Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "ESOTERICA" channel.

I mean if you actually wanted to know the real context this is not the place to learn it lol. God dealt with man by grace till the law was given with Moses then he dealt with them by the law till God came as Jesus to fullfill the law for which we are back to grace again. Just a reminder the bible outlines all of human history since the fall God has been exerting agency over his attributes suspending his judgment to the last days so that the work of the cross giving us the chance to choose redemption. Otherwise Gods very nature would instantly judge the sin and cause us to cease to exist. That fact alone supersedes the context of what you just wrote.
7
@courtneygraham1905 You misunderstood what I wrote, it doesn't nor did I claim it does or is a book of human history. You ignored the context of the second half of the sentence, I said the bible outlines God is allowing us to exist out of mercy from the start of all of human history since the fall. It's a book about Jesus, and his redemption of man. That is the path the narrative follows. What you just commented on is totally irrelevant to what I commented on.
6
@themel5436 Not at all this was a constructed narrative based on his bias on how the information was connected and given. There is a fallacy of conflating pagan influence which happened all throughout the history of the Hebrews with being the actual origin of the biblical narrative.
2
@soupydude oldest book... of the bible, you know the context of the subject we are talking about... giving some of the oldest context of the biblical God highlighting your narrative is nonsense. No we don't know what the actual oldest book is, Job and the Genesis account could very well be older. And Gilgamesh very well could be influenced/based on the Genesis account. You don't seem to realize older documented account does not equate to older origin.
2
I would disagree, it was all about God preserving his people the Hebrews culturally, religiously, and genetically. It was very common for peoples of the time to mix so it's natural with the text presently so heavily a historical outline that the events that would come up would involve the preservation of them. And the issues that would arise from the people of Israel themself acting counter to this mandate and being punished. As the context was all along for the Messiah to come about from Israel for the redemption of man on the line. Being warlike to me would involve the majority of interactions be more than based in self preservation.
2
@ Where is the clear evidence? The book of Job is the oldest book that goes back before the written word as it was in poem form passed down by oral tradition, and established the same God as in the rest of Christianity in a pre-Israelite society. That is the problem when you take one source as gospel, pun intended.
1
@soupydude oldest book... of the bible, giving some of the oldest context of the biblical God highlighting your narrative is nonsense. No we don't know what the actual oldest book is, Job and the Genesis account could very well be older. And Gilgamesh very well could be influenced/based on the Genesis account. You don't seem to realize older documented account does not equate to older origin. You are speaking definitives where there are none.
1
@ oldest book... of the bible, giving some of the oldest context of the biblical God highlighting your narrative is nonsense. No we don't know what the actual oldest book is, Job and the Genesis account could very well be older. Gilgamesh could be influenced/based on the Genesis. You don't seem to realize older documented account does not equate to older origin. You are speaking definitives where there are none.
1
@carlosmuller3565 Where was the beginning?
1
It's ironic because the Athiest is using their blind faith to deny the history of Jesus and his resurrection and the evidence of divine inspiration of the bible such as the 100% accuracy of prophecy lol.
1
There is no such thing as an agnostic Christian. Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. It's a real tangible relationship with Jesus. Hundreds of thousands of Christians never willingly martyred themself in the Colosseum because of faith, it was because they actually knew Jesus by the Holy Spirit better than if he were to have walked beside them and did miracles.
1
How can I say that because we can see it first had with the disciples all denied Jesus on the cross, it wasn't till the Holy Spirit, Pentecost that Christianity was birthed because the promise of the Holy Spirit is to reveal and make real Jesus to you. As Paul wrote it's an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance like a fact given in a court of law. It's the ONLY evidence the bible makes clear is enough for one to be Christian.
1
@ If you are talking about Christianity, faith is not a mystery. It's a synonym for trust that is based on truth. It's the same type of faith we use in our day to day lives and to do science, like we have faith when we flip a light switch the light will go on. Jesus never said seek faith he said seek me and I'll give you the faith, it's extremely basic it's just from knowing Jesus personally. That's it. What you are describing is faith prefaced with the word blind, blind faith. That has nothing to do with Jesus.
1
Very contradictory statement as faith is not an inherently religious word it means trust based on truth. Yet people commonly refer to faith when they actually mean blind faith whether they mean it in a religious connotation or not. The fact is the faith of Christianity is the same type of faith I mentioned first, the same we do science with it's the opposite of your quote, it's based on truth so in a sense what we learn, history.
1
@johnnada9058 Elohim is a blanket term that means many things not just God. That's the problem with these conversations people are just all over the place lol
1
@ Tribal? Desert? What?! Maybe start with reading the book of Job.
1
@theafricananimist The God was the same from the start and Job was before Israel, no desert, no tribe. Sorry but you are inventing a narrative in your head to make yourself feel better. And the irony is I bet you believe in the most logically absurd worldview there is, no God. There isn't even a framework for you to trust your own rationality and anything you say it's self refuting. The paradigms of reality demand a God exists, and the only God that fits the science and logic we see is the God of the bible. Full stop end of story.
1
@theafricananimist The God was the same from the start and Job was before Israel, no desert, no tribe. Sorry but you are inventing a narrative in your head to make yourself feel better. And the irony is I bet you believe in the most logically absurd worldview there is, no God. There isn't even a framework for you to trust your own rationality and anything you say it's self refuting. The paradigms of reality demand a God exists, and the only God that fits that is Jesus.
1
@theafricananimist Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. Job is literally the oldest book written in the bible hence the significant relevance in bringing it up to your point.
1
@theafricananimist You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. Science does not force us to accept a materialistic explanation. Your apriori conviction. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. Science does not force us to accept a materialistic explanation. Your apriori conviction. Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense.
1
@theafricananimist You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. Science does not force us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Your apriori conviction.
1
@theafricananimist So Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist So Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, self limiting the extent of their own rationality. Irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist Those who deny God aren't following where the evidence leads, self limiting the extent of their own rationality. Irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
1
@theafricananimist A miracle is not the laws of nature being broken or violated, no more than a ball being caught does that would have fell to the ground by the law of gravity. Doing so is a category error as the laws of nature aren't to be conflated with legal language, they are just a description of what normally happens. A miracle is just someone intervening.
1
@theafricananimist A miracle is not the laws of nature being broken or violated, no more than a ball being caught does that would have fell to the ground by the law of gravity. Doing so is a category error. A miracle is just someone intervening.
1
@theafricananimist Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. The naturalist/Atheist. The universe demands a God.
1
@theafricananimist Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species.
1
@theafricananimist Atheism: A deus ex machina worldview, because when you don't have a mind a God, you just pretend you can get the same results without one. It's literally a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes).
1
@ Atheism: A deus ex machina worldview, because when you don't have a mind a God, you just pretend you can get the same results without one.
1
@theafricananimist Atheism: literally a myth of magic(probability producing consistently rational outcomes).
1
@theafricananimist If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist
1
@theafricananimist Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator."
1
@ Now that science has advanced, all of Atheists speculations are based on non-empirical arguments and that shows just how weak their case has become.
1
@ That's you positing the imaginary. A magical nothing. The paradigm of reality is a rational source a mind is required for a rational outcome. You are the one proposing something different with zero evidence.
1
@ That would be a big no, not only is Darwins evolution hypothesis not verified it can't be and never will be because it doesn't work and we don't see it. It's not falsifiable. Every result explainable and not reproducible. It's never been more refuted and opposed in academia than today actually.
1
@theafricananimist The fossil record completely refutes evolutionary theory. 50-80% of all phyla that have ever existed including virtually every phyla of today came about in a geological instant at the start of the Cambrian. This is the complete reverse of taxonomic progression and irrefutably shows top down biology not bottom up. Full stop end of story.
1
@theafricananimist The fossil record completely refutes darwinism. 50-80% of all phyla that have ever existed including 28 out of 30 phyla of today came in a instant at the start of the Cambrian. This is the complete reverse of darwinian taxonomic progression and irrefutably shows top down biology not bottom up. Game over.
1
@theafricananimist The fossil record completely refutes it. 50-80% of all phyla that have ever existed including 28 out of 30 phyla of today came in a instant at the start of the Cambrian. This is the complete reverse with taxonomic progression showing top down biology not bottom up
1
@theafricananimist The theory itself is nonsense. There is no environmental pressure to create building blocks for a mechanism that does not yet exist. And how does evolution know when to turn off for each and every piece of the puzzle so the pieces will stay the same and all fit together in the end? Evolution must have a plan, foresight and agency over the whole process for it to do what it claims, nonsense. The problem is you don't use critical thought on what you believe it's essentially become religious dogma.
1
@ "The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree." No such thing is said, that doesn't even follow the logic presented even lol.
1