Tiktaalik, Rifkin, Gilgamesh

Atheists LOVE to Boast This So-Called “Proof” of Evolution
Answers in Genesis Canada | 14 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESZNrDv1Xgo

9:09 "It's our creation now."*

This is obviously the implication of Darwinism, but it is also the implication of Deism, of Freemasonry, of calling God "great architect of the universe" ... implying the architect of a house need not be its denizen or lord.

When Evolution comes down as untenable, there will certainly be Theistic attempts at salvaging this set of values.

It's inherently collectivistic. If we have one lord, each can appeal to that one lord. If we haven't, who gets what becomes a question of power dynamics, like in late Protestant Prussia the philosophies of Bismarck, Roon and Moltke.

What else is collectivistic? Babylon.

The extant parts of Enuma Elish are perfectly compatible with mankind created by the gods as a collective, and the opening lines of Gilgamesh imply mankind was created with cities and bakeries from get-go.

* The one saying so is Jeremy Rifkin.

Joseph Freymann is Sloppy on the Galileo Case

The Crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo w/ Joseph Freymann
The Michael Lofton Show | 7.XII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy-05JYSYIk

I'm commenting only on the Galileo case. I trust his view on the Crusades and the Inquisition is fair enough.

"had said that if the 21:24 facts of science seem to contradict scripture in certain places then script may need to be reinterpreted"

Ouch ... sloppy citation.

Science as an institution deciding on the facts and then presenting them.

No. Science as a monolithic institution with ONE faculty per subject didn't exist. Philosophy were competing institutions.

Then, he did not only say that one could be wrong on exegesis, in the same breath he said it could also be the philosophy that was wrong.

The criterium was experience and logic as in solid proof.

"he insisted on teaching as a law 21:43 Heliocentrism which was really just a theory um he was free to consider it a 21:50 theory but he crossed the line when he against the church's wishes stubbornly 21:56 taught it as a law"

I think the correct view of the Church's wishes was, he was at liberty to write a dialogue, but in it he should give at least equal weight to the Geocentric evidence. In other words, he was required at least some benevolent neutrality, in order to not fall afoul of a decision which already in 1616 had stated that Heliocentrism was an error or a heresy.

I don't know what you mean by "teach it as a law" since in his day the gradation "hypothesis, theory, law" didn't exist as it does now. It's like saying "you are allowed to considere the dog the same family but not the same genus as the wolf" (very hypothetic example, contrived even), when this was before Linnaeus.

"the church overreacted they subjected him to a 22:15 trial right and they said that the only way to understand certain chapters or 22:22 certain verses in the Old Testament that indicate heliocentrism"

Geocentrism?

"is the literal way and they should should have known 22:29 better because even Augustine centuries before had said that there was room for reinterpretation of of scripture"

Not in the absence of solid proof and especially not in the presence of solid exegesis.

This had already been established in 1616, back when Galileo was a sidekick to Foscarini from the PoV of the Inquisitors.

"but why did they overreact it was because of the 22:42 Protestant Reformation see Along Comes Luther 1517 95 Theses and what does he 22:49 do, he starts accusing the Church of being anti-scripture of of keeping the 22:54 masses from knowing the Bible right um and so what the church was being very careful during The Counter Reformation 23:01 of they were being careful to not despise Scripture right that's why they 23:07 were not eager to have Galileo Teach as a law something that seemed to 23:14 contradict the literal interpretation of Scripture"

As I remarked to a Protestant fundie.

Joshua 10 verse 13 could theoretically be phenomenological language.

But Joshua 10 verse 12 includes a word by Joshua, which was not identic to the prayer he had said to God, and which was the miracle working word on God's behalf.

As God is the Creator, He should be able to adress a direct divine command directly to the things that need to behave in a manner other than previously.

This means, if He inspires a man to miracle working words, that should apply to these also.

If this was not so here, it was the ONLY place in all of Scripture, a big anomaly, where sth other needed to be adressed than was adressed and it was still the word of a miracle worker.

"they would however have embraced it if he had come up with 23:20 conclusive evidence which he didn't have which he didn't have and the last thing 23:25 I'll say about Galileo is not only did he not have the evidence yet which we do now but he was partly wrong he was 23:33 partly wrong"

If you are right, he was still asked to abjure sth as "at least an error" which would then be true.

And remember, the form of the condemnation of the theses is such as that of the condemnation of Feeney.

