วีดีโอ

If you go back enough generations, you'll find out that we are all distant cousins. You needed two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. You'll get to a point where it would be impossible for someone to not marry their distant cousin due to the limited human population size, considering we didn't get to 1 billion people until 1804.

You're welcome to accept a younger lifespan if 930 seems too much. But given the context, it would make sense that he lived so long. No processed foods, no accumulated genetic diseases, no harmful chemicals, etc. If it weren't for our pancreas, humans could live +120 years a lot more easily. It's amazing how much potential our bodies have. Or rather, had.

Hahaha, naw you just gotta choose if you want to die as a rich career criminal or holy.

Which is one of the issues with Protestant and Calvinist theology. It leads many among them to believe that conversions can always come after an indulgent lifestyle, and that would be a guaranteed way to Heaven.

@@gigantals John preached a baptism of repentance, which simply means to have a change of mind for the better. If a Calvinist or a Catholic does not turn first with their mind from sin then there is no forgiveness. Much like producing fruit in keeping with repentance. Great video my man.

You are in a very dangerous position, one that sees the truth as a non-requisite to following Christ. Catholicism is the fullness of truth revealed by God through the general revelation of the Scriptures and later theological conclusions by theologians and Councils. The Protestants deny many of our truths, picking and choosing which to accept. The Church teaches that Christ is both man and God, with a human nature and a Divine Nature joined through the Hypostatic Union. What do you say to the Protestants that promote Arianism, that Christ was just a man? Is not the confession that Christ is God important for Salvation? How about the Protestants that believe God the Son killed the original human soul of the body that He took over, to possess human flesh as Christ? Christ told us He is God and man though, so anyone who denies this is calling Him a liar. Will God tolerate liars that undermine His words in Heaven? Even those that go so far as to promote perverse blasphemies that twist His messages into paradoxes and contradictions? It's not enough to just 'accept Jesus into our hearts'. Even the Martyrs died for their faith. If we're not Martyrs, then we're Confessors. Our faith is demonstrated by the examples we lead in life and what we preach/teach. Are you really going to place all bets on the chance that just simply 'accepting Jesus' is all that He wants? Which Jesus? The human Jesus? The God Jesus? the God-man Jesus? The demigod Jesus? The Second God Jesus? Hence why we need theology to determine right from wrong, and why belonging to the right Church is necessary.

Some people trying to make the cross in a rush or discretely in public will shorten the lowest beam (?) to the breastbone.

Of course it's uneducated, and I find these on Facebook.

Did you even watch the video?

If they got into Heaven, it would be in spite of their art violating and desecrating the dignity of man, who is made in the Image of God. For their twisted state of mind and however many they led into temptation as a direct result of their work, they may as well remain in Purgatory until Judgement day comes.

@@gigantals Well pardon us talented folk and our creativity from your "Perfect God's" kingdom. Seriously though, It's like you're actually taking this seriously, lmao.

If it was a matter of talent, then shortcuts through eroticism would not be taken. As an example, Fifty Shades of Grey without its erotic contents is an atrocious book/movie franchise with a plot about grooming a woman. If the author had any genuine talent, she would not have needed to rely so heavily on eroticism for an audience. Compared to something like Lord of the Rings which is seen as a modern Epic and has won more awards than any other franchise (475/800). I'm reminded of one movie critic who recently complained that the Marvel movies were the equivalent of fast food compared to the masterpieces produced decades ago. Rule 34 content is even lower than that, the equivalent of smoking a cigarette to avoid feeling hungry. It is short-lived entertainment with no depth that is soon cast aside and replaced by more content, usually being more graphic and twisted, to try and maintain an audience. It's not healthy to the consumers of such material and its producers. Beyond the state of their soul, it has an impact on their mind and psyche. We've known about the consequences of pornography from decades of research. The difference between live-action pornography and Rule 34 content is thst the latter doesn't involve real people and so isn't hindered by legality. Which then opens the door to darker themes. It's no coincidence that of all my friends who work in psychology, the one who has the most sullen expression is the one that studies sexuality and works with pornography addicts. As for me taking this seriously, the whole point of this video was me saying that minors were being illustrated in inappropriate contexts by Rule 34 artists (let alone the rest that I know is out there). I don't care if they're fictional or not, someone produced that perversion with intent. How can I not be serious when people with such perverted minds live on this earth? Children need to be protected from those that would think lustfully of them.

@@gigantals Bro, quit your yapping. I ain't reading all that.

@@gigantals This is literally too dumb for me to care about.

In a nutshell, you have as poor an understanding of Iconography and idolatry, as an Atheist who thinks Christ is no different to a pagan god.

@@gigantals Show me one quotation from the Bible or the first 500 years of the church that clearly supports venerating icons, and I will change my opinion and apologize. Don't bother pointing out artwork without evidence of veneration, the bronze serpent which was destroyed as an idol, or the ark which was usually hidden behind a curtain and once failed the people of Israel when they tried to use it like an idol. Also, don't bother with the quote from Basil's 4th century letter on the Holy Spirit. That clearly has nothing to do with icons, but the trinity.

