To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

>> ^hpqp:

Poor @shinyblurry, methinks you grasp the straws too much. Ask the majority of Americans who America's N°1 enemy was during the Bush years, and you'll get "Bin Laden" or eventually "Osama Bin Laden". Hardly any (if any) would properly name him as "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden". It's no wonder a first century writer and political activist writing against the person in power would use the name his audience knew.
I can't believe I actually had to spell that out to you (oh wait, yes, I totally can).


I would say you're the one grasping at straws here; is it that you will just believe anything anyone says that agrees with your preconceived notions about the bible? It doesn't say the number of the nickname or title of the beast, it says his name. More importantly, the number 666 will be so identified with the antichrist that you could use it interchangeably with his name and everyone would know who you were referring to. This clearly wasn't the case with Nero. Further, he didn't fulfill the prophecies which would identify him as the antichrist.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Neros name was Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus.

Bin Laden's name was Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden.


The point being that his full name doesn't add up to 666. Not only that but Neros original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. So arbitrarily picking out Nero Caeser as his name because it adds up to 666 and saying this is who John is talking about doesn't cut the mustard. This wasn't who John was talking about, because the man of sin has not yet been revealed. It was prophecy for the future, not for Johns present.

>> ^thyazide:

Their arguments work fine in the context of the video... BUT.
American psycho = City
Freddy = City
Se7en = City
The prophecy = City
I can go on and on...


"Try to name one legitimately scary American horror movie that took place in a city."

Haven't seen The Prophecy but the others definitely don't seem scary to me. Creepy and/or weird, maybe, (or just really stupid in the case of Freddie) but not scary.

Their arguments work fine in the context of the video... BUT.

American psycho = City
Freddy = City
Se7en = City
The prophecy = City

I can go on and on...

The thing was an hour long, and believe it or not, I've seen lots of TV shows of people giving their stories of wacky supernatural/mystical things that happened to them, and I was pretty sure seeing one more wouldn't tip the balance, just like watching another Donald Trump stump speech would lead me to think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. My first comment was about what you had said about God having patience. My second comment was about my own theory of the link between mental trauma and mystical experience. Neither required me to spend an hour watching it. I'm sure you're probably sick of people lumping you in with all the crazy religious people we see in the world, so why do it to me? I mentioned that I hadn't watched it just in case my prediction was wrong (seems it might have been -- still haven't watched it), in which case you could ignore it or politely tell me so.

The reason young people and atheists (I'm not young, BTW) might not be interested in seeing a show like this is that it's utterly unreliable. Young people in the West are more skilled in critical thinking today than ever before, and atheists are a self-selecting group of people who require reliable evidence for things. To both groups, an anecdotal testimony recreation on TV is one of the least reliable sources of evidence. Your story, SB, as you've presented it here, is more credible than this one, and I've spent many, many hours reading, thinking and commenting about it, so cut me a little slack, will ya? No promises, but I do now intend to watch it all and comment at some time. Relatively busy the next several weeks

Sorry to lump you in, and yes I do understand that time is fleeting. I am not exactly jazzed to watch many of the videos I see here on the sift, but I will if there is potential for a good conversation. It's just a frustration that I encounter that many people are unwilling to consider what you're saying, or indeed even read it. It's probably just a cultural thing. I think more and more people have ADD and we are programmed in the culture to need instant gratification. In any case, I do not say you are like that. You have engaged me and considered what I have said, if not only to falsify it, but that's okay. I have enjoyed our conversations.

I'm not operating in any way towards any god. I don't believe in them, remember? Your specific God cannot exist as described, and I am so sceptical of any other gods that I live as if they don't exist either. You are operating under the faulty premise that I will accept something other than empirical evidence as the foundation of anything I believe. What makes you think I (or any other sceptic) would suddenly change my approach now, when it comes to arguably the single most important fact of my existence? Why would I lower the bar of acceptable evidence when the stakes are the highest? Even if I took a "just-in-case" approach, and did all the things the Bible said, I wouldn't believe in any of the things I was doing. In fact, as I consider that Christianity would make me a worse person, it would be selfish of me to choose to definitely hurt people on the off chance it might save my hide.

I agree that my God, as you currently understand Him, could not exist. Neither am I expecting you to lower your standards; I am only asking you to consider the issue rationally. If God exists, the entire Universe is empirical evidence of His existence. Is this not the case? So logically, trying to find empirical evidence of God is as easy as looking outside, or in a mirror. You happen to think its plausible that this is all happenstance, which I think requires quite a bit more faith than belief in a supernatural creation. I am sure you will disagree because you're a materialist, but your material had to come from somewhere. The main point is, trying to test for God is a fairly absurd idea. How would you do that?

I don't think you should take a "just in case" approach either. Becoming a Christian for fire insurance and nothing else is almost never a genuine conversion. You need to be born again, which is a supernatural transformation of your entire being. Anything short of that and you have no salvation.

When I was a young teen, and I was losing my faith (which had been absolute as a child). It was a bit distressing, and I used to pray that fairly often. I got no answer, and eventually forgot about God. I've always been interested in the concept of faith, but I've never again believed.

This happens to quite a number of catholics. The reason being, catholicism is very nearly a pagan religion, and it's an actual miracle if any Catholics do find God. There are more than a few that are saved, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as to percentages. Only God knows their hearts.

I am. And for me, truth is borne out by empirical evidence and personal experience, not preachers, or ancient fantasy books of dubious origin. I see exactly zero evidence for God. It's not even an interesting theory for me because it only explains, and doesn't predict.

God predicts the future. That's part of what makes the bible credible, is the literal fulfillment of prophecy. The nation of israel, for example, being reformed after 2000 years was predicted by prophecy. Such a thing has never happened before, that a people retained their racial purity and cultural heritage after being scattered all over the world, and then brought back to the same spot to form their own country again. The destruction of Jerusalem was also predicted in advance. As was the coming of the Messiah. There are many of these.

If God makes a box, he doesn't have to live inside the box. He can be eternal, but the word "eternal" itself is bound in time. Maybe you meant "omnipresent?" I'm particular about definitions.

He is omnipresent, yes. Eternal is timelessness..what it means to have no beginning and no ending.

OK. I've done it. I've put my money where my mouth is, and I actually got on my knees next to the computer, put my hands together, and prayed for God to reveal himself. I also told him that I was more interested in truth than in comfort, and if he revealed himself to be true, that I would use his guidance to find and follow the best path I could take in life. I used no biblical terms like "saviour" or "lord" because this is about me and God. If he wants to lead me to the Bible, he can do that. I asked him to be clear -- a double rainbow won't cut it. I was sincere. Any predictions?

My prediction is that God will honor your prayer if you are sincere in your desire to know Him, and the truth about Him. I think He will probably test the genuineness of your prayer. To God, talk is cheap. Anyone can say those words, but only those who mean them will find Him. He may offer you a choice that requires you to soften your heart and do something you wouldn't normally do. So be aware of that in the days to come. If you want my ultimate prediction, I believe that He will save you. God bless.

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake.

Why isn't this mentioned in the original text?

How and why did people suddenly realize the serpent was actually Satan a few thousand years later?

God works by progressive revelation. However, you can find something about it in Ezekiel 28.

Why didn't God recognize Satan in the form of a serpent? It seems God's omniscence was on the fritz that day; he didn't know where Adam was hiding and didn't know he and Eve had eaten the fruit.

God did recognize Satan, which is why He pronounced this judgment, which is also a prophecy of the Messiah:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It's a prophecy about Jesus defeating Satan on the cross.

Have you ever asked a question you knew the answer to? Then you can understand why God asked Adam where he was.

If God did recognize Satan, why did he punish all serpents to crawl on their bellies and eat dust and all that?

Can you see how those words would have a deeper meaning to an angelic being who is condemned to stay on Earth?

And why did they continue to do business together for the next few thousand years until the Fall? If Satan was just doing his original job (tempting humans), why was he punished at all?

The fall was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Satans original job was the worship leader in Heaven. Since falling from grace, he has attempted to corrupt and destroy Gods creation. He tempted Adam and Eve to gain power over them, and because Adam has dominion over the Earth, he would become the defacto ruler.

Satan has played a role as a prosecuting attorney against God creations. God allowed him to serve in this capacity, but it wasn't a "job". It was Satans delight to do so, and part of his determination to ruin the creation.

Why was this required? Why can't God just change the rules if that's what he wants? Why does he need to jump through all these hoops?

I answered this question in messangers reply if you want to look there..

>> ^xxovercastxx

>> ^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.

You really haven't been paying attention if you think I'm not open to the idea of a god @shinyblurry. The very fact that I'm arguing I don't know, directly implies that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.

I've seen that you have an openness to the idea, but you're also quick to take an adversarial position. Are you truly open to who God is? Are you okay with the idea of a God so long as it isn't Jesus?

I can also say that as a former agnostic, I understand where you're coming from.

There could be a god. But 1) there has to be proof of the it's existence

Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is proof of His existence. I don't know about you, but personally I find the idea of Universes spontaneously creating themselves to be an absurdity.

Imagine a painting with three black lines on it. You could come to all sorts of conclusions about what that is supposed to represent. You could draw philosophical ideas from it. You could see it as a social commentary, or a mathematical representation. You could measure it, sample the paint and paper, run many different tests. You could count the number of brushstrokes. You could do all of this and more, subject it to every sort of empirical inquiry, and you would be no closer to finding about the intention of the painter than you were when you started.

The only way you are going to see the signature of the Creator is if you realize you are looking at His Creation. The evidence is *everywhere*. Neither is poking and prodding it and subjecting it to tests going to tell you anything about what He intended. This is the only real question.

and 2) Religion and god are two separate things, just because a creator exists doesn't give any more credibility to religion.

I agree, and I've made this point to atheists in the past, mainly when I believed that no religion was the correct one. If you consider that everything is equally unlikely, then you are looking at 50/50 odds for special creation versus naturalistic means.

There are many many religions out there. Assuming one is right, that means many are wrong More than likely, all are wrong.

Why is it more likely that all are wrong rather than one being right? The question is, has God revealed Himself to the world, or not. If not, then all are wrong. If so, then one is right.

In all likelihood, odds are better that a creator would be more like Cthulhu then some caucasian, gun loving republican. You claim god made us in his image, when in reality, it's far more likely that you made god in our image.

The stereotype you are presenting does not represent anything Christians believe. Maybe some Christians act that way, but that isn't what scripture says about God. It says that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways.

If we were created, humans are the Creators crowning achievement. The "odds" are better that He made us like Him.

The simple truth though is that god is academic. Either he's always been here and it's all part of some ridiculously elaborate pre-destination plan so it doesn't matter what we do as it's all part of the plan, or he doesn't care, or he does, but he doesn't intervene. In each of those cases. The alleged fact of a creator's existence does not affect our lives, at least not any way we're aware of. Nor does a creator suddenly make any of the religions right or true.

Or, it does matter what we do, because God does intervene in His creation, and He has given us a standard of behavior which He is going to judge us by. The existence of God does not make any of the religions true, but it is positive evidence that one of them is true.

Or god doesn't exist and never has. Again...nothing changes. religion still exists in spite of this, they still get together and do their thing and that's fine. Religion is not inherently bad, it's what you DO with religion that is hurtful or helpful. Even if you removed religion from humanity forever. Humanity still has a ton of other things that we do that are part of our lives that have no rational basis in fact but we do it anyway. That's fine...it's part of what makes us human.

Man corrupts everything he touches because our nature is inherently sinful. Man can use anything as an excuse to do evil.

The dilemma is not for me to believe, the dilemma is for you and/or your god to prove why I should believe. Especially if you want public policy to be influenced. When public policy is not involved, you have the same freedoms everyone else does. And you can't use the bible to prove you're right. You do know what circular reasoning is and that' it's a fallacy right? You quoting the bible does absolutely nothing other than to show you don't really understand what reasoning and logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Except there is evidence in the bible which proves the bible is Gods word, such as the fulfilled prophecy. It may not prove that I am right, to you, but the evidence has convinced over 1/3 of the worlds population. That isn't even the question, in any case. I'm not trying to prove I am right to you. I don't believe there is anything I can do to ever convince you that God exists, or that His name is Jesus Christ. That's the work of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I was explaining to you earlier. It's not an evidence problem, it's a heart problem. God has already given you sufficient evidence to know that He is, and who He is. Only God can change your heart. What He charged me with is to tell you the gospel and give you an answer for the faith that I have.

Religion wants to say they're right and everyone else is wrong. That's nice. A lot of people think they're right and everyone else is wrong. I think I'm right and my supervisor is wrong. The onus is on me to show why I'm right.

I'm glad you've found happiness in your religion. I've found happiness in the way I live which does not require a god or a religion. Who is right? Maybe none of us are right. Maybe we both are right. The lesson is just simply that there are many ways to happiness. There is no single way. Your happiness is not better than my happiness and vice versa. Your happiness does not get to infringe on my happiness and vice versa. This is how we live and get along in the great melting pot. You don't get dominion. you never will. History is quite clear on what happens when a group of people come along and say, live our way..or else. Believe in the same things we believe...or else.

Christians are not called to have dominion. I will of course strongly disagree with immoral laws, but people have the right to govern themselves as they wish. Although this is still a strongly Christian nation, we have a strong secular influence in our government. I accept that as being the reality.

your happiness does not get to trump someone else's happiness. If you let people steal and kill you have a lot of unhappy, and dead people. That's not sustainable and you can't really survive that way. Again, simple morality that does not require a creator. Next question?


