TRUTH ! ❤

❤

And then they say "please, if we don't get your actual race you could die from this bone marrow transplant".

I like that

Race is not a scientific term. You are part of the human species.

Also. Features too You could have variation among SAME 2 parents

And muscle densities. And skeletal structures. And brain compositions. One kind, many races.

@Nemesistyx- we all came from two people & are one species. U should listen to a lecture on genetics.

​@masada2828 are you insinuating incest????

@@arspsychologia4401 muscle densities?...there's variation of that in ONE RACE Brain and IQ, can be RAISED.. However, a difference, could be how some groups handle sugar it affects people differently

I pray the message touches the lives of millions or maybe even billions 🙏

What level of genetic classification do you believe race is at?

Playing the label game will do you no good; classifications are for the purpose of identification, not mandates concerning human beings, despite what evolutionists assume. ​Evolution is a Victorian era pseudo science based on the racist world view of Charles Darwin. could show fight on natural selection [survival of the fittest, natural selection] having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343. Evolution is not supported by 160 years of phylogeny, it is not supported by 60 years of genetic research, and it is in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. The basic racist tenants of evolution has led to the death of more than 200 million people in the last 100 years. Aside from that, it would merely be a silly belief system. @@arspsychologia4401

@@denvan3143 Labels do mean something though, and family is not species, which means her entire premise is unsupported. The term that doesn't mean anything here is 'racist', and it never did mean anything. I'm a creationist, and I believe every word of the Bible. The term translated as "nation" in English Bibles is the Greek word 'ethnos'. It means both nation and ethnic group, explicitly denying a difference between the two. So what, then, was God doing when He separated the 'nations'? If you want more Biblical clarification, I can give you a quote. You probably won't like it though.

Assuming what I will like or dislike is, I think, somewhat presumptuous on your part. Here’s a quote for you: Galatians 3:28 “There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].​“ And another quote: 2 corinthians 5:16 “So from now on we regard no one from a human point of view [according to worldly standards and values]. Though we have known Christ from a human point of view, now we no longer know Him in this way.” I believe it was CS Lewis, who said that you have never met anyone who is not immortal; they begin at birth, but they continue through eternity, either with God, or without him. In that respect, the spiritual aspect of human beings surmounts all other considerations. In light of that, I have little interest in labels that people apply to other people. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7. @@arspsychologia4401

I will take difference here to your disclaiming that “racist“ means nothing here; racism is both implied, and expressed by Darwin and his writings, starting with the title of his book on evolution: “On the origin of species, by means of natural selection _or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.“_ To remove the possibility of ambiguity, Darwin states, specifically in his book The Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” He reiterates this in an 1881 letter to William Graham. There can be no doubt of what Darwin meant by races, yet I have been told that that’s not what Darwin was talking about, that he was talking about races of such things as cabbages. Races of civilized, cabbages, races of savage cabbages, despite Darwin, talking about the Caucasians, defeating the Turkish, the upper civilized races, wiping out lower savage races. Evolution is a Victorian era pseudoscience based on the racist worldview of Charles Darwin and his peers. Attempts to portray him, otherwise are revisionist and desperate. ​​⁠@@arspsychologia4401

Haha I like your username. The more and more I learn about "MO", the more I realize he must have been a literal lunatic.

There are unicorns in the bible everywhere. Why? Unicorns dont exist

🗨 MO 51 🗨 The Pharisees knew their Scripture well. Does it mean they were right? Why didn't Apostle Paul write: 1) there's neither Jew nor Canaanite? 2) there's neither Jew, nor Greek nor Canaanite? Why did he instead write there's neither Jew nor Greek? Which one is left out of the equation, MO51?

Sure, how good you know your beautiful Bible again? Massacres of entire populations or nations: Stories like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) or divine commands for warfare in books like Joshua, where entire populations are wiped out, have been criticized for their extreme violence. Old Testament laws: Some passages, particularly in Leviticus, prescribe laws and punishments that seem very harsh and archaic, including the death penalty for certain offenses. Treatment of women: Some verses in the Old Testament have been criticized for how they treat women, at times relegating them to subordinate roles or considering them as property, in contrast to modern gender equality norms. Justification of slavery: Passages that seem to justify or regulate slavery have been used in the past to defend the practice, though modern ethical understanding strongly rejects slavery. Violence or divine punishments: Some Old Testament stories depict violent acts, divine punishments such as the Flood (Genesis 6-9), or narratives where actions considered extremely cruel today are attributed to God.