You will gladly say that Feeney was wrong, because he was condemned, even if he was not required to directly abjure the thesis or theses he was condemned for, but you will pretend Galileo was at least partly right in what he was required to abjure, even if he actually did abjure.

As far as the Church "would gladly have embraced" that's not exactly the tone of Cardinal Bellarmine, and while a different one has been attributed to Cardinal Baronius, it's on shady grounds.

And "if he had had the evidence" ... first, this does not cut the condemnation of sth as a theological error rather than as unproven science, and punishments reserved for theological error, second, where do you presume that evidence has been given since?

Minor corrections on Biblical Chronology and on Carbon Dating

The Bible’s History is World History
Creation Ministries International | 27 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YifYbSfNkyc

2:08 "on the internet"

To some YEC in the US, the main source for the "moyboy" ideology would be the internet.

Over here in France, and I think that's the case in some parts of NYC and LA, some guys may in reverse have the internet as their main source for the YEC antidotes.

5:44 I'd read that as 480 years minimally.

Neither the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day nor the chronology of Syncellus take that timespan as 480 years.

In the RMCD, David is anointed in 1033 BC. That's 51 years before the Temple, which must therefore be in 982 BC. The Exodus was in 1511 BC.

In Sync. both anointing and Temple are given separately, it is the Temple that's in 1032 BC, the anointing in 1083 BC. The Exodus however in 1683 BC.

There are two ways to deal with it. a) it's a question of text variants, b) the years mentioned in III Kings 6:1 (which by the way is for the beginning of the temple, not the completion) are a minimum, like Jephtha also gave a minimum. There were more than 300 years when Jephtha spoke, there were more than 480 years when Solomon set out building. But there were at least 300 years when Jephtha spoke, and at least 480 years when Solomon began to build.

7:44 Maccabees? Time to reconsider Protestantism? There are 45 miles or 73 km from Saloniki (Thessalonica) to Veria (Beroea), suggesting an OT of 45~46 and a total Bible of 72~73 books. That would include I and II Maccabees.

If you refer to the sentence "that there was no prophet seen in Israel" in Maccabees 9:27, two approaches can be taken.

I would say one need not be a prophet to be a hagiographer. St. Luke's every sentence was on God's initiative, nevertheless his every sentence was also his work as a historian.

In this vein, when Jesus speaks of "the law and the prophets" He's leaving aside the "writings" as they were not yet unanimously accepted canon among the Jews.

Catholic answers has another approach, the sentence is in the past. The author is not denying prophets have already (in the OT era) returned. From Luke 2:36 we know there was at least one prophetess around before Jesus was born. She was already established in the role.

14:15 If Jews wanted to take a try, they could probably go for "was the family of Jesus recorded after 70 AD" and it was.

The early Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus (died c. 240), in his "Genealogy of the Holy Gospels", referred to "relatives of our Lord according to the flesh" whom he called desposyni, meaning "from the Lord's family".[74] Of these individuals, only the 2nd century Bishop of Jerusalem Judah Kyriakos is historically attested by name.

Judah Kyriakos, also known popularly as Judas of Jerusalem, was the great-grandson of Jude, brother of Jesus, and the last Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem, according to Epiphanius of Salamis[1] and Eusebius of Caesarea.[2] He is sometimes regarded as the great-grandnephew of Jesus.

I'd disagree on "last Jewish" since the Palestinians are basically Christian Jews, but records from before AD 70 are not strictly necessary.

15:52 In the Old law, marrying first cousins was not forbidden.

In Church law it has become so.

Fourth cousin is the last illicit or first licit to marry, sideways. But that only came after Christ.

26:56 "Chinese history" ... with a LXX timeline for Genesis 11, and given the oldest emperors are living in a Palaeolithic society, it actually fits the Biblical narrative.

28:32 The carbon date for Jericho is 80 years early. 1550 vs real 1470.

Soon enough, you come to a point of 100 pmC, from when you get to modern day, except the Hallstadt plateau, with fairly workable dates before and after that. I'd put that point at fall of Troy.

Speaking of Hallstadt plateau, archaeologists dismissed the Founding of Rome because the oldest carbon dates they found of a City-Scape were 550 BC. Now, the Hallstadt plateau, anything 750 to 450 BC dates as 550 BC. Connect the dots. Livy was right about when Rome was founded, presumably on how many kings there were, one can even imagine that's confirmed by the Apocalypse.

(7 Kings, 8th one of the Seven ... Romulus through Tarquin the Haughty, Caesar)
(3 Kings taken away ... each Triumvirate ended).
(10 Kings ... Rome had several ten-men committees with partly royal functions, like one or two in legislation, and there were still ten-men committees in Caesar's time, presumably when the Apocalypse was written).

