>> ^shinyblurry:

Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis. It was written as Jewish folklore, and developed mostly in the middle ages. Today it is particularly embraced by pagans, gnostics and radical femenists. It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story and that people buy into without doing any research. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
@0:34 "Ever since the earth's first woman..."
bzzt! Eve was the earth's second woman.



Bzzt! No, I'm sorry. The answer was "It's a Long Way to Tipperary." So close! Thanks so much for being on our show!

Johnny, why don't you tell him what the parting gift is?

Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis. It was written as Jewish folklore, and developed mostly in the middle ages. Today it is particularly embraced by pagans, gnostics and radical femenists. It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story and that people buy into without doing any research. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
@0:34 "Ever since the earth's first woman..."
bzzt! Eve was the earth's second woman.

It's not dishonest to say you are open to evidence of a supernatural being but find belief without it silly. Is it arrogant to find a belief in unicorns silly? Shiva? Mormon doctrine? Was it hubris for Christians to not be pagans when Christianity wasn't the #1 religion? Would you reconcile your beliefs if someone found a herd of unicorns? Some help with terms: http://videosift.com/video/Lack-of-belief-in-gods

How intuitive an idea is has little bearing on truth. That something can't come from nothing, if true, grants no particular credibility to the idea of a supreme intellect. If a supreme intellect can be eternal, why not the universe itself? How the universe works is a profoundly interesting question, but until our understanding of a material universe stops bearing fruit, its exploration -- testing the predictive power of (even unintuitive) hypotheses -- is the most helpful method for finding truth. Additional random thoughts: http://videosift.com/video/The-God-of-the-Gaps-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

Religion is important to believers, in part, for the sense of humility, awe, and connection it inspires with the world and others. But this feeling is important to everyone. When accusing an atheist of arrogance, consider what might inspire reverence in him or her:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Pale-Blue-Dot-by-Carl-Saga
n-Excerpt-read-by-the-Author

Does the obviousness of an idea guarantee its truth? Does its popularity? Does the comfort it brings you, or the earnestness with which you believe in it? Ask yourself what makes your testimony more valid than the differing testimony found in others'? Is that an arrogant position? Despite earnestness, you sound no more convincing than...>> ^shinyblurry:

As far as my knowledge goes, I know quite a bit about all of those subjects, particularly evolutionary biology and general relativity. I am also well versed in philosophy, history, astronomy, biology, theology, and comparative religion. As well as apologetics in general. I know what constitutes a standard of evidence. However, I know unicorns exists; they are as real to me as my own reflection in a mirror. I have plenty of evidence, directly from the unicorns. You may not consider it evidence because it personal testimony, but it is clearly evidence to me.
Again, the unicorns' herald commanded that we contend for the faith. Which means to preach unicorn words and have answers to peoples questions. I never claimed to be perfect..but you know, your testimony here is fairly flawed..telling me to be humble in one breath and insulting me in the other. You ever notice how hypocrites usually contridict themselves within a few sentences? I do..

Thank ye very much, very nice of you.
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

1.you do not know me

I don't know you personally, no.

6.i call you a fundamentalist because that is what you are,because by definition thats exactly how you behave.this was done not as a perjorative but more as a statement.you have stated more than once how you view biblical writings as the word of god.i am just basing my assertation on YOUR words.it is YOU who are projecting emotive feelings into my words but that was not my intent.you are a fundamentalist.if you wish to attach negative connotations to that word that is your choice and has nothing to do with me.

Applying the term fundementalist to Christianity is used to donate a radical or extreme belief. Within the sphere of Christianity, it is neither radical or extreme to believe in scripture as the word of God. So therefore it is not applicable to me and I reject it out of hand.

7.your opinion of me is irrelevant as well as your limited presumptions concerning me (but please dont stop assuming you know who i am...that shit is entertaining as all hell).

The only thing I assume about you is that you're a pagan or some kind of new ager.

8.calling me names and behaving in such a passive aggressive manner only proves my points concerning you.

I apologize for anything negative I have said about you.

9.i have stated over and over i do not engage with fundamentalists.is this concept hard for you to understand? if you wish to talk about movies,sports or music i would happily engage with you but i refuse to engage with a fundamentalist anything concerning religion or faith.

Again, I am not a fundementalist, I am a Christian. The term fundementalist Christian is a pejorative and a misnomer. Also, if you don't want to engage with me then don't float into my threads and make a bunch of unwarrented assertions and unsubstatiated claims and float out again. It's just immature at best.