‘Show me one quotation from the Bible or the first 500 years of the church that clearly supports venerating icons,’ From the Bible? Sure. In Exodus 25, we read about God giving Moses instructions for the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple liturgical instruments. Because God wasn’t going to be physically present in a humanoid form among Israel, there would have to be Iconography compensating for it. Which is why He told Moses to have Cherubs on the top of the Ark with a seat between them, similar to God’s Throne being surrounded by Seraphs and Cherubs during Ezekiel’s and Isaiah’s visions. By respecting (venerating) the Icon, the Archetype was respected (worship). God could not give them instructions to make a humanoid statue however, since He knew full well how susceptible they would be to idolatry and so a humanoid Icon would be far too easily abused through idolatry. This issue was resolved by the time of the New Testament. God has revealed Himself to us in the flesh of a man, and we are not susceptible to idolatry. As such we can venerate a larger range of Icons. As for the early Church, I could point to the usage of Icons in the catacombs that the first Christians celebrated Mass in, or even in the ruins of the Churches mentioned in Revelation, which have Icons adorning the walls. Additionally, I could look towards the monastic centre of Edessa, famed home of the Image of Edessa (which was the Shroud of Turin folded up and placed inside of a trellis with only Christ’s face showing), where it was kept in a special Cathedral and have a specific Liturgical practise centred around its veneration during Pascha. The Syrian Church Fathers definitely venerated it because they wrote extensively about it, including St Ephrem of Syria in the late 4th century. We know he was speaking of the Shroud, because the Shroud was the only full-body Icon of Christ to show Him nude for almost a millennium. It was an example of the ‘Acheiropoieta’, Icons ‘made without hands' being created by God in some way. The Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is also in this category and both Images display supernatural properties. Based off of the Image of Edessa were the Keramidion, a class of Icons from the early centuries that were either painted onto wood or carved into tiles and metal. These illustrated the face of Christ and have been found as far as the Caucasus, carried there by Syrian monks who evangelised the region. They currently reside in Churches and are used during various Liturgies. Then there is the Hodegetria, the stereotypical depiction of the Infant Christ sitting on His Mother’s lap. The original was painted by St Luke the Evangelist (who was also a painter) and has been replicated more than any other form of Icon. The original was brought to Constantinople in the 5th century before being taken to Italy. The Second Council of Nicaea read an apocryphal letter of St Athanasius of Alexandria about the Icon of Beirut, which was used as an example of the Acheiropoieta (though in actuality it was a later copy of the Shroud of Turin). Their reasoning was that if God was creating Icons of Himself and letting Miracles happen through other Icons created by people, how could they be idolatrous? Would it not be a sign of His approval? And indeed it appears that way. Aside from Eucharistic Miracles which have been scientifically verified as confirming the True Presence, both Icons on the Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of St Juan Diego at Guadalupe display supernatural properties. Which I’m happy to detail. But you wanted quotes, right? Ok then. Here is from the pseudepigraphical Acts of John in the 2nd century: ‘The painter, then, on the first day made an outline of him [John the Apostle] and went away. And on the next he painted him in with his colours, and so delivered the portrait to Lycomedes to his great joy.’ It was made less than 10 years after St John the Apostle by Gnostic heretics. Although the Gnostics themselves hated Icons because they preserved the material image of individuals, and the material world was inherently evil according to them, they clearly mention the practise of Icon making by the early Church. This next quote is from a 3rd century inscription in the Grotto of Jerusalem: ‘Under the holy place of M[ary]. I wrote there the [names]. The image I adored of her.’ Not only is there Marian veneration here, but also veneration of her Iconography. Now we have the 4th century St Methodius of Olympus: ‘For instance, then, the images of our kings here, even though they be not formed of the more precious materials - gold or silver - are honoured by all. For men do not, while they treat with respect those of the far more precious material, slight those of a less valuable, but honour every image in the world, even though it be of chalk or bronze. And one who speaks against either of them, is not acquitted as if he had only spoken against clay, nor condemned for having despised gold, but for having been disrespectful towards the King and Lord Himself. The images of God’s angels, which are fashioned of gold, the principalities and powers, we make to His honour and glory (Discourse on the Resurrection, 2).’ Notice how he specifically refers to ‘honouring’ Icons. This ‘honour’ is the veneration that images of Saintly archetypes deserve. Also from the 4th century we have St Athanasius the Great: ‘And we may perceive this at once from the illustration of the Emperor’s image. For in the image is the shape and form of the Emperor, and in the Emperor is that shape which is in the image. For the likeness of the Emperor in the image is exact ; so that a person who looks at the image, sees in it the Emperor; and he again who sees the Emperor, recognises that it is he who is in the image. And from the likeness not differing, to one who after the image wished to view the Emperor, the image might say, ‘I and the Emperor are one; for I am in him, and he in me; and what you see in me, that you behold in him, and what you have seen in him, that you hold in me.’ Accordingly he who worships the image, in it worships the Emperor also; for the image is his form and appearance (Discourse Against the Arians, 3.5).’ Finally is from the 4th century St Basil the Great: ‘For the lawless mock the temple, mock the neighbour, mock the one created in the image of the Creator, and through the image “reproach” ascends to the Creator. For just as the one who desecrates the royal image is judged on an equal footing with the one who sinned against the king himself, so, obviously, the one who desecrates the one created in the image is guilty of sin (Commentary on Isaiah, 13.3).’ Those Iconoclasts are not in a good place for their disrespect to God, that’s for certain. ‘and I will change my opinion, apologize. Don't bother pointing out artwork without evidence of veneration,’ Hmm...What qualifies as ‘artwork without evidence of veneration’? Are you dismissing anything not found inside a Church, as all Icons in a Church inherently point towards the Liturgy being celebrated in it? ‘the bronze serpent which was destroyed as an idol,’ But it wasn’t an idol for the first 700 years or so of its history. It was venerated as a religious symbol alongside the Ark of the Covenant. Hezekiah only destroyed it after the apostasy of the Israelites led to them abusing its veneration, becoming an idol in their eyes. It appears the consensus of Nehushtan’s location was in the Temple courtyard, where all the Israelites would’ve had access to, allowing it to be an object of public veneration. As opposed to the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple itself. ‘or the ark which was usually hidden behind a curtain and once failed the people of Israel when they tried to use it like an idol.’ No they didn’t. How do you ‘use’ something as an idol? Are you telling me that idolatry is defined by carrying an object into battle to motivate you? I would love for you to then explain how the statues of Zeus and Athena at Olympia and Athens respectively, being 12 metres in height and covered in gold, were carried into battle for them to officially become idols for their worshippers. Something is only idolatrous if you treat it as if it were divine, not because it possessed the image of what was considered divine. It’s the same difference between your grandparents treating you as their grandchild, and them treating an image of you as their grandchild (complete with a doll they stick said photo to, carrying it around and conversing with it as if it were a normal person). The Ark of the Covenant was never treated as an idol. Being carried into battle as a symbol of motivation, which it had been used for previously, was not an inherently evil or corrupt move. God chose to allow the Ark to be taken by the Philistines to punish the Israelites for their sins, and an opportunity for God to both punish the Philistines with plagues and deter other foreigners from trying to steal the Ark in the future.