29:04 Two things on the buildup.

1) Whichever length you give the pre-Flood world, it's easy to calculate how much C-14 is added in that time, at today's speed. a) calculate how much is lost in that time in a sample, b) regard the atmosphere as a sample and the buildup as the compensation for a, c) that's the buildup, supposing you have the same amount of overall carbon (pmC is a ratio, not an amount) and the same amount of C-14 produced.

0.5^(1307/5730) = 85.376 %, buildup 14.624 pmC
0.5^(1656/5730) = 81.847 %, buildup 18.153 pmC
0.5^(2262/5730) = 76.061 %, buildup 23.939 pmC

There clearly was less than that at the Flood. So, in the pre-Flood world, the buildup must have been slower. The first of these gives only 15 900 extra years. I'm going for 34 000 extra years. 1.636 pmC at the Flood.

2) But in the post-Flood world the buildup must have been quicker. Genesis 14 happened when Abraham was c. 80. MT 80 + 292 = 372. SP and some manuscripts of LXX, Genesis 14 is 1022 after the Flood. Standard manuscripts of LXX, 1150 after the Flood.

0.5^(372/5730) = 95.6 %, 4.4 pmC buildup
0.5^(1022/5730) = 88.370 %, 11.63 pmC buildup
0.5^(1150/5730) = 87.013 %, 12.987 pmC buildup.

You add 1.636 pmC to 12.987 pmC, forget about counting the decay, you get only 14.623 pmC. As said, that's 15 900 extra years. For Genesis 14, you need only 1565 extra years, 1935 is dated as 3500 BC, you need a way higher pmC, 82.753 instead of 14.623, so you need a higher speed of production. 82.753 - 1.636 = 81.117 pmC added.

81.117 / 4.4 = 18.436 times faster than now
81.117 / 11.63 = 6.975 times faster than now
81.117 / 12.987 = 6.246 times faster than now

So, before Flood, much slower than now. Flood to Genesis 14, considerably faster than now. Genesis 14 to present, at least at first, faster than now. But it slowed down.

Genesis 14 = 1935 BC
Beginning of Hallstadt plateau = 750 BC

1185 years.
0.5^(1185/5730) = 86.645 %, 13.355 pmC buildup.

1935, 1565 extra years, 82.753 pmC
750, 200 years too young, 102.449 pmC

82.753 * 86.645 / 100 = 71.701 pmC remaining
102.449 - 71.701 = 30.748 pmC added

30.748 / 13.355 = 2.302 times as fast, from Genesis 14 to beginning of Hallstadt plateau.

Would "Get" Get Around in a Sprachbund?

Given its versatility of metaphor, I get the impression it would.

Where does GET Come From? And how to Use it Correctly
LetThemTalkTV | 6 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k1v62sPidg

ghedh-, ghodh-
Old Indian, Germanic languages, cognate with goods and even good.
Old Church Slavonic / Russian.
Lithuanian.
See also ghend-.

ghend- and ghed-
Greek. Albanian. Latin. Old Irish and Cymric / Breton.
Germanic. Old Church Slavonic / Russian / Czech.

So, overall,
Q-Celtic, P-Celtic, Latin, Germanic, Albanian, Greek, Baltic, Slavic, Indic.

In my project, that's* seven main groups, plus the minor group Albanian. Why is Albanian minor?** Because, on my view, it comes to us so late, after so much Sprachbund contact with at least Latin, Greek, Slavic, that we are hard set to be sure every item in it is NOT a loan.

Impressive, there are words that are represented in very much fewer groups, in Pokorny*** at least.

I'm not very far through Pokorny, in my stats search, but the roots that get 7 main groups, well, that is so far not many.

05 two main groups
11 three main groups
06 four main groups
07 five main groups
04 six main groups
01 seven main groups
01 eight main groups
01 nine main groups
01 all ten main groups

37 roots overall

4:52 guess right°

* PIE vs Sprachbund Project
https://pokorny-vs-trubetskoy.blogspot.com/

** Which Groups are not Main Ones and Why?
https://pokorny-vs-trubetskoy.blogspot.com/2022/06/which-groups-are-not-main-ones-and-why.html

*** Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch
https://indo-european.info/pokorny-etymological-dictionary/whnjs.htm

° On the challenge "getta rett" = basically Norwegian "gette rett" (and I did that, except I didn't actually guess).