10.and finally and most importantly:you do not know me.

human nature is not a mystery, ie, you have patterns which can be deciphered and universally applied, and your behavior can be intellectually and spiritually discerned.

>> ^enoch:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
1.you do not know me
2.i did not go through your pq and downvote all your videos.i downvoted two if i recall correctly and it was not via your que.
3.i am not prejudice against christianity.i am prejudice against religious fundamentalism..of any kind.this is not to imply that i am inherently against you..as a human being or person but i am against your rigid fundamentalist stance.i am totally ok with you being you..in fact i insist you be exactly who you are.i respect that.
4.my accusation of you was valid based solely on your judgement of another christian and solely based on YOUR comment to that other christian.
5.my comment was not directed towards you in particular but rather to the many who are following this thread and are not people of faith.to give them a modicum of understanding on why a religious person defends the bible as historically accurate and many other points that they may deem holy writ.it had nothing to do with you nor your conversations with others.i was attempting to give context and understanding.
6.i call you a fundamentalist because that is what you are,because by definition thats exactly how you behave.this was done not as a perjorative but more as a statement.you have stated more than once how you view biblical writings as the word of god.i am just basing my assertation on YOUR words.it is YOU who are projecting emotive feelings into my words but that was not my intent.you are a fundamentalist.if you wish to attach negative connotations to that word that is your choice and has nothing to do with me.
7.your opinion of me is irrelevant as well as your limited presumptions concerning me (but please dont stop assuming you know who i am...that shit is entertaining as all hell).
8.calling me names and behaving in such a passive aggressive manner only proves my points concerning you.
9.i have stated over and over i do not engage with fundamentalists.is this concept hard for you to understand? if you wish to talk about movies,sports or music i would happily engage with you but i refuse to engage with a fundamentalist anything concerning religion or faith.
10.and finally and most importantly:you do not know me.

@enoch

evil is subjective based on ones perception.
moral relativism.

If what is bad can change, then what is truly bad? Todays outrage could be tomorrows acceptence. If evil is only what people agree is evil, then if everyone agreed the holocaust is good it would be. Again, this is an excellent benchmark. If your system of morality could ever define the holocaust as being good you can safely throw it away. The truth is that some things are absolutely wrong, and everyone knows it. We all have a God given conscience which convicts us for those things we know are inherently wrong.


a fundamentalist struggles with three basics:
1.original sin
2.creation as put forth in genesis
3.the resurrection

the fundamentalist does not struggle in the beliefs of these three things but rather they struggle to defend them,because all three are easily vivisected.

A, I categorically reject and dismiss your label of "fundementalist". It's a loaded term denoting a radicalism or extremism to someones viewpoint. It's not radical or extreme in the context of Christianity to believe in the bible. That is one of its primary tenants that scripture is the word of God. That people are liberal with it is called apostacy.

B. Those basics are easily doubted, or scoffed at..but vivisected? Hardly. Unbelievers and pagans have struggled for centuries to dismantle them, but have not made one iota of progress. I find most peoples objections to these are easily refuted and are based on systemic misunderstanding and personal prejudice.

what most free-thinking people have a hard time comprehending (understandably so) is why a fundamentalist will continue to defend these three in particular when the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite.

Gee, that's an objective statement. I love how you just deign to jump into the middle of a conversation and start throwing around this tripe, as if you're the arbitor of this discussion. Your intellectual prowess is not only unproven, it is very questionable..for example, the last statement you pronounced to everyone in one of my videos was an immature little diatribe about how little you thought of Christianity and me in particular..a shameless and unbalanced emotive rant showing your undeniable prejudice..and when I didn't take your bait, you got mad and searched through my personal que and downvoted my videos. lol.

blah blah blah blah blah

How about you join the discussion instead of venting your ignorance..you can start by addressing the first paragraph of my reply.

circular logic at it's best.
one mans brilliant attempt to rationalize his own sense of persecution.
highlighting hitler and the third reich and the horrors of world war 2 while ignoring the fact that the tactic used had been used for thousands of years....by the church.
how do you get people,whole communities...nations...to go out and murder/slaughter other people?
by demonizing them.
and nothing compares to the power of demonizing another culture than religion,but for the past century this has been due to nationalism.love of country and not so much love of god,but this has been a fairly new enterprise when put in historical context.in the past it was the church whipping its religious flock into a murderous froth.
in regards to germany,demonizing the jewish people is more understandable when we look at what happened to germany after world war 1.what happened to their economy and political and social structure..they were RIPE with fear and uncertainty..which hitler exploited to his radical benefit.

