วีดีโอ

The bible condones slavery,genocide,rape,incest,cannibalism,human and animal sacrifice etc. It condones the killing of people who are gay,women who are not virgins before marriage,children who disobey parents,people who work the sabbath. I hope you are not getting your "morals" from that old rag of a book. Maybe you should read it sometime and start asking questions of the people who spew that crap to you.

The scripture is always true and must be fulfilled.

The bible is one of the most immoral books ever written!

please stop believing in fairy tales

thanks for posting on this topic. There is so much about this Commandment that comes as understanding from keeping it. Peace!

I appreciate your little talk and it put me in remembrance of an earlier time in my life. Just don't give up on life. God has a way of leading us each step of the way even when we do not recognize Him doing so. Make sure of your relationship with the Lord and then put Him first in your life above everything else. When we put Him first, then He will put everything in our lives in order. I want to encourage you to do other videos using the Scriptures like you did in this one. I'll be praying you to find work and get things worked out so you can see your children. Never turn your back on your children. They are worth everything! May God richly bless you is my prayer! P.S. Just some encouragement from an old (preacher) man that from the sounds of your testimony that has traveled down the same road. And my story has had a Happy (blessed) ending. I'm hoping your's will too!

Praise God for his correction. God corrects those he loves.

You need to educate yourself sir, if you are a non-jew and you have rejected idol worship,you are a Noahide this applies to the non-jewish Christian as well, acts 15 gives gentiles commandments that were followed by the G-d fearers/gate proselytes(ger hasha'ar)or Noahides of that time period.A Noahide is different from a goy(gentile), because of their rejection of idol worship and the acceptance of the one true G-d and his Torah given to Moses on Mount Sinai, they are considered to be at a higher spiritual level then the average gentile.This is why the New testament says remember "your former state, gentiles by birth"what that meant was the minute you rejected idol worship accepted the one true G-d, his holy Torah, and the Messiah he chose then you are no longer a gentile,but a gate proselyte. Conversion to Judaism was not considered necessary (unless you really chose to) being that in the Messianic setting, even the Noahides would be given full membership (can participate in full services, Torah call ECT ECT)

They have the covenant of Noach.

The only logical conclusion is agnosticism because you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god(s)

How did you determine that the width of the universe is infinite?

So did Adam and Eve have light? What about Noah or Shem. I can name multiple righteous people in the scriptures who had light before Abraham. Actually we are all made of light. Literally everything but darkness itself. Really naive statement to make over a large group of people. Your education is showing my friend

We don't know if the universe is *actually* infinite. How did you come to that conclusion?

Woow wrong video And for the record I am jewish but I don’t agree with a single thing you said

Jesus is the light

You first. Give me your scientific evidence for a god that's not "look at the trees."

Soooo.. God did it? Evidence please.

I live in a country that has mainly atheïst. We have low crime rate. Three times as low than USA. High on happiness and health. So yea..

I can also say, no the universe started because of a horse farting it into existence. That has just as much evidence as a god did it. What you need is evidence. If you dont have evidence for your claim than there is no reason to believe it.

✝️🙏

Great job man keep it up and never stop uploading, there are people out there that really enjoy your content and your channel will grow one day just never give up

I think religion is stupid. Prove your godling exists.

YOUR stupidity is hurting!

Well you said it. That was the dumbest thing I've ever ever heard. Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a number. You can't multiply it with anything. What infinity are you on about as well? Cause you know there's more than one concept (there's that word again) of infinity right? Watch this and educate yourself m.th-cam.com/video/d00YID1wIe4/w-d-xo.html

Amen! The Trinity is indeed wrong! ☦✝⚔

Amen ☦ i'm glad more Christians are waking up to this. Thanks for spreading this message. ⚔

:37 What's a "single wheel"???

Jesse you should've bought a Ford Super Duty. Problem solved 🙂

If you don’t believe in magic you can’t believe in the Bible cause there’s too much magic in there to keep children looking staffs into serpents water into blood

You really don't get it, there was no hooky spooky except you making it wierd , you asking the question to the one who just spoke the word and it was, let there be light bam it was, and so on your thinking is off. And mocking it. I'm praying for you cause that one is going to bite back this week. In some way, are form, and He's going to let you know what's funny. If I was you I'd ask forgiveness for that one but by that statement you probably one of those non believers are got bad experience at a church. 🎉🎉🎉🎉 your winning buddy IQ of 12

A joke would have been better.

Why did this guy film himself babbling nonsense?

Dont give up your day job😊

I’ll admit. I don’t get it

That's got to be the lamest joke I ever heard try try try again

So America really is about 80% dumb…makes sense.

Great one😂

Great joke!!

What is the point of this silly video? (As an atheist I wonder) 🤨

*promosm* 💞

The existence of Jews proves nothing.

Atheism is the rejection of god claims, which is not inherently the claim there is no god. This is similar to theism being the claim their is a god or gods but no specification on which god or gods. This boils down to the fact that one doesn't need to supply an equivocal answer to a question when they point out a current answer does not fit (Tu Quoque fallacy). Not knowing something is a valid state of existence. As an aside here, neither evolution nor the big bang attempt to reside in the same gap of knowledge most modern religions attempt to reside. Most modern religions are concerned with the creation of the universe (or all energy/matter/being/state/whatever you want to call it), while those two theories explain past, present, and future events within our universe. Evolution being an explanation of how there are so many different forms of life and what should continue to happen to those forms of life, and the big bang being an explanation of how the universe is expanding and what will happen as the universe expands. The big bang makes no claims about the origin of the universe, and the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of life. Time isn't infinite, it started about 13.8 billion years ago and eventually the universe will run out of usable energy meaning that evolution has a hard stopping point (things that evolve need energy to carry out that evolution) (this also takes two different views of time, which is unavoidable due to current limitations in physics). The universe being "infinite" is misleading. The bigger problem here is the way in which the universe is being conceptualized as "infinite" can mean several things within many contexts. The universe expanding infinitely forever is a valid concept of infinity, but this does not mean that the resulting space from that expansion is useful, that the energy (the heat) within it would be, for all intents and purposes, gone. The point being, the usage of infinity emphasizes the wrong aspect of the universe required for the thought experiment (namely energy) which is not infinite. This also goes for the point about time above, as to why the lack of energy results in a lack of time rather than the existence of space resulting in the existence of time. If the thought experiment is about a life existing as the product of evolution then it must obey the theory, which means it consumes energy, which in biology is called metabolism (one of the seven things required for something to be called alive). We can only see a finite distance. The speed of light is a constant, which means only a finite amount of light has had time to travel to us. There are stars we will never reach mainly because the expansion of space is faster than our ability to travel will ever be, so since they are accelerating away from us even if we could go orders of magnitude faster than light we still could not reach them as by that time they would be moving faster and faster at a rate which we could not match. However, this is not true for a lot of stars (although a lot depends on perspective as to a human in the modern day even a few hundred in the night sky can be a lot but to the universe it is nothing). Overall, the primary issue is the definition of god that is in use. Most people would not agree with the concept of a god being one that came into existence long after the universe, as a result of it, and the life forms it reports to have created. This would be more on the level of powerful aliens rather than that of a god. Typically, a god brings in other aspects with it than just a claim of ability, as in motive and capabilities to exist outside of the universe (thus the idea of a creator god). This is where the thought experiment dies, no one rejects the notion that civilizations can become powerful, but rather the rejection is the other claims that are introduced with the concept of a god (creatio ex nihilo and a meaningful will to create). Just having the claim of a powerful civilization within our universe has never been out of the question for anyone, but the claim of something outside this universe or a god(s) that created us specifically has been rejected by many.

That's not natural selection, that is acclimation. This is high school biology. In the same way that if you, right now, go to the Himalayas your body will slowly get better at breathing at the higher altitude (lower concentration of oxygen). You didn't select anything to be better at breathing that thinner air, you acclimated to it. Natural selection is populations producing offspring that survive better in their environment because competitors are less suited for survival. If you move your family (entire extended family) to the Himalaya and start having children, not all will survive (baring medical advances/technological assistance) but the ones that do survive might be better suited to their environment. This continues with multiple generations of those inclined to survive in the thinner air living longer and reproducing more readily, while the less inclined die quicker and thus not reproducing as much. Any change in the population of your now plentiful descendants that allows them to breath the thin air with greater efficiency will proliferate with each new generation (as they are more likely to survive: not getting winded running from predators, not asphyxiating during strenuous activity, and generally having more energy). This, like the original move, does not mean they cannot go back to a region closer to sea level, it simply means they are more suited to a different environment, not that other environments are specifically harmful to them. A change need only be beneficial, it does not always (but can) remove the ability to live in other conditions, especially if those conditions are similar (see invasive species). Modern humans are the current step in a long process that has resulted in a complex organism that, while having limits, is quite flexible. Our ability to fill many environments, diets, and survival strategies should not be surprising given our abundance and dominance over the ecosystems we inhabit. Furthermore, natural selection has a unilateral direction. It always moves forward. Even if a population selects for a trait that was previously removed, this is not a reversion back to that original state, but instead the next step continuing the chain. This is not only because the population may have gained other traits (or even non-functioning genetic material) that change the overall suitability of the population to their environment but also because the ecosystem in which they live has also undoubtedly changed, which will also cause either further changes or extinction. The point here is that the input of natural selection, the driving factors, are typically external to the population in question, meaning that any change in the population is the (probable) result of a change in some external system. Thus, a view of a changing population must include the entire system that is responsible for that change, and since these systems move forward in time, so too must natural selection be viewed.

No modern accredited nor state institution teaches that "evolutionary equilibrium is ... a set of organisms [stopping changes in] their genome." Mainly because that sentence is nonsense. Maybe instead of just asserting that people are saying things, you actually find articles, papers, or textbooks that state what you want to show as incorrect. That way you can simply quote them instead of making up things.

Wtf are you talking about?! Immigration to Israel?!? Wtf

wait til this guy finds out about the Goon SMP

That's oddly specific...

Sick hat looks clean lol

Is this a joke? This imbecile is actually quite funny.

Lol I was tired today and mixed up n shin and double U. It was pretty funny so its up.