search results matching tag: eve

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (244)     Sift Talk (10)     Blogs (21)     Comments (679)   

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

shinyblurry says...

>> ^lurgee:

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:
Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)

I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:
Mark 8:31
And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again
As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.
Now, let's examine Mark 9:1
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with power . Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:
Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?
Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..
1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?
Matthew 12:28
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.
Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:
Acts 2:1-4
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance
After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.
Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.
In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:
Matthew 26:64
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:
Matthew 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only
He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.
The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.



Cains wife was most likely a sister, niece or grandniece. Scripture doesn't say how old Cain was when he killed Abel. Considering their long lifetimes, he might have been hundreds of years old, which meant there were already quite a few people on Earth at that time.

shinyblurry (Member Profile)

lurgee says...

Adam was the first man, right? Eve was the first woman, correct? They had two kids, Cain, and the Undertaker...I mean Abel. The Bible says that Cain and Abel took wives. My Question: Where did these wives come from? Who were their parents?
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:

Jesus believed the end of the world was coming in HIS lifetime (Mark 9.1). "The historical Jesus" is a Jesus who rests strictly on the evidence. The dominant view among scholars: Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. The end was coming now! (Mark 14.62)


I have to say that I disagree with your exegesis. Firstly, Jesus didn't expect anything to be happening within His human lifetime:

Mark 8:31

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again

As you can see, He had just said this in the previous chapter. Does it then seem logical to think that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was coming in His lifetime? Clearly, He expected it to come at some point after His death.

Now, let's examine Mark 9:1

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

What is He saying here? That those standing directly in His presence would not die before the Kingdom of God came with *power*. Clearly, then, the Kingdom of God must come within the lifetime of those individuals, otherwise Jesus was wrong. So, how will we recognize when that happens? Let's ask Jesus:

Luke 17:20-21

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here Jesus makes a curious statement. He says that when the Kingdom of God comes, it will not be external to us, it will be internal. It will be within us. What could this possibly mean?

Let's see if scripture draws any parallels..

1 Corinthians 3:16

Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?

We also see that God's Spirit lives within us. Is there any connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God?

Matthew 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

From this we can see that the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit is directly associated with the coming of the Kingdom of God. Since the Holy Spirit lives within us, we know that when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within us, with power (to cast out devils for instance), the Kingdom of God has come.

Therefore, when the Holy Spirit comes, the Kingdom of God is here. When did the Holy Spirit come? On Pentecost:

Acts 2:1-4

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance

After Pentecost, the disciples were transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit from ignorant and fearful to learned and courageous. They preached the gospel boldly throughout the world whereas before, they had cowardly abandoned Christ during his final hours.

Pentecost meets all of the requirements of Mark 9:1, and when we interpret what the Kingdom of God actually is, we see it fits it perfectly.

In regards to Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, here is a more complete rendering:

Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

The author of the video is of course utterly disingenuous for leaving out this verse and drawing a false dichotomy between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69. Clearly, Jesus had said both things in the same breath, but Mark and Luke each only recorded one half of it. Matthew records both halves, which, if you're paying attention, completely undermines his ridiculous assertion that Luke altered Marks text to compensate for a failed prophecy. What this verse shows is that Jesus was speaking of some point around His second coming. Everyone will see Him because everyone will be resurrected to stand before Him. He was not saying they would see Him during their lifetimes. If He was, He wouldn't have said this two chapters previous:

Matthew 24:36

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

He plainly said that He did not know when that day would come. Therefore, He could not definitively tell the jews they would see Him in His lifetime.

The problem with relying on atheists to interpret the bible is that A. they are only looking to discredit the bible and B. the bible is a spiritual book and can only be properly interpreted by someone who has the Holy Spirit. They can only give you a superficial exegesis that relies on appearances, and always ignores context. They are simply looking for "gotchya" verses with no awareness of the meaning of what they're talking about.

How to handle gays? Concentration Camp

Jinx says...

>> ^Sagemind:

Satan or Samel, was never described as homosexual. He was a fallen angel that wanted to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the flesh.