key word:fear

religion uses this emotion like a bully in the pulpit.yet this emotion is antithetical to what jesus taught,but fear will always be the best tool to control and manipulate the masses.the church dons the mantle of false authority and instills fear in order to subjugate and enslave.
saint patrick is given credit for clearing ireland of "serpents".yet when you realize that "serpents" represents "pagans" i.e:actual human beings and that tens of thousands were murdered and slaughtered for not leaving when given the chance,one can only come up with a more apt word:attempted genocide.
think on that the next time your enjoying a pint of green beer.

i always wonder how a true follower of christ reconciles putting on a uniform,picking up a gun and shooting another human being.america's current military has become more and more christian based.with evangelicals joining in such groups as "warriors for christ".while i am fully aware of passages in the bible that not only condone acts of war,but demand it,i do not recall jesus ever once stating that killing your fellow man is a godly and righteous thing to do.

this is hypocrisy incarnate and,in my opinion,one of the very powerful points atheists point to and with good reason.religious historical slaughtering aside,this is happening NOW.
radicalized fundamentalist islamic people being manipulated into jihad by those who pretend to have the authority of god.
fundamentalist christians taking up a "crusade" against the warriors of allah.
as if 1500 years of murder,rape and slaughter were not enough to teach both of these easily manipulated people in to the continued killing of each other.
these people are being deceived by those who wish to dominate using the very scripture these poor souls have deemed holy writ.

another good example is how a small and fringe political ideological group called the "neo-conservatives"(formerly known as neo-liberal) hi-jacked the evangelical religious folk in the late 70's and it was the LEADERS of that evangelical movement that sacrificed their own parishoners to the wolves.
jerry falwell,baker,swaggert,roberts.
all of them used their authority and charisma to convince their followers the righteousness of this radical political ideology.
war,empire,domination,dismissal of the poor and weak.
all put into biblical terms which the faithful bought.hook..line and sinker.

i could go on but suffice to say atheists have a few really strong points when it comes to the hypocrisy of religion and it always amazes me how many religious folk are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy and circular logic.accusing others of this or that while being totally unaware they are doing the exact same thing...very much like this man in the video.
cherry picking certain sound-bytes while ignoring historical context does not an argument make...
quite the opposite.

i am going to upvote this just so we can see this train wreck of logic exposed for what it is:a rationalization.

I'm not offended by anything you said. I deal with innumerable rejections on practically every conceivable angle, from the pagan to the satanist to the atheist to the nihilist to yes, the ex-christian. The things they all have in common is the misunderstanding of biblical truth, the mission of Jesus Christ, the state of creation, good and evil, and the sin nature. I'll try to answer to your statements.

Love and justice are not pitted against eachother and I am not sure why you say that. For instance, would it be loving to allow your children to just do whatever they want without consequence? We see the kind of children this creates every day; ones with no morals, empathy or wisdom. Children need boundries or they're going to hurt themselves. It's up to the parent to set those boundries, and enforce them. If you give a child a rule without enforcing it, they will just roll right over it and you. Now, take it up a notch. What kind of society would we have if we didn't have punishment for capital crimes? People will argue against the justice of a Holy God but not blink when someone gets sentenced to life for murder. How is it any different? That's every bit as permanent as Gods justice, ultimately, yet we as a society are okay with it.

You talk about arbitrary choices, but it's people making the choice, not God. If it were Gods choice exclusively, He could just override everyones will. However, If God overrode your choice, would that be love? You know it wouldn't. Yet, He keeps the door open your entire life. He is constantly reminding you and warning you, and not only that, but looking out for you. Love is a two way street. If you refuse to accept Gods forgiveness, how can you blame Him for not forgiving you? It's your personal choice and your personal responsibility to own up to your sins.

Your statements about Jesus fall a bit short as to the specifics of Gods plan. Far from being a mockery of justice, it was a perfection of it. For there to be perfect justice, every sin must be punished. For there to be perfect love, everyone must have a chance to be redeemed. Both of these seeming contridictions are reconcilled in Jesus Christ. I'll explain..

This is a fallen creation, due to the sin of one man, Adam. It is imperfect. Thereby, everyone born into it inherits this imperfection, which is the sin nature. God gave us the law to give us the standard of behavior which leads to perfection, and thus back into perfect relationship with God. The problem was that no man was capable of fulfilling this law, because Gods perfect justice requires a sinless life. Jesus was the first to be perfectly obedient to God and lead a sinless life, thus fulfilling the law. The law was given because of sin and was fulfilled by the sinlessness of Christ. Just as one mans sin caused creation to fall, one mans sinlessness redeemed it. Because He perfectly obeyed the Fathers will and fulfilled the law, when He took on our sins He earned no condemnation for them. It's because of His sinlessness that He was able to be the perfect sacrifice.

So now because of all this, man has a chance to be perfected and again enjoy perfect relationship with God. Jesus made a way for mankind to be reconcilled to God. Justice has been done on the issue of the original sin. So now, this is justice: that the one who rejects Christ stands condemned. The only way to escape punishment is be saved by the grace of God. That is what justice is after Christ fulfilled the law and broke the power of death. We are spiritually perfected by the indwelling of Gods Holy Spirit, so that we are remade in the image of Jesus Christ. This is what it means to be a new creation in Christ, to be born again. Thus we are no longer held accountable to the law, because the penalty has already been paid. Rather, we are under grace.

Yes, God is sovereign, and He has every right to judge His creation as He chooses. Yet, He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down. That gives Him justification. Also, you seem to think people are innocent, when they're not. There is no one good, not one. How shall an unrighteous sinner judge a Holy God? Read the book of job for what a ridiculous proposition that is. He is the author of history and our lives..how shall a child instruct Him? We don't have any right to tell God what to do..none of us are justified. We're all hypocrites. Your personal sin makes you completely unqualified to judge God, yet here you are saying He is a hypocrite and a liar and a fool.

