you mean the city of 'Ilion' (Iliad is the genitive, meaning 'About Ilion'), Troia was the area around Ilion - but quite right an amateur archeaologist did find Ilion/Troy by taking the Iliad itself as a guide

There are probably INSANE archeological finds about the ancient world that are just waiting to be discovered.

Yes, the difference is that the supernatural elements of the story are fictional. The Bible is historical fiction in that yes there are real places and some real people but that the supernatural elements are bogus. People would realise this if they took the time to critically examine the Bible like a critical scholar does. *The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Biblical Contradiction #2: Did God create the heavens and earth from the formless deep OR did Yahweh create them from the slaying of the primaeval sea monster Leviathan /Rahab?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Are The Ten Commandments Based On The Forty-Two Principles Of Maat That Appeared 2,000 Years Earlier? - Ancient Pages"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

If anyone thinks the Bible is the "word of God" and not ancient authors, *specifically the elite priestly guilds (Yahweh-only parties),* speaking for their imaginary god, they need to read the below article from a critical Biblical scholar and spend some time reading the other articles on his website. Basically the Bible is Israelite propaganda. "So for example, when we read carefully what Yahweh says in the book of Leviticus, namely that the Aaronids (the sons of Aaron only), are high priests contrary to the Levites, that they alone are Yahweh’s mediators and the Levites are reduced to mere ministers of the Aaronids, that only through sacrifice can one atone for sins and not confession as preached by the Levites, or more precisely the Levite’s Yahweh, etc., *it can be no coincidence that in these laws and commandments,* ***which are placed on the mouth of Yahweh,*** *that Yahweh himself is presented advocating and legitimating the very views and beliefs of the specific priestly guild writing the text, and, contrary to the views and beliefs of their rivals, the Levites and the Levite’s Yahweh!* We will examine this more closely when we get to the contradictions in these books. But in short, this was the function of ancient literature, and we are allowing these ancient texts to speak for themselves. *In this particular case, the Levites and Aaronids wrote specific texts that each advocated their religious beliefs, views, and their position as high priests* ***by writing these sentiments directly into the mouth of their god!*** But just studying the Bible alone, scientifically, affords us the occasion *to see that many of these so-called words of Yahweh are* ***actually the very words of the texts’ authors.*** When we see numerous texts employing this ancient literary technique, and moreover, ***presenting Yahweh as the spokesperson for their own views and agenda,*** *and* ***contrary*** *to Yahweh’s other words in other texts written by other authors employing the same technique,* how can one conclude otherwise. In other words, when in the composite text that we now call the Bible we find: Yahweh declaring that only Aaronids can officiate as his priests and Yahweh declaring that all Levites can officiate as high priest; Yahweh declaring that sin is atoned through confession and Yahweh declaring that sin is only expiated through the sacrificial cult, no exceptions; Yahweh declaring that he gave laws and commandments at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that he only gave the Ten Commandments at Sinai; Yahweh commanding to exterminate all the Canaanites without pity and Yahweh declaring to tolerate them and live in their midst; Yahweh declaring that the wilderness generation were disloyal and rebellious and Yahweh declaring that they were a paradigm of loyalty and faith; Yahweh declaring that he may be offered sacrifices at any altar and Yahweh declaring that there is only one altar where sacrifices are to be offered up; Yahweh declaring that the people saw him at Sinai and Yahweh declaring that they only heard his voice; Yahweh declaring that circumcision is an eternal covenant and keeping the land depends on observing this very commandment and Yahweh declaring the Mosaic laws as the covenant and keeping the land is dependent on keeping these laws; Yahweh declaring that he dwells in the midst of the people and Yahweh declaring that he only resides in heaven; Yahweh commanding Passover to be celebrated by all at Jerusalem and Yahweh commanding it to be celebrated at each person’s home; Yahweh commanding that animals for consumption must be ritually sacrificed and Yahweh commanding that they don’t have to be sacrificed ritually, etc. ***one must conclude that Yahweh is being used by these authors, each with their own contrary views and beliefs as a spokesperson for each of these authors’ agendas.*** These are all the personal, and competing, views, theological beliefs, and religious systems of our biblical authors. And this is only the tip of the iceberg." *"Studying the Bible"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei -----------------------‐------------------------------------------ Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.

@@LM-jz9vh do you just have that wall of text saved as a word document so you can copy and paste it into any comment section online? It doesn't even have anything to do with what I was saying. All I was pointing out is that it's absurd to write off historical events just because the Bible is a religious text. The Hindu god Krishna was said to live in a city named Dvaraka, and after a war he finally left and the city was submerged. For years everyone outside India thought the city was a myth from the Mahabharata, but underwater expeditions have revealed that there actually is an ancient city off the coast of modern-day Dwarka, right where the legends said Krishna's city was. Does that mean we should all suddenly convert to Hinduism? No. It just means we can't automatically discard everything in a religious text just because people from 4000 years ago weren't as "advanced" as us.

I can point to Christians who molest children, so what?

So he's hypocritical?

yes, because Christians rape children all the time (Catholic Church).

@@RavenSoldierthatthatssuffering He would be if that were true, yes. But since this is utter bollocks, no.

@@dudeatxyou must think you’re really smart right now huh?

As if we weren't given free will lol

Not really the argument. The argument from christians is that the reason to do good is because of god. But if you are only doing good to get rewarded by god than your 'goodness' is really just obedience and if you thought god wanted you to do some act that you normally would see as immoral than that immoral act would be 'good'. Its a error in your theology and not in the people.

@@darrylelam256 you misunderstand God and how we choose to live to conform our lives more closely to Christ. We are not good for a reward, because we can never do anything to earn heaven. We live by the gospel because we love Christ and His Church. I've also never heard it preached or suggested that we do good only because of God. That would be as stupid as saying an atheist only chooses not to murder because it's illegal. Morality is a framework created by natural law, which is written on our hearts by God - every single one of us. But the choice to do good or evil is up to the free will of each person.

@@Mrs_Homemaker I misunderstood nothing. I know that the vast majority of Christians are not doing good for a reward. Now go back and reread my post you F'ing d!psh!t. Your THEOLOGY says that the only reason to be good is so that you get rewarded. And don't give me this 'natural law' BS and there is nothing written on our heart because our hearts are not where thinking happens. You seem to be too stupid to understand that different people hold different morals. So you BASELESS claim that wrote some kind of morality on us is completely 100% disproved by the fact that we don't agree on morality. And YES you delusional little babies do think you are going to get rewarded for being good. Can I hear so many times when you religious losers that atheists have no reason to be nice to each other unless a god exists. So do not try any of your lame BS cus I know your mythology better than you do I was once a Christian, dumba$$

@@Mrs_Homemaker BTW what you are doing right now is evil, you are putting down all of humanity with you religious nonsense of 'we can never do anything to earn heaven'. Because what you are saying by that is that we can never be good enough and that we all deserving of an eternal punishment for the crime of imperfection. That's immoral. That's mental abuse. BTW this farther proves that your god is nothing but a monster as your god made us in a way that it's literally impossible to live up to his standards all while knowing that humans could never match his standards.

The problem is they want witnesses to the Resurrection that were atheists. This is so dumb, like who would be so s tupid to remain skeptic after witnessing the Resurrection. They are so desperate to dodge the truth that they never actually listen to how moronic they sound, and what absurdity they ask for. Like, even if there was such an absurd character that can remain skeptic after seeing the Resurrection, IS THAT THE GUY YOU TRUST?!

We know that the synoptic Gospels aren't independent sources because of the synoptic problem, they have many verses that match up almost exactly word for word in Greek and even if they were perfect word for word recitation of what people said they would not have been translated in a way that matches up word for word, Christian scholars like Mike Licona will tell you as much.

@@tomasrocha6139 "perfect word for word in Greek" not true whatsoever, show me the greek

@@InitialPC Matthew 10:21-22 & Mark 13:12-13. The first two words are different, after that the two texts are identical for 31 words: Matthew 10: 21 παραδωσει δε αδελφος αδελφον εις θανατον και πατηρ τεκνον και επαναστησονται τεκνα επι γονεις και θανατωσουσιν αυτους 22 και εσεσθε μισουμενοι υπο παντων δια το ονομα μου ο δε υπομεινας εις τελος ουτος σωθησεται Mark 13: 12 και παραδωσει αδελφος αδελφον εις θανατον και πατηρ τεκνον και επαναστησονται τεκνα επι γονεις και θανατωσουσιν αυτους 13 και εσεσθε μισουμενοι υπο παντων δια το ονομα μου ο δε υπομεινας εις τελος ουτος σωθησεται

@@InitialPC Matthew 10:21-22 & Mark 13:12-13. The first two words are different, after that the two texts are identical for 31 words.

Your "gatekeeping" argument is stupid. I was an unwanted child. I was hated through out my life by my family but couldn't understand why. Until I found my parents' marriage license. Shotgun wedding. So screw you. Being uncomfortable with abortion is much better than happy with it and far better than hating it. Kinda like war, bad to love war but sometimes necessary...consider WW2. And believe it or not--the use of the atomic bomb in the final weeks was a good thing. Why? Because there were not enough bombs to destroy the world. Today there are. But in August 1945, the result of the use of just two small bombs convinced even Stalin a nuclear war has no winners. Stalin starved thousands to death to get his way. I don't remember who it was who said

Dawkins is saying the God described in the OT is evil. When he says there is no evil in the universe as we can observe it, he is talking about the universe as a whole, not people.

I thought his name was spelt Dork kings now I see it's Dawkins

@@ubersheizer5398 That seems equivocating at best. How is the evil in people not a part of the universe as we can observe it? Unless people have something that is metaphysical that allows for evil (such as a soul), if there is evil in people there is evil in the universe. If people don't have some metaphysical component, then if there is no evil in the universe there is no evil in people. Atheism, frankly, seems to have it's own "problem of evil" in that it is blindingly obvious to most people that objective evil (and good) exists, but materialistic atheism can't show why that is, and in fact needs to deny that it is. (By materialistic atheism, I mean an atheism that believes that only the material world exists, and that anything else, such as consciousness, is an explainable byproduct of physical processes).

@@ubersheizer5398 God is unchanging. The God of the OT is the *same* God of the NT. The difference is His relationship with mankind, as attested by different covenants. We could even argue that the real difference is how mankind relates to God and how the progression is described from the OT to the NT.

​@@paulaaracena-sherck8154 Well, in the OT we have war, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, and genocide and in the NT human sacrifice and everlasting punishment, I guess that is kind of consistent.

Sounds profound, but is rubbish. Being a Christian is supposed to change you for the better. That's not the case for watches.

@@korbendallas5318 While I reject your argument because you’ve not satisfied your burden of proof. thank you for your rather peculiar, subjective and personal opinion.

@@paulburns6110 You reject my claim that being a Christian is supposed to change you for the better?

@@korbendallas5318 no coz I just reject your unproven personal opinion- that my analogy is “rubbish”. God bless.

@@paulburns6110 I explained it, but you have to understand it.

I agree. If more Christian’s were well versed in the Bible, and knew more theology, many would be more prepared for common questions and would solidify their faith.

I'll grant you that, but also nuance it based on my own experience and what I've come to believe. Christianity has been the target of what in more recent history must be called a dialectical, Marxist attack. Earlier this would have been recognized as gnostic attack, and I mean the type of gnosticism that talks about the Demiurge. I fell for it. That relentless, one-sided and often simply not factual criticism. But I imagined myself knowledgeable about Christianity, when in fact I knew precious little. Look up the Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox debate. Hitchens was the most dialectical of the new atheists, well he did consider himself a Trotskyite, so there's that clue for us. Anything touched by evil and Leftism ... but I repeat myself ... will build up Cainite levels of resentment and conduct relentless smear campaigns against whatever they're against. It worked at least to turn me away from God. Of course lies and distortions can do that. The snake is a good salesman that way.

I kind of disagree. I don’t think it’s fair for atheists to ignore all the Christian scholars, the Fathers, the saints, and go online instead and ask the average Christian who has no obligation to do anything other than go to church, love their neighbour and love their enemies and then accuse Christianity of being intellectually indefensible. Christianity is not an intellectual position, it isn’t an hypothesis, it’s a way of life. Not everyone has to be a Biblical scholar. To be a good Christian has nothing to do with intelligence or learning or clever arguments. There are some Christians who will need to be experts and scholars and so on, but most atheists don’t engage with them anyway. If an atheist really wants to understand the intellectual side of Christianity then he should go and explore the two thousand years of Christian tradition that has all the arguments and Biblical analysis and so on and judge that, and leave alone those Christians, who are often very holy, who are educated very little but who are filled with God’s love and act accordingly.

The video of Dawkins refusing to mention Islam on Piers Morgan is pretty chilling.

I don't criticize Islam much because I am not well acquainted with it, and because here in the West it isn't as ubiquitous and therefore not the same existential issue for me and others. One notable occasion have I had tho.

Dawkins hates Islam and criticizes it with enthusiasm

theres like a whole hour long video or something of hitchens criticizing islam

Atheism is a tool of the state, an atheist mind is so malleable it's easy to control just think of communism.

It all comes down to the context people are killed. If we think there are justifiable reasons for a killing, then we don't tend to think it is evil. If on the other hand, we don't see any justifiable reasons for a killing, then we might say it is evil. For example, when the prophet Elishah cursed some children in the name of God for making fun of his bald head, two she bears came out of the woods and tore up 42 children (2 Kings 2:23-24 for those Christians who can't believe this is something God is alleged to have done!) most people would say that was an act of evil. Also, the state doesn't claim to be the source of all morality and the arbiter of all good and evil. There is also that.

Yeah because Joseph Stalin was a saint. All those people he sent to the Gulags were anti-revolutionaries who didn’t believe in the workers paradise and the one true ideology that would save the world.

@@g07denslicer The state does claim to be source of all morality and arbiter of good and evil. Divine rule is the basis of government itself.

"if the state does these same things it's not considered evil" of course it is when the state imprisons an innocent person (or commits a genocide), it's considered evil, just like when an individual does it

@@lochnessmonster5149 really? Where does it say that?

Joe from Majesty of Reason is agnostic, not atheist as Trent claims

@@melchior2678Trent added that MoR is agnostic in the video

Everyone has different experience.

Same here, I can even handle raging Leftists for the most part, it’s only Protestants that really get on my nerves.

Atheists are not your friends. Friends have the same beliefs as you. Atheists are enemies.

Atheist like Matt Dellihunty like to strawman and parody religion as if his atheism wins by default. Rather than support or define a materialistic worldview he will start with religion instead of deism or theism. Rather than theism Vs atheism or naturalism Vs. supernaturalism, its really about Religion -vs. atheism or more accurately Darwinian evolution Vs Genesis. If it wasnt so tragic it would be laughable. All the closeminded pseudo Intelligent, self defined, semi evolved apes ridicule religion albeit the only one that agrees with general Relativity i.e. Creation ex nihilo. As if Darwinian theory somehow disproves Creation and the need for a Creator. And here they are day after day, these poor lost souls obsessed with the God they don't believe in, wasting endless hours of their apparently meaningless, nano cosmic existence, consoling each other in the dark dungeons of cyberspace. With the only hope of what,- proving they're merely pond goo evolved to a higher order and thus future worm fodder? No wonder we committed believers live happier healthier, longer and more productive lives. *For the record, we are all creationists.* having to explain how everything came from absolutely nothing in the finitude of past time. But why let that minor fact spoil your delusions of grandeur and ever diminishing, hedonistic lifestyle? After all, "if God is dead all thing's are permitted," right? Evolution? Let's be honest here. if Darwinian evolution is a ubiquitous, blind, mindless, bottomup goal-less process, then we should see among the trillions of living creatures both past and present, various examples of transitional forms. *Among several million living species, the only random mutations we ever observe are bad, those leading to deformed, diseased or dead individuals.* Moreover, many species we thought extinct have been rediscovered alive and virtually unchanged. Just google images, “living fossils” or "deformed lifeforms" to see what *Devolution* looks like. It's everywhere!!

You dont interact with many atheists, it seems

I'm so sure this text was generated by AI, but I can't prove it

Its a lot of special pleading and "I'm personally offended by what critics say about my religion, So_______________"

@@TestTest-me8zt I hope it helps someone.

Thank you, very helpful!

This is the Spider-verse without a Spiderman.

You don;t even Know what Blasphemy Means.

I'm an atheist and atheist movements tend to be more tribal than Christian ones. I hate how modern atheists have morphed atheism into some kind of weird woke political religion.

Inside every protestant is a Catholic... trying to get out.

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 True. Happened to me a year ago.

Cool 👍🏼

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 Not in my case because I used to be catholic. But I learned to respect catholics.

@@theistengineer2850 should watch more trent horn then...

Thank you for the suggestion! -Vanessa

They're most likely commies like most atheists

@UCBaqnTrywX2z3n6fCpiqLbA Horn portrays it, explicitly, as if Dawkins is declaring a statement of objective fact. His criticism isn't that the opinion is 'stupid', but that there's a supposed discrepancy between Dawkins' quote on the character of God and his quote about the non-existence of evil.

@@Apanblod - If Dawkins Beleives Evil does not Exist then Dawkins Opinion that God is Evil makes no Sense.

@@skwills1629 That was my entire point, that that is not what is implied by those two statements, and that the alleged contradiction is, in my opinion, a shoehorned in interpretation by Trent.

@@Apanblod - Why is it if a Christian says This You Lot accuse them of Ad Hoc and using Mental Gymnastics? But its OK when You do it. I am sorry, Dawkins Contradicted Himself, and You using Mental gymnastics to claim He did not Mean what He Clearly and Plainly said won't make You Right. We are just giving The plain reading of what Dawkins Said.

@@skwills1629 I am not 'you lot', and I'm arguing Dawkins doesn't actually clearly says what Trent claims he does. Trent even adds in words into Dawkins' quote that aren't there when he goes over his interpretation of it.

Hey, just wanted to send a reply to your question as a Christian. I appreciate the honesty in your response, and I figured I would do my best to answer what I could. “Do you have to believe in Christianity to fully engage with it?” Yes*. However, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of Christianity. I would argue (and I think most Christians would agree) that Christianity is fundamentally not a set of beliefs where if you can’t genuinely believe in one (eg. virgin birth of Jesus) you have ceased to be Christian. Consider that anyone new to the faith probably hasn’t even heard of most of Christian doctrine, but they are considered Christian because they have put some faith in Christ as their savior and his grace. Ultimately, belief in most of the doctrine is won on grounds like that. Now, if you can’t bring yourself to believe in God at all (or something else that fully breaks the premise), I think you will find that the morals present ultimately hinge God and certain aspects of the bible (eg. resurrection of Christ). That does not mean you have to enter in fully convinced of these things. Would I regard you as inauthentic? No. Your reply seems genuine and honest, and I have never seen someone who is teaching the bible or talking about Christianity turn away someone who wants to listen. I would not give you a position of authority, as you don’t hold to certain core doctrines. Affirmation of ‘all’ Christian doctrines is a lot more necessary for teachers than for people struggling in faith/unwilling to affirm certain things. Otherwise nobody questioning Christianity would overcome their concerns. Lastly, you don’t seem like a hypocrite (at least no more than I am), and I would generally be grateful to spend time around someone with any appreciation for some of the genuine treasures I have found in God, the Bible, and Christianity. Yeah, I would hope you come to a place where you can find a genuine faith in Jesus, but I don’t think you have to have that in place to meet with Christians and have an appreciation for parts of Christianity. Also, this is kinda long so no shame if you didn’t read it. If you have any more thoughts feel free to comment or email.

Males have much more muscle mass than women. That's a biological fact. There are also some prominent critics of biological males competing against biological females from the LGBTQ group itself. I mean, Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner is against it of all people! What more evidence do you need??

God is a concept. The concept of a purely good, creative spirit of the universe.

Why tolerate something bad though?

Amen

@@sapereaude6935 the distinction is that we don't treat people poorly or kill them etc because they may have fallen from the faith or come from another faith. We however don't condone allowing these people to worship and build temples for them on our land or that they can do whatever their religion tells them to do (take sharia law) for example. We ultimately don't actually condone idolatrous things. Hope this helps

Catholics aren't pushing for Removal of Freedom Of Religion.

@@sapereaude6935 the difference is that Christianity is true. All states push forward their faith, and try and punish other faiths, or assimilate the other faith into the state faith. This is done even by so called secular states, who's faith is liberalism. It is the way of things, and merely a fact of human behaviour

I should also clarify, not all texts are equal. Much of the bible often gets ripped to shreds by historians for a reason--namely those I previously mentioned, whereas something more grounded like Thucydides generally holds up better against such scrutiny.

Don’t be fooled bro. There are many forms of sexual perversion and Islam engages in several. Child brides, incest, and sex slavery to name a few. Islam is evil. Don’t get lost in the comparison game. They’re intolerant of blasphemy because they’re obsessed with violence.

Ther3 are extremes like the death penalty for such offenses, but all in all, their approach is not all that different from what Christian nations had only a century ago! In fact, some Chrustian nations still retain blasphemy laws, even though they are rarely enforced.

@@Danko_Sekulic "some Christian nations still retain blasphemy laws," Name one.

Islam gives the same human rights the bible gives you... They are more human, actually, they don't practice slavery and animal sacrifices.

Yup that right there makes me livid

@@Slum0vsky Islam doesn't practice slavery? But Muhammad is a slave trader and you have never heard of the Arab slave trade that is still active today, I can provide you reference in Quran and hadith if you want proof. 😉

​@@Slum0vskyHalal meat (and kosher for that matter) don't involve animal sacrifice? Bear in mind, sacrifice literally means, "to make holy." This is literally what they are doing to the meat so that it's permissible to consume. Had you even thought that comment through before posting it?

​@@Slum0vskyChristians don't sacrifice animals. The Jewish religion does that. Since Jesus died on the cross as the sacrificial lamb, God doesn't want or need anymore animal sacrifice.

Thanks for watching and supporting! We appreciate you! -Vanessa

Lol wait till you meet some Islamic apologists....

@@kevinfernandez9999YES. Muslims when confronted with sound Christian arguments always resort to pure ignorance. I always beat them in debates and they have to end it with “😂😂😂😂 may Allah guid you” ^ | When you have nothing else to say

#fedora

@@mike-cc3dd you think I'm lying??

@@mike-cc3dd why u gonna be a dick?

Wonderful! Raising the level of debate and trying to avoid fallacies, straw-man arguments and ad hominems is always a great way to interact.

So the bible claims the dead saints at Jerusalem cemetery waited until Jesus resurrection and then they entered Jerusalem. End of story, nobody cares, no historians recorded any questions or conversations with these risen saints.. just silence. It's as if it were just made up.

We do not claim that God is evil. We claim that the character of god worshipped by Christians (and others) is evil. We do not claim evil does not exist. We claim sin does not exist. We are not applying any objective truth. We are voicing our beliefs. I personally do not believe morality is innate. We do not apply a Christian moral framework, or we would all support genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape. It is Christians who have had to apply a Humanist framework to avoid the immorality of their scriptures. The Nazis were not atheists. They were Christians. Neither the Nazis nor the Communists were Secular Humanists. Educate yourself.

@@cygnusustus you ramble all over the place and then finish with a patronising ‘educate yourself’! I am far more educated than you will ever be- but I would never say anything so patronising to you. First, Hitler said, as an atheist, that he felt ‘as free as a colt in a pasture.’ Rosenberg was into occult, as was Himmler and the Nazis as a whole promoted the German mythological gods and had the objective, as soon as opportunity allowed, of completely eradicating Christianity. Communism is completely atheist and for you to say it is not simply shows you don’t have a clue. It’s whole ideology is atheism. Then, to sweepingly claim ‘genocide, slavery, infanticide and rape’ is ludicrous. For your information, all those things are what the Church teaches is what you shouldn’t do - although many tribes which were ‘colonised’ did all those things. In fact, the reason why so many converted to Christianity in the neighbouring tribes was because the Aztecs used to raid the tribes for their sacrifices to appease the Gods. Personally, I don’t have a problem with someone being atheist, but if you attack people for the sole reason they believe in Christ, and are Catholic, then you should study what the Catholic Church teaches and take it up in a rational and reasoned argument, not just sweepingly use every bad thing ever done by any human and attribute it to the Catholic Church.

I'm athiest and I argue that good and evil exist. However it is impossible for things to be put into one or the other. I agree that the framework exists but not as the basis for objective morality. The framework exists only as the basis for Western philosophy. When I call something evil I am referring to it as something most of us would agree is horrible. I refer to God as evil because of my values and beliefs. Even though I don't believe in God I think that based on the Bible he is a horrible being. He violates his own commandments.

Also the Nazis weren't atheists. The Nazis were Christians.

@@cygnusustusHitler was not a Christian and Stalin was not a Christian. Both were secular. Please educate yourself

Why would something written much later by someone anonymous who we have no reason to think was an eyewitness count as extra-biblical evidence of anything other than someone knew how to write?

​@@RustyWalker So you are telling us if you are not alive back then when the event took place it is not true at all, then by your own logic most historical events are questionable, You can't say Hitler is evil because the Allies could have made that up or the Crusades did not happen, or if the Ottoman Empire did exist or the Dinosaur exist it can be all a global conspiracy faking evidence to suit an agenda.

@@ungas024 _"So you are telling us if you are not alive back then when the event took place it is not true at all,"_ No. I questioned the presumption of treating it as if it's history when there's no reason to. Mark itself was written anonymously decades after the fact, and then an undisclosed third party decided to tack onto it for reasons we can only conjecture. If someone (anonymously) pretended to be one of the signatories of the constitution and added a load of bills, would you afford them any credence? Of course not. You'd reject them as fraudulent. There's the double standard, and it's not the atheists that are guilty.

@@RustyWalker Mathew mark Luke and John was written in the first century, it is widely known as the first four gospels, how do we know about this? Because the church fathers are talking about it in the 1st and second century. There's a thing called historical concensus among the academia, why don't you ask Bart Ehrman about it?

@@ungas024 Bart says the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Gospels are not the same people

I think he was a covert Marxist

Yep, a total heretic and ethnic narcissist. It's not acceptable in Catholicism either to have racial double standards. Either all ethnic/racial self-advocacy is ok or none of it is ok. You can't say it's ok for everyone except white people.

You beg the question by rejecting the supernatural elements, Or I might say, you do so only because it does not fit your worldview, which of course, does not demonstrate anything.

Yes I agree. Catholics will talk about Islam. There is an old enemy that's difficult to get the most sincere modern Catholics to talk about. They leave the subject to cranks. That neither you nor I have named it because it might be censored keyword is a testament to it's current power.

Exactly. Most atheists only ever attack Christianity, never eeslam or the juice or Buddhists etc.

What

@@a.d1287 juice

​@@Dilley_G45JUDEN

Great video idea! Thank you for the suggestion! -Vanessa

You are right. I have observed/studied atheists for decades and I can conclude that that atheism is a mental disorder. Atheists have no arguments. Atheists don't think their belief atheism is a belief thus requires justification/reason. They think atheism is the 'default' position where theists bear the 'burden' to show them the 'sky daddy'. Try to reason with an atheist, nope, they don't really care ontological reason, all they think is 'evidence', a physical sky daddy.

Definitely not an ontological problem lol

Nonsensical or you're just not capable of understanding?

Not really it's garbage

He thinks religion is evil and like a mind virus rather than being an amoral product of evolution. He and other atheists assume that not only are atheists and the religious not equally likely to be good, actually we should expect the atheist to be _more_ good than the religious. If he took his supposed views on evolution seriously, he would suspend judgment, and from basic observations, he should have a prior that religiosity is correlated with being good and that religiosity was selected for alongside greater social complexity.

No, He says Evil in the First Quote. Its right there in the Text.

@SK Wills "The God of the Old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jelous and proud of it; a pretty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak: a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully. ... No. The word evil is not in there. An anti realist could say all those things.

@@Oskar1000 Lol. And who decides what any of those things are without an objective good to refer to? Either you have to refer to some transcendental good, which by definition would be God, or that's just your arbitrary opinion in which case, I don't care and neither should anyone else.

@@TheThreatenedSwan Dunno. He says Dawkins says "evil" in the quote. It just doesn't. What's the point in arguing if we can't agree on something as basic as if a word exists in a paragraph.

Add to that the recent research from Nancy Pearcey on Frank Turek's podcast, (i don't have enough faith to be an atheist,) titled the toxic war on masculinity. It shows that evangelical Christian men who go to church regularly treat their wives better and their wives are happier. They have fewer divorces. (As opposed to nominal Christians who don't attend church regularly and the rest of the population.) I also noticed the relation between Islamic societies and the handmaid's tale.

First, how exactly would you prove that your fake document about Caesar and Sweden is ancient? Second, why do you not believe in supernatural claims from ancient sources? Third, what does corroborate mean? Fourth, what do you mean when you say "We don't believe Tacitus because Josephus said so, and Josephus because Tacitus said so"?

@@5fingers4strings17 1) No idea, I'm not an expert. It doesn't matter though, the point is that _even with_ conclusive evidence of its origin, we wouldn't believe its content. 2) Because they are unreliable in any case, and there is simply no reason to believe them over the massive evidence against such things that we've acquired since. 3) Look it up, I'm not using any fancy definition. 4) What I said, it's not circular but corroborating.

@@korbendallas5318 First, it actually DOES matter, because we KNOW FOR A FACT that Sweden did not exist in the time of Caesar, and so it would literally be impossible to come up with sufficient evidence that it is as old as it claimed to be. Second, what evidence have we acquired that disproves the supernatural claims made in the Bible? Third, no, I WON'T look it up because the definition I find may not fit what you means exactly, I want to know precisely what YOU mean when YOU say "corroborate." And finally, I don't think you understood my question, I'll be more specific, what EXACTLY did YOU mean when YOU said "We don't believe Tacitus because Josephus SAID SO, and Josephus because Tacitus SAID SO?", I am asking what you mean when you say "SAID SO."

No, you're misunderstanding the argument. The argument is that Dawkins makes a moral claim about God only to later contradict himself by saying that there's no such thing as evil.

It just shows the inconsistency of atheists

The word "Evil" is a moral claim, how do you know what is evil without being moral is what Dawkins and other Athiest are doing. They can get out of that logical trap by saying that "by your Christian World View that is evil", well as Trent and all Christian have pointed out that a Christian God is the Creator of Life how can you tell God that he is wrong when he decide to take it back?

Here is a quote I am familiar with, but might not be the one in question: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Would you consider any of those terms he used as evil? Maybe this quote is closer to the topic at hand: "If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins So, here might be where the troubles start. This is where they are assuming that a universe that lacks "evil" means that people within the universe can not determine what is evil and what is not evil, which is not the case at all. And no "evil" as a being does not exist. Only actions that can be called evil or good.

It doesn't really matter because he's still appealing to some objective sense of good and evil that violates his supposed atheist materialist views.

Hm, well in one example the wrong people were sacrificing their children to the wrong god. So your god's best idea was to kill the children along with their families? And that was out of love? Oh, but then there are those who think that when children die, no matter what religion they are from, go directly to heaven, i.e. closer to him. So, now this story is actually a certain sect of people were sending children directly to heaven. And this made your god angry?

Committing global genocide though?

@@random6809 Gods original intention was for us to live with him in harmony. The serpent brought the choice to eat the fruit or not. Since Adam and Eve chose to eat it. The wages of sin is death, but he’s constantly gave earliest humans a chance to reconcile themselves to him. Through various prophets throughout the Old Testament. It’s free will whether they were followed or not. God loves his people always had. Like a loving parent. Like all parents if we disobey there needed to be a consequence. Look at what the people were doing in the Old Testament and see if they were morally right to do such things.

@@lukebrown5395 The way you justify killing children as a punishment is sickening. Luckily none of the OT events actually happened and the "prophets" are alos fictional people. Otherwise this god would have been an Immoral monster.

@@AnotherViewer I’m not kidding. The God I know is a loving parent. If you disobey you pay the price. They didn’t want to, but that’s the nature of free will. Every action has a consequence. That’s who God is. He doesn’t do it anymore because he sent his son to die for us. Jesus took the sins of the world and carried them on that cross so that we might have forgiveness. Before that every sin had and still has a consequence. Just not as severe anymore of a punishment. What happened in the Old Testament was that Jesus didn’t die yet to be raised. The basis that the Old Testament never happened is false. Look up the Horeb Rock, the remains of Jericho, and the shroud of Turin ( which is actually from the New Testament).

- Why are you repeating this Silly Dogma from Your Religion? Its a Lie. I Know. if I show you Anything Outside of "The Bible" that Supports "The Bible" You Immediately Jump to making excuses for Why it doesn't Matter. Like Shouting "The Spider-Man Fallacy" and Pretending someone's Historical Evidence is Reducible to "Jerusalem Really Exists so The Bible is True". Like You do with the Arguments for God's Existence, You set up Ridiculous Strawman Arguments. The Meshe Stele for example Clearly supports some vents in The Bible, but instead of Admitting that You will just Demand some other Part of The Bible be given external Evidence to support it. Then You go Right Back to Lying about how You'd Love to see Extra Biblical Evidence that Supports The Bible and Claiming that No Evidence for Anything in The Bible exists.

Good news, you won't have to make a lot of room on the bookshelf for it.

Sadly humans are never truly honest, but we can get close.

What kind of bullshit is this? I've never experienced "supernatural" evidence of anything. If I experienced something, it wouldn't be supernatural.

Commenting because I'm interested to read the replies if anyone ends up giving one. (Also, just wanted to say that it was very refreshing to read such a respectful and intelligent comment, especially for one in disagreement/critique of the video. I love it when I stumble across those rare Internet users who can hold respectful and fruitful dialogue!)

What physical evidence?@@FirstJohn2.12-17

So u concede that there is no physical evidence Jesus?@@FirstJohn2.12-17

Alexander can be proved by contemporary dated monuments and coinage minted in his lifetime. Please stop avoiding the question. Do you have any physical evidence for Jesus? @@FirstJohn2.12-17

There is ample evidence for Alexander. Contemporary dated monuments and coinage. Please stop avoiding the question. What is your physical evidence for your claimed Jesus? @@FirstJohn2.12-17

They never make any comments on the huge disease reservoir that they are, and if they won't do it now, they didn't do it during aids, they never will because they are conformist cowards.

How are those in any way in contradiction with support for homosexuality? Remember, atheists are largely leftists, and they believe in overpopulation. Also in "live and let live", in negative human rights (at least the more classical liberal types). Also that homosexuality is a natural deviation (like left handedness or albinism). Finally, more progressive types believe in "diversity is our strength", which in terms of evolution is actually true (to a point). Diverse genes makes a population more resiliant to viruses, and diverse phenotypes makes a population more resiliant to chaning environmental conditions (ex long fur genes in a tropical species becomes advantageous if an ice age occurs) Personally, I think male homosexuality is a byproduct of genes meant to encourage promiscuity in women ("I like men" genes). Doesnt take a genious to see why that gene would continue to survive despite the number of men who carry it.

"Well I went from being an atheist to being agnostic" You can be both, of course. Do you believe in God? Yes, or no? (I am asking about your beliefs, not your knowledge.) "I just found it too repulsive how atheistic doublestandard or moral cherrypicking was affecting any outcome in society and that is the proof i needed about religion" That, of course, would not be proof of religion. Learn some elementary logic, please.

@@cygnusustus Since he calls himself an agnostic, perhaps what he meant by "the proof he needed about religion" was not so much that it was mostly or entirely true or worthy but that there was some merit or wisdom in it ro reconsider being an atheist. Learn some context clues, please. Like any ideology, including Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Fascism or atheism, there is a sliding scale of true and false, moral or immoral and from the context clues of his post, this seems to be what he's implying. Furthermore, condescendingly telling someone to learn elementary logic is itself illogical. Arrogance and insults, whether petty and passive-aggressive like yours or overt and brash, has never won any converts to one's arguments or ideology. A logical person would understand that. But hey, you at least got to feel smarter and morally superior despite proving the opposite, so that's what matters right?

@@Kaiser-gt4rr Then that is literally shifting the burden of proof, since atheism is not the positive assertion. The only merit or wisdom required for atheism is the lack of merit or wisdom for theism. Learn some critical thinking skills, please.| "Furthermore, condescendingly telling someone to learn elementary logic is itself illogical." Uhm...no it's not, child. There is nothing illogical about telling someone to learn elementary logic. It entails no logical contradictions. Learn some elementary logic. "you at least got to feel smarter and morally superior" That's a low bar with Christians. It's not going onto my resume'.

You No True Scotsman fallacy is recognized, and dismissed.

@@cygnusustus This is a response.

@@l.m.892 This is a response too. A poor one, but equal to yours.

@@cygnusustus The equation was seen initially with my response. Yours is a repetition of my response. Cute, but meaningless, or as you say, poor. It is not a fallacy that humans do hide their true intentions. It is not a fallacy that organizations are infiltrated in order to bring them down. The examples are numerous.

@@l.m.892 You invoked a fallacious argument. I pointed this out. Done.

Stop this.

@@billyhw5492 Third! (You are 2nd Billy...congrats!)

@@billyhw5492 you want people to stop engaging with the comment section and therefore lessen the impact that this video has on the KZfaq algorithm all because you are too immature to simple ignore a bit of text on a screen? Stop being a troublemaker and let people have some fun.

🥇

@@alecfoster5542 🥉

You can think freely and come to the same conclusion as the next person, you do know that, yes?

@@random6809 But that's not what atheists mean by "free-thinking." They mean that they "are not indoctrinated into a belief system" or "are not brought to believe a certain way mindlessly." But this cannot be the case in Atheistic Materialism, where every single thought and belief and conclusion is due to cultural influence interacting with genetic predisposition to the point of a Determined state. Atheists, according to their system, are not able to be free-thinkers under a Materialistic framework... You know that, yes?

#fedora

@@random6809 how do atheists tend to line up politically? Is there a trend?

@@mike-cc3dd Not one that I know of.

Lol yeah people resort to dumb strawmans and false dichotomies all the time. It's not that they have to be "better," they just have to be consistant and honest and give things a chance, not assume anything Christian is "probably fake." Stop assuming you're the default way of the world, y'know? Personally I'm leaning towards Christian because it's really hard to ignore how long the history of the Catholics goes back for. Leads directly back to the time of the Disciples and their followers. They professed the same things there that Catholics still do today. The bread being Jesus' body, placing more of an importance on Virgin Mary, the structure of Bishops, etc.

@@RacingSnails64 You do realize that being inconsistent and dishonest is that the very heart at sh*tty arguments, right? Look it up, it is called cognitive dissonance.

No. The point here is that atheist are bad at arguing. He's not blaming it on atheists. He openly admits that this is a blunder of ALL humans, in spite of whatever demographic they come from. We should all strive to be better!

As an agnostic myself, I must say most people, including most atheists, make sh***y arguments, especially antitheists. The raw hatred of religion that antitheist atheists make are as sh***y and illogical as having hatred towards secular ideologies like leftism, conservatism, liberalism or libertarianism. No ideology is completely true or completely false, so some faith is needed. It's just a part of human history, psychology and existence as any other aspect of culture is. Every argument antitheists make can be directed at all political ideologies, often to an even greater degree, yet they not only don't focus any ire on them but often, though not always, belong to a political ideology, which is itself a secular religion.

Just want to point out : The Galileo affair is a lot more nuanced than that and there is a black legend surrounding the Inquisition. It was actually very just and impartial. Plus i feel you misunderstood his point about the Bible. He didn't say you should believe Jesus is God, he said that a lot of atheists reject everything in the Bible solely because it's in the Bible, even mundane historical facts. He didn't say that the Bible has errors, he said that a lot of atheists think that the Bible contains errors, and therefore reject the entire Bible and everything that's written in it as untrue, even mundane historical facts. He's speaking of the Bible as a set of historical documents

*i can accept that a fellow named Yeshua …* I’m not sure where you think you and Trent are disagreeing. Seems to me you’re making the same point. *…doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. … I say God's actions are evil, not Evil.* At this point every other complaint you raise, from the Inquisition to Galileo, is just a complaint that you personal subjective opinions have been offended. But while that tells us something about your personal opinions, it has nothing to say to religion.

4./ Have you ever heard of Marxism? It says you must destroy the capitalist by violent revolution, and you can see how it works in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Cuba.

Pure average internet atheist nonsense. Points 2, 3, 4, and 5 are horribly wrong and hypocritical.

Like you even have the guts to attack Islam. What a joke.

@North Korea Is Second Best Korea I'm talking about _personal_ moral absolutes; acts which you personally feel have NO excuse.

@@maxdoubt5219 A personal moral absolute is just subjective morality, and it may change with time...

What You said is Absurd and shows You didn;t even Listen to Him.

I have two questions. 1.) What genre you think the Gospels fall in? 2.) Have you read any works from Tacitus personally I was just curious after reading your thread. Anyways thanks man

@@XooxyBoo 1) The Bible is part drama, horror, parable, poetry, disaster, pornography... It's a little bit of everything. There is even some non-fiction in there too. But if I had to choose just one genre, it would be religious. 2) I have formally studied Tacitus, but not for a long, long time.

@@NeoDemocedes yeah but specifically the gospels what genre you think it falls in? And what did you learn about Tacitus

There's no anonymity here darling

The fact that you say magic Miracles, and deities are in it so its Ridiculous to see it as History is You saying Magic, Miracles, and Deities don't Exist. So what Evidence do you have that They don't Exist? or Will you Lie and say You made no Claims and hide Behind Defining Atheism as a lack of belief in a god as if that somehow Magically turns Your Claims into non-Claims? Also, You are a Religious Person. And I am sorry that you were programmed to Think I just said Atheism is a Religion and to repeat the Atheism is not a Religion Lack of belief not collecting Stamps Nonsense bit I did not say Atheism is a Religion and you are an idiot. No I did not Claim to be a Mind Reader. The point is Obvious. you are repeating Dogma. you also claim you have no Dogma. Its not Exactly True though is it.? The Whole Speuil about how The Religious can't be Honest or objective is a Stupid Lie hour Religion preaches to Depict Atheists as Superior. But its not like All Historians and all Scientists are Atheists, and its certainly not true that Atheists are Objective and Rational and logical or that they Follow the Evidence where it leads, or are unbiased. You aren't Objective or Rational and you are not a Critical Thinker.

Utterly false. Atheists contend you don't _need_ a designer for that which can be accomplished by natural processes alone, whether or not it is the case a God actually exists somewhere.

Which atheists in particular?

@@RustyWalker And how stupid that would be to think ALL this… without a designer.

@@r.m5883 Except nothing indicates actual design in the universe rather than the semblance of it due to regular physical processes To say categorically that it is design is question begging.

Atheists are unified in their disbelief of God. Christian are unified in our belief in God. Atheists are unified by other beliefs or they would have no reason to ban other atheists from conferences for disagreeing with them. In the very least, atheists are in no position to criticize Christians for excommunicating other Christians when atheists do this to other atheists

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16

Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19