@@Gary-fq8cx The definition of "Unicorn" that we use today, didn't exist when the Bible was translated into English. The word "Unicorn" simply meant a one-horned animal. A simple google search will even tell you that.

Ignore reality all you want, subsaharan africans will never be able to compete on a mental playing field, sort of like most races cant compete with them on a 100 yard dash. We are not the same, people who believe that are utterly ignorant of the data and the research. It is exactly because of people like you that we have all these problems, if all of us faced reality we could come up with actual solutions that everyone agrees with. Obviously when I am talking about this I am talking about averages of course the smartest person of all time can be black and the fastest white but averages are averages

Then you should have been fired on the spot.

Yea, you should have been fired on the spot, for spreading things that are not approved by the school. This is bad behavior.

When did the ideas of Races, Species and Ethnicity become popular?

@@jonasg.bisgaard1086 I think its bad no matter what, be it supposedly good or bad, I send my kid to school to learn numbers and reading not morality

Your "Lore" is right

@@bipslone8880 another small person harping on misspellings. 😄

@@denvan3143 I don't think it was a misspelling. Praise the LORE..... Christianity is a myth

@@bipslone8880 christianity is not a myth; I have seen it myself. You should be more careful when chatting others for misspellings and with your use of semantics. I could perhaps, circulate a myth President John F Kennedy had resurrected from the dead three days after he was assassinated. But a multitude of Contemporary’s could, and would dispel such a myth. All that was necessary for the religious leaders to disprove. The divine nature of Jesus Christ would have been to produce the dead body from the tomb. Those religious authorities requested and got a security detail from the Roman army, by permission from the military commander in Jerusalem, Pontius pilot. The security detail of Roman personnel secured the area. They reported back to the religious authority is that on the morning of the third day there was an earthquake, the stone rolled away from the tomb, and it being brighter than the light of the sun stood on top of the tomb. The Roman soldiers, and a tactical move, fell to the ground as dead, and subsequently reported back to the religious leaders. That body would’ve been there ace in the hole to destroy Christianity before it began. But they did not have the body, they had taken those security measures because they remembered that Jesus Christ said he would rise from the dead on the third day. The Roman soldiers were bribed to say that they had fallen asleep, which would’ve incurred the death penalty and gave them assurance. They would keep them safe, if their testimony got to the years of the military commander. Jesus was seen after his resurrection by numerous individuals, and at one point by more than 400 people at one time. Christianity spread in the ancient world not because it was a nifty new theology but because of the message of forgiveness of sin, rather than working, one is way out of sin, and the promise of God, revealing himself to the individual. I have taken gotten his word, he has reveal himself to me and Jesus Christ. And you have not. You have insufficient data to conclude. This is a myth, only opinion based on prejudice, and perhaps your own received tradition. For myself, I grew up as an agnostic, with no idea of whether or not there was a God. I subsequently took him out his word, he took me at my word, and I have an experience beyond yours. But it is not exclusive; if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart, God raised him from the dead you will be saved. Salvation means, deliverance, healing, prospering, a number of great benefits. Take some time out from gainsaying everything you hear, consider the possibility, consider the reality of Jesus Christ.

*human species.

@@Alien1375 Darwin spok not of human species, but of human races. Charles Darwin: "I could show fight on natural selection [survival of the fittest, natural selection] having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343. And the title of Darwin’s book on evolution is “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or _the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”_ Christianity makes no distinction of race or color (Galatians 3:28).

@@denvan3143 That's science. It develops. Unlike Christianity. Which stagnates.

@Alien1375 You didn't prove that, at best you can say "all humans are part of mankind". You proved family, not species.

@@Alien1375 men of the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday were foundational to modern science; they looked for laws of nature, because they understood God is the law maker, that as God made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic, he made physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic. That is the reason we called him “laws of nature” and “laws of science. Christianity, far from being stagnant, has been the fertile soil, and which inventions and innovations have occurred since the 16th century and the scientific progress made by the above mentioned scientist who were Christians. Men who were Christians, who enriched culture in civilization include the following: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947) Perhaps it is your own perspective that is stagnant.

What Truth she is just making stuff up.

@@user-uw4bl6ru8v how do you know what's the truth and what's wrong?

Why not see what the Bible says instead of what man is teaching which makes VOID the Word of God.