Gods judgement became a stumbling block for you, and so you abandoned Him and now claim He isn't worthy of your love. Yet, has He ever stopped loving you? Has He written you off like you did Him? Who is really worthy here, and who isn't? If you had just persevered through your misunderstandings, the answers would have been forthcoming. Yet you gave up and then your thoughts became futile and your heart was darkened. This is always about personal accountability to God. Everything you've mentioned here is an excuse for something you failed to live up to. Sorry if that is harsh but I have to tell you the truth. God is Holy, and worthy of worship and all praise. He is worthy of our love, though we are not worthy of His. Yet, even though you abandoned Him the door is still open. It is only your refusal to be reconciled and obey Him that is causing this issue of your understanding. Being an ex-christian who knows the bible, you should know that. I pray you find the truth and repent and be reconciled once more.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
Sigh, I was trying to avoid being drawn into a theological conversation about love and judgement, but I guess I asked for it.
There are some major theological and philosophical problems with your resolution of justice and love. Let me go into a couple of them. But before that, let me say that I am not hatting on your faith right now. These are just my personal waxing on Christianity. I am no some master of theology, but I am also not naive of the bible and basic logical constructs. Understand, that I am not trying to drag you down or give you excess flack, you have had your fair share of that lately. BUUUUT since you did take the time to write something else, I thought I would return that favor.
First and foremost, you can't resolve what is unresolvable. Love and Justice are pitted against one another in certain instances. There comes a point where you can't be loving and just...you must make a choice. For instance, if your wife cheats on you, you have a choice. You can either forgive her or your can choose not to ignore it and break off the relationship. This has a few oversimplifications like, you could still be with them but also hold it against them, but that goes against the other idea of love, which is forgiveness (so they wouldn't be in a loving relationship anymore). At the end of the world, God makes an arbitrary choice, he decides to not love people who didn't accept Christ, and decides to continue to love those whom did. For the damned, the statement of Corinthians "Love never fails" surely has lost all meaning to them...love wasn't enough.
Second of all, if God is ok with transferring blame from those who are damned to those who are not, then he is forbidden to be the referee in any gaming event I control. It is a mockery to the ideals of justices to let the innocent suffer for the deeds of the wicked. I can't think of a MORE unjust act. The entire "idea" of salvation is a rosy picture. But if you actually care about justice, the idea of salvation flies right in the face of it. Either God isn't as loving as he would say he is, or he doesn't care about justice as much as he says he does. One must be true. God must either not be all loving, or not care about perfect justice. There is no need for judgement if both those things are not true (fucken double negatives!). Would you punish your neighbors dog for peeing on your rug when it was your own dog? Punishment is non-transferable if you really care about justice, period.
Also, it is a mockery to justice that Jesus still gets to go to heaven, even after being made sinful in our stead. Let us take another example. Let us say I am a murderer. I start racking up the kills, become the number one murderer of all times. Then, I get caught. On my behalf, the richest, most affluent political figure in the world decides to accept all the punishment for my crimes. For some crazy ass reason, everyone goes along with this idea. Being so rich and powerful, he is able to get all the charges dismissed. So he and I get away with the most hideous crime of all time, and no punishment is dealt out, to anyone. Is this justice? If it is, God once again can't be the ref any any sporting events I control. Jesus was made imperfect for our sake. Imperfect things do not go to heaven. Jesus should not be in heaven, period. If he is, then the God never really cared about the charges anyway, or doesn't really take justice very seriously.
I also don't understand how the Bible is able to claim the punishment for sin is death, when everyone dies anyway...even the saved. O ok, so I guess their spirit gets to live on or something, but who's spirit died in their steads? I can tell you it wasn't Jesus's, because he is supposedly chilling in heaven. The fact is, SOME will suffer death from sin, others will not. The saved are a special case where the rules needed for their salvation aren't needed because no one is going to die from their sins anyway. I mean Jesus might of literally died, but we all do that, so Jesus didn't save anything there. What you mean is a figurative death, and Jesus is surely not figuratively dead either. So no one died for Christian's sins, and no one died for the damned sins...sucks to be the damned. Once again, God can't see over any sporting events I frequent.
Also, I don't think the Bible supports the claim of "It's not that God wants to punish you...". For instance, in Romans it talks about how God specifically makes vessels of wrath.
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?"
They have a name for that in Chess, they are called pawns. And while Chess is only a game, it does seem to me that God is more playing a game with us than loves us or cares about us, from the bibles perspective that is. Romans gives way to this even more with:
"“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”"
Reasons? I want to, I'm God, shut up. Misunderstanding, I don't think so.
"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
This is the kind of flack an adult gives out when a child catches him doing something wrong. And while in many cases, it is the child's very naive understandings of the world that lead to this situations, many times, they are justified in the question and more importantly, and answer.
I should point out, that I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. Formerly, I used to look at Romans as the great justifier of predestination. It was a power verse of immeasurable theological insight. When I read it now, I have only sadness. It isn't like this is a trivial question to ask God, but in Romans, he brushes off our very important question like he doesn't give a flying fuck. Sadness. Granted it is Paul, not Jesus, but it is still "His word". Deepening sadness.
I have about 6 more points but I have already gone on for far to long. I hope this doesn't get stolen by atheists as ammunition to fire against Christians. Nothing would make more sad than my own personal insights being used to hurt someone. These are but a few of the troubles that lead me away from Christianity being the answer for my life. I actually hope I am wrong. I hope that other people will get to enjoy heaven, even without me. I would hope that there is an actual just God out there, looking out for us, protecting us, making sure the wrongness in the world is "taken care of". But as for wrongness, I only start to see more and more of it in the bible. What used to be a shining beacon of hope, is now a book of how not to care about justice and love.
To this day, though, 1 Corinthians 13 is still what I use to define love. It is also the root of my deconversion. The love I see in 1 Corinthians 13 does not exist in the God I read about in the rest of the bible. That is all, sorry if I cause you any pain or strife with my words. Or, indeed, anyone other person of faith that reads this. If that be the case, than I have failed in great way.

I'm not hijacking a quote; rather, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus is contradicting himself here, which should come as no surprise to anyone else who's read the Bible. The Old Testament Law is binding forever: Genesis 17:19, Leviticus 23:14, Luke 16:17. But it also isn't: Luke 16:16, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:13.

There is some good stuff in in the Sermon on the Mount about loving thine enemy and not judging others, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who plans to cast all his enemies into a lake of fire forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "
Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
The semen on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says
I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "

Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The semen sermon on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says

I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.


*Fixed awesome typo

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

You mean this Sermon on the Mount, described in Matthew 5?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [...]
(Matthew 5:17-19)

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

As you may have notice, this message is very long. Please take a while and read it a few times, in chunks, before you respond. I ask a lot of questions here so I’d like it you pretended as if you were asking the questions to yourself.