What about Crusades, Almsgiving, Christian States?

Should The Pope Call a New Crusade?
Brian Holdsworth | 7 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snIYkwe6Ddg

1:20 The last Crusade was in 1936 to 1939.

Against the Reds. Pope Pius XI blessed the undertaking of Franco, and rightly so.

It's a bit ironic that this last Crusade involved allies on our side from the Muslim world, from Morocco, from the Rif, while Franco's previous war there had not been a Crusade, just a colonial venture (which he helped to upend, except for Ceuta).

3:18 I actually parted ways with Evangelical Protestantism partly over this issue.

I became Lutheran, I knew Lutherans had some Crusading spirit, though, as I would now say, it was sadly misdirected against Catholics. You know 1618 to 1648.

I had already been aware that some Swedes had overdone it in the South Germanies, both Bavaria and close to Vienna.

Andrew Dobbin

@ADobbin1

To be fair, the Catholic Austrian holy roman emperor started the 30 years war by trying to overthrow the norther german protestant princes and the swedes came in to defend their fellow protestants. In either case it was a rolling disaster for the common people as they were brutalized by both sides of the conflict. The end result was the treaty of Westphalia which set the foundation for modern europe.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ADobbin1 "by trying to overthrow the norther german protestant princes"

The Thirty Years' War started in Bohemia.

Conflict was precipitated by two factors: Matthias, already aging, and without children, made his cousin, Ferdinand of Styria, his heir and had him elected king in 1617. Ferdinand was a proponent of the Catholic Counter-Reformation and not likely to be well-disposed to Protestantism or Bohemian freedoms. Bohemian Protestants opposed the royal government as they interpreted the Letter of Majesty to extend not only to the land controlled by the nobility or self-governing towns but also to the king's own lands. Whereas Matthias and Klesl were prepared to appease these demands, Ferdinand was not; in 1618 he forced the Emperor to order the cessation of construction of some Protestant chapels on royal land. When the Bohemian estates protested against this order, Ferdinand had their assembly dissolved.

@ADobbin1 As said, it begain in Prague, not Northern Germany. Look up Defenestration.

Next move was "The Winter King" ... married to the sister of Charles I of England, and ancestor to Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

After the death of Matthias in 1619, Ferdinand II was elected Holy Roman Emperor. At the same time, the Bohemian estates deposed him as King of Bohemia and replaced him with Frederick V, Elector Palatine, a leading Calvinist and son-in-law of the Protestant James VI and I, King of Scotland, England and Ireland.

Both my comments

were deleted. Andrew Dobbin's comment was modified.

Andrew Dobbin

To be fair, the Catholic Austrian holy roman emperor started the 30 years war by trying to overthrow the norther german protestant princes and the swedes came in to defend their fellow protestants. In either case it was a rolling disaster for the common people as they were brutalized by both sides of the conflict. The end result was the treaty of Westphalia which set the foundation for modern europe.

Can you spot the difference?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@ADobbin1 Why exactly is it that my answer to your false allegation has been deleted?

The Bohemian Protestants started the Thirty Years' War by rebelling against Habsburg rule. Bohemia had been Habsburg territory since Rudolf von Habsburg got the loots from the rebel Ottokar after the 13th C. Interregnum.

4:59 No, vainglory is not enough to make almsgiving an evil act.

Almsgiving with vainglory, we are told in the Gospels, are naturally good acts, but which are rewarded already in this life.

That is, you become evil, your act of almsgiving doesn't.

Supposing obviously that almsgiving with vainglory is all Jesus was talking about.

If you know something about the codes of gratitude in Roman Antiquity and gather there could be something similar ongoing in Jewry, there is another thing that fits the bill. Giving alms with the intention of instrumentalising the receiver. And shaming him if he refuses to be instrumentalised. In that case, the alms as such would still be a good act, but the instrumentalisation wouldn't.

7:05 "not to use violence in self defense against the state"

I think this is in fact somewhat overdone as a formulation.

In parts of the period, we are still dealing with violent insurrection in Judaea, and violent anti-Christian pogroms, and the Roman state, even up to end of the book of Acts, had a role as relative protector. The Holy Family fled from the Semi-Independent Protectorate Judaea to Roman Occupied Egypt. St. Paul takes refuge from Jewish mobs in Roman officials.

I think parts of the texts you think of are telling Christians "don't blow this" and in many cases it actually paid. I don't think the texts state that we have no authority to defend ourselves against a state finally and ultimately determined on our destruction. Or, which is similar, modification, with the destruction of those who refuse to modify.