You said that it isn't sustainable yet if you look at history you will see that stealing and killing is what we have been doing all along. The point is this..Let's say that the Nazis won the war and conquered the world. Eventually, they won everyone over to their philosophy, and now there is peace on the Earth. The glue that holds everything together is that once a year, they torture a jewish baby to death on camera, which brings great happiness and unity to the entire world. One year the baby died before they could torture it, and there were riots and many, many people were killed. Is it therefore moral to torture that baby to death, since it brings peace and happiness to the entire world?

>> ^VoodooV

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.

>> ^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.

Why would you believe that? Just because someone writes down a sequence of unlikely events doesn't mean that if one of them happens then they'll all happen.
>> ^shang:

If things start happening like is in Left Behind series and some singular person gets israel and palestine to sign a peace treaty, then I will believe 100% that shit is about to hit the fan and prophecy will be fulfilled

my favorite was the Left Behind series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins... Great fucking series!

If things start happening like is in Left Behind series and some singular person gets israel and palestine to sign a peace treaty, then I will believe 100% that shit is about to hit the fan and prophecy will be fulfilled, since israel and palestine 7 year peace treaty is supposed to be the first act of the antichrist since the antichrist comes as the perfect peace and globalization politician and unites the world in peace... but that peace only supposed to last 3 and half years before christian persecution begins.

course agnostic, but one of the signs have already started since the 90's atheists openly attacking, belittling and hating christians more and more is a sign and 1948 israel becoming a nation is the first. Which is why lot believe IF things follow a path, then 1948 is what kicked things off.

But regardless it is very interesting times, if we don't kill ourselves first or rise up and slay our politicians we'll soon be in full blown persecution of a police state.

hell right now places like Sweden and Iceland enjoy way more freedoms than USA does, USA has lost it's freedom, political correctness has ruined USA

@shinyblurry:

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.


Could you perhaps refer me to some documents wherein St. Ephrem or St. Basil averred that the literal interpretation of the Bible is primary? Ephrem appears to have struck a middle ground between literalism and pure metaphorical interpretation, and St. Basil was a student of Origen's writings. Granted, St. Basil assiduously avoided the bizarre flights of fancy that plagued some of the Christian writers in the 4th century, but he was hardly a literalist in a strict sense--the literal sense was only one important sense in which to take the sacred writings.

If you want to support your point, a particular reference to Genesis will do best.

As far as Ambrose goes, it stretches the truth to say that he was a "mentor" of Augustine. Certainly, Augustine speaks rather highly of Ambrose in the Confessions. But Augustine writes with rather rose-colored glasses. A sober-minded approach to the life of Ambrose reveals that he was as much a political animal as he was spiritual. And even in the Confessions it is not recorded that Ambrose paid much attention to Augustine. If I recall correctly, Augustine doesn't record a single word that Ambrose said to Augustine outside of a public sermon in which Augustine was a member of the congregation.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.


In the traditional sense, certainly. There are other senses by which one might claim to be Christian--pointing out the tradition from which one derives one's moral compass, for instance. In this sense, many atheists can probably claim to be Christian atheists, rather than, e.g., Muslim atheists.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.


Do they sin much less than usual? I haven't seen any sign of it. The statistics don't seem to bear it out. Nor does my personal experience. Of the best and most morally astute people I know, only one was Christian. The rest were Buddhist, Muslim, or Pagan.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.


To worship and devote yourself to a single God, like Jesus Christ, has a specific term in Hinduism--bhakhti yoga. It is the path of love and devotion.

No matter which god you pursue with this ardent and holy love, you will achieve the same result--sanctification, rebirth, and the descending dove of the Holy Spirit.

The forgiveness of sins is a psychological projection. Eternal life is yours regardless of what any god says.


Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.


As far as deception goes, I will quote to you the Gospels, Luke 11:17-19: 'But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.'

How can a demon bring holy ecstasy? How can a devil cast out division and hatred, and bring in such divine love?

And with regard to intolerance, it's almost entirely pointless to quote to me the first apocryphon of John--the so-called Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says. I've spent a lot of time considering it. That's why I think it's incorrect.

It does no good at all to suggest that it's someone else who's being intolerant. On the one hand, it looks like you're blame-shifting, too much the coward to take responsibility for the statement. On the other hand, you are providing no reason to think that the quotation provides any authority whatsoever, and undermining your position by your own indolence.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24: