Couldn't have said it better. I think most Christians should watch breaking bad( if they're mature enough to handle it, that is), it's both supremely entertaining and has a powerful message.

@@grubblewubbles And t1tties in the first episode =)

@@verbose9062 😨

Why is Breaking Bad being promoted on a Catholic channel? Is the grillywubsubler089 a Satanist? More importantly though, why is Trent encouraging people to visit Inspiring Philosophy's channel? Not only is he not Catholic but he actively encourages people to tell lies and be dishonest then says it's a Christian thing to do.

@@extract8058 Where does IP tell people to lie and be dishonest?

Why is Trent encouraging people to visit Inspiring Philosophy a channel that says it's OK to tell lies ?

@@extract8058 So your argument is that if you agree with one thing a person says, then you have to agree with everything that person might say? Thomas Aquinas agreed with Aristotle's philosophy, yet Aristotle was a pagan, does that mean St. Thomas was a pagan?

@@Michael-bk5nz strawman fallacy. Please learn logic

@@Michael-bk5nz It's OK for people to not agree on every topic. The reason for my comment is that I want people to be aware that Inspiring Philosophy is encouraging sinful behavior and dishonesty; also, I genuinely want to know why Trent would tell people to visit a channel that promotes such immoral doctrines.

@@Michael-bk5nz is it possible for you engage with me more charitably without such aggressive vitriol ?

Brilliant analogy! The next time I am arguing with an atheist who refuses to acknowledge the difference between prescriptive and descriptive narration, I am going to use that example 'how could Stephen Spielberg, himself a Jew, direct such a pro-Nazi movie like Schindler's LIst?" If they don't get the point with that sarcastic example, they are simply beyond reasons.

Exactly, Judges documents a dark age in Israel.

Remember a passage that appears in Judges at least twice, including right at the end that is in my view put there as a cue on how to interpret that book: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did was right in his own eyes." Given that God was supposed to be their king, the verse means not even God was allowed to be their king then. ....yikes!!! (And by the way, Jephthah was a pinhead.)

Israel had mostly went in cycles. God gives the people His blessings. The people in time not having adversities move away from God and do evil things. God sends a holy man to tell them to repent. They refuse and a tragedy comes upon them: either enslavement or famine or disease. Then the people repents God forgives them and gives them the blessings. This keeps happening until the time of Christ. That is Iesus tells them the parable of the vineyard workers and laments them saying Ierusalem Ieruusalem how many times I wanted to gather you like a hen under its wings and you did not want to. Also which prophets did your parents did not kill?

My mother warned me that some people read the Bible like the Devil would.

Sounds like protestants 😂

@@randomguy1453 makes sense because modern western atheism was born out of English Protestantism

​@@carsonianthegreat4672Except that it was actually born out of the skepticism based arguments of the counter reformers.

​@@randomguy1453no

@@EmberBright2077 but that's what protestants do, I would know, I used to be one! Lol

Love your intentional cock up, swapping the places of the N and P on nobody's perfect. I expect you've been getting comedy lessons from your lovely wife. God Bless, ps greetings from England

Be nerfect as your Heavenly Father is nerfect.

Did you just have a stroke, Trent?

You should pin this comment to the top.

In miss carry part in Tagalog the woman will gain pain not the baby. Because there is no baby yet but a body part. Bahay Bata Hindi child.

For the longest time, I wrestled with the idea that humanity was getting better morally over time. I'm pretty sure that is an American bias.

And also God is showing are judgments on each other are always not just.and it shows how are own bias to judgment will not be just as God's because of are own bias.

@@TheTenCentStoryDefinitely a Western World/ Anglo-Sphere post-Enlightenment bias

they nitpick the bible because they are acting in bad faith. They want a gotcha, not an actual intellectual debate.

Critics have a confirmation bias problem 😊

I was aware of the interpretation before ever reading the passage so the well was already poisoned.

It only can be interpreted that way if you read the NIV, which you shouldn't be doing anyway because its the NIV.

@@DorperSystems lol, good point

The only way one can possibly interpret it in such a way is that if the wife committed adultery, got impregnated, then slept with her husband to hide the fact. But it doesn't really make sense considering that the reward for innocence is fertility.

What's interesting is that this is the reoccurring theme essentially for the entire Old Testament. The entirety Hebrew Bible is the story Jews, who are favored by God but continuously disobey him despite being given multiple chances to correct themselves. Until the very end where God splits and then destroys the kingdoms. The OT is a work of humility, not boastfulness.

"Intelligent" Atheists cant tell the difference from descriptive and prescriptive texts. Really guys?

And on top of that it's linguistically situated. I read the Bible in Italian and I recently started reading Judges. Chapter 1 Verse 19 in Italian is: "Il Signore protesse invece Giuda nella conquista della zona montuosa: Giuda non riuscì a vincere gli abitanti della pianura, perché essi avevano carri di ferro". A rough translation is: "Instead, the Lord protected Judas during the conquest of the mountains: Judas could not defeat the inhabitants of the plains, because they were equipped with iron chariots". It's just a matter of wording.

😊You’ll find a striking degree of Biblical illiteracy among many atheists.

This is, at least in my understanding, an instance of malicious and intentional falsehood, this what irritates me to high Heaven.

@@ZTAudio This is because many atheists are former fundamentalists, thus they never really learned how to read the Bible, and they apply the same out-of-context verse slinging knight's jump exegesis they learned in their life as a fundamentalist

perhaps Dan Barker is deliberately misreading, he probably is a hypocrite and a liar, turncoat atheists and atheists in general are all morally low and two-faced in my experience

GTO is being, promoting, and rewarding evil behavior.... Judges is showing evil and the consequences of those actions, when you follow your selfish desires over established morality. You may want to learn discernment and lose the hubris.

(I'm presuming you're not being sarcastic.) GTA is most definitely evil! You murder, rob, plunder, and go to strip clubs to abuse naked ladies. I'm 19 and played GTA a handful of times back before I became Christian. Even so, even if the game weren't so explicitly evil and depraved, video games in general, however fun they may be, tend to err on the side of vanity. My recommendation, and dare I say, God's will for you, is to stop entertaining any idea of playing that game. That may come off a bit strong, especially if don't play GTA and were only making a point. But I truly believe and fear that such games are exceptionally worldly and fall into the "lawlessness" Jesus talks about in Matthew 7:23 (NKJV).

@@harrylong575 Oh, I agree that GTA is evil. Just not for the reason I said. I was making a point. But not all video games are vain. What about Five Nights at Freddy’s, Subnautica, or Stardew Valley?

And then the people who read it don't even bother looking it up to make sure it's true. Jesus help us.

yet it is a sin to rashly judge somebody's intention. We are to give everybody the most charitable interpretation we can.

@@csongorarpad4670 it is literally the exact opposite of a rash judgment. When someone is super smart and sophisticated except when the topic turn into a complete blithering idiot, it is not charitable to interpret it as ignorance. Some people are too smart to be so stupid, that is evidence of malice

I think you got that saying backwards. "Never ascribe malice to that which could be more easily be stupidity" Aka, don't assume that someone is evil, assume they're stupid"

@@SuperBossGiovanni not when there is no evidence of stupidity but great evidence of malice. Richard Dawkins has a PhD and is a very good writer, is he stupid or malicious, which seems more likely? Which is why I intentionally reversed it. When someone is a known liar, it is irrational to assume ignorance

Yeah. I have noticed it too. Just because it is in the bible they assume it is endorsed/condoned. I just facepalm myself so hard whenever I hear it.

How do you know what is supposed to be actual instructions, and just "other stuff" in the bible then? For example, Exodus 21 gives clear instructions for how to treat slaves. Not only does it condone slavery, it gives a 101 guide on how to make sure you keep them for life. There is clear rules. Are you saying this is one of those cases where it's actually not condoned? So is this gods word or not? And most importantly, how do you make that distinction, and why cant the book which was supposedly dictated by an omniscient god, make that clear on its own? Because until just a couple decades ago, christians used the bible to justify keeping slaves. Among other things.

@@Yamyatos Hello. TBH, I don't know any believer that finds the Bible to be directly "Dictated by God." Most versed believers hold to a verbal plenary view which holds that God inspired humans to write the Bible. There are clear authors in the Bible, stated within the Bible, so I don't think that view is very viable. Additionally, the authors wrote to a particular audience at a particular time. So the key is to try to understand the author's intent in congruence to their cognitive environment to best understand the text's function. On account of the Torah, understanding it as a functional system that was tentative to Israel (which also were keeping in line with the conventional law systems like the Code of Hammurabi/ divine representation) rather than using it as a modern moral framework for today. I would recommend The Lost World of The Torah by John Walton to understand this way of thinking of it better. If you're seriously curious about knowing which should be used for moral teaching today (which I would highly appreciate), I first recommend looking at the various forms of literature in the Bible. However, as a Christian, I naturally find that Christ's teachings, life, and those that flow from it are of the most fundamental importance. The NT demonstrates that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Torah(law) and that a new covenant is established, which includes non-Jews (like myself) into it, and therefore, in that sense, the NT takes precedence for us believers. (Links to passages supporting this divided by semicolons: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+7%3A1-6&version=NASB; www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=eph+2&version=NASB; www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+3%3A15-29&version=NASB; www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb+8%3A7-13&version=NASB) Additionally, to the slavery points: just because someone uses a text to "justify" something doesn't mean it is actually justified by that text. For instance, It has been shown that slave owners literally took passages out of the Bible to attempt to justify their actions (E.G., "There is no slave or free....for all are one in Christ Jesus," "Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven"). Additionally, even the ones they kept in are misrepresented because "slavery" in the Bible is far more similar to what we know as indentured servitude than it was to chattel slavery 158 years ago. People like Fredrick Douglass argued that the America he lived in that called itself "Christian" was very different from the Christians he knew from scripture, and he was absolutely right. Hope this all helps my friend.

same here. Glory to God

@@YamyatosIts extremely simple. You look for evidence that God either commands something or says what they did was righteous. You also check what passage you’re investigating with what you know about the rest of the scripture. If something happens that contradicts a command of God, then its not good. If you’re still not sure, you can read what church fathers and other theologians have said about the passage to gain more insight.

Atheists who read the Bible do exactly that: they read it for their own pleasures, instead of actually taking time out of their day to ask themselves, "Well, what does that really mean?" Those who say to never question the Bible are lying. Question the Bible, meditate on each verse and each book, because when you ask questions, you will get answers

@@voltekthecyborg7898 , then you have a problem, because every single atheist who "sought to destroy Christianity" that way has ended up its staunchest apologists. All offense to you, y0ou are absolutely full of it. I have little doubt you haven't read a single word of it, nor have you tried.

They either don't know what the context is or just cherry-picked the verse so that their arguments seem like it's justified

@@torresart8513 , exactly.

Agreed, religion is a scam.

I got the same meaning reading the KJV, it's clear regardless of the translator

@@maxx_qyou think “thigh fall away” means to miscarry? Come on.

😂😂 for real

Until a better definition provided: God Proof/Evidence appears as...... The Bible "evidence" of a crime scene Biblical "Events" Proof of God/Christ...!! WISDOM, THE TEST OF ALL THINGS Truth overrides faith, and Wisdom judges both...!!

Everything after the fall that is not in line with God's commands is immoral. It's as though some atheists and skeptics are reading the bible with half a braincell. Remember when lots daughters r*$#@ him in order to have children? That's immoral. Remember when Noah got drunk and passed out some time after the flood? Remember when Abraham had had a child with another woman because Sarah was barren? Those were all immoral actions, not condoned in the bible. Drunkenness is a sin, so is adultery, so is $&@&, and id argue incest too. Those stories are there to show the nature of man, how man behaves when going by his own reasoning, and what we end up doing either when we think we are right, or when we are weak. God keeps his promises, even though we sin and want our own way. Not every single story in the bible is meant to be approval for whatever is going on. You have to read a little deeper.

How do you no they aren't warnings?

Yea when you talk to atheists. You talk mostly to fools

It apparently does condone Lots actions of giving his daughters over to a mob though.

Honest question, but how do you "explore atheism"? Atheism is nothing other than the rejection of a positive claim. People usually reach that conclusion upon researching their own religion in an intellectually honest way. Atheism is nothing else. Everything else is something else. We dont have holy scriptures, dogmas or anything like that.

​@Yamyatos simply a rejection of deity is not atheism, clearly you don't know the history of modern day atheism, I'll give you a clue, it happen in france.

@@ungas024 I dont care about what you think atheism is. You are wrong. Atheism itself is simply the rejection of the claim that a god / gods exist. That's it. Everything else is something else. You will find atheists that do claim that there is no god. That is a subset of atheists, for example, but does not apply to all atheists. It is thus something else (sometimes called strong atheism, or gnostic atheism). The prefix-a is a negation. A theist is a person who beliefs a god exists. An atheist is a person who does not believe a god eixsts. It's really not rocket science. "New atheism" which you may refer to is something else yet again. It is a subset too, but does not apply to all atheists. If you claim it does, i will hence forth argue that all christians are catholics - oh and since some of those are so well known for molesting children, i guess christians are all pedophiles too. Truly a logical conclusion.

It's interesting that the "Iron Chariots" atheist website, which is relatively sophisticated in itself, got its title from what is most likely such a silly misreading.

@@trismegistus2881 One suspects it was a toss-up between that and “Bearded Dude Living on a Cloud.”

Can anyone here explain why Trent encourages people to visit the Inspiring Philosophy channel which is made by someone who not only is not Catholic, but also encourages people to tell lies and says that lying is a Christian thing to do?

@@extract8058 Enough of this silly argument that you are posting in every thread

@@Michael-bk5nz Do you understand that questions end in question marks? Please learn the difference between questions and arguments.

When the God of biblical narratives allegedly destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah killing EVERYONE for being "immoral" ( including babies & children ) he spared Lot and his daughters. He discribed him as a "Righteous & Good man" But an omniscient god would know IN ADVANCE that Lot would immediately proceed to have intimate relations with HIS OWN DAUGHTERS 🤮🤮 not once but 2 nights running !!!! Are these the kind of morals we should aspire to ?? Do these people deserve to be called "RIGHTEOUS" and be spared when children are slaughtered for being "immoral" ?? Just what was their punishment from god for this act ? Fireballs from the skies ?? Turned to a pillar of salt ?? No, perhaps stoning to death was the punishment like when a man gathers stick on the wrong day of the week ?? Nope I remember now *NOTHING* for god obviously thought $ 3 X with your own daughters a misdemeanor in comparisons to the gathering of sticks. 🤮🤮

@@trumpbellend6717 Atheists are so stupid... Why bring up the sinful Lot as an example? He's a great example of what not to do as a Man of God. Lot was also seedy, he was willing to sell out his daughters to the sôdômîtês. For the record, no one is innocent unless they prove themselves worthy of righteousness. Wiping out babies and children were never much God's thing, but He knows what evil seeds that certain family trees will spread.

I saw no waffles….

Your nemesis strikes again

And yet there are plenty of objections that have all the depth anyone could want, and they are ignored or given ineffectual responses.

@@MathewSteeleAtheology Sure, there are many deep objections and arguments. I’ve addressed this in my latest video on my channel.

@@CatholicWisdom I'll watch that and get back to you. I have a few objections that almost no atheists make, so I'll see if you cover something similar.

@@CatholicWisdom I do appreciate that you respond to many common atheist objections, however there are still far too many other objections against the foundations of theism that remain. For example, you appeal to Platonistic notions of truth and value, yet there is no rational justification for an abstract being able to exist in the absence of all matter and energy. A more justified explanation, I would argue, is that objective value is an idea we use as a frame of reference, and it does not actually exist outside of that frame. The notion of nothingness, for example, evokes the absence of things, but there's no rational justification for thinking that a state of complete nothingness has ever been possible. So much of theism is about what would be the case, IF... x, y, z. But that's far too often just a skip over the IS in favor of the OUGHT.

@@MathewSteeleAtheology It’s all good. And, for people like me and you, it’s all so TRITE. We’ve heard this all, every argument and counter-argument, and at the end of the day, no one wins. No one can say “you are wrong because you don’t get it”. No one. So, let’s stick to our existential choices, and Bob’s your uncle. Nothing to do about it, mate. Nothing at all.

Zachary King has a really sad but also heart warming story of his life. and what he is doing today is awesome.

That's a great point - and in medieval times midwives in Europe who performed abortions were also witches.

Your joking right?

@@beorbeorian150 I’m pretty sure he’s being sarcastic

After a very brief honest attempt at understanding The Bible and the Catholic faith, the atheist are nothing more than an angry dishonest 11 year old that does not want to get dressed nice for church. That is the level of their arguments.

because he wills it to happen...

​@@morlewen7218 No, He doesn't.

Best power duo possible

Sounds like a great idea!

​@@TheCounselofTrent I don't know if you have anything in mind, but doing something refuting Mormonism or Islam would be a great fit for both of you.

@@TheCounselofTrent if you do collab with IP (not sure why you would) could you press him on his awful claim that it's OK for Christians (or anyone for that matter) to tell outright lies ?

For those reading this thread and are unaware of what's being discussed here, IP stands for InspiringPhilosophy (a channel here on KZfaq) and the IP video I'm referring to is titled: "Is it always wrong to lie?"

it may be lazy but in what way it's ironic?

I guess it out be both.

@@CatholicMashedPotats-vv8zf hypothetically it can be both but I can't see in what way (in this particular case) you find it ironic

It’s a bit silly once I think of it. Some atheists just go “well actually, I went to 12 years of Catholic school so I think I’m right about what this one verse means.”

Most of us do "research the full extent of the context" it's just that most Christian apologists go out of their way to avoid those atheists.

In 1930's Germany both the Christians and the Jewish people held The Old Testament in common. The only thing that separated those being slaughtered from those doing the slaughtering was one groups ancestors rejected jesus as the Messiah. I will let you guess which group was which 😜

@@trumpbellend6717 What's your point?

@@Vic2point0 My "point" is humanity and society's as a whole can and do agree on a vast array of moral issues that have wellbeing and the values it incorporates at the heart. These are reflected in our laws murder rape theft ect are standard throughout societies (even secular ) For the most part, it's is only with respect to the concept of SIN ( percieved transgressions against the whims of subjective gods ) that the disagreement occur. Most people do NOT think it immoral for a female to uncover her hair in public or to not face a specific landmark and pray five times a day. Most people in the world are just fine with eating bacon, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and even picking up sticks on any day of the week. We do NOT think that our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) are deserving of the death penalty and we recognise that an instruction to _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ could never represent guidance from a perfect omnibenevolent unifying moral standard. Im not speculating here or just giving you my "opinion" the above is all *FACT* regardless of the existence or non existence of ANY "God". Given this, should humanity adhere and aspire to the common values that unite us all and have real impacts on real people here in the real world. ? Alternatively should we continue on trying to impose the perceived whims of our own subjectively determined invisible "one true God" that divide humanity and have no positive impact on wellbeing that can't also be attained via secular morality ?? Come on surely we are better than this, the sooner the world throws out like old furniture these gods and their barbaric religious ideological baggage the better.

@@trumpbellend6717 What do you mean by "subjective gods"? I should volunteer first of all that I'm not actually a theist myself (and it doesn't sound like you are), but that doesn't mean I assume there are no gods or that belief in one is equivalent to belief in another. Seems to me that if the Christian god were real and literal hell was at stake, for example, that would qualify as something pertinent to "real people in the real world". Similarly, if the Christian god were real, where's your argument for establishing he couldn't be omnipotent and good at the same time? In any case, what you present sounds like a false dilemma. You can concern yourself both with what you believe "god" wants and what your moral senses tell you. Or you can reject both theism and objective morality altogether (as plenty of anti-theists do).

@@Vic2point0 Let me give you a scenario to demonstrate that moral "justification" and moral "good" do NOT depend on any "God" 👍 let's say the there is indeed a "creator god" and let's say we all become aware of this one true "creator God" and understand implicitly and precisely how he wants us to live our lives and the rules that govern this but .................. We also learn that following said rules would infact lead to humanity suffering an eternity of torture and suffering. 😱😱 Would it still be a "GOOD" thing to follow said rules ??? Would we be "justified" in following them ?? 🤔 *I would emphatically say NO to both questions* Indeed the total opposite would be the case following the rules would be a "BAD" thing and we would be entirely justified in NOT following them. This is because the words "Good" and "justified" in actuality refer to our desires with regard to "WELLBEING" and the actualization of a situation that conforms with said desires, regarding wellbeing and the values it incorporates. Now let's change our "God" to the Christian one, now we recognise that *EVEN IF* he exists and the things he tells us ( his laws ) would lead to an eternal paradise, it would only be "GOOD" to follow said laws because of their conforming with our perception of "WELLBEING" and we would only be "justified" in following said God if we determined this to be the case, so.......... We would be entirely "justified" in following a moral system based solely on wellbeing *UNTIL* a demonstration that a creator "God" EXISTS, we know specifically WHICH ONE out of the many thousands proposed is the "correct" one, that we have the "correct" interpretation of his wishes and laws ( 43,000 conflicting denominations just in Christianity ) and lastly that those wishes and laws conform to our perception of "Good" to "justify" this being mankind's moral reference standard. Now call me fussy but I don't think its "Good" to kill children for making fun of baldness ( as the biblical God did ) Nor to own people as "PROPERTY" for forced labour. For the life of me I can't see how the stoning to death of people who gather sticks on a sabath could ever be said to be "Good" 🤔 I could go on and on and on .....

RIP -Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrent Would you say its obvious that the writer of Judges 19 is plagiarizing the writer of Genesis 19 ?

@@TheCounselofTrent How do you explain the situation in Numbers 31:17-18 which is very similar to the one described in Judges ?

@@TheCounselofTrent How do you explain Deuteronomy 21:10-14 which is literally god giving soldiers permission to abduct females from other nations complete with an instructed manual on how to prepare them for r ape ?

What about all those verse on slavery? The bible says I can kidnap young girls and keep them as sex slaves for their entire life.

I don't bend over for Yahweh the Hebrew sky creep.

if god has a will and authority how is there free will for us

@@coleworld2429 God created us with free will so that we could freely choose Him and freely choose to align our wills with His Will out of love for Him. He wants our love and obedience but He wants it to be real, not fake or mindless. That is why we have free will.

So everyone starts out as believers, from the womb, and has no obligation toward atheism? Or as unbelievers, and can't understand the Word because they are atheists? I've heard that argument before, and it's just plain wrong. Lot of atheists believe as they do by simply reading the Bible for the purpose of understanding.

Why do you need to disparage atheists such as I? Please explain.

​@Theo Skeptomai Because most of you atheists are dishonest when it comes to biblical truth I'm not saying you are directly, I am just citing the majority

@@Theo_SkeptomaiMy man you need to work on your reading comprehension as well he is talking about the people in the video.

He said to them, *“For your hardness of heart* Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8 Same is applicable with Old Covenant slave laws.

@@unoriginalclips9923 How to beat your slave.......Gods word

@@johngalt6838 Go complain to the Jews about that, they’re the ones who think it is still enforced. Most of the Old Testament doesn’t even apply to Christians anymore. Also, those were temporary measures and never even supported by God, and were actually quite lenient for the time, in a world where slavery wasn’t even regulated and many slaves were probably beaten to death.

True. I've also thought that Athiests are allergic to the Truth. It is much harder to deny the truth after you've had a full understanding of it. And the best way to protect oneself psychologically is to only expose yourself partially to the Truth.

​@@alisterrebelo9013'they' refers to Christians, right? Might want to clarify the pronouns next time.

@@kellystone7501 Thanks Kelly. I've fixed my previous post now. Having been an atheist myself for over 16 years as an adult, and having spent some time in online apologetics, I don't throw out statements without thought and consideration. I'll also defend my claims. So if you want to have a go at it, be my guest.

What is an 'atheist argument'? Please present an example of one.

@@Theo_Skeptomai An example I’ve heard. “The Bible was written by stupid, ignorant savages across hundreds of years, why should we believe it?”

@@Theo_Skeptomai "Why should we believe in superstitious bronze age farmers"

@@nickmedley4749 That is an assertion, not an argument. What is an example of an argument?

@The TyRant That is a question, not an argument. What is an example of an argument?

True that

Yeah, I had already heard the abortion interpretation before ever reading it. So when I did read the passage it didn't make any sense.

Atheism did not exist back then. People still do whatever they want regardless if they believe a god exist or not. There is no stark difference between an atheist and a Christian when it comes to morality.

I agree with the first statement. But the following two are at least debatable. People that desire to follow God's will participate and also avoid certain behaviors that someone that doesn't believe in God has no real reason to, except their own will.

And we're seeing the horrible effects of an atheistic majority today - modern medicine, industrialization, mechanized transport, etc. Crazy how the Bible writers exploited a power vacuum at the time to label everyone "godless" to further the idea that godlessness equates to anarchy - of which we see the exact opposite today.

look up "Skeptics Annotated Bible Answered" by Berend de Boer. He has literally answered every single "contradiction" and "absurdity" in the Bible. It's a great reference because many Atheists source their arguments from the SAB in some way.

If I understand your question correctly, yes. When the English translated Bible refers to God by a masculine pronoun, it uses the uppercase He/Him/His, but for other people, no matter their stature, masculine pronouns are lowercase. Did that answer your question?

You should consider taking a Bible study class at your local Catholic church if you're at all interested in learning about the Bible. Also I recommend looking into a book titled, Jesus; The Way, The Truth And The Life by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, published by Ascension. You can get it with a workbook too if you're further interested. In my opinion, not knowing the Bible is today's form of illiteracy. What I mean is, how can you believe or not believe in God if you haven't studied the Bible in some way? I know that you respect the Bible and Christians but maybe you'll have a whole new perspective of life if you learn the Bible and understand that it's about Hebrew culture, and not to be taken so literal as the Protestants like to do.

⁠​⁠@@serpentsepia6638I would argue a lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean you can't choose to believe or not believe. Have you read the Qur'an or other religious scriptures from around the world? Should you have to read other scriptures in order to follow god, or will the bible be the only logical choice? But I agree, if anyone has interest in theology the source material can be really intriguing and fun to study. Personally the Qur'an was the most 'fun' read of the three Abrahamic religions for me, but I also acknowledge reading/studying different scriptures isn't exactly an easy/convenient task to fit into ones schedule.

@@pandaman2840 I would say, if you want to know about X religion then you should at least read their scriptures and understand their context or else you wouldn't fully know what or who it is you're studying and/or worshiping. For instance, if you want to know God, then you read and study the Bible. If you want to debate the Bible, or at least some of the books within, then you at least should be familiar with it. However, If you don't believe in God and you don't want to read the Bible then fine that's your right. But if someone wants to argue over Christianity and Jesus and has never bothered to read the Bible then he or she isn't going to know what they're talking about. They'll come across as ignorant, because they're just going to cherry pick Bible quotes willy-nilly and their argument wouldn't make sense. On the flip-side, most religious people are known for cherry-picking Bible quotes, because they're just as ignorant as the non-believers. And unfortunately, this has been happening for centuries, even before the Reformation. To study the Bible, people need to learn ancient Hebrew culture and the Hebrew culture during the time of Jesus and the apostles, including Roman culture up to Nero. I'm not saying you have to be an academic or anything, just that at least know what it is that you're arguing for and against when debating the Bible or any other religion's holy book/scriptures etc. I took Bible study once a week for three months just to learn the basics and I learned enough to know that reading up on the culture of the time makes a huge difference. I apologize if this is long winded, I just wanted to be sure to get my point across.

@@serpentsepia6638 Have you studied Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? The other *literally 5000 actively practiced religions?* If not.. how can you not believe in their gods? Kinda honest question, actually. This seems like a huge double standard. I reject your god for the same reason your reject the tens of thousands of others. None of them meet any kind of standard for evidence. I cant chose what to believe. My brain wont let me. It's not "designed" to work that way, which is funny if in reality someone actually wanted it to work just like that, but then decided to give too little evidence and punish its creation for working as designed. That would be kinda silly. What religion you follow is for the most part decided on birth, based on the country, community and family you are born into. Which is random. And they all think they are right.