St. Paul was not writing under Nero, as far as I can tell, but under Claudius.

St. Paul had not been at Rome when he wrote this epistle, which was in the year fifty-seven or fifty-eight, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions and alms, collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the benefit and relief of the poor Christians in Judea, and at Jerusalem; and after he had preached in almost all places from Jerusalem even to Illyris, Illyrium, or Illyricum.

(Haydock comment, intro).

Wait, sorry, I was wrong, Nero came to power already in 54. However, I still think this was before the persecution.

But obviously, in Rome, Christians had no means to defend themselves against Nero's persecution, except by fleeing. St. Peter was more or less told by Jesus to turn back, but we are not sure that all others who fled were so told.

7:44 Please note, both Romans 13 and I Peter 2, they speak of submission to legitimate state authority.

There are according to the functions of the state mentioned in Romans 13 things the state cannot do. And I would argue, resisting psychiatry, when one has sufficient consciousness of the situation to see this as an agression, which clearly involves being not what has previously been taken as mad, is not resisting legitimate state function.

The state has no authority to place an idol in the temple of God, confer Maccabees, and the state also has no authority to change the soul of someone, even an evil-doer.

8:40 And* to make the kind of laws according to which some revolutions that came in later, whether from mobs or from nobles' militias or from the state (like the Deformation) simply made the state so doing, or the product of that revolution, illegitimate as a state.

Ireland had under the army of Strongbow ceased to be a Schismatic and Sovereign nation, to become a nation in communion with Rome, and obedience under the King of England who was also King of Ireland.

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church did judge the Irish Confederacy, also known as Kilkenny Confederacy, as legitimate.

Furthermore, if no parts of the state had any right to reject the misrule of it, Constantinople would still have the right to rule Venice and Southern Italy, US would have the duty to return to the Commonwealth, Ireland would also have that, well, no.

The article "Insurrection légitime" in Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi catholique, actually states this, and also states that sometimes such a righteous insurrection begins with individual self defense against a misruling state. The outcome should obviously normally be that the state in question returns to some sanity and a just judge relieves the agressed citizen from the necessity of defending himself against the state. But if this doesn't happen, obviously the scale of the defense may escalate.

Part of the point is, modern states in traditionally Christian countries are heirs, sometimes continuing states, sometimes successor states, of Christendom. They therefore lack the excuses of ignorance that Nero had.

9:07 On this issue, one must also recall, some Protestants dispute the licitness of Christians being in authority.

They could for instance pretend, very unduly, that Romans 13 tells "the Christians" (i e all of them) to be "subject to" (and supposedly therefore different from) the one in authority, who therefore cannot be a real Christian.

They could also misuse passages pretending that Satan is still the Prince of this World. This was certainly the view of Albigensians, probably of at least some Waldensians. I obviously disagree, Satan lost rule over Adam's race on Good Friday.

This is obviously against the Great Commission. Jesus did not say "make disciples of people within the nations" as if Christian clubs were necessary, but Christian countries impossible, as the Watchtower Society believes and mistranslates. The correct text is:

teach ye all nations

Not just individuals within the nations, but the nations as a whole, themselves.

The Deformers took a different view, but a similar principle, they basically said that Gustav or Harry could act as Satanists while ruling, they only were obliged to be Christians in their "personal life" or privacy (whatever that is, in a ruler).

We Catholics hold, a ruler has to act as a Christian as ruler (and the ruler is subject to authority of for instance already existing and not obviously unjust laws, of precedent if not obviously unjust, tradition, the Church, and ultimately to Christ the King). Even if he were a Satanist in his private life, in public duties, he must uphold the laws of God. He can for instance not force someone to consult the oracle of Delphi, or a shrink.

10:42 Pope Michael I would seem to have agreed.**

10:42 Your response on why** the Church does not call a Crusade is also the correct response on why Pius XII didn't call Germans to open insurrection against Hitler.

Too few would have obeyed him. They would have put themselves in harm's way. They would have decreased their capacity to help at least some Jews. Or gipsies. Or others innocently under the malevolent radars of Hitler. They would also have decreased their capacity for doing at least some good things Hitler was doing, like opposing the Red Army. As it was, Germany was divided in "half" ...