"Lilith met Samel when he found her lamenting her wrongs in loneliness. He was already burning with lust and envy after witnessing the pleasures of Adam and Eve. Lilith agreed to join with Samel and she became his wife; gaining the title of Queen of succubi. From there, they agreed to plot against Jehovah, Lilith for revenge and Samel to gain the pleasures of the flesh. It was through these plots that it was decided how to tempt Eve and then Adam by giving them the fruit. Once they had given into the temptation, Samel was able to enter their bodies forever and live as sin, in the hearts of man. It was through the offspring of Adam and Eve that Samel gave bodies to his minions of degenerate angels."
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Just where does this dumbass think homosexuals come from?

The original homosexual, Satan, corrupted the minds of the young and tricked them into thinking they could love another of the same sex. If you put all the gays away someplace then they can't turn our children gay! or something.
But lets be fair here. He doesn't want to kill the gays, he just points out they can't reproduce if you imprison them for life for being homosexual. Thats a big distinction between him and Hitler. Yeah. Plus Hitler was an atheist ofc, this guy is on GODS side.


You thought I was serious? cute.

How to handle gays? Concentration Camp

Sagemind says...

Satan or Samel, was never described as homosexual. He was a fallen angel that wanted to enjoy the carnal pleasures of the flesh.


"Lilith met Samel when he found her lamenting her wrongs in loneliness. He was already burning with lust and envy after witnessing the pleasures of Adam and Eve. Lilith agreed to join with Samel and she became his wife; gaining the title of Queen of succubi. From there, they agreed to plot against Jehovah, Lilith for revenge and Samel to gain the pleasures of the flesh. It was through these plots that it was decided how to tempt Eve and then Adam by giving them the fruit. Once they had given into the temptation, Samel was able to enter their bodies forever and live as sin, in the hearts of man. It was through the offspring of Adam and Eve that Samel gave bodies to his minions of degenerate angels."

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Just where does this dumbass think homosexuals come from?

The original homosexual, Satan, corrupted the minds of the young and tricked them into thinking they could love another of the same sex. If you put all the gays away someplace then they can't turn our children gay! or something.
But lets be fair here. He doesn't want to kill the gays, he just points out they can't reproduce if you imprison them for life for being homosexual. Thats a big distinction between him and Hitler. Yeah. Plus Hitler was an atheist ofc, this guy is on GODS side.

Occupy Eve Online: Kill the Investors (Burn Jita)

Occupy Eve Online: Kill the Investors (Burn Jita)

Daily Show - Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's not Bullshit

James Rolfe (AVGN) Reads an E-Mail and Busts a Gut

Mauru says...

naw, this is a fake, but a really good one - there is this dude who is writing an EVE Online blog who sounds oddly familiar... but who cares- writing this stuff takes some serious metal brah :-p

Why Christians Can Not Honestly Believe in Evolution

shinyblurry says...

My characterization of the theories of abiogenesis and macro evolution as based on weak, circumsantial evidence, thus regulating them to the realm of metaphysics is entirely accurate and a proper usage of those terms. Posting a couple of videos which you feel substantiates both theories, even if they did substantiate them, does not prove I used the terms incorrectly. At best it would mean I was mistaken about the sufficiency of the evidence. In any case, clearly you feel I am mistaken, so rather than rebut other peoples videos, I am interested to hear what you personally feel substantiates those theories.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,

A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here
>> ^shinyblurry:
and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..

Again, your ignorance is showing man.
The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.
Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).
That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.

1 decade 2 years 2 months 1 week ago

up0down

Why Christians Can Not Honestly Believe in Evolution

GenjiKilpatrick says...

So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.

"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:

However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,



A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.

Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here:



>> ^shinyblurry:


and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..


Again, your ignorance is showing man.

The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.

Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).

That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.



Please don't used a vague knowledge of sciency terms to support your bullshit faith in an invisible skydaddy.

Thanks.

Why Christians Can Not Honestly Believe in Evolution

shinyblurry says...

I would have actually voted for this video if not for the atheist salespitch strewn throughout, or the sad debate with the catholic priest at the end. What he is saying is essentially correct, and in fact, he uses many of the same arguments that I use when talking to liberal Christians. This isn't the whole story, though.

