Comments by "Vvv Mmm" (@vvvmmm153) on "UsefulCharts" channel.

I would love to see a video explaining how the bible was compiled, what Canons existed, what other books were considered but were not included. These videos briefly noted Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary, but did not give a lot of explanation on what they were about and why they were not included into the official version of the Bible. There were a lot of other non-canonical Gospels - Marcion, Apelles, Basilides, Bardesanes, ext. What was wrong with them? Then there were Gnostic texts, Passion Gospels and other documents that still exist, but the church does not recognize them as source of knowledge about Jesus.
1
She is 25% black and 75% not black. Does it still make her black?
1
Not sure about it. I am a lot closer to atheists than to believers, and I am politically conservative.
1
There is another misconception among believers: if you are not religious, you are an atheist. Wrong. Religion is an institution, and on many occasions it was used as a manipulative tool or an alternative power that sadly was and is doing very immoral things to accomplish its goals. Believe is your own decision or feeling about God's existence, and people might believe in God without following any religious traditions or going to the church.
1
@colinpierre3441 Turning away from religion does not necessarily make people atheists, you can be a non-religious theist. Atheists don't believe in the existence of god, but rejecting the church or the doctrine only means rejecting an institution that disappointed you one way or another.
1
@colinpierre3441 Thank you for your question. I would consider myself an agnostic, I don't know if God exists or not, and I do not have a good enough proof to support either one of the statements. I turned away from the religion because in case of god's existence, I do not think that people, just regular people like you and me, have a right to talk on his behalf, dictate how others should behave, decide who is a “correct” believer and who is not. I see religion as an alternative power or business that manipulates people’s minds for money. I don’t like that religion is still attempting to suppress science or affect political decisions being responsible for too many wars and repressions throughout the history. This is my view; I am not trying to impose it on anyone, and I think any institution can exist if it does not hurt people. Religion does unfortunately.
1
@colinpierre3441 I would be happy to review the prophecies in the Bible with you and compare them with the events that happened in the world. However, even if you are 100% right, and the Bible predicted world's major events, how does it prove that it's a word of God? And how does it prove that Jesus was a son of God and not just a prophet like Michel de Nostredame or a modern time Baba Vanga whose predictions were often accurate. I read the Bible a long time ago and I might have forgotten a lot of it, so I would be interested to hear your point of view.
1
@colinpierre3441 You and I are talking about different things. To me a proof of God's existence would be a physical fact scientifically confirmed by multiple trustworthy sources. You believe that the prophets could predict accurately only with God's help. The key word is "believe". I can believe in anything: - They could have been helped by God - They could have some extraordinary mental abilities - They could be very smart analysts for their time - They could be time travelers. It is still my belief that does not prove anything. Now, regarding an example you are talking about, I am not even sure that it's a prediction. Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. The Book of Isaiah was started long before this date, in 8th century BCE, but nowadays the majority of scholars think that it was compiled by two or three authors separated by centuries. It means that Isaiah's prophesy could very well be written when Cyrus already existed.
1
@colinpierre3441 You are proving a statement in the Bible with another statement from the Bible. That's not how it works :). Both Luke and Flavius Josephus lived eight hundred years after the Book of Isaiah was supposedly written, so why should I believe them more than I believe the modern scholars who have scientific methodology to attribute the text to the certain time based on multiple parameters?
1
@colinpierre3441 "do we not prove a statement in any book if another part of the book supports it?" - absolutely not. Take any fiction book and apply your logic to it. You will end up believing in Lord Voldemort and Gendalf. I am aware of the studies where a statistical method was used to determine single authorship, and it suggested that indeed the book was all written by Isaiah based on prefix analysis. I hope you'd agree that one parameter is not enough for this type of a conclusion. I don't have much time to look for actual non-religious studies of the book, and I admit I only read the conclusions that satisfied me. It seems more logical to me that the events were described while they were happening. If we rollback to 12th century when Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra pointed out that the prophesies in chapters 34, 35 and 40 to 66 were not written in the same language as the rest of the book, we will see that the doubts were there for a very long time. Again, I am not saying that God does not exist or Isaiah did not write his book. I am saying there is no sufficient proof, and I don't have a reason to believe one side more then the other.
1
I watched all three videos and often see that people in the comments are mixing believes and religiousness. A church can disappoint someone, but it does not necessarily lead to atheism. Based on my own experience, I do not accept the church for the following reasons: 1. Every church pretends being right until proven wrong, but who decided that the church is right? God? Then why do we have so many religions, and each one of them says their way to believe is correct? We have a lot of examples when religious doctrine had to be adjusted because of the scientific evidence that proved it wrong, and yet until now the church is trying to dictate what parts of science should be suppressed. 2. Many religious people say "God is Love", you should love everyone around you. Except... and then there is always a condition. Throughout the history religion generated more wars and disaster than any dictator, and all of it was justified. 3. Going back to every church being the only correct one. Why do they have to say that? Because they need more people to come in and pay. It's a business, in some cases a very successful one, and an alternative power that can affect people's minds by talking on behalf of God. 4. I think that any institution can exist if it does not hurt people, and the church does not fit into this category. It hurts those that don't fit into their standards starting from people that belong to a different religion and all the way to gays, transgender, child free, ext. Saying that, I can't call myself an atheist. I do not believe in Jesus or any other human-like God, but I do believe there is some global logic in the world, and the rest is a terminology. We can call it God, but I will build my relationship with it without a middle man.
1
It would be great to know more about reasons behind these differences.
1
The correct dates for Vasily III should be 1505 - 1533.
1