‘Also, don't bother with the quote from Basil's 4th century letter on the Holy Spirit.’ You mean this quote? ‘Because we speak of a king, and of the king’s image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead (On the Holy Spirit, 18.45).’ That clearly has nothing to do with icons, but the trinity. False, it has to do with both. If you read the full context of the quote, you’d see that St Basil was trying to explain how the Holy Spirit was a Person in the Holy Trinity and not a ‘second god’. All analogies of the Holy Trinity fail due to its supernatural nature, but St Basil was using the comparison of a King and coins with his image on them, to God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It does not take away any honour from the King to honour his image on coins nor does it become a second King, in the same way that honouring the Holy Spirit does not detract from the Father nor become a second deity. The difference being that the image on the coin physically imitates the King whilst the Holy Spirit has the same Divine Nature that God the Father has. Here is the full quote so you know I’m not taking this out of context: ‘For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three - nor yet first, second, and third. For I, God, am the first, and I am the last (Isaiah 44:6). And hitherto we have never, even at the present time, heard of a second God. Worshipping as we do God of God, we both confess the distinction of the Persons, and at the same time abide by the Monarchy. We do not fritter away the theology in a divided plurality, because one Form, so to say, united in the invariableness of the Godhead, is beheld in God the Father, and in God the Only begotten. For the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son; since such as is the latter, such is the former, and such as is the former, such is the latter; and herein is the Unity. So that according to the distinction of Persons, both are one and one, and according to the community of Nature, one. How, then, if one and one, are there not two Gods? Because we speak of a king, and of the king's image, and not of two kings. The majesty is not cloven in two, nor the glory divided. The sovereignty and authority over us is one, and so the doxology ascribed by us is not plural but one; because the honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead. One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity. Of Him the intimate relationship to the Father and the Son is sufficiently declared by the fact of His not being ranked in the plurality of the creation, but being spoken of singly; for he is not one of many, but One. For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost. He is consequently as far removed from created Nature as reason requires the singular to be removed from compound and plural bodies; and He is in such wise united to the Father and to the Son as unit has affinity with unit.’

@@gigantals I commend you for trying to defend your position. I respect that you are adamant about this, albeit mistaken. Here is a concise reply. Comparing the ark to icons is preposterous. What would happen if you tried to kiss the ark like people kiss icons. The second commandment is clear. The Shroud of Turin? Seriously? It's a notorious hoax from the middle ages. No one doubts there was early Christian art. The issue is veneration. The only mention of veneration is in reference to gnostic heretics. You do mention a gnostic source, but I don't know why. You're basically showing icon veneration was introduced from gnosticism. There is no record of Luke painting icons at all until the 6th century. It's clearly a later tradition that was not part of the apostolic teaching. Partial inscriptions, where you literally have to fill in the text, are not particularly strong evidence. You finally get to some patristic arguments. They are rather late by the 4th century, but let's look at them. You have a pretty solid quote from Methodius. It seems like a winner on the surface, but there is one problem. The rest of this book is found in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 234, yet the section you quoted is not. It is handed down to us only by John of Damascus, the man at the epicenter of the entire icon controversy. I looked high and low for the quote from Athanasius, but couldn't find it. I paged through the Discourse Against the Arians and just didn't see the reference you made. It could be me; perhaps you can clarify. Finally, the quote from Basil is clearly talking about Jesus, the image of God, the only icon we are ever called to worship. It is not at all in the context of icon veneration as it is practiced today. Here are a few earlier quotes from the church fathers about image veneration: Hippolytus (Saint) And [the Carpocratian heretics] make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate. (The Refutation of All Heresies 7.20 ANF) Irenaeus (Saint) [The Carpocratian heretics] also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 1.25.6 ANF) Clement of Alexandria But it is clear to every one that piety, which teaches to worship and honour, is the highest and oldest cause; and the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images (Stromata 2.18 ANF) Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine. (Stromata 7.5 ANF) Aristides of Athens But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. . . . They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man (Apology 15) Origen “Insane” would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine divinities. (Against Celsus 3.76) Arnobius Was it for this He sent souls, that, being made unmindful of the truth, and forgetful of what God was, they should make supplication to images which cannot move . . . ? (Against the Heathen 2.39 ANF) Lactantius Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. (The Divine Institutes 2.18-2.19 ANF) Here is one from the Methodius you mentioned: Methodius (Saint) And those artificers who, to the destruction of men, make images in human form, not perceiving and knowing their own Maker, are blamed by the Word, which says, in the Book of Wisdom, a book full of all virtue, “his heart is ashes, his hope is more vile than earth, and his life of less value than clay; forasmuch as he knew not his Maker, and Him that inspired into him an active soul, and breathed in a living spirit;” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins 2.7 ANF) These images are bad news, man. Stay away from idols.

I never lost the argument by stating it was not up for discussion. What authority do you have in dictating how the aspects and forms of rituals belonging to a religion that you are not not part of, are carried out? You lost by providing criticism and expecting for it to be taken seriously. If you were part of Catholicism, then you'd've still lost by completely ignoring the mountain of theology and philosophy behind the Dogma. What makes you think you would know better than 3500 years of religious authority and scholars? I find that those who laugh at me fulfil proverbs 29:9, so it doesn't particularly bother me. If they had a case, they would've presented it by then. I would love for you to elaborate how theology is childish. Does that come from your personal ignorance on the subject? Or are you only familiar with children's Bible stories? As for stupidity, I know that there are plenty of complicated terms and big words in theology and philosophy, but a simple Google search would suffice in providing a definition. Actually, it's not what God said so. It's what God said through the Magisterium He established on Earth. The same Magisterium which has never once succumbed to heresy or been proven wrong on anything it claimed was infallible. Such an immaculate track record of theology for almost 2000 years is certainly telling. I know everyone else's interpretation of the Bible is wrong because we don't rely solely on the Bible. That would be circular reasoning. The Bible didn't even exist for the first 349 years of Christianity. But the Magisterium and Apostolic Tradition existed. We used them to compile the Scriptures, and we still use them today. Isn't it amazing that, even despite differences between us and the other ancient churches like the East Orthodox, Orientals, and Copts, we all still agree on matters such as male-only ordination? So clearly there's no bias from our end. Even the Jews agree with us, rooting the custom back thousands of years further to the Patriarchs. But please, go ahead. I'm sure you've thought of a perfect argument no-one else has ever come up with in 2000 years of Christianity. Even the sheer mention of 'magical sky daddy' has the heavens shaking in fear.

Nothing at all, I don't even get enough views to monetise the video in the first place. By the way, how many bot accounts do you run? I assume this is one of several that you use to comment under all your cult videos to boost their performance, whilst posting irrelevant links and messages in random videos. I know you guys do that on Facebook too.

@@gigantals u can earn by bribing too, not only through monetization If u know what I mean

I don't. Unlike you, I'm not familiar with immoral financial funding.

@@gigantalslying is a sin, even a kid knows

So they why do your cult leaders lie about Christ's return? They know absolutely nothing about the Bible or theology, and stand in direct contrast to everything we've learnt in the last 2000 years. Are you gullible enough to believe something someone says without doing any research of your own beforehand?

I'm glad that they've not gotten to brainwashing you yet, and that you can see through their lies. I haven't worked on an anti-Cult video for a while now due to other projects taking precedence, but I intend to remaster some of these older videos soon. A friend of mine on Facebook runs an anti-Cult page that he frequently posts content on, including examples of their propaganda, missing persons, their brainwashing tactics, and lists of their bots. I have his link in my Channel information if you want to read more.

Yes please could you give me the face book page. I also found they don’t believe in the Trinity and that it is made up by man yet I provided biblical proof of its truth and meaning but they said people are trying to turn me away from God. I’ve been a born again Christian for over 30 years and I’ve daughter so much proof they are a cult, but I cannot deny the people in the fellowship are truly lovely caring people and filled a gap in my life since I sit from a husband and a lifetime of cheating and abuse. He turned all my friends against me and I’ve been lonely but I just cannot believe Christ has returned as an incarnate Chinese woman who fled China because she was hunted down and lives in America now. Anything you can direct me to do I k ow they ate a cult as I just can’t let go of my beliefs in our Lord and Saviour. Thank you for your videos. I really learn so much. 🙏🏻

My friend who covers the Eastern Lightning cult: facebook.com/WesternThunderJudgement His profile image is the Eastern Lightning cult's symbol, looked at through a sniper's crosshairs. He calls himself 'The Eastern Lightning Cult' not because he's one of them, but because the cult hates him using their name and the term 'cult' in the same sentence.

You are not alone bro we all are struggling through the same problem. Only self improvement could help.

Have you ever heard of an online program called 'Strive'? They help people deal with stuff like this, and have a three-week-long programme that you can follow.

You have no one to blame but yourself

What was the video about?

Thank you, I will.

Interesting. You seem to take my video on this 'not-so-serious' meme rather seriously. Do I have to run all my future videos by you first, to ensure they're not over-reactions? Aside from that, you're not me. You have not seen this meme being shared unironically across social media as I have. That is my motivation for making this video.

@@gigantals you're wasting your time. No one cares about it.

Are you sure about that?

You're welcome.

i think i am blind! because nowhere in Bible it talks about trinity and Jesus being God and asking for worship😮 do i just take St Pauls word for it then?

I've seen this meme used unironically by Atheists and Muslims against Christians. That is why I'm addressing it.

To begin with, it does appear that you have eyesight issues. Here are some passages about Christ being worshipped in the Bible: Matthew 2:11: 'And going into the house they saw the child [Jesus] with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Matthew 14:33: 'And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”' Matthew 28:9-10: 'And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.' Matthew 28:16-17: 'Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.' Luke 24:51: 'While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.' Secondly, the word 'trinity' didn't exist at the time of Christ for the same reason the English language didn't. Thirdly, St Paul wrote most of the New Testament. You yourself refer to him as a Saint. He was an Apostle, the wisest of the Pharisees who wrote in depth about the theological and philosophical backing to Christ's teachings. Do you seriously think you know more about Christ than he does? Despite living almost 2000 years after him?

@@masterp401 that's because it comes from Christian doctrine from the first centuries of Christianity. So it's not in scripture but it comes from scripture and the early church.

They've been harassing my friends on Facebook.

Eastern Lightning told me that what was written about them on the Internet was just rumors and I believed them. But when they began to threaten me personally, I realized that these were far from rumors. I was convinced of this myself. Many believers in China suffered from them, mentally and physically. These people have no problem killing or maiming a Christian. May God give strength to all those who suffered from them 🙏

Indeed. At the very least, their hierarchy is experiencing significant management issues, so they'll hopefully soon fragment into disorganised bands of believers that lose the incentive to harm others.

Some of my older videos have very weird automatic subtitles.

Yes, the Communists and Socialists of the 20th century provided an excellent example of that.

@@gigantals add to it millions murdered during forcible conversion to Christianity, inquisition, more millions murdered and more recently folks were promised land by their god and they can’t stop murder as we speak.

You're not too good this, are you? You've not provided any actual evidence for the 'millions murdered' by Christians around the world. The Inquisition was a great thing. Unlike the Protestants who had rigged trials that accused everyone of being witches, the Inquisition had a much fairer court system. Of the 150,000 people who were suspected or accused of heresy in the 600 years or so of its existence, only 3000 were found to be guilty. Of that 3000, only a fraction were actually executed. And then of that fraction, most were executed by secular leaders, not the Church. So you can blame the secular courts, not ecclesial ones. What's this about 'promised land' by God? I don't see Christians fighting for territory alloted to them by God anywhere.

@@gigantals christians murdered to send folks straight to Christ. The promised land folks believe another absurdity and you can see with your eyes today what they are doing in the name of “gods”.

@@gigantals we Poles, ourselves, murdered tribes into extinction in the name of the cross to get their land. When we needed help we called for the Teutonic order, Christ most blessed order, to do the dirty work which they did, tribes genocide in the name of Christ. Try reading history, it will answer some of your doubts.

That's a mirror, sir. I'm over here.

Thank you. Are you familiar with the philosophical aspects of Christianity?

How so?

It's a clear commandment of God our lord Jesus Christ. If he says a sin is a sin, it's a sin no matter how you wish to justify it.

It appears you are commenting on the wrong Short, considering I mention nothing about sin here. Almost any 'immoral act' brought up by critics of the Bible on this topic would be attributed to God Himself (who cannot sin) instead of individuals. In summary, I mention nothing about sin.

You should watch it again. You probably missed the part where the reel talks about historical context and some passages being a metaphor

@@JonFrenchman no I did not miss anything. It's a fairytale, just like all other "holy" books. Good messages mostly, still made-up fairytales.

They're hardly made up if we keep finding historical evidence for them. The main issue is that the field of Archaeology is so young, meaning that we've yet to fund everything.

@@gigantals we are not finding archeological evidence that supports it, it's christian propaganda. But believe what you will.

I take it you don't know what the word 'propaganda' means? Do you think the Hittites never existed too? Or that certain names of places in the Bible recorded in ancient languages that were long-dead at the time of even the Babylonian captivity, are just coincidences?

Thank you for your support :-)

It's one thing to be naturally cautious about extrabiblical Miracles, but the Bible refers to the Plagues as literally being from God.

You want this video in the form of text?

@@gigantals Yes, I would like to be able to read on my own tempo, if you narrated it, it would have been much better, since I could just play it in the background :/

I understand. I initially moved away from narrating videos due to audio issues in recording them, but I might go through some of these again to narrate them when I have the opportunity to. Regardless, I will be making posts about this on my Facebook page, covering any concerns any questions that people bring up in these comments.

Yep.

You mean you're still in it, and you serve as nothing more than a bot which comments under videos criticising the Cult by claiming that they're not a cult. Well, actions speak louder than words, so prove it.

You mean your Cult leaders told you that anyone who criticised them is secretly a member of the CCP? You just confirmed that they behave exactly like a cult does. I have no reason to trust the CCP, considering they're persecuting my Church in China. But sure, keep throwing that comparison around, it means nothing outside of China.

Lateran Councils? Five.

'History is written by the victors who have a motive to attack the truth.' No, it's written by the historians. Your quote has been used by all forms of revisionists as some edgy philosophy to reject mainstream history. 'Roman Catholicism is filled with pagan practices that is obvious just from both a scriptural and historical standpoint.' Correction: "I know just as much about Roman Catholicism as I do about Paganism, which isn't much, but I'll equate the two because I refuse to accept any refutation I'm given". 'Woodrow did an excellent job exposing the Catholic paganism in his first work "Babylon Mystery Religion", he uses many quotes from their own Catholic Cyclopedia to back up his claims as well as other historical evidence.' Except that he didn't provide any historical evidence. All he did was rephrase Hislop's original work for a modern audience. When theologians and historians wrote to him about his errors, he performed his own research and retracted his first work. 'I have not read They Babylon Connection, but I plan to. Why he recalled his first work I can only speculate he gives a very weak reason as to why and he never denies the facts of his book on his website.' He explains very clearly why in The Babylon Connection. Hislop was making baseless and ahistorical accusations based upon many lines of reasoning that Atheists use against Christianity in general. 'I speculate he was paid handsomely to withdraw it from publication.' Of course you speculate that. You have nothing to back it up. In The Babylon Connection, he makes clear that he actually suffered financially as a result of his retraction. 'One thing is for sure Christ taught us to love our enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you:' False compassion from you, eh? I take it you don't include slandering among what Christ condemned? Woodrow states repeatedly in his book that he doesn't agree with Catholicism, but he cannot endorse in intellectual dishonesty just because he wants to prove it wrong. 'But Catholics instead have been the biggest murderers of non-Catholic Christians in history,' No evidence provided, of course. 'just read the historical book Foxes Book of Martyrs.' Regarding that ahistorical book: "The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him)." Couldn't he do all his research before being fact-checked repeatedly, wasting money on publishing new editions? Encyclopaedia Britannica [1911, 11th ed.,volume 10, p.770]: "The gross blunders due to carelessness have often been exposed, and there is no doubt that Foxe was only too ready to believe evil of the Catholics, and he cannot always be exonerated from the charge of wilful falsification of evidence." British Authors before 1800: A Biographical Dictionary (1952): "Foxe was a fanatical Protestant, wrote with feverish energy, was completely credulous, and reveled in horror. No detail is too small or too dreadful to be described minutely, and no invective too violent to be applied to the Roman Catholics-for to his mind there were no martyrs except Protestants. His only theme is suffering, and he mangles his readers' nerves with one long monotony of agony and terror." So you rely on a book that has been criticised for almost 500 years for being unreliable and inherently bias? Makes sense, since you seem to live in an echo chamber. 'From my own experience I have found most Catholics don't like the truth even when you show it to them in scripture.' Firstly, anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. Secondly, given the claims you've made so far, no Catholic would want to continue listening. Fundamentalists aren't there for a discussion, but to promote their indoctrination. And if that doesn't work, they bring out the logical fallacies. Do you know how many times I've asked Fundamentalists to provide an original source, and they tried to deflect by saying "do the research yourself'? Woodrow actually went to look at the original documents Hislop supposedly used, finding they were taken out of context or don't even exist. Would you be honest enough to admit reaching the same conclusions if you were asked to look up the original sources?

@@gigantals The truth doesn’t change because you don’t like it. Rome is pagan, Rome is the biggest murder of non catholic Christian’s. You can try to rewrite history and try to hide the truth but it still exists for those willing to pursuit it and discover it, which you are not.

@@gigantals your whole response is antidotal. You deny the historical facts that do exist. Just read A History of World Religions by by David and John Noss then read your Bible for comparison. How’s that for original sources. Besides the Catholic Church will not allow us access to their collection of antiquity. You present no facts to your claims they are just twisted opinions. One thing is for sure I struck a nerve. Here’s another fact, any denomination that holds to the pagan doctrine of the trinity is a daughter to the mother harlot and is deceived. The Trinity doctrine is an pagan invention of the Roman Church who consisted of religious carnal men that were never born-again John 3:5-8 Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, 1 Corinthians 6:11. God never describes himself as three persons or as the holy three only as the Holy One. Jesus Christ is one God Almighty robed in flesh 1 Timothy 3:16 Isaiah 9:6. John 14:9-10. The Catholic Church does not teach the gospel truth they teach a false pagan doctrine just like the denominations who came out of her. When’s the last time you studied or heard a sermon on Acts 2:38. The truth is always under attack because Satan is the god of this world and those who do not love truth are blinded by his deceit and their failure to love truth. 1 Thessalonians 2:8-12, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Timothy 3:13. You’re just a protectionist for a false religion.

'The truth doesn’t change because you don’t like it.' How can you breathe with all that hypocrisy in your mouth? 'Rome is pagan,' Rome ceased to be pagan when Emperor Theodosius legalised Christianity with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380. 'Rome is the biggest murder of non catholic Christian’s.' Nope. You won't provide any proof for this though, except by repeatedly quoting a book that has been debunked as unreliable. 'You can try to rewrite history and try to hide the truth' Says the person looking at a single book for his claims. 'but it still exists for those willing to pursuit it and discover it, which you are not.' Keep going, Gnostic. 'your whole response is antidotal.' Isn't that a good thing? The countering or neutralising of poison? 'You deny the historical facts that do exist.' You've yet to prove anything you've said so far as 'fact'. 'Just read A History of World Religions by by David and John Noss' Again, a single book? 'then read your Bible for comparison. How’s that for original sources.' Well, considering you're one of 40,000 sects since the 16th century who all claim to be following the Bible accurately, I'd say there are flaws in your approach. Aside from that, David and John are not original sources. Unless they lived through everything historical they wrong about. You do know what an 'original source' is, right? 'Besides the Catholic Church will not allow us access to their collection of antiquity.' They did. Go on the Vatican archive website: www.vaticanlibrary.va/en/home.php 'You present no facts to your claims they are just twisted opinions.' Self-projection much? 'One thing is for sure I struck a nerve.' Well, it's not hard to strike your own nerves. 'Here’s another fact, any denomination that holds to the pagan doctrine of the trinity is a daughter to the mother harlot and is deceived.' Tell me you're ahistorical without telling me you're ahistorical. You know that the Jews believed in an early for of the Holy Trinity too, right? Then banned it because it promoted Christ? Similar to their refusal of accepting Daniel as a Prophet? That vision he had in Daniel 7 is great proof for the Holy Trinity. Such as there being multiple Thrones, one of which the Ancient of Days sits in, meaning that someone equal in authority to Him (which would be another Person of the Holy Trinity) would sit next to Him. There's the 'Son of man' who 'came with the clouds', which is a very specific title only ever found in reference to God, making the 'Son of man' God in addition to the Ancient of Days who was already sitting on one of the Thrones. And then the 'Son of man' being given God's Kingdom to rule, which would only make sense if He was God as well. ia800409.us.archive.org/3/items/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal/Two%20Powers%20in%20Heaven_%20Early%20Rab%20-%20Segal.pdf Something tells me you wouldn't be able to even define what the Holy Trinity is, exposing you as condemning something you don't even understand. Or at the very least, you rely on strawman arguments. 'The Trinity doctrine is an pagan invention of the Roman Church who consisted of religious carnal men that were never born-again John 3:5-8 Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, 1 Corinthians 6:11.' False. The East Orthodox, Copts, and Assyrians all share beliefs in the Holy Trinity despite not being in Communion with each other. Catholics have no bias. Any historical Church that can trace their roots to the 1st century, with physical evidence, agree on the Holy Trinity. 'God never describes himself as three persons or as the holy three only as the Holy One.' God displays many of His teachings. Such as Him speaking down to Christ during His Baptism, whilst the Holy Spirit was at the same time descending upon Christ. Right there you have all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity present. And then both the Father and the Holy Spirit are present when Job is rebuked by the former for his claims. Job's uncle revealed that the 'Spirit of God' was working through him as he rebuked Job's prideful words, and then the Father made His Presence known in aa storm to say the exact same thing to Job. 'Jesus Christ is one God Almighty robed in flesh 1 Timothy 3:16 Isaiah 9:6. John 14:9-10.' Congratulations, you agree with Catholicism :-) 'The Catholic Church does not teach the gospel truth they teach a false pagan doctrine just like the denominations who came out of her.' Like yourself then? Would you care to show me which pagan doctrine the Catholic Church supposedly copied from? Last I checked, not a single pagan pantheon or deity has anywhere near the theology backing the Holy Trinity. Mostly because they don't have any theology. 'When’s the last time you studied or heard a sermon on Acts 2:38.' When was the last time you heard a sermon or studied Proverbs 10:18? Maybe learn a lesson from it. 'The truth is always under attack because Satan is the god of this world and those who do not love truth are blinded by his deceit and their failure to love truth. 1 Thessalonians 2:8-12, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Timothy 3:13.' You can chuck in however many Bible verses you want, it doesn't really matter since they don't speak for themselves. That's the flaw you always ignore. Anyone can interpret those same passages differently and condemn you as incorrect. Too bad you have no teaching authority or historical proof of interpretation to back you up. 'You’re just a protectionist for a false religion.' Nope. You're one of the rabid sheep in God's flock, trying to bite the other sheep and spread the infection that will scatter the infected animals, making them easy prey for wolves.

"How can you breathe with all that hypocrisy in your mouth?" All idolaters' liars will have their part in the lake of fire Revelation 21:8. Spreading a half truth is no different than a lie. Thats what your father Satan does. And quoting deceived authors does not make it true. "Rome ceased to be pagan when Emperor Theodosius legalised Christianity with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380." Worshiping statues, saints, angels' relics and praying to the dead are all pagan practices. Matthew 15:9 Colossians 2:8, 18, Exodus 20:4-5. Roman Catholics pray to Mary and many saints that have died and have no authority or ability to answer prayers let alone hear them. Thats superstitious that's witchcraft, that's pagan. Give me one bible verse for the doctrine to worship and pray to Mary. "Nope. You won't provide any proof for this though, except by repeatedly quoting a book that has been debunked as unreliable." The Foxes Book of Martyrs has never been debunked by any legitimate authority. The author lived during the reformation period and is recognized by many experts to be a historian of his time. Just because someone disagrees with his writing does not make it untrue. It's no different than an unbeliever calling the Bible false. The murdering Catholic Church has a motive to attack and cover up the truth. You do know what a motive is? "Well, considering you're one of 40,000 sects since the 16th century who all claim to be following the Bible accurately, I'd say there are flaws in your approach. Aside from that, David and John are not original sources. Unless they lived through everything historical they wrong about. You do know what an 'original source' is, right?" Wrong again. I do not belong to one of 40,000 sects. I believe, obey, and teach the Apostles doctrine just as its recorded in the NT. Catholics do not. By the way are you Catholic? You don't have to be an original source to write about an original source. You don't have to be with God in the beginning to believe God created the heavens and earth. Moses was not there with God when he created the heavens and earth. Our Bible is copied from copies and copies of original sources. We don't have to read the original source to know it's true. It can be copied from an original source. I have read copies of other original sources does that make the copy false because it was a copy. Foxes Book of Martyrs is an original source because he lived it and was close enough to it. Just because some disagree with it doesn't mean it's not an original source. There are plenty of scholars that question parts of the bible does that make it no longer original. Please! that's just a dumb argument. "Congratulations, you agree with Catholicism :-)" Another false statement. Catholics believe in three divine persons in the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son God the Holy Ghost. here's a quote from. www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/the-trinity/ "God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “ who ” someone is. If you believe three persons equal 1 person you need to go back to school. A person is an individual. Not one verse in the bible describes God as three persons or three individuals, triune or as a trinity. Just give me one verse. To believe in three divine persons in the godhead is to believe in polytheism not monotheism. Jesus said I and my Father are one John 10:30 (one and the same person) John 14:9 "he that hath seen me hath seen the father;" God is a Spirit, can you see a Spirit? The only way you can see a spirit is if it puts on substance (flesh) Colossians 1:15, 1Timoth 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19. You lied again. Wow! I know your doctrine better than you do. lol "When was the last time you heard a sermon or studied Proverbs 10:18? Maybe learn a lesson from it." Sounds like you have a guilty conscience. I totally agree with the assessment of yourself. I see a little Catholic aggression coming out. "You can chuck in however many Bible verses you want, it doesn't really matter since they don't speak for themselves. That's the flaw you always ignore. Anyone can interpret those same passages differently and condemn you as incorrect. Too bad you have no teaching authority or historical proof of interpretation to back you up." Wrong again! scripture always interprets scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Thats the problem with the Catholic church they have their own private interpretation. Every deceiver will use the argument by saying that's "your interpretation" to avoid submitting to the truth. Take Matthew 28:19 show me one verse in the bible where the Apostles and the disciples invoked the title formula in baptism. They always invoked the name of Jesus because that's the saving name Acts 4:12. If you cannot be honest with Gods word, you certainly are not honest with yourself and if you don't love truth, you will be deceived. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "Nope. You're one of the rabid sheep in God's flock, trying to bite the other sheep and spread the infection that will scatter the infected animals, making them easy prey for wolves." The Apostle Paul prophesied about your kind in 2 Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: from such turn away Verse 7. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. verse 13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. The Bible is my authority not the doctrines creeds or traditions of men. Paul told Timothy to study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. To rightly divide the word of truth you need to know the truth and the context of the truth. We will all be judged by Gods word, and I look forward to seeing you on judgement day. O' by the way the Jews had a history of idolatry worship too so don't feel bad. Just repent and obey the gospel.

Damside Student Accomodation.

You're welcome. If you have any other examples of memes you want me to refute, contact me on my Facebook page.

@@gigantals If I find them I will

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Pretty much. It's up to us now.

Thank you.

I use the term to collectively refer to the first 1500 years of Judaism and the following 2000 years of Christianity, encompassing all the philosophical, theological, and cultural development guided by God. I know the term is relatively young, and that Judaism has somewhat drifted since the time of Christ, but I try to use the context of the term to indicate what I mean by it.

I know, my audio has been a long-standing issue. I don't have a soundproof room yet.