First, a Christian shouldn't reject evolution. Micro-evolution, or changes below the species level, is not only a proven fact, but it also explains how the world was repopulated after the flood. There is no conflict in believing this occurs. The contentious issue is macro evolution, or the theory of common descent. If you believe all life has a common ancestor, then you cannot believe in a literal Adam and Eve. At least, you would think that, but I've heard some Christians say things like, God used evolution to bring about all of the animals, but humans He specially created in the garden. This is obviously a compromise but some people don't see that as being a big deal.

In any case, as for myself, I came into Christianity with a belief in macro evolution, and I saw no reason to doubt it was true. Like everyone here, I had been indoctrinated into that belief from a young age and I assumed it was true because it was taught as absolute fact. Because I was still young in the faith, I didn't see the logical inconsistancy in believing in macro evolution and Christianity. However, what spurred me to change my mind was not finding that there was an inconsistancy (i didnt become aware of that until later), it was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence, and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics. It took me awhile to change my mind about it; my indoctrination was heavy, mostly because it is so ingrained in our culture. You see it in books, movies, tv shows, nature shows, newspapers, always talking about it as if it were absolutely 100 percent proven. The culture speaks with one voice about it, and that voice says it is historical fact. Yet what I found is that it is not proven, it is just assumed to be true, and then the evidence is interpreted through that lens to support the preconceived notions, which is the exact opposite of scientific reasoning.

I don't think Christians should reject macro evolution just because the bible speaks of a literal Adam and Eve. I think they should also reject it because it is not supported by the facts. I think they should understand what the data is for theory and how scientists arrived at their conclusions. I think they should be as well informed about it as possible. If the evidence were solid for macro evolution having occured, I would still believe it. This might change my ideas about what the bible says, but my faith isn't based exclusively on interpretation of the bible; ultimately, it is based on my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The main premise of this video is really to shake the faith of liberal Christians, and also to say that those who are logically consistant regarding the bible are rejecting macro evolution despite the evidence. I can honestly say I rejected it because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Jesus Returns.

jmzero says...

And I agree with them. I think Jesus was saying pretty bluntly: "It's fucking impossible for rich people to go to heaven... period."


That site you link also clarifies that:

...and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.


But despite the fact that these nutbars said it, it's true there's no historical evidence for the gate in question (or at least there wasn't last time I looked). However, there's lots of things about life at that time that we don't have any real evidence for, and the parable makes more sense (to me at least) interpreted that way.

It also doesn't jive well with the rest of the Bible for rich people to be unilaterally condemned - there's plenty of biblical people who receive riches as a reward for righteousness. That wouldn't be much of a reward if those riches dragged them down to Hell (haha, here's your stuff back Job, have fun in Hell!).

Tous les garcons et les filles - Francoise Hardy

Awkward date saved by World of Warcraft!

Canada Gets Rid of the Penny (Huzzah!)

notarobot says...

Hurray! Canada gets rid of the penny!

- We also got rid of 19,200 jobs! (1)
- Increased the retirement age to 67 years old for eligibility to receive pensioners. (2)
- Slashed funding to the elections Canada (on the eve of investigations into election fraud!) /Source.
- Scaled back of youth programs including the elimination of the Katimavik work exchange program.
- The news organization most capable of reporting on government actions and fraud is severely cut. (3)

And, it spite of all the cuts due to overspending, we're still committed to purchasing several F-35 JSF "White Elephants" from war profiteers, Lockheed Martin. Link.
Canadians taxpayers are still paying 31 Billion to serve the INTEREST on outstanding debt to private banks. (4)
Universities continue to be so underfunded that 200,000 students protested in the streets of Montreal last month. (5)


(1) This would be equivalent of Obama suddenly eliminating about 180,000 public servant jobs in the United States if scaled for population.
(2) Except for politicians, who can still begin to receive their pension as early as 55 until after the next election. info!
(3) The CBC takes budget nosedive on the chin. Link.
(4) And who benefits from that interest payment? Surely not the same people who contribute to political campaigns!! Harper unwilling to actually cut spending.
(5) http://videosift.com/video/Montreal-Students-Protest-Timelapse-March-22-2012

But, hey, at least we got rid of the penny!!
Focus on the shiny coin!



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon