY the same. This is the actual basis of our morality - we try to treat people as we want to be treated. Those who don't do this demonstrate, depending upon to what extent they violate this morality, various degrees of "evil".
You don't need an invisible flying man with a beard and sandals to teach you to care and be nice to others. It is in ALL CREATURE'S common sense or instincts (unless the other creature is food or prey).
Stop with this nonsense!
That man with the beard and sandals did shed His blood so that we can get saved from our sins and transgretions. He came, He lived, He died and was resirected.. He is coming back to reign as King of Kings and the Lord of all!! The world is a mess everything is falling into place but bottomline is if you want it or not He loves you and if you open your heart He will reveal Himself to you!! Don't be deceived by the father of all lies at the end of your life you will know the truth but please do not wait until then it maybe to late!! God doesn't get shocked by non-believers. No one good ever proof that God doesn't exist but millions of souls would confirm.. I know my Redeemer lives as He became real to me in my hour of need and changed my heart and my life. And even if I die I am not afraid because He is always with me!! Go ask the people who has so many testimonies on RUclips why they love the Man with the sandals and beard with all their hearts!! He became real to them. I will not get in a debate with you but maybe one day you will think about this I do hope so even if you hate God with everything inside of you right now. That is very strange that ateists hate someone so much that they don't even believe exists. And stop blaming everything on religion there is one thing that must get the blame and it is the black wicked sinful hearts of men without Salvation!
Amazing how you waste your time trying to recruit Christians to be on Satan’s team! Why even bother watching Kirk? Surely your mind is as closed as an oyster! Go and live your life but he’s trying to help you here and YOU NEED IT THE MOST! ❤️
@Antoinette Do you hate Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
Just because you have NO evidence for something's existence does NOT mean you hate them.
I do realize Christians LOVE to hate anyone different than themselves, but please TRY to restrain yourself in this instance. I do not hate God - I feel the same for him as I do for Zeus or Apollo.
@The Morgane Club Sorry, but the only one blinded and brainwashed here is you.
BTW, what uniforms does Satan's Team wear?
I watched Kirk because (unlike you) I try to listen to all sides of a debate and examine evidence before I make up my mind.
I noticed that none of you actually tried to answer my questions - you just spout out your mindless propaganda.
He wears vile words and a rotten soul , guess you must know him better than God unfortunately! If you don’t like Kirk go watch other preachers, but why even bother you’re right uhm? This is YOUR soul in jeopardy not mine or his ;) I won’t be any more time trying to convince the sky is blue and water is transparent, for it is ALL AN ILLUSION to you! Good day to you
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation.
How can you possibly trust Christ alone for salvation when you are also trusting in your performance (repenting of sins/obedience)?
You absolutely can't.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything, to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ "alone" for salvation.
When you have believed on Christ alone for salvation then you have repented unto life!!!
God immediately declares you justified and gives you everlasting life as a free gift.
Salvation is absolutely free, instant, and eternal, recieved solely by trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone, and is certainly not conditional upon service to God.
Service (discipleship) if you choose it can cost you everything if you go all out in serving God.
Our good works, repenting of sins, and obedience, are for temporal fellowship with God here on earth and for rewards in Heaven or a lack thereof and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all.
The only reason anyone will ever be in Heaven is solely by the perfect life, shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ alone.
Anything added or subtracted from this is another gospel.
False teachers redefine faith as obedience and belief as total commitment.
The Biblical definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Let's review: What must I do to be saved?
Make a commitment?
Promise to follow Jesus?
Surrender my will?
Pick up my cross daily?
Make Jesus Lord and Master of my life?
Repent of my sins?
Give my life to Christ?
Etc???
No!!!, those are works of service and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Acts 16:31,
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
That means to put all of your confidence (trust) in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
You and your mentor Ray Comfort have another gospel of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense.
lol, what a troll. The world makes so much more sense without believing your invisible friend is the best.
*Jesus falsely prophesied his return in the 1st century*
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom Matthew 16:28
Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here*** will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God Luke 9:27
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Mark 13:30
The sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Matthew 24:29-34
There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. When you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
Truly I tell you, ***this generation will certainly not pass away*** until all these things have happened Luke 21:25-32
*Jesus promised to return over 2, 000 years ago and he still hasn’t.*
Jesus and the angels never appeared from Heaven, the stars never fell from the sky, none of these things happened. Nothing he prophesied happened.
***Apologists can try to spin this, but the simple fact is that Jesus was either wrong or misquoted.***
According to the Bible that makes Jesus a false prophet or misquoted (and if Jesus is misquoted than the Bible is not inerrant or the word of God)
How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken Deuteronomy 18:21-22
*Jesus falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to the high priest and the Sanhedrin (assemblies of either twenty-three or seventy-one rabbis appointed to sit as a tribunal)
You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and ***coming on the clouds of heaven*** Matthew 26:64 Mark 14:62
Except the high priest and the Sanhedrin never saw Jesus sitting at the right hand side of God, or coming on the clouds of heaven, or any such thing.
*Jesus falsely prophesied to Nathaniel*
Jesus also falsely prophesied to Nathanael when he declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.”
Jesus said, You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that. He then added, ***“Very truly I tell you, you will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man*** John 1:50-51
*Nathanael never saw any such thing. Neither did anyone else.*
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
Watch *Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman*
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, look up the following.
*"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"*
*"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
*"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
*"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"*
*"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
*"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
*"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"*
*"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"*
*"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"*
*"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
*CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RATIONALIZATIONS*
To anyone not already indoctrinated into Christianity reading the above passages it is crystal clear that according to the Bible Jesus was supposed to return in the first century of the Christian Era. That has not happened. Yet the Christian religion persists with the majority of its adherents still awaiting the return of their savior. How have they reconciled their scriptures to reality? There are several lines of thought in Christendom about this.
*Rationalization #1: Matthew 16:28 refers to Jesus’ transfiguration, not his second coming.*
The transfiguration of Jesus is a story recorded in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. The first problem is that these Gospels place the transfiguration at different times. In Matthew, it occurs after Jesus made the prediction about his second coming. That might make it seem reasonable to think that it was a fulfillment of the earlier prediction. However, Mark and Luke place the transfiguration event before Jesus made spoke the prophecy. Laying aside the obvious discrepency in timing, we can say for certain that an event occurring before a prediction is made can’t be fulfilling the prediction. The “prediction” wouldn’t be a prediction at all.
The preceding verse (verse 27) starts off the description of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. That is not what happened in the transfiguration stories. Therefore, the explanation doesn’t work. Some try to make it work by separating verse 28 from the preceding verse so that the two verses talk about different “comings”. This is a baseless tinkering with the passage in order to make a doctrine fit the scripture. The same Christians who do this will accuse other of taking verses out of context when they disagree with an interpretation. Yet, this is exactly what they do here.
*Rationalization #2: The word translated “generation” can mean “race”. So, Jesus meant the Jewish race would not die out before he returns.*
This is a manufactured definition to suit doctrinal purposes. When you see “generation” in the New Testament is means just that - people living in a particular era, not a race of people. Elsewhere when he speaks of the Jews, he does so by saying “Jews”. It’s rather strange that he would speak cryptically in just this one instance.
*Rationalization #3: When Jesus said “this generation shall not pass away” he meant the generation living at the time of the end times tribulation.*
Correct! Jesus told his followers that they would go through persecution. So, he apparently thought they would be the generation living at the time of the end. It is evident in the writings of the New Testament that first century Christians saw the tribulations they were going through as a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the end times and the tribulation. If they saw it as such, modern Christians have no real justification not to see it that way as well.
Notice that Jesus didn’t say “that generation” - which would be the normal way of referring to a future generation. He said “this generation”. Besides through a plain common sense reading of the text, we know he meant the people alive while he was speaking because he said that some of his listeners (and the high priest at his trial) would still be alive to see his return to Earth.
*Rationalization #4: When Jesus said that some of his listeners would be alive to see him return, he was talking about the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church.*
This is another explanation that is so far from rational that is it hard to accept that anyone sincerely believes it. The Book of Acts tells the story of the Holy Spirit appearing over the heads of the saints as tongues of fire endowing them with the magical ability to speak in unlearned languages. There is no mention of them seeing Jesus in the clouds with angels. The supposed event did not accompany the final judgment. None of the things Jesus said would occur at his return happened on the Day of Pentecost.
*Rationalization #5: When it was revealed to John in his visions that Jesus would come quickly, it is to happen on God’s time scale, not a human time scale. “The time is near” and “coming quickly” are not to be taken literally. To God a thousand years is a day.*
This is actually the first Christian attempt (found in 2 Peter 3) to explain away the fact that Jesus had not come as expected. Believers of the time had begun to waver in their faith because Jesus had not come back as promised. The writer tells them not to listen to people who say, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) By “fathers”, he evidently means the founding fathers of the faith who had all died by that time. This is evidence that almost from the start of Christianity, believers have been wrestling with the apparent failure of their savior’s end times prophecy. In verse 8, the writer tries to reassure them by saying, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” and continues in the next verse to say that the Lord is not slacking on his promise. He basically tries to make the argument that time is meaningless to God.
This passage is in obvious contradiction to what Jesus himself said about his return and everything else written in the New Testament about it. This contradiction raises the question: Did the Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ personal disciples, actually write this book? The most truthful answer: Not likely.
When reading 2 Peter, we must keep in mind when it was written. It is well-known that many of the writings floating around the early church were not written by the people claimed to have written them, but were forged by believers to push their particular doctrines. This is most likely the case with the book of 2 Peter.
The first clue is that the writer acknowledged that “the fathers” have died. Since Peter was one of those founding fathers of the church, he couldn’t have written this book. It has proven difficult for scholars to pinpoint exactly when the book was written, but they all place its origin sometime between 60 and 160 A.D. This means that it was written at least 30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion is believed to have taken place when he was 33. Assuming his disciples were somewhere around his own age and taking into account average life expectancy of that time and that, according to church tradition, the apostles were all killed, none of them would have likely been alive in 60 A.D. (the earliest date scholars say the book would have been written).
So, what can we make of the fact that this is in the Bible? It was written by a believer who didn’t want Jesus’ failure to come to cause the faith to die out. Knowing that Peter was a founding apostle and a personal disciple of Jesus who was deemed to be the first Pope of the Christian faction that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church, the writer forged this book in Peter’s name. It seems likely that this was an attempt to keep believers in the nascent Catholic churches in the fold. This is not the only case of forgery to uphold Catholic doctrine. (There are other forgeries in the New Testament that have been recognized by scholars as such.)
Whether written by the apostle Peter or something else, it is an obvious rationalization to try to deal with the failure of a prediction that came to be central to the Christian religion. We do not accept similar rationalizations from modern-day doomsdayers and we shouldn’t accept them from ancient religious people either.
*Rationalization #6: In Matthew 16 when Jesus said some of his listeners would see him “coming in his kingdom”, he was talking about his coming into his kingdom in Heaven after his resurrection when he went back to Heaven. Many saw this event through visions.*
This fails to take into account what Jesus said his “coming in his kingdom” would be connected to the day of judgment when he would “reward each according to his works”. As far as I know, no Christian apologists say the judgment occurred when Jesus supposedly went back to Heaven in the first century. Everything in the New Testament places judgment day at the end of the world. Even if we were to throw the Matthew 16 passage completely out of the Bible, there would still be the problem of other passages where Jesus said “this generation will not pass” before he comes and New Testament writers testifying to their belief that he would come in their lifetime. It is no wonder that this rationalization has largely been dropped by Christian theologians.
*Rationalization #7: Maybe in our human understanding we don’t know what Jesus meant when he said “this general would not pass away” and that “some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. He couldn’t have meant he was coming in the first century because he hasn’t come back yet and that would make him a false prophet.*
This rationalization is nothing more than interpreting the Bible by a doctrine you want to be true. If you’re going to believe in the Jesus of the Bible, shouldn’t you base your doctrines on what the Bible actually says? It is self-deceit to look at Jesus’ “prophecy” detailing his return in the lifetime of his disciples and rationalize why it didn’t happen. Only a mind interested in maintaining the illusion of faith could twist and mangle the plain words of the Bible the way Christians have in an attempt to make the incredible credible. An honest mind looking at the facts would have no choice but to admit that Jesus’ prophecy of the end of days has failed to come true.
"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse."
*Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.*
*Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.*
*Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.*
Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"*
Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
*"The First Easters: Death and Resurrection Before Christ | atheologica"*
*"The Christs Before Christ: Tammuz-Adonis | atheologica"*
Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
*"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
*"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"*
*"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"*
*"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"*
*"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"*
*"Rising Gods, Pagan Parallels, and Cultural Context: A Response to M. David Litwa | atheologica"*
*"An Evidence Attested Resurrection? - chromosome two"*
*"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"*
*"Theological Dodgeball: On the Posturing of Faith over Reason | atheologica"*
*"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar.
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
Also:
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
Then why are you the ones who are terrorists?
I thank god everyday that I’m an atheist 😂😂 believe what you want to don’t listen to these clowns
No, being an atheist is all on you. You chose to be a loser so don't blame God.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html