This is NOT God’s Truth but the Word of man which makes VOID the Word of God. Do you really think that a black man and woman can have a white child? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

@tomjackson3411 I know what the Bible says. She does not know what she is talking about.

How do you account for different bone structures, intellects, and muscle densities? Those things differ by race too, it's not just the color.

@@arspsychologia4401 Due to climate and food and culture. Like how flip over a black individuals hands and feet over and they're white, the least exposed areas to sun. Exposure to certain foods over centuries too changes bodies. Exposure to ocean winds, closeness to the equator. It all affects people over generations.

@@Gandoan I meant "how do you account for that under a one race model". I know that speciation occurs.

​@@arspsychologia4401intellect? Which race is smarter? Asians, blacks, whites? There's different I.Q. levels in every race. Just because some tended towards more technological advancement doesn't make them smarter. You should look up what are the 9 intelligences. This is why evolution is so destructive. You're going to say you didn't mean it like that, but you did.

​@@arspsychologia4401noting there's cultural differences, not racial. If a black person is raised by white people they'll behave more culturally white and vice-versa. Whites and Asians do better in school because their culture teaches their kids since pre-kindergarten and others don't care. There's book smart and street smart. All kinds of smart. If different races practice the same thing since birth they'll probably get the same result. It's a cultural intellectual issue, not a racial intellectual one.

*_God Bless_*

'All glory, honor, praise and power belongs to God.' And, Jesus is not God.

The Bible disagrees with you: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" John 1:14. Clearly, Jesus is the Word being spoken of here as He is the one who became flesh. He is clearly identified as God in verse 1 being with the Father and being Himself identified as God. Moreover, Jesus created everything with God the Father and without Him was not even one thing made that has been made (i.e. Jesus is not created) John 1:3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Colossians 1:15-17: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." The word "Firstborn" here meaning not the first created thing as previously shown in John 1:3 and in the Colossians' passage, since it says all things were created by Jesus, but rather the word "Firstborn" means the preeminent one over all of creation.

@@markuse3472 Jesus stated he is God numerous times. John 14:9 “Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time, and you do not know Me yet, Philip, nor recognize clearly who I am? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?'” John 1:1 “In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.” 2 Corinthians 5:19 M”that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people's sins against them [but canceling them]. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation [that is, restoration to favor with God].” Jesus is God and the reason he was born as a human being, and it was a creation was to die on the cross, and be resurrected for our salvation - and yours, if you except the free gift of salvation.

Amen

Those are all one species, they are domestic chickens - _gallus domesticus_ . They're breeds.

Each breed has different temperaments, hot/cold tolerances, physical attributes and egg colors. All hens, yes but different breeds. Each brings something different to the world.

@@thecrimsonraven707 But still one single species.

Breed is another word for phenotype. It is a product of selective breeding for similar physical characteristics, i.e., phenotypical characteristics. There are many breeds of dogs, but there is only one family type: canine. ​@@thecrimsonraven707

Breeds. We call them breeds.

@@msquiggle3590 yes, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with why we call different "breeds" of humans, races. That's why i didn't mention breeds. It's irrelevant to this point of the topic

@@ShopharTemple Race is a social construct. It's real, but it's not based on anything really objective it's all social.

@@msquiggle3590 yes, i understand that. That's what I'm saying.

​@@msquiggle3590well what about different colors, patterns and hair length within a "breed"?

With different bone structure, brain chemistry, etc. One human kind? Sure. One human race? Nah.

​@@arspsychologia4401some races are intelligent and peaceful..others are violent and stay the same

@@EternalEmperorofZakuul We all have our share of passions and struggles, the different races tend to have different shares of each. We must all strive to be better, and saints can come from any race.

You’re describing phenotypical differences as being different human species; that is incorrect. A DNA sample from any human being will identify it as being human.​@@arspsychologia4401

*_God Bless_* how easy the Truth indeed really is.

Amen

The bible has unicorns running around everywhere. How do mythological magical creatures answer the important things in life??? 🤔

So if a couple find out their unborn baby is diagnosed with down's syndrome, what page should they turn? Or if a man has a growing tumor in his spine, what chapter should he turn to

Prayer is the answer to both. God healed a lump in my breast and I couldn't even lay on my stomach before he healed me and now I can. As for the couple who finds out their baby is diagnosed with down syndrome, prayer. Prayer changes things. There was a preacher man who testified about how the doctor told his mother he had down syndrome before birth and birth defects that would keep him from walking and he'd not live long. The doc offered his mom abortion. His mom decided to trust God and two men who were good friends and brothers in Christ got down on their knees in the barn and one of the men was the father of the unborn preacher man and those two men cried out to God and asked God to heal the baby and they trusted. That child was born totally normal! I know God is real because I literally died and went to be with him. But God sent me back to continue to be my oldest daughters mother or she would have had no one. God's real and he loves you and me and everyone living and unborn living.

Humans create humans.

Yes, we are all one big family just as God made us. 🥰

A god doesnt create babies and neither do storks. Humans create human babies. Biology 101. 😮

​@@Gary-fq8cxThis person was referencing the scripture which says, God speaking here says, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.

@@Gary-fq8cx God created the biological instructions in DNA, the code in all living things, including babies. There is no code without a coder.

@@denvan3143 That's a strange statement that I'm sure you cant back up with any facts. Those that discovered DNA as nd those that work in the particular field we are talking about (genetosism) completely disagree with you? Why is that? They all show proof that DNA is naturally created in all living organisms from animal to plant life to fungi ect. Point to me the evidence not that a god made DNA but your particular god did it.

Does anyone know the name of this great Lady?

Do you mean Avery Foley? - Mod

@@answersingenesis The Presenter, please. Is that her name?

​@@NedumEzeAmanda Huggenkiss

@@--..-...-..-.--.... Wherever the Video is shared or used, her name should be associated with it always. Thanks

The majority of our species can talk. 🤔

I'm also canadian and I'm not very proud that we have people that believe in Genesis here. She is a sophist full of confirmation bias. Science exit the chart.

@@alexandrevaliquette3883 Well. I guess you have a right to your own belief. It unfortunately isn't the truth.

@@sherylcoetzer1Well, you just cannot prove me wrong. However, you can prove that God do exist quite easily: just have God doing a REAL miracle that is impossible to mislead with any natural/regular explanation. If I was God (from any of the thousand religions), I would come in front of everybody glowing with RGB light, talking in your language. Or I would present a book made of unknown material that just cannot be destroyed and levitate, etc. Nope, no God from ANY religion never did that in the last millenium. Isn't strange? All the religion, including the polytheist and animists are very low profile. The almost look like they are not even there!

Genesis states God created the heavens in the Earth; the expansion of the universe proves it had a beginning: science catches up with the Bible. Genesis states the waters were gathered into one place in the dry land appeared; geologist have determined there was once one giant ocean, and one giant continent: science catches up with the Bible The Bible states that corruption added the world through sin, and with it death; entropy states complex systems degenerate into chaos: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states, God stretch out the heavens like a garment; astronomical observations confirm the universe is expanding: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states, they heavens, and the Earth are wearing out like a garment; entropy, the second law of thermodynamics states high energy levels are decreasing to low energy levels, and, again, the complex decays into chaos: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states, the Earth hangs suspended in space on nothing; astronomical observations, confirm that: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states that as sin and the world, and with it death; the fossil record shows more than 90% of all living things have become extinct: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states that Jesus uphold’s creation and buy him all things, consist and hold together; fine-tuning of the universe, the laws of physics, being exactly as they are for life to be possible, is evidence of the supreme creator: science catches up with the Bible. The Bible states, the mountains were thrust up, the valleys were Caslow; plate, tectonics, demonstrates strike, zones, produce mountains, subduction, zones, produce, rifts, and valleys: science catches up with the Bible. It’s too bad you don’t believe in genesis; evidently you don’t believe in science.​@@alexandrevaliquette3883

If you dont know as anything about science these guys are great huh?

I see you have a bot following you. L0l. Science worship while totally ignoring their own con - science ( with knowledge ).

@@beegs771 what is con-science?!? 😂😂 you not only cant spell but you tried to change the definition also. You have no clue as to what your trying to convey. You are simply making stuff up.

@@Gary-fq8cx l0l now you're an English teacher.

@@beegs771 For our purposes here? Yes I'm your english teacher. 😀 Its spelled conscious. But if you spell it correctly you cant misuse the word for for goofy religious purposes. What you layed out doesnt spell anything. Definitely doesn't mean anything. But that doesn't matter to you. 🤕 You make my head hurt because you don't know anything about actual science.

Indeed. Many people need to learn the truth.

Unfortunately if you read the comments it’s not easy enough for some hard heads

What?