Why would you respect a book that tells you to hate homosexuals and says that women are literally worth less than men?

Pretty sure he already has

_"I’d love for Trent to do a video on the more difficult parts of the Bible such as..."_ Yet you literally worship ritual human sacrifice.

​@@twitherspoon8954I'm confused. Did you think that Roman crucifixion was a religious rite?

@@twitherspoon8954 You’re that spammer

One could take a spiritual reading of it as talking about killing the passions in their infancy before they grow into a vice or sin.

You mean to acknowledge it exists? Or to acknowledge it's false claims?

@@extract8058 I take it as athiests exist, atheism doesn't make sense, and if to some it does make sense, it's a hopeless, empty, nihilistic, depressing belief.

@@catholicfemininity2126 gets it.

@@danvankouwenberg7234 I was asking you, but judging from your comment to the other commenter I didn't ask I'm guessing he articulated for you what you couldn't. I just noticed you capitalized atheism in your OP for some reason even though most atheists refuse to capitalize God. I find this strange especially since atheism isn't a proper noun.

@@catholicfemininity2126 what is Catholic Femininity? Are you a feminist?

I used to be stardust.

Would not a god need to be a _reality_ in order to provide an endorsement?

@@Theo_Skeptomai whether or not He is presumed to be real by the critic, the endorsement by God would be the basis for the assumption that the events of the Bible in themselves reflect on the moral character of those who believe in it

@DoctorLazertron Music Would not a god need to be a _reality_ in order to provide an endorsement? IOW, can a mythological deity provide its own endorsement?

Catechisms are themselves not infallible documents, they are intended as summaries/explanations of the teachings that the Church lays out authoritatively elsewhere. They are a great starting place to give you a good general idea of what the Church teaches, but if you are trying to get into specifics and hash out what appears to be contradictions, you should always go back to the actual documents that lay out the particular teachings in detail.

lol

ooo

Your apologists are wannabe philosophers with only valuable expertise in lying and reinterpreting anything and everything that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions and fixed a priori beliefs. That's what it means to be an apologist

If Christianity is true, why the apologetics? Is Yahweh too weak that he needs someone to defend his religion?

@@CCP-Lies that isn't as impressive of an argument as you think it is

He already explained that. You clearly stopped listening. Judah was afraid and gave up, Sheesh. God later chastised Judah for his cowardly disobedience and lack of faith. All you had to do was keep listening.

@@Sherelle86 I know the story...quite well, having been involved in reading/discussing the Bible, especially the OT, for decades. I didn't need to 'listen' to someone on youtube giving their excuse for what happened.. Bottom line it, God had the option to ensure the enemy was defeated...up to and including some sort of divine calamity as he supposedly did in other situations. But he chose not to. Of course it's an absurd notion that it was the iron chariots, but that's what the story has in it. The truth is there's no god and those stories are likely made up.

@@rizdekd3912 Just because you studied something doesn't mean you understood it. Clearly you did not. I don't say that to be mean. I spent decades not understanding how to read the bible as well. The bible is not a book about wonderful people who God loved because they were so fabulous. It's a book about wicked, disobedient, people who barely trust or listen to God because they're so rebellious. God lets them face the consequences of their actions or inaction but still uses them to bring about his ultimate will. It's not supposed to be a story about a god who magics his people's problems away. He never said he would either.

Don't forget fairytail

@@MeatMaster69420 Atheists often forget that the Bible is a library of ancient Hebrew culture filled with history, law and lessons of morality.

@@serpentsepia6638 that means nothing, sure dome pats can be factual history, that dosent prove the bible as a whole

@@MeatMaster69420 Well, the Bible as a whole hasn't been proven. That's why they call it faith. Look at it this way - Jesus often spoke in parables in order to teach and the Old Testament is filled with parables. People back then didn't have tv, radio, the internet or the Brother Grimm. What the Hebrews had were life lessons learned through parables from the Bible. And these same parables are lessons that we can all learn from today.

@@serpentsepia6638 yea sure read and learn from it, but using the Bible to prove the bible is just weord