At least, this is pretty certainly how Pius XII saw things. I reconnected with the Assisi Underground the first Vesper of St. Nicolas, and, well, the Church in Assisi in some ways acted as Rahab. One could with a highly optimistic view of Jews say, the Church acted as when the High Priest allowed King David a normally unauthorised stay in the Temple. But King David had the same faith as the High Priest. So, perhaps Rahab would be a better comparison. However, getting stuck in a Rahab hides the spies role is not all that good. If you used the internal search engine in Vulgate online, you may find that the second last*** "meretrix" of the Bible is Rahab. The last is sth very different.

Similiter et Rahab meretrix, nonne ex operibus justificata est, suscipiens nuntios, et alia via ejiciens?
[James 2:25]

Et dixit mihi: Aquae, quas vidisti ubi meretrix sedet, populi sunt, et gentes, et linguae.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 17:15]

And note, the main problem isn't Islamic extremism. The main problem is a state where, you know Russian laws against "extremism"? LGBT movement has been labelled as extremist, but so have house churches. The main problem is a paranoia about religious extremism, which allows for anti-Christian actual extremism.

* In response to:

therefore the 8:24 circumstances that determined the 8:26 morality of their actions had changed 8:29 which meant that those verses of 8:30 scripture had to be applied differently 8:33 because now the Christians were the 8:34 authorities charged with the 8:36 responsibility of of wielding the sword 8:38 to punish evildoers which didn't just 8:40 mean that they had the right to use 8:42 violence if necessary

** In response to:

well I 10:23 think the answer is because the church 10:25 has since lost its influence with the 10:28 state again the pope and Bishops no 10:31 longer play what used to be an 10:33 indispensable role as instructors and 10:35 directors of Christian Governors instead 10:36 today the church has a sort of Fragile 10:39 coexistence with a modernist 10:41 non-Christian State

*** I only searched the nominative singular, so far.

No, I Won't Be Muslim

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, I Won't Be Muslim · New blog on the kid: God Doesn't Need.

Muslim Woman Confronts Christian, Then THIS Happens...
Faith Talks | 2 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eYUkwkdUag

Has the video been shortened, while originally referencing also a debate on slavery that she lost?

[I tried to add:]

Oh, wait, here:

Cliffe: _" 'slavery is wrong' am I being 1:11 judgmental?"_

Black woman: _"Slavery is wrong. Slavery is 1:13 something that was done in the name with 1:16 the justification of Christianity"_

Part time true. She may not be aware that Protestantism was not Catholic Christianity, that Catholic Christendom was divided, that the Pope who endorsed taking slaves did so in the context of retribution against slave hunters from Africa, and then Portugal took it further, but yes, she is correct on the fact it was part time done justified by interpretations of Catholicism, and by major interpretations of Protestantism (meaning the Reformation Churches, not the Awakenings so much).

Main theme:

"if you're God I want to say if 6:39 you're truly God you can do if you're 6:42 truly God you wouldn't have to eat God 6:45 doesn't have kids God doesn't have human 6:47 humanistic I I beget God was not 6:50 begotten he doesn't beget he 6:52 doesn't I mean it's un he could take 6:55 clay he could take dirt he could take a 6:57 rib and create you don't there 's no 6:59 need for that"

I think she just replaced the Muslim replacement of the Trinity.

Or one version of it.

First, she interrupts the explanation "if you're truly God, you can do" ... what? She was saying "anything" but realised the reply could be "you mean, including to become man?"

Second, when she says there is no God for begetting, she probably means for God to have sex, but this is not how we consider the Father begets the Son from all Eternity.

Third, when she says, (basically, though she doesn't say those words, instead of begetting), she refers to the creation of Adam and Eve. And that's why God, even without Trinity wouldn't be lonely, is that it?

There may be other versions. Like "God is not love" or "God loves himself, single person" ... those other versions are perhaps not as belittling, but instead they show a pretty disconcerting "God" one cannot really trust.

The versions are, either "God needs our love" (he created so he isn't lonely), or "God neither needs nor in any other way wants our love for him" (he isn't love or loves himself as a single person).

"can you truly 7:04 explain the Holy Trinity to me just 7:06 basic English"

Actually, the Trinity, apart from being mentioned in Matthew 28:19, also is the plain English translation for "God is love"

10:50 I think Cliffe Knechtle has to accept one correction from the Muslim woman.

There are twelve verses where "children of God" are mentioned or even adressed.

Psalms 28:1, Wisdom 5:5, Wisdom 12:7, Matthew 5:9, Luke 20:36, John 11:52, Romans 8:21, Romans 9:8, Galatians 3:26, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 5:2.

Cliffe Knechtle only referenced Galatians 3:26, basically.

Censorship

Guess what turned up in my feed? · Censorship