ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ต่อไป
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
Has the Bible Been Corrupted or Mistranslated? (Part 2 of 2)Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 14K
Do critical commentaries show I’m wrong about Deut 22:28-29 referring to SA?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 10K
Where Did the Trinity Come From?Bart D. Ehrman
มุมมอง 280K
ผมสั่งให้ทุกคน หยุดงาน 1 วัน !Ananped
มุมมอง 523K
รู้ทัน 14 สิ งหาคม 67 ปลดนายกจนได้รู้ทัน แชนแนล
มุมมอง 54K
Baby Loving Papa 😭❤️|Ak Ultra
มุมมอง 8M
Does the Bible Identify Jesus as “God the Son”?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 29K
Again on Chemosh defeating YHWHDan McClellan
มุมมอง 9K
Responding to Apologetics about Whether or Not Anyone Has Ever Seen GodDan McClellan
มุมมอง 23K
How did we decide God is pro-life?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 18K
Are these “5 biblical facts about hell”?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 23K
Top 5 Reasons Noah’s Flood Probably Happened?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 50K
Does Jesus claim to be God in John 10?Dan McClellan
มุมมอง 10K
📜 Can We Trust the Bible? Tom 'NT' Wright on Bible infallibility, tradition and slavery 🧩 📚Premier Unbelievable?
มุมมอง 23K
Is it God’s Fault I’m an Atheist?Alex O'Connor
มุมมอง 228K
Tom&Jerry🥰Real funny Twist 🤣 #shorts #shortvideoKrishna Avyu
มุมมอง 26M
Challenge matching picture with Alfredo Larin family! 😁BigSchool
มุมมอง 7M
🔴LIVE : ศาลสั่ง! "เศรษฐา" พ้นเก้าอี้นายก | THAIRATH NEWSROOM SPECIAL | 14 ส.ค. 67THAIRATH Online Originals
มุมมอง 65K
🔴Live โหนกระแส ศึกชิงอพาร์ทเม้นท์ ผัวเมียหย่ากันแบ่งสมบัติไม่ลงตัวโหนกระแส [Hone-Krasae] official
มุมมอง 595K
พ่อเตรียมรับศพ “หมอเก่ง” ด้านตำรวจเร่งหาสาเหตุการเสียชีวิต | ข่าวเย็นประเด็นร้อนCh7HDNews
มุมมอง 184K
โกงการแข่งชิงแชมป์โลก #shorts #freefireZz Man
มุมมอง 317K
Even when I was a Christian, it bothered me that so many Christians (I haughtily referred to them as Christianists) focused the majority of their activism on two issues Jesus was never reported to talk about - abortion and homesexuality - while at the same time ignoring or even rejecting the messages the gospels ascribed to him, particularly actively caring for the poor and other vulnerable people. I was, and still am, convinced that most of those people would hate the Jesus depicted in the gospels if he were to appear on earth today.
They would dismiss him as too woke.
If He walked the Earth today, Christ would preach against guns, and unbridled capitalism, and hate mongering, and "Christian" Nationalism, and racism, and using The Bible as a weapon of hate...and He would advocate universal healthcare, and making our priority the care of the poor, the sick, and the marginalized, and observance of The Greatest Commandment.
@@gabitamiravideos they might do more than that, unfortunately, if he came to America anyway.
If it's even possible that he could have the same impact that he supposedly did back in the day, I expect he'd be shot fairly quickly.
@@StannisHarlock "Preaching while near-eastern". _Probably one of those Islamic terrorists, don't you know. Oh, the guy's a Jew? Don't really like those, either._
Assuming they don't think he's Mexican because he's named Jesus.
The ancient Roman and Persian conservative pagans (and I suspect ancient Egyptian conservative pagans, from how they wrote hating cultural change) were DEATHLY obsessed with hating on a women's right to abortion and hating on homusexuality. Liberal Roman pagans had to constantly defend homosexuals as "useful to the art culture and useful to the State" and had to argue against conservative men saying their wives were law/duty-bound to incubate and safely birth (for the baby, not for the women) the fetus they had "put" inside her. Persian/Zoroastrian society went much further than even Romans, silencing any liberals with violence and saying that the fetus AT ANY STAGE (they likely did not know about egg/ova and sperm conception) was a living person equal to any other living person. Accordingly, they brought laws against abortion, even in cases of sexual abuse such as rape or incest against minors/girls.
Man! This is stuff that I should have heard back in the 80's when I was a fundamentalist. My pastor would have said that you were just an over educated elite that was deceived by Satan and that all we need is the KJV and pastor to tell us what it means. So I probably wouldn't have listened then anyway. I had to get out of my bubble and talk to people who thought differently than me that I respected before I would consider that I could be wrong.
For me it was the 1950s. My 5th grade teacher used to read Bible stories to the class for an hour every Friday. She thought she was instilling Christianity but in fact she was launching me on a lifelong love of mythology. But I didn't know that yet; I was taking it all on face value.
After hearing dozens of stories of mass murders ordered by or committed directly by God I started getting uncomfortable. Then, circa 1960, I told my mother I didn't believe in this God. Imagine my surprise when she said "We don't either, we just took you to church so you could make up your own mind." Turned out my mother was agnostic and my father was atheist - unbeknownst to me or anyone else; they were even buddies with the pastor.
I agree with Carl Jung, who said "reality itself" is God.
And Dan's point is if you listen to the KJV and forget the pastor, there is no biblical condemnation of abortion. The pastor gets in the way just as the priest did, at least according to Protestants.
@@jaradams And in at least one instance Biblical law effectively MANDATED abortion. If a woman became pregnant the law prescribed stoning her to death - fetus and all.
@@dontaylor7315 you are 100% right, sir
@@dontaylor7315 Could you provide the passage? I found one similar in Numbers 5:11, which is not directly mandating abortion but clearly shows no regard to the life of the fetus because it imposes as an ordeal for a mother who is suspected to be unfaithful to drink water mixed with dust collected from the temple floor.
Now I have to spend Saturday morning sending this video out to everyone I know. Great video.
Thanks again Dan for such clarity in a sea of confusion/deception!
What I find confusing (I'll stop short of deceiving) is that every reading (particularly those with which he does not agree) is, for him, necessarily requires a "renegotiation" - which he states as if his own interpretations are not a renegotiation. And what of his interpretations of the "renegotiations," themselves - are these not renegotiations of renegotiations, then? It just seems like a rhetorical device to cast doubt on others.
There are some other tactics like this, such as describing the Ecumenical Council as under the political power of Emperor Constantine - as if His Imperial Majesty cared about the homousian technicalities beyond bringing unity to the Church, _regardless_ of the technicalities. I mean, even the most non-connectional, KJV-only, "the Pope is the anti-Christ," "we elect our own preachers, now bring out the bucket of snakes" Primitive Congregational non-denominational Baptist Church is still registered with their Secretary of State's office so they can have a bank account. I guess they're "under the political power" of the State, regardless of how at-odds they may be with the powers that be.
In any event, the Church precedes and supersedes the Bible - we are a people of the Word, not of the Book (as the Muslims are). This Bible-worship I find weird and idolatrous.
I've come to believe that biblical literalism is the cornerstone of all modern heresy.
Christians used to call it Bibliolatry. But I guess it became so useful at times that they conveniently forgot how their various denominations' book canons were chosen by certain people to push onto others. Poor Cathar Christians were absolutely massacred for not being scientific NOR weapon-trained enough. And supposedly that is how we are supposed to know Cathar's denomination was wrongs instead of them being the "raptured" ones already.
That's why I call the literalists Bible-worshippers, not Christians.
Maybe so. But I don't understand how Christians can stably believe in a non-literal interpretation. If there is false information in the Bible, you have to make judgments about whether every bit of it is true, and then it isn't too far to see there is no reason to believe any of it with any confidence.
But then the literalists have to somehow deal with the contradictions.
They ought to be able to see that all of the alternatives are bad. I don't see how people manage to believe this.
Your comment about apologetics is what really caught my attention. I have not thought about it like that before.
Was kind of shocked when that guy said Jesus wrote the Bible. I'm not religious but that seems pretty heretical to me.
And yet, when you say to these followers “Jesus drowned babies”, they don’t like it. I guess during the flood, Jesus was out camping for the weekend?
I agree, but it is worse than that. Even if we accept that Jesus is God, many of the books of the Bible claim to have been written by individuals who were neither Jesus nor God.
Thank you for education as always. Sending love ❤.
Your work is always fascinating.
"God is supposed to know all things." Well, sometimes yes and sometimes no. At one point in the Biblical narrative Satan sneaks out of heaven and roams the world teaching people to make farming tools. God only finds out about it because some of the other angels go to him and rat on their fellow angel Satan.
On abortion it's worth noting there was a Hebrew law that if a woman became pregnant by extramarital sex she had to be stoned to death, which of course also killed the fetus.
Once again, Dr. Dan spells it out.
Thanks for the knowledge Dan, may God bless you
"That's Modalism, Patrick!"
TODAY in the midst of a Christian popular majority, we have never changed our assignment of personal sovereignty as BIRTH DATE.
Questions tho:
1.) While what is said about almost all of the texts makes sense with regards to the exceptionalism of some human individual’s human worth per-birth, isn’t Genesis’ account of the breath of life likewise not necessarily a validation of the idea that human life begins at the first drawn breath because 1.) the three creation accounts differ and seem too allegorical to be used as a legal template, at least to my untrained eyes, & 2.) doesn’t God still make a recognized “Adam” and name and regard him as existing before breathing into him? Even if he’s not “alive”, is that not some recognition of personhood (albeit not fully legal, but perhaps moral)?
2.) To my knowledge one of the earliest Christian catechism(s) was formalized in writing by 90 CE, and I thought it stated clearly that group of what could be called Christians was opposed to the practice of abortion. While I cannot recall how it addresses concepts such as “legal and moral personhood” directly, it seemed direct, at least in its condemnation of a practice.
3.) As to the commentary about the Trinity, while I understand no Scripture makes direct clear claims to Jesus’ divinity or consubstantiality in the Trinity, doesn’t the argument that the creeds are violated by the assertion of Jesus’ activity as God before his human birth/conception therefore relegate as null the majority of traditionally Christian understandings of at least the Hebrew Bible? Additionally, are there no written accounts at least addressing the formulation of the concept of the Trinity formally? If the earliest Christians were not worshipping a Trinity at first, what exactly then did they likely worship?
1) As I said in the video, it's not just about Genesis 2:7, but that was an important proof text for early Jewish exegesis. It was also the close connection found throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible of the concept of life and breath. Words commonly translated into English as "life" include nephesh (also "soul), which literally refers to the neck and to breath, and ruah (also "spirit"), which also means breath. There are also references to living things--and particularly humans--as those things that "have breath in them." That breath is a necessary and sufficient feature of human personhood is pretty consistently represented across the Hebrew Bible, and Genesis 2:7 is just reflecting that.
2) Yes, early Christianity quickly vilified abortion, but that was largely a result of its interactions with an adoptions of certain Greco-Roman philosophical and ethical frameworks. The same is true of some Greco-Roman Jewish authors.
3) The problem is the confounding of the persons, or the arbitrary assertion of the fungibility of the persons. When is "God" a reference to the Father and when is it a reference to the Son in the Hebrew Bible? If there's no way to tell, then the assertion that it is specifically Jesus speaking in Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5 is hardly defensible. Is it not also Jesus speaking in Psalm 137:9? The written accounts chart a development trajectory towards the trinity as articulated in the 4th and 5th centuries CE. 2nd and 3rd century concepts of the Trinity were far more Arian than Nicene, though there was also a lot more variability, and the closer you get to the first century, the less like the later Trinity it looked.
@@maklelan I strongly suspect the word arien was to do with the stellar pagan worship of the stars, moon and sun. Prior to the age of Aries there was the age of Taurus, the Apis Bull which you probably know. As far as I have read they were re-ligions of conversion and some of the Hyksos (proto 'Jews') wouldn't convert to the worship of Aries at the turn of the cusp from the age of Taurus.
I also suspect the word became conflated with fair haired, tall, blue, grey and green eyed people in the Fertile Crescent simply because most, maybe all who did convert to the age of Aries were of that description. Again from what I have read, there were a lot of darker people too who were also worshippers of the Apis Bull.
I now use the word 'faith' to describe spiritual beliefs and experiences, since reading some of the book by Christian Pao Chang "Word Magic". Not about robes and candles but about how the English language was changed for word tricks, then made worldwide. A lot is in the phonetics. I bought the first edition which is hard to find now, but he wrote a second edition which I think covers more about his Christian faith (I haven't read any of the second edition) as well as word tricks.
It might be an interesting book to you and to others here.
Dan, you the man.
Great video. Curious about the last comment made: Apologetics are meant to give already believers something to nod about. Do you know of any discussions/videos expanding that?
It always seemed to me the case, like when theists are trying to discredit science that wouldn’t make a case for their beliefs anyway. I’ve never believed that would convince any critical thinking, science-minded person. but I’ve not heard it put out there so clearly.
I don't know of any info expanding on that exactly, but as far as Christian apologetics go, it's pretty much become their only defence against waning number in the US over the past several years.
In 2015 Christians made up 75% of the population. 5 years later, in 2020, Christians made up 65% of the population.
I think the 10% loss over that 5 years is one of the reasons it might seem like apologists have really ramped up their efforts in the last several years.
It's really hard to even bother with bringing in new members when you're having trouble keeping the old ones.
@@StannisHarlock I recently had a ‘discussion’ with somebody who got my attention with ‘science is wrong’ and sent me some ‘debunking’ stuff. As I was writing a response addressing the pseudo-science, he sent me a 40 page ‘testimony’ on how/why he is a believer. I didn’t read it all, but seemed to have nothing to do with science. Apparently that form of apologetics is just a tool to get the convo started.
@@markoshun he sent you 40 pages of off topic info before you were done responding to the first message? Goodness! I can feel the zeal just dripping off that person second hand. 😁
@@StannisHarlock Yup, dripping. Did me a favor though, wasn’t necessary to address the ‘science’ anymore. 😁
I’ll remember to ask that question first next time. “If I can show your ‘science’ is wrong, will you stop believing?” Ha! As if.
Hi Dan, after your explanation I wonder what was the view of earlier Christians of Jesus before the concept of the trinity. Was it "just" a divine entity that carried the power of God but different than god? what about the holy spirit?And How was that conceptualize as monotheism even? Any book or references to check?? Cheers!
It is only one opinion, but a respected one, but Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" goes into exactly that history. In Dan's "Data Over Dogma" podcast that he did with Bart a few weeks ago, Dan said that book was his favorite of Bart's.
I think the argument that the Israelites took life to start with the first breath is compelling. Jesus was seen as dead after his last breath.
I mean... Hinduism 🕉 refers to death as air leaving, but its funeral rites make no sense unless the soul stays in the body after death.
Also, Hinduism 🕉 just explicitly makes that out by saying the soul is the support of all the organs 🫀🫁, which necessarily implies the soul doesn't leave until all the organs become unworkable.
(Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 1.5.3 and Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 1.2.10)
Or outsources the job, though it is hard to see the point in that.
So it is safe to assume a plain reading of Hindusim 🕉 would have the soul leaving no earlier than the death of each bodily organ.
Before that IDK, I guess they are supposed to be stuck dreaming kinda like an alive person, as they have no brain. 🤷
The problem is that most religions don’t allow it’s members to negotiate with their teaching and critically think other wise they are heretics. I can understand that in a religion you’d want some uniformity but that unity should be centered on the teachings that better the world not the lines you set for your members. Historically those lines have created toxic hierarchies of holier than thou people that completely shift the focus on what true religion is supposed to promote. Bettering one’s self and humanity like the God you believe commanded. I find it hard to believe that God would have us hate the world for their decisions and ignore most of what Jesus said just to have us be worthy to go to heaven.
I'm pretty sure many are just there to have morals 😇 that make themselves feel good about themselves, so that is exactly what *their* religion 🗄 is for. 🤷
Isn't there an actual story in the old testament that actually discusses? I vaguely remember some concoction that the mother would drink to cause an abortion.
That’s not exactly what it’s saying. The idea is that it would cause the woman to become barren, but it’s closer to any actual stance on abortion than anywhere else in the Bible because the Bible never actually mentions abortions.
Not a story, but a law. Numbers 5:11-31
"And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people."
"“This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife."
Thanks, seems actually worse than abortion lol.
@@JohnnyKooter
Just so you know there's no indication that the woman is pregnant in that numbers passage
@@roofdogblues7400 04:30 "Her thigh shall fall away" Dan just mentioned that in the video that was the perception of the fetus identified after 40days was considered part of the woman's thigh. So this is the description in the bible given for aborting the fetus in the womb, so it's abortion by another name as they didn't call it that back then.
It's mentioned several times in John that Jesus says he is God. He mentions himself as I am.
I remember reading something about infanticide wasn't murder for a significant time after birth, but I'm not sure if it was in the Bible or apocryphal
That would make sense from a pragmatic, old society's needs point of view 👀.
We see that sort of thing all over the place. Given how high the rate of infant mortality and disease was, it wouldn't have made any sense to get too emotionally invested in an infant.
Infanticide has a whole page on wikipedia. I'd link it but YT hates links.
It was common even in Northern Europe. If a child wasn’t recognized by the father after 9 days (given a name) he was fully within his right to leave the child out to die - usually freezing to death. This was pretty common practice at least through the 11th century in parts of Scandinavia and Iceland.
@@brettandersson3206 In some sense this sort of thing is happening to this day.
I once heard the story from a Somali refugee how, when fleeing warlords, she and her group found themselves in an even worse situation. They found themselves being hunted by humans from behind and wild animals in front.
She was carrying her baby and due to the frantic conditions of their journey it began to cry. This would have meant the death of everyone in the group if their position was given away. So she did the only thing she could do and left her infant to the animals as they fled for safety.
We've basically always decided that a new life is less valuable than an existing one. Sucks that some people keep trying to deny this harsh reality and choose to endanger women in favor of comforting delusions.
@@rainbowkrampusBasically it's hated of women that makes them rule in favor of the fetus. It isn't that they care about infants and children, they don't; the Christian right hates any kind of assistance for children even if they're malnourished.
By "the creeds" the first example I find of what Dan is talking about is the Athanasian Creed which forbids blending the persons of the Trinity.
I suppose the purpose of the Trinity is to reconcile monotheism with worshipping both Jesus and the Old Testament God. Throw in a third thing to obscure the purpose a bit. It never was clear to me before just now. Does anyone else here have a better understanding of why the Trinity was included in Christian doctrine?
Interestingly, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” within the context of the Hebrew Bible only applies to a few passages, the major one being punishment for those who harm or kill a fetus. So if Jesus did say anything about killing fetuses, it’d be that you should take no legal action against those who do it and make it easier for them to continue to.
the only NFT i believe in is non-fungible trinity
Which Jesus??? The hippie tie-dye Jesus , or the warrior free market Capitalist Jesus????
I always had a problem with making sense of the trinity. That essu/issa would have prayed to himself.
Based in that logic, Jesus also said "an eye for an eye", killed off 99.99% of all living things with a flood and so much more .
Jesus also doesn't weigh in other whether cancer ♋🦀 is human. Which is even more important as it changes what can and what won't work against cancer ♋🦀 long term.
You'd think he would explain humans in a more detailed way, so we don't devolve into utter confusion 😵💫.
Well, at least goin' by the usual theory.
And yet Jesus could mobilize an Army. You couldn't mobilize a McDonalds.
@@ErraticFaith What army? 🤔
The NIV 1978 edition says miscarriage, the NIV 1984 edition says "born prematurely" with a footnote for miscarriage. Zondervan deliberately mistranslated here for political purposes.
Not all early Christians vilified abortion. The Visigothic Code's only penalty for it is lashes or fines, or both. Freemen basically pay a fine or nothing (if his wife, no one reports it), slaves get lashes or just a fine if it's another slave. The Visigoths made distinctions for accidental deaths, and didn't call that murder, either. Only actual murder was punishable by death, and abortion never demanded that penalty.
Fun fact! Constantine supported the Arian heretics and not the Trinitarian view.
There's also Numbers 5:11-28 where God gives Moses instructions on how to carry out an abortion and the circumstances in which it would be permissible.
Very primitive and this is where I see alignment with nonsensical pagan worship. The tabernacle floor would have to be quite toxic to cause a miscarriage. So would the ink.
Big ol Facts !
Can you address where Jesus says he is the Alpha and Omega, that verse is commonly use to assert that Jesus is saying he is God. So can you do a video on that?
Could you maybe also make a video about the use of anticonception?
NFT - Non-Fungible Trinity
Dan for the win.
Not to mention that the God of the Old Testament was not shy about killing actual innocent children to make a point about his sovereign power to adult sinners.
We all know about the Passover story, but did you know God killed King David and Bathsheba's first child?
Yeah, that was David's first punishment for his sins. Seems like the baby was punished more than David was, especially since he Bathsheba would go on to have 4 or 5 more kids. One of them was Solomon who would become his heir, even though an elder son (forget his name) was the rightful heir.
God killed him and another older sibling too. So life is a minor inconvenience for the Almighty.
Please, please, please, find a way to have a conversation with Sean McDowell.
I'd really enjoy that too!
Won’t Christians just prefer to use the translations that say the exodus verses you brought up were just talking about premature birth rather than miscarriage and then claim the “life for life” part of verse 23 is simply affirming that if the developing fetus dies then the guilty party should be executed?
Might be useful to give an analysis of the translated terms with regards to “premature birth” versus “miscarriage” for something like this to explain why miscarriage is a more appropriate translation.
But….but…wait …if you give me facts it wont fit my narrative I need it to fit.
In the hebrew law one of the 5 types of damages it accounts for is the damage to the dignity of the human, the argument that people use for why would these men need to pay money if the infants come out unharmed is exactly due to the degrading nature of the situation they put this woman through and arguing there is no reason for why in this specific instance the hebrew law would tax those men is wrong. I will say that im not sure whether damage to ones dignity was accounted in the torah or afterwards however it is a thing in the jewish halacha and i feel like this should have at least been mentioned in order to fully represent this view.
Dan- I generally support what you say. BUT don’t you think the council of Nicea was a debate between existing views? Wasn’t it called to calm tensions between groups with differing views? Trinitarians came out the winners, the idea of a trinity was not ginned up at that time wouldn’t you agree?
Dude's first line killed me.
That's the kind of thing I'd say as an ironic joke.
Abortion is cool. It saves and improves human health and flourishing.
If anything, abortion rates aren't high enough, given the taboo it has in many communities.
Universal access to abortion and education is, somewhat ironically, how we lower abortion rates.
Though I wouldn't really see that as a goal unto itself. Just pointing out that christians who choose to remain ignorant on this subject are actively undermining their own stated goals.
Actually no, something that actively kills a human certainly does not save human health. Abortion results in death 100% of the time. That's literally the entire point of it. An abortion in which the child survives is considered a failed abortion, because it was supposed to kill them.
I get what you mean but I’m sure almost anyone would much rather not go through an abortion- while there should be no stigma about it, medical procedures, and medical procedures which sometimes include an unpleasant mental calculus about whether you want a child or not in a few months, aren’t really something people enjoy, and I’m sure greater access to education and contraceptives leading to a lowered abortion rate would be the vastly preferred choice for almost anyone.
@@PasteurizedLettuce Yeah, they're not fun. But when has any medical procedure ever been fun? It's just something ya gotta do sometimes. Like a colonoscopy or going to the dentist.
"I’m sure greater access to education and contraceptives leading to a lowered abortion rate would be the vastly preferred choice for almost anyone."
Unfortunately that is not the case.
Many religious people view abortion as a deontological evil and don't care, in the abstract (we'll return to that), what reality looks like. They just want to end abortion entirely.
They want to end it because controlling reproduction is how you control women. They want to control women because they've been raised in a culture which stems from cultures which explicitly viewed women as property. So they implicitly see women as property.
And of course, I said in the abstract. Because time and again we see these people are massive hypocrites and the second their daughter or wife needs an abortion they are more than happy to fly her out of state to quietly do the deed and then pretend it never happened.
Fortunately most people support some access to abortion (though there are a lot of opinions within that overall acceptance). Unfortunately, religious extremists have an outsized influence on politics (here in the US at any rate) so millions of women are literally second class citizens with no say in how they handle their own body as a result.
The life is in the blood.
Murder isn't wrong because God says so; God says it's wrong because it's wrong.
It's wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. Everybody knows that. Your conscience tell you that. Nobody needs a written rule, religious or secular, to tell them murder is wrong.
Michael Jones made me so mad when he made a video talking about how women who had abortions were sinners. He completely dismissed what circumstances women might be in and also completely dismissed all the lives Christians have killed in the name of GOD, but they weren't sinners, somehow. It's just another way that Apologists use their hateful rhetoric to oppress women.
Men who spill seed are the greatest sinners of all, since Yahweh KNEW the name and adult personality of all those "possible lives" that were lost do the one teenboy/man's actions of spilling seed. That's millions upon millions of GROWN PEOPLE that Yahweh KNEW that now will never be born ever and will never have a chance for heaven nor hell nor limbo nor purgatory...or maybe still limbo? I'm not sure how the narrative goes, it's very convoluted unlike straight-forward and falsifiable science.
If the general statement of "people who kill their unborn offspring are sinners" rattles your bones to such a degree _("so mad"),_ I believe some introspection is in order.
@@bromponie7330 The general statement here would be "A liar lied about something and that made me mad."
Why were you mad at hearing truth? Murder is sin, bible is clear.
@@spirituallysafe Are you sure you're reading the right book? Bible god commands people to murder and enslave all the time.
Nice T-shirt
This is entirely off topic, but I don't know where else to post it. Why should I believe in a creator God, or in myself, or in anyone else when there is so little good left in the world? And what little good is entirely shaded by all the badness. Why should I believe in a book made by countless people who could've been making things up for the fun of it? What if this world is really just horrible and there is no judgement day? I find it hard not to believe in the great possibility that large groups of people made up their own Gods, made their own stories(that they may have also written truthful stories into as well, because why not?), and persuaded other groups of people to follow their "teachings". I think it'd be fun to make up a religion and get a bunch of people to follow it just for the sake of fun, or to get attention, or to gain political intrigue. Why would this not be a great possibility? And why wouldn't people tell what they believe to be the truth, when it all started as a lie and they never knew?
"This is not my world. I am Spirit. My world is spirit" old testament. Similar in the new testament.
Why would a good spirit, almighty in 'his' spirit world, create a material world with only enough good in it to have people believe he created it?
How could 'Satan' have offered essu/issa/jesus the whole world in exchange for worship, unless it were already his?
I believe the enemy created this material world, to mimic our 'Father's' good spirit world.
I also believe it is in His spirit world 'He' is almighty, and that his can only sometimes intervene in this world. Christians are mistaught to expect far too much from our 'Father', and that is why so many lose faith when prayers aren't answered and they experience and see so much cruelty. Losing faith in our Spirit Father is exactly what the enemy wants. So this world is also set to do exactly that to many people. Destroy faith and certainty of our own spiritual experiences and miracles from when we have been close enough to our 'Father'.
I don't know how we came to be in physical bodies nor why.
I am positive if reincarnation, as were many early Christians and Jews. It was an early Pope who made it heretical and punishable by death. They wanted control over even the workings of peoples minds and spirits. The punishment of death for talking about reincarnation could also be put upon the whole family, friends and neighbours because all would be suspected, and the deaths were often torturous. So you can imagine that whilst someone with no family, friends or neighbours might hold to their knowledge of reincarnation, almost everyone had somebody they care about.
Also in the old testament, our 'Father' states 'He' is neither male nor female. Again, similar is written in the new testament.
It doesn't mean a bit of male and a bit of female. It means that spirit has no need of gender as gender is for physical procreation. I don't know if any word which would could be used to refer to or address a good almighty Spirit who isn't male nor female, so "Father'' has been the default word. Also because men were considered far superior to women in that society at that time.
Although there is the word "androgynous", it doesn't exactly work for "Our Androgynous who is in Heaven", nor of saying "Pray to Androgynous". So as I said, using the word "Father" seems to be for want of a better word.
The moslems apparently believe "Jesus'' to have been a prophet rather than the literal physical son of 'god'. The word god doesn't come from the word 'good', and it only spells " dog" in reverse by pure chance. "God" seems to come from the old German word for calling up their pagan deities. Quite why German instead of the Greek of the first Bible, or one of the early aramaic languages? I have no idea why. I looked up the etymology. I also searched the etymology for the word "bless", and the result came back it is also from old German...... For "blood". Well, blood you seems more like a curse.
I believe that there is a lot of truth in the bible but that a lot of the stories are gnostic. For instance the story of the hare and the tortoise by Roald Dharl. Also to teach about stellar astrology/astronomy beliefs seem to be the basis for some of what is in the bible from the paganism of the Hyksos (seemingly the proto Jews).
I also believe that the only way to escape this physical world altogether and be with our "Father" in Heaven is to align with Him spiritually. I believe there is much in the bible and in much original 'Christianity' to help us to achieve that through the way we live, morally, and through personal prayer as well where possible in prayer with even only one or two others. Myself, I no longer pray to "Jesus/issa/essu" but I address my prayers to our good Spirit Father. I adapt the lord's prayer accordingly.
I don't know if it is correct but I read that the word "sin" is a translation of the word for "moon'' in one of the ancient languages. It was to do with the worship of the moon as a goddess and did not fit in with a patriarchal society. Not being sure if that is correct I now use the word "wrongs" instead of the word "sin".
I also don't believe Earth is a globe. Nor do I believe it is flat and on four pillars. I believe we live in a life sustaining crater and there may be at least one other. Thus UFO's etc.
I am certain no one has been to space (see level earth observer who doesn't seen to purport any religion or faith in any god. Also dcforce, Taboo Conspiracy, flat earth and coffee as well as Bart Sibrel ''A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" about halfway into the video. Bart Sibrel seems to believe a lot of the space stuff, but that video is what many of my age group saw on tv at the time, and is why so many knew it was fake and no one went there).
I recently came to the conclusion that there is a solid 'dome' because of 'space' is a vacuum then there must be something solid to prevent the complete loss of oxygen and other gasses from Earth. Also some gases such as carbon dioxide freeze solid, so it could well be that a dome of frozen carbon dioxide has formed a dome and is self replenishing. Thus the war on vital carbon dioxide instead of toxic carbon monoxide by those who control this plane-net. They want to physically get off. Maybe cannot or will not spirituality align and merge with our "Father" during the life here then after physical death, so their physical bodies is all they have.
I know my beliefs aren't exactly in line with most if any other people here. I am sure many would count what I believe to be incorrect. Nonetheless, maybe of interest to you in answering some of your questions.
I would say that when reading the bible or praying, do as "Jesus" advised and pray for discernment for what is true.
I would very strongly advise not using mystical meditations, especially transcendental. One you tuber once told me he opened his third eye one time and what he saw was definitely not good. I can't remember exactly what he wrote but he advised to not do that stuff.
I think astral travel is also dangerous, leaving the body empty could mean something else could get in without your own spirit there to eject it.
Best wishes.
Furthermore the creator is not recognizing the complete and full humanity of Jesus, including his limited human mind that did NOT know everything at all times.
After talking about scripture in this context, is it still not murder? Its kinda like the cake argument. Sure its not a cake yet and it still has to be baked but its GOING to be a cake. The cake has no say in the matter and cannot think for itself but in all intended purposes is a cake nonetheless. Is it still not murder? The taking of innocent life?
I'm not sure I understand this cake argument. If I start collecting ingredients for the cake, put them in a bowl, and start mixing, I don't have a cake, I have batter. I could just decide not to bake the cake before I ever put all the batter into a cake tin, or into the oven.
I wouldn't say then that I ruined my cake. At worst, I would say I wasted some perfectly good ingredients
@matthayes8631 that's fair. You can take the cake out at any time. But the cake also isn't alive. While the baby isn't born yet, that doesn't mean that it isn't alive. A cake can also seamlessly be stopped in it's process with a push of a button. A baby, depending on how far along, must be chemically affected or ripped to pieces and vacuumed out by a "professional". Then comes the argument of if a baby is 3 months old can you kill it? 3 minutes? 3 minutes prior? What changes? It's still alive and innocent. Is it not?
@@SethMasseyMusic the argument is that upon being born and actually taking in information, the human cognitive development skyrockets, we begin to understand ourselves as a person, a thing, develop relations to the people around us, discover needs, experience things which we can call memories, these are the things that actually matter about being alive
@@SethMasseyMusic so much so that even when we have already lived them, if a person goes into a persistent vegetative state and is not going to recover, we very often do ‘pull the plug’
@@SethMasseyMusic many things are alive and innocent. A squirrel is alive and innocent. What most arguments like this fail to realize is the sheer scale of cognitive development that occurs postnatally, how the array of sights, smells, experiences very quickly causes us to develop our needs, to demand our mother.
Have you ever wondered why sensory deprivation chambers are so powerful? it’s because cognition is so deeply dependent on sensory, external input, ESPECIALLY visual, that we barely function outside of it
Isn't a miscarriage not a abortion from God?
Medically, miscarriages are called spontaneous abortions.
Eh that's a real stretch for Exodus 21. Suffice to say the Bible says nothing about abortion either way
Early on in the video you mentioned what the user was basing his theory on, you used one word, a few times in your video, twice in the beginning, “concept” and “conceptual” I could get really deep and profound here, and have hate comments from Christian’s and your group also, but I won’t. Where I am in my experience of me and this journey of life is, seeing all of theses institutes, brick and mortar buildings of religion, as the institutes of concept. And we are so much greater than concepts. Concepts breed ignorance and prejudice, discrimination and hate. I love the bible from a spiritual perspective and a perspective of a voluminous work of pure art. But somewhere along the way it became a concept and lost its shine this is why you the obscure nonsense of conceptualized, this or that, in the world. Make a concept of yourself and you’ll never live up to it. It’s a shame we’re much greater than a concept.
I believe this is a huge stretch. There is a big difference between an accidental miscarriage and a willful abortion.
I Numbers there is literally a method to give a woman an abortion. And not just an abortion, but also make her infertile.
1) so the idea that the Jesus was not an established second person of the Trinity until the council of Nicaea is a typical layman mistake. And it’s just not supported by the data whatsoever. Jesus is explicitly affirmed as a second person of the Trinity throughout the writings of the early church, explicitly in the writing this Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen. But we can also see this in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, and Saint Irenaeus. The council of Nicaea did not establish establish Jesus divinity or his personhood within the Trinty all they did was reestablish it. The only thing they established was a date for Easter. That is complete and utter nonsense and it shows a fundamental ignorance of Christian history. And I’m actually surprised because part of your PhD is the development of Christology so I’m surprised you make such a typical and basic error.And I think the point that he’s making his Jesus is God in the Bible is God’s word so therefore everything in the Bible and also Jesus word. John 1:1 explicitly firms that both persons are God. And yes a far more straightforward translation for John 1:1 is the word was “divine” and many scholars have suggested that the Logos is being used qualitativey, such as D.A Carson, Douglas Moo, Daniel B. Wallace Bart D. Ehrman, E.P Sanders, Dale C. Allison, and Ben Witherington. There are many scholars who don’t think it is though such as Bruce Metzger, and Darrell Bock. But the overall context of the whole chapter of John 1, makes it abundantly clear that the Logos should be translated as God, and that was being represented is God. And this is pretty much the universal consensus of the early church and have the early Christians interpreted this passage, :(Dictionary of Jesus the the gospels Vol 1), Joel B. Green, Scott McKnight, I. Howard Marshall.
2) Even the formulation you’re talking about again formulation of a specific doctrine does not equal establishment of a doctrine, it was around far before Nicaea at this point in your career you have no excuse for being this ignorant, claiming that the second person of the Trinty wasn’t established until the Council of Nicaea is borderline tinfoil hat nonsense it’s either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. It can be found in Tertullian’s writings.
3) But beyond that I agree with most of the video the Bible let alone Jesus does not explicitly condemn abortion. I think logically though we can conclude that he was opposed to it because he believed that humans were made in the image of God, and I think logically we can conclude that also applies to the unborn. And depending on how you interpret exodus 21:22. Honestly I don’t even know what I think about passage anymore are used to think it was clearly against abortion, but the more research I’ve done in the more I’ve read on it and there is very good evidence in support of the miscarriage translation. But the idea of the Bible doesn’t grant person I can tell first breath I think it’s just reading into it too much. Pretty much every instance words describing people taking their first breath is used metaphorically. And also there’s absolutely no laws that indicate that a premature birth is not a material loss.
Pretty much my take, also, unless there's greater historical nuances to "second person" Trinitarian identification than I'm aware of. Otherwise, saying _"the notion_ didn't exist until..." is vastly different from saying "it wasn't a _consensus_ until..."
You're completely incorrect, the council of Nicaea absolutely dealt with the Arian controversy and was thus a referendum on the nature of a trinity. His point was that the trinity does not exist in the New Testament. This is objectively true, it is a theological interpolation of the New Testament.
your problem is you are retrojecting what would become the ultimate 'form' of the trinity onto early church formations in the late first century that began to float the idea of three persons, this is a far cry from trinitarianism as doctrine. Theophilus of Antioch, for example, affirms a trinity of God, his Word, and his Wisdom. There were a multitude of interpretations including adoptianism that competed with early proto-trinitarian ideals. to call any of these extremely heterogenous beliefs an organized doctrine of 'trinitarianism' or to even refer to a singular 'early church' is absurd (even before we debate the minimum necessary features of 'trinitarianism') because there was no singular 'early church' with an authoritative claim on true Christianity, unless you retroject the outcome of these competitions backwards.
And just as an addendum, he fully understands that the original poster was referring to the supposed nature of Jesus as God, the POINT is very clearly that this is a gross misuse of the data. In the text of the bible, the man Jesus, does not refer to abortion, does not say anything about abortion. secondly, this argument is undone by the very obvious fact that the bible elsewhere very clearly does not grant personhood to a fetus. You can argue what the Christian position is anti-abortion via tradition, theology, philosophy, but the text of the bible does not contain that position.
@@AurorXZ the notion of the three persons as existing within god is explicitly not necessarily trinitarianism. an example - sabellianism clearly supports three persons but designates them as 'modes' of god rather than discrete entities and was condemned by trinitarianism.
This is the world we live in. Debating is killing a child before breath is a crime or not. The whole topic is selfish & corrupted…what about the topic sex before marriage you’ll never see that in the news.
See the principalties and powers of religion you all wrestle with?? That leads to conflicts , here's a example (Evangelist) paying for abortion legislation
Why is full legal and moral person good not conferred on the eighth day, since that's when the child comes under the covenant of Abraham?
Also, related question, are women not under the covenant of Abraham, since they don't get circumcised? If so, is this because women are only considered as possessions in these texts? And in the modern world, do girls have to wait til their bat mitzvah to become a full person?
Also, another connected question - if boys are under the law from eight days, what's the point of the bar mitzvah?
Before the discovery of the mammalian ovum in 1827, it was generally held that the female provided little to the new life beyond a fertile "ground" on to which the male might implant his life bearing "seed" - rendering her offspring, quite literally, his issue, his body. And so, in the OT, an offense against the fetus was considered an offense against the lifegiving father.
The fetus nowadays is considered neither his body nor hers, but more a weed which the former "nurturing ground" may choose to pluck at her discretion - with no one allowed to take offense..
✌️
Reading into the text the right to de-create what God is “knitting in the womb” is not logical and would require ignoring a plethora of biblical counsel on morality. Personhood is a made up concept and accidentally injuring a fetus is not what an abortion is. God judges sin by the intention of the heart to submit to His will.
The Bible gives several guidelines for decision making that should be applied like:
1. If you know a good deed and do not do it, it is sin.
2. Be fruitful and multiply is the first command ever given and is tied to the purpose God assigned to us.
3. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.
4. Whether you eat or drink, do it for the glory of God.
5. God loves a cheerful giver. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Whoever wishes to keep his life shall lose it.
Having and caring for a baby or even giving it up for adoption is a good, selfless deed that brings glory to God, beneficial to society, and aligned with the purpose God assigned to us.
Getting rid of your baby resembles what the pagans who worshipped Molech did that the God of Israel despised. It is inherently selfish and not aligned with God’s will for His creation.
Did Jesus talk... period? Because until I see conclusive evidence that Jesus was a real person and not a fictional character in religious mythology, I remain skeptical.
it isnt 100% definite, but the evidence is strong. the first time jesus was ever put down in writing was around 70 CE ish, which would be around 40 years after his death, which makes it very unlikely that the entire character of jesus was completely fabricated.
I think there's enough evidence to think that there was a messianic rabbi with that name about 1990 years ago. If you aren't convinced, I think that's also reasonable
Did u just say C.E. instead of BC I can't watch anyone who uses that. It's ridiculous
lol did you watch his last video??? It's all about that ha
Mark chapeter 1 recognises jesus as yhwh .
Yhwh manifesting in physical human form is consistent with the hebrew bible when yhwh takes the form of a human man in many places . Jesus being the incarnation.of yhwh has theological presedence
Jude 5 also porrrays jesus as yhwh
Jude 5 nrsv
5 Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved[f] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their own position but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. 7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust,[g] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
The word "spirit" in scripture...."ruach" in the Hebrew and "pneuma" in the Greek
means "breath" or wind, or "air".
This "breath" or wind or "air" is a METAPHOR for the "mind" ( thought and consciousness ).
It has NOTHING to do with the literal "air" that we take into our literal and physical lungs.
When your breath or wind or air, goes past your "two edged sword" ( another metaphor for your TONGUE )
you form a "WORD" that reveals your "heart" ( another metaphor for your "WILL" of mind )....or your "spirit" .
The literal piece of meat between your ears called the organ of the "brain"
is NOT your "mind" (spirit).
A fetus in the womb is "CONSCIOUS" ....it is "ALIVE".
And to willfully take this "LIFE" away....is "MURDER" !
"God is Spirit" ( John 4:24 )
"God" is MIND ( Thought and Consciousness ).....NOT some entity "out there" somewhere .
"In the beginning was the Word ( Logos = "Revealed Thought" of the Father/Mother )
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ." ( John 1:1 )
"And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us ....." ( John 1:14 )
"Father" = MIND
"Mother" = THOUGHT
"Son" (Child) = CONSCIOUSNESS
This is the TRUE "Holy Trinity" or One "Spirit" (MIND) that is "God" .
Assigning lesser value to a fetus does not mean the fetus has zero value.
But a pro-choice argument does not hinge on a fetus having zero value, it hinges either on the affirmation of the principle of bodily autonomy, or the assertion of the non-personhood of the fetus, and usually on both. Similarly, many people eat meat, but it is not necessary to affirm that an animal has zero 'value' in order to affirm the right to eat meat.
@@PasteurizedLettuce Agreed, my point is if you're telling yourself a fetus is just a worthless clump of cells and tissue you are lying to yourself. It may not be fully formed and recognized as a person under the law, but it's not without its own intrinsic value.
And in a time when birth control is effective, inexpensive, and easy to access I think most discussions about bodily autonomy miss a few key points.
Thou shalt not kill, pretty simple.
murder. not kill. there's plenty of killing in the OT
This is entirely off topic, but I don't know where else to post it. Why should I believe in a creator God, or in myself, or in anyone else when there is so little good left in the world? And what little good is entirely shaded by all the badness. Why should I believe in a book made by countless people who could've been making things up for the fun of it? What if this world is really just horrible and there is no judgement day? I find it hard not to believe in the great possibility that large groups of people made up their own Gods, made their own stories(that they may have also written truthful stories into as well, because why not?), and persuaded other groups of people to follow their "teachings". I think it'd be fun to make up a religion and get a bunch of people to follow it just for the sake of fun, or to get attention, or to gain political intrigue. Why would this not be a great possibility? And why wouldn't people tell what they believe to be the truth, when it all started as a lie and they never knew?
You basically answered your own question. Anything good left in the world ultimately comes from God. If there was no God, you wouldn't have any conceptualization of what is truly "good" or "bad" because those ideas wouldn't be based on any ultimate standard in a universe that came about by accidental randomness.
How do we know it isn't just humans who have had these conceptualizations ever since they evolved? How do I know those ideas come from God when I see no evidence of such?
@@homelesspyro995 So if we merely evolved and were not created, then this wouldn't even matter to you. If you are nothing but the result of a random sequence of events in a universe that only came about by accident, or however you want to describe its origins without a creator, then why does it matter if there is little good, or it that good is shaded by badness? That would simply be the universe taking its course with no meaning or purpose, and you would have no real reason to be troubled by it. The reason you are is because you have a conscience, and conscience translates to "with knowledge". As in, knowledge of right and wrong. That has to ultimately come from an objective standard, or else it wouldn't be knowledge. God is that objective standard, and we are made in the image of God, meaning we share some of His characteristics, the knowledge that He allows us to have, and so on (although, we are in a diminished state because we are in a fallen world infected by sin). For the sake of argument let's assume there was no God. Well we would still need to account for many things, such as morality. Suppose there is a rapist or murderer who says his actions were not wrong. How do you know for sure that they are, and where does that knowledge come from? Again, those actions would merely be part of the sequence of events that makes up our universe with no purpose, so why is it so important for justice to be served...and what is justice if there is no objective morality? And on the other hand, if there IS objective morality, how does evolution account for that?
@@travisjohnson7065 For the instance of morality, what if we've always been moral creatures? What if we've always known good and bad, right and wrong? What if objective morality has always been within Humans since we've evolved and realized more about the world?
I do suppose about the first part of what you said, that it wouldn't really matter to me about the badness of the world and its effect if it was just something that happens. But yet it does, and that's something I can't answer with confidence or belief of fact.
@@homelesspyro995 But morality would still need to come from somewhere. It's not something that we can see or touch, but we still know it exists. Even if we did evolve and suddenly gained this knowledge, the knowledge is of something real, something concrete in and of itself. Let's say that evolving is what allowed us to "discover" morality, but where did the discovery come from in and of itself? Did we discover something that was random or accidental? What made morality the way it is, why is there an inherent logic or design to it if there is no inherent logic or design to the whole universe?