I should have qualified my statement about religions. I meant to clarify that in the Persian and Pre-Rome regions of the world, which were primarily Pagan, a huge majority of the religions didn’t have religious structures that were based around fear, for the most part. Yes, I admit that there was the concept of retribution from the gods but it wasn’t anything to the degree of everlasting punishment. I currently don’t know anything about the religions of the very early Americas (Mayans, etc). It wasn’t until the god concepts became more personalized and more humans that it became more about fear. There is a natural progression in the ideological development in religions that goes from being nothing about humans to being all about humans. Eternal suffering or anything resembling a “hell” is relatively new and came about around the time of monotheistic religions.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

Here is another great question. How much of your belief system is tied to your identity; how much do you identify with it, personally or socially? Meaning, if you came to disbelieve what you now believe, would you know who you are or would you have a sort of identity crisis? If you stopped believing as you do now, do you feel that you would you lose a part of who you are?

You ask a good question in “Maybe it is you who is delusion and I see things as they actually are.” Yes, perhaps I am and perhaps you are and perhaps we both are. So how can we know, how would we find out, what kinds of tests and experiments could we do to illuminate the answer. It isn’t good enough to simply say that we both might be delusional; therefore our views are equally valid. Either one of us is correct and the other is not, or we are both incorrect.
You know, I used to have a dualistic view on the nature of humans. I used to believe in the soul or the spirit as something separate from the body. I used to resonate heavily with the lyrics of Tool and the ideas behind the art of Alex Grey.

I guess my biggest question would stem from this statement that you made
“My faith is that i have a spirit, a soul, a divine spark that is connected to the ALL, the ONE, also known as "the source".”
What makes you think that there is an “ALL”, a “ONE” or “the source” and how do you know that you’re not just fooling yourself? What would it mean if you discovered that it’s probably not true, and that the real explanation for the subjective experiences that you’ve had are far more elegant and interesting than the ideas of spirituality that you currently hold?

To be blunt, I don’t think that you’re thinking this whole notion of an ego through far enough. It sounds like you’re just accepting the ideas as being true without going through the motions of analyzing what the concept implies. The notion of an ego implies several things; one of which is that we as humans are special to the degree that we have egos when, either, other animals don’t, or, other animals are better than us in controlling it. The questions then become, do other animals have egos? If so, how does the ego operate in them? Do other life forms, such as plants or bacteria, also have egos, or does the ego require a certain degree of cognitive function? If the ego does require certain cognitive functions to be noticeable, and since we are extremely closely related to other apes such as chimpanzees, do they also exhibit features of having egos? If they don’t and having an ego is strictly a human feature, what happened during the development of the brain that allowed for the access to what we might call the ego and at this point, do we really believe that the “ego” is actually something that exists outside of the brain? If it doesn’t exist outside of the brain than how can we separate who you perceive as yourself and what you perceive as the “ego”? Are all “ego’s” the same or is it brain dependent with variations depending on brain structure and chemistry? Can you see why I would say that the notion of the ego as something outside of or separate from oneself is inherently egotistical.

The way that you talk about the ego makes it seem mystical and somehow separate from “self”. To me, that sounds like someone trying to escape responsibility. Why not just cut out the middle man and admit that you, not your ego, has the tendency to be possessive, needy, insecure, wishes for self-aggrandizement, etc. The notion that “negative” qualities are part and partial of some sort of external thing that is separate from “you” just seems childish to me, not to mention, completely unsupported by research.

For myself, I suppose that I recoil at the idea of an “ALL”, or “ONE”, or “the source” because it doesn’t really answer any questions. If someone were presenting these ideas to me for the first time, I would immediately start asking questions like “What is it made out of, what kind(s) of particles?” “How does it perpetuate?” “What is the physics of this thing?” “By what mechanism does it connect to everything?” “How does a source not also have its own source?” “What tests and experiments can we do to learn more about this thing?” “What objective information do we have about it?” “Does this thing operate differently between animate and inanimate objects?” “If spirit or soul is inherent in the system, do animals and plants also have a spirit or soul?” “What exactly constitutes as a spirit or soul, what can it be defined by?” “Did “the source” have a beginning or a history?”

I think you understand my point. My problem with subjectively believing something is true is that it’s more susceptible to not going far enough in scrutiny. It is much easier to subjectively believe something that feels good or feels right and not go any further than that. Very few subjective beliefs translate into objective or rational understandings of nature; it’s very easy to get it wrong. Subjective beliefs are as prone to fallibility as humans are to irrational thinking.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
hmmmm..
i disagree with your statement that only the monotheistic religion control by fear.
buddhism (yes..buddhism) shinto,mayan,toltec,arminianism,zoroastriasm..the list is legion and they ALL have punishment/reward doctrine.each at varying degrees but its in there.

i do enjoy hearing an atheists perspective on how my faith translates.
very..analytical of you my friend.
suffice to say my faith is born from personal revelation and has been an ongoing revelation since i was 14.
nothing i have encountered or experienced has taken away from this revelation,in fact it has strengthened it.
could i be delusional?
i guess its possible.
or maybe it is you who are delusional and i see things as they actually are.
not trying to be an ass,just pointing out the subjective nature of this particular polemic.

i guess..in its most simplest of terms.
my faith is that i have a spirit,a soul,a divine spark that is connected to the ALL,the ONE,also known as "the source".
freud believed that the ego WAS who you were.i could not disagree with that more.
the ego is who you THINK you are.predicated and perpetrated by those who are close to you.
we cant help that.it is very human.
so around 12 yrs old we start to have a sense of self.this self understands the world and how he/she interacts with it by rules set by his/her parents.
as we grow older so does the circle of influence i.e:friends,lovers,teachers etc etc.
think about this for a second because i am expressing a very huge idea in a very short amount of time and glossing over all the implications of said idea.

my philosophy..or my faith if you will,views the ego as my "false" self.
the ego wishes only to validate itself (thats why mass marketing is very VERY effective).
the ego wishes to perpetuate its own existence by way of constant feed-back.
the ego gets jealous and possesive.
the ego gets insecure and needy.
the ego has demands...and desires...which seek only for self aggrandizement.
now societal roles consisting of compassion and empathy will,and can,curb the destructive nature of the ego (think your teenage years and just how self centered you were to give you an idea of ego gone wild)

through my faith and discipline i am quite aware of my ego and have suppressed it to the point where it no longer manipulates my thinking nor my emotions.
so i have no urge nor a desire to be perceived as "correct" because to me that is irrelevant.
(though i do prefer to be "corrected" if i misstate something).
i do not experience jealousy,nor envy.
but i do experience pride.
i do not allow anothers limited perception of me based on their own subjective reasoning influence how i feel about who i am.
i am open and honest because my faith is that we are all connected with the divine and to lie,steal or cheat you is to be doing to myself also.
i do not judge anothers faith or lack of it because that is THEIR path and the only time i ever feel the need to intercede is when it flows into my domain and affects me in some way.

even as i write these words,which to me seem pretty articulate and clear,i know that you will understand them based solely on..well..your understanding.
i do not say that as a slight but rather a statement.
trying to convey complex thought patterns by way of text can be so..limiting.

everything i do or say i do so with spirit in mind.
sometimes i fail..sometimes i succeed.
i am human.
with a spirit! ziiiiing!
anyways..
i really do enjoy our conversations.
you are a pleasure my friend.
namaste.
(look that word up btw..its a great word)

Okay forgiven but what I am getting at is what Paul preached. Which is saved in Christ and Christ resurrected..I don't know what socio-economic conditions have to do with being saved but i have done my research. I used to live with a pagan so I was exposed to the occult and pagan religions. I also had a background in the abrahamic religions, hinduism as well as buddhism, zen buddhism, kundalini yoga, i mean really esoteric stuff..babylonian, enki and enlil kind of stuff..and also i was around people who welcomed evil spirits in their lives..and they would meet these spirits in the astral plane by engaging in astral travel..i knew someone who could do it at will..its all very interesting seeming but it is straight from hell..it's all for evil, this is how people get misled in the pagan world, some spirit makes them think they are spiritually powerful so they become arrogant and think they are above God. Which is what the devil thinks, coincidently. God has never disappointed me or let me down..I trust in Him and His holy name. That's my point. I don't know how you could really define my views..according to my experience I was elected by God..God is entirely real to me, if I said He wasn't I would be a liar. So I witness to that and to the gospel as the word of the living God. What would you call that? And no I am not a pretriest..Christ has yet to come again..

>> ^enoch:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
i just read your recent post.
well thought out and i agree with the points pertaining to the differences between jesus and the other myriad of resurrection deities.
i dont know why that post didnt appear when i first came to this thread.
maybe it was during the time of me writing my previous post.please forgive.
that was very well done.
that is precisely the difference and also how i too..resolved that issue.
i thank you for your answer.

hey look..you are poorly informed here..you said my response was very unsatisfying and also inaccurate to boot? you stated that zoroasterism is older than judiasm as if it were an undisputed fact; well sorry but that is not the prevailing viewpoint. there is a lot of misinformation out there on this subject. if you just want to look at the merits of the case the Zoroaster belief is primitive by comparison, if one could be identified as a crude copy, that would be it.