It may be her ministry but it is NOT God’s ministry.

@@tomjackson3411 how do you know it’s not God’s ministry?

answersingenesis.org/racism/one-blood/

its the same as color, bone shape is also inherited. Same system, different trait.

And the apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:28 “There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].”

Acts 2:38, 1st Peter 3:20,21.

I get lots of answers ? This confuses me how asleep everyone is here. Shut off the TV

Nay, it is NOT Biblical.

There are no races. Only the human species.

Why don’t you study your Bible and find out the Truth. It is an abomination to God to lay with the beast of the field. Do you know who the beast of the field is? I know you don’t. Have you ever read Ezra? You should. Noah was perfect in his generation. Do you know what that means? It means that he had not mixed with the six day creation. Do you know the reason for Noah’s flood? Apparently not. Because they had mixed with the six day creation and the fallen angels. You are listening to man which makes VOID the Word of God.

If you have social media, you can share the link on it. 😊

@@razark9 No comparison Galileo didn't make outrages claims that lead to fantasy science curriculum. So what's your point

Fun fact, we’ve learned a LOT since Darwin. There are a lot of instances of Darwin being wrong. That doesn’t mean his theories were all bogus. It just means we understand them better now that science has improved.

@@Entomology314 Darwin was wrong. His theory of origin of species was based on fossil evidence not yet found, but which he promised, would be discovered: he essentially wrote a post, dated check; payment has come due, and his bank account is empty. 160 years of phylogeny, of the study of family groups of fossils has failed to produce even one example of the origin of species, not for plant, animal, or human beings. 60 years of genetic research has shown what Darwin could not have known, that the smallest units of living creatures is not an undifferentiated protoplasm, a sort of animated jelly, but a complex structure that rivals the complexity of the infrastructure of a city. Genetic research further shows the opposite of evolution: the human genome has been found to be decaying at a rate of between 1% and 2% per generation. By some estimates, the human race will be extinct in 6000 years. The opposite of evolution is supported by three things: the Bible relates that as sin entered the world, so did corruption and death; this is supported by the second law of thermodynamics: the energy of the universe is proceeding from a higher level to a low level, that is equal distribution of energy, and that the complex is degenerating into chaos. The third form of evidence is the fossil record: lifeforms appear suddenly in the fossil record, which supports creation, and most of those lifeforms also become extinct. This is partly due to predation, cataclysmic changes in cloyment, but also in genetic decay. Darwin was not unique in describing descent with modification; that have been understood for centuries, prior and breeders exploited this in order to produce phenotypes and domestic animals, such as sheep that have more wool. His study of the Galapagos finches did not ultimately display evolution, but rather a cyclic variation: the birds he saw to have bigger beaks over generations on one island or smaller, beaks over generations in other islands, or curved beaks over generations. In yet other islands have been found with subsequent observation into the 1970s and 1980s to reverse: The finches with larger beaks develops, smaller beaks over generations, the ones on other islands with smaller beaks developed larger beaks, and the finches with curved beaks over generations developed because they were less curved. Evolution, but simply cycles of variation over generations; the beaks conformed to a baseline of size and shape with small changes overtime which returned to the base line, and did not substantiate the case for speciation. Darwins tree of life was in doubt, even in his time, as he wrote himself in chapter 9 of his book on evolution. We do not see simple, lifeforms, followed by complex lifeforms, the fossil record shows not a tree of life, but the Cambrian explosion, and also additional explosions, like the appearance of birds, flying insects, Flowering plants, etc. all with no evidence of ancestral forms, none exhibiting attributes of having developed from some other life form. The science of mathematics dooms the notion of genetic variation that would result in a new life form. The formation of even one single protein of no more than 150 amino acids that will happen by accident, that would be capable of folding to perform as a functional protein is one in 10 to the 77th power against period by comparison nearest estimated the number of atoms in the universe is 10 to the 64th power. Genetic mutation and subsequent natural selection of genetic mutation is simply not sufficient to produce new life forms. Darwins dead, so is his theory.

@@Entomology314then I guess science is ever really “settled” (unless we’re taking gravity)

@@AD-eb7ft No science is ever settled. Not even gravity. The laws of gravity drafted by Newton and Galileo were expanded upon by Einstein. And they continue to be expanded upon today. That’s the beauty of science: it’s always improving upon itself.

It's because we are all part of mankind, but not the same race. It's ok to say so.

“Mankind” is a synonym for human race. You’ve changed nothing by using different words.​@@arspsychologia4401

How can one tell the difference between a literal account and a non literal account? What information is hard to imply if you dont read it slow? What speed should I read it at to get an implication? Explain how Genesis is more spiritually mature than say Leviticus. I dont think you can answer any of these questions and have them make logical sense. You are just making stuff up to try to sound smart. 😤

@@Gary-fq8cx Did you read any of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

@@dragvarrenegade9363 😀 I have read the entire bible front to back 3 times. I know its contents better than most Christians do. Most of you have never read the whole book. You read your favorite verses and highlight them in pink. Why would you ask me a question without answering not one of my many questions?

@@Gary-fq8cx Its super detailed so its hard to simply just tackle within the limitations of a comment, I never said it was non literal by the way, inferred information and parabolic information is very evident in things like how the fruit of Adam and Eve is both a fruit and an action, inferred things like how sin is inherited through man (Adam) instead of the woman (Eve) because if you read it carefully it elaborates specifically on HOW they were cursed on account of taking the fruit. When Adam and Eve took the fruit it wasn't until Adam ate the fruit after eve that they both were cursed and saw their nakedness in shame. Little small details like that gives a deeper understanding as to the big picture when Jesus comes into the world, just like life was breathed into Adam it can be inferred that it was through the Spirit of God just like the Holy Spirit birthed Jesus in Mary's womb, it also enlightens us as to how Jesus is literally the second Adam. Things like these I think are really complex in terms of their interconnectivity throughout the scripture if you read it without someone pointing it out for you. This is just one of many things in there like how exactly marriage works and the context of its temporality here on earth being in line with the allegory of the bride of Christ being something temporally localized within this timeline due to the way it is eliminated in eternity (We become like the Sons of God, the angels, neither married nor given in marriage) which attests to the necessity of marriage due to sin, but God's strength being shown in our weaknesses, for it is better to be married than to burn with passion for one another, there is so much more that goes into it but Genesis has such an interwoven complexity throughout the bible its hard to dismiss it as something not spiritually mature to read.

@@Gary-fq8cx There is a great channel that also helps with the complexity of Genesis and literally accounting it, iirc it was called answers in Genesis

The philosophy of evolution, which is presented as “Science“ is a philosophical/intellectual barrier; if things evolved, they were not created, therefore, there is no creator. This artificial barrier has to be removed to allow people to free choice to believe in God is your Savior or not. Most people who are not Christians, understand the message of the gospel, they don’t believe it, because the “science” of evolution tells them God is a myth. The boondoggle of race is only one aspect of the evolution narrative.

Regardless, racism as we understand it today is racism as it was understood in Darwin’s time. Charles Darwin: "I could show fight on natural selection [survival of the fittest, natural selection] having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343. Thomas Huxley, Darwin‘s peer and publisher: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average [dark-skinned African] is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites." Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, Appleton, 1871), p. 20. "Ab initio (from the beginning), Afro-Americans were viewed by these intellectuals as being in certain ways unredeemably, unchangeably, irrevocably inferior." Sidney W. Mintz: American Scientist, Vol. 60, May - June 1972, p. 387. "After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior-he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton." John C. Burnham, Science, Vol. 175, February 4, 1972, p. 506. Charles, Darwin and his colleagues were racist in the modern sense; this is not revisionist history, this is history as it is.

@@razark9 such a stereotypical, left wing response/attack. I don't have to guess how you vote in November. 😴😴😴😴

@@razark9 let me guess. You believe there are hundreds of genders as well?

@@razark9 just as I thought. You're a left wing looney tunes. What you view as "oppression" is nothing more than keeping them away from our kids but seeing as you probably have an unnatural "like" for kids, I'm sure that doesn't matter to you. Your "diversity" means kids being abused and mistreated but hey. You be you, right?

@@razark9 if anything, you guys are the western Taliban. We'll see how the vote goes but in the end, we win, so it doesn't really matter. Enjoy any short lived victories you may gain. You can't beat God. You'll never be able to beat what is unbeatable. 😉

No it’s not. A real history teacher teaches things that are wildly considered fact, that can be proven in many different ways and show where it comes from, not this as it’s a false bias. Assuming gods word is true without any evidence to back it up. Leading to many inaccuracies in her speech.

Evolution says we are all related as well. Every creature alive on earth can trace its ancestry to the same single cell.