The Christ Conspiracy is the main source of information in Zeitgeist].
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html

Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.[13]

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Gunter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."[14]

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus' death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.[15]

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament's mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.[16]


>> ^enoch:
a whole page concerning zarathustra?
didnt you already answer this question?
and how does this page you link conflict with zoroastrian influence in the bible?
it confirms the influence on early biblical scribes.
/confused
and i notice still no answer on my other queries.
if you are unable to i understand.
again.i thank you for your prompt reply.

And well I used to steady these things quite deeply..I investigated all of the resurrection accounts..it was surprising how far away it was from factual..none of it held up..i never investigated gilgamesh, but ive heard of it...zorotorism for example.. thats easy, it is a blatant copy of judiasm, mixed in with a reading of the messiah prophecies. there are critical differences however. they say the spirit of God is bad and good and He is only good. They worship the creation rather than the one who created it. there is no atonement, and salvation is by works. it is just like any other pagan religion, but with an idea of good and evil gained from judiasm and the prophecies of the messiah. zorro is a crude copy of christ, not the other way around as it turns out. Remember Satan is the accuser ie the prosecuting attorney. He understands the law down to the letter, he understood a messiah was to come..he always knows his rights.. >> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Is there a point where you're actually going to contribute something to the conversation, or are you just going to stay in the peanut gallery and snipe at me?
No one is out. Just because different Christians believe different things doesn't make them unchristian. Misled, perhaps, but anyone who believes on Christ is saved. Personally, I am non-denominational.
How is the book of John ruled out? What on earth are you talking about? The passages referring to what people call the rapture could be interperted a few different ways..I accept them, I just read them differently.
Look, it's clear you don't know anything about scripture. Why don't you do some research before you toss around these ignorant statements.
>> ^enoch:
>> ^shinyblurry:
No, I don't believe in the rapture..I don't think it is biblical. I know a lot of Christians hope for that but I think it's a false doctrine. No, I don't believe in the May 21st 2011 date either..for two reasons. One is that scripture clearly states that no one knows the hour. That alone makes anyone setting a date automatically wrong. The other is that the person who made this prediction had made another prediction that the world would end in 1994. Obviously it didn't happen so that means that he is a false prophet. If a prophet makes a prediction and even one letter of it doesn't come true it means he is not a real prophet.
>> ^shuac:
While I certainly do not wish to add more stress to shiny by adding more questions to his docket...but ultimately, I cannot resist. And anyway, they're easy yes/no questions...
1) Do you believe in the rapture?
2) Do you believe that it will happen on May 21, 2011 as many theists predict?


ok.
so the pentacostals are out /scratches them off the list.
as is the book of john../more scratching.
any other books i should dismiss?


i am just following the conversation brother.
listening to your witness and taking notes.
so dont dismiss the books but allow for interpretation../check.
read more scripture../check
let me ask you a question.
since you feel im "sniping" from the peanut gallery.( i was being a snark..but snipe is nicer)
if you do not believe in the rapture and find it non-doctrinal,would you consider yourself to be a preterist?
do you consider yourself from ecclestiassitcal,calvinism or maybe even of a arminianism theosophical school of thought?
and if ecclestiassical..how have you resolved the issue of the nicean creed?
another i am curious as to how you may have resolved is zoroastrianism.
how have you been able to separate the seemingly identical stories from both the bible and this pre-christian religion?
i mean one could come to the conclusion that monotheism was actually born from this religion which was influential in judaism and christianity.
reading zarathustra's sermons one may find some close similarities to many of the earliest books of the bible.
or the story of gilgamesh and its seemingly identical recitation of noah,even though gilgamesh was centuries before noah.
how did you rationalize that particular conundrum?
one last question.
since you are christian,as am i,i am extremely curious how you were able to resolve the issue of the resurrection deities:
krishna,osiris,dionysus,mithra.
all were have purported to be the son of god.
to have began their ministry at an early age.
performed miracles.
persecuted and then executed.
dead for three days.
and on the third day were all resurrected.
what about the female resurrection deities?
ishtar and persephone?
they have similar stories too!
i am curious how you dealt with these particular theological dilemmas.