A Dialogue Under One Comment

4 Shocking Things in the Bible, that Didn't Shock Me ..... · A Dialogue Under One Comment

Here, this video is rather personal, in consequence, so are some of my comments. I will here share only one thread, because it's nearly strictly intellectual.

Leaving Christianity Behind: Three Christians and an Atheist
The Doubter's Diary | 11 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMjeWuw6q-Y

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

15:16 Your mum and dad (1) also taught you to speak English.

People no smarter than you taught you to speak English.

In the physical training world, you were probably taughts lots of stuff by people no smarter than you.

15:57 So, now (2) your problem was, you were being told by someone who on some level was smarter than yourself?

The Doubter's Diary

@The-Doubters-Diary

You are presenting false equivalencies.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@The-Doubters-Diary If you don't have a problem being taught English by someone not smarter than yourself, why would it be a problem when it comes to Christianity?

I get it you don't consider it an equivalent, but why isn't it?

Lou T

@lout160

@hglundahl Language has a use and is a method of communication.

Christianity is a system of beliefs and ideology that contradicts with reality and makes extraordinary claims that cannot be verified.

It's not a problem with who taught it. It's a problem with what it is.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "Language has a use"

There are useful things you do typically learn by experts. Self hypnosis?

"and is a method of communication."

There are languages you do typically learn by experts. Ancient Greek?

But the fact that one useful thing, one language is learned by non-experts, like nearly always your native language, doesn't discredit it as useless or non-communicating.

Now, can we apply this to the category knowledge as well as skills? I definitely think so.

"Christianity is a system of beliefs"

In other words, purported (potentially real) knowledge.

"that contradicts with reality"

In other words, contradicts your ideology of what reality is.

"and makes [...] claims that cannot be verified."

Before we take "extraordinary" you mean here that they cannot be independently verified, right?

Now, I'll give an example. My grandfather was approximately as smart as I am now, more knowledgable on some things, less on others. He showed me a coin and taught me the guy on it was king Gustav VI Adolf (I think this is before I was five, when that monarch died). Later Gustav VI Adolf was the former king, and Charles XVI Gustav was the king, simply.

This is sth I still believe, not because I verified with experts, but as it is "general knowledge" ...

There is an important difference with Christianity. It's general knowledge within a group, contested outside the group. But I don't think this makes an appeal to experts necessary. People can debate between the groups (except certain groups are very allergic to debate).

So, my reply would be, "Christ rose from the dead" is within the Christian community a piece of "general knowledge". It's not expert testimony, like when Klaus Schmidt published Göbekli Tepe digs.

Now, the thing about "general knowledge" is how it arises. Joseph Smith found the book of Mormon on golden tablets and was inspired to translate an unknown language? Sounds like a very long gap between purported events (ending around 400 to 450 AD) and supposed rediscovery of them. But Mormons to this day have not erased that this is how they came to have "general knowledge" of the book of Mormon.

So, this is not how Christianity overall claims "Christ rose from the dead" came to be known among us.

Now, you will need to claim, not just our claim "Christ rose from the dead" is bogus, but also our claim about how we came to learn this. The problem is, when you do that, you are making very extraordinary claims about how a community:

• has one real origin and forgets it
• replacing it with a fictitious origin
• and manages to treat the fiction as collective memory of fact
• without any trace of an event which would have allowed for a fraud to happen, like the "golden tablets" event in Mormonism.

Lou T

@hglundahl After shaving away the fallacies and misrepresentations, there's really no substance to what you've wrote.

You've made a categorical error in equating language and religion. You did so again in equating religious claims to something that could be considered knowledge.

Christianity conflicts with actual reality independent of my beliefs or "ideology of reality" as you put it. It is self contradicting and nullifying if you consider the bible to be the authoritative text for Christianity.

"Jesus rose from the dead" is general knowledge in the sense that "Ra is the sun god" is general knowledge if all you care about is the mythology of it. However, people often speak of "the truth of Christianity", which ultimately cannot be true because of inherent incompatibility with logic.

So let me reiterate:
Language is a system of communication. It doesn't make claims, or commandments, it doesn't imply anything about the natural world. It is simply an ordered structure of abstract ideas in order to move ideas from one mind to another. It is strictly a protocol.
It does not matter who taught a protocol because it can be validated through evaluation of its effectiveness.

Religion is a collection of claims. Claims that cannot be validated through its use. Saying "Jesus resurrected" does not make it true. There is no way to verify this. So in this case, the source does matter. Where the information came from does matter.

Let me simplify this because you seem to like to overcomplicate things.

- Language does not need a verified source because it is validated through the effectiveness of its function that is able to be evaluated.

- claims (religion) does need a verified source in order to test its validity because the claims have no means of verification. In this regard, the source, unlike protocols (language), does matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "You've made a categorical error in equating language and religion."

No. I made a comparison as of things being taught.

"You did so again in equating religious claims to something that could be considered knowledge."

That's exactly how any religion considers its own claims. Yours involve "atheism is not a religion", "science is not a religion" and "religious claims" (those of other religions) "aren't knowledge".

"Christianity conflicts with actual reality"

You are so far not showing any item of undisputed reality with which it conflicts.

"It is self contradicting"

You have not shown that either.

""Jesus rose from the dead" is general knowledge in the sense that "Ra is the sun god" is general knowledge if all you care about is the mythology of it."

You are forgetting the distinction I made of general knowledge shared by all of the modern world, and general knowledge within a specific group.

"people often speak of "the truth of Christianity", which ultimately cannot be true because of inherent incompatibility with logic"

You have not shown any such.

"It does not matter who taught a protocol because it can be validated through evaluation of its effectiveness"

And in a very similar sense, it doesn't matter who teaches a true claim, which is known, and the knowledge of which follows a "general knowledge" pattern.

"Saying "Jesus resurrected" does not make it true. There is no way to verify this. So in this case, the source does matter."

I very much agree the source does matter. I am just saying the source does not depend on expertise for its validity as a source.

"In this regard, the source, unlike protocols (language), does matter."

Punch a hole in the air! Kick in an open door!

I did not say "the source does not matter" I said "the expertise or personal smartness or scientific qualifications of the source do not matter" ... try to refute that one, if you want.

While you are at it, try to refute my observation your position involves a very extraordinary claim about the ultimate source of Christian truth claims, the early Church.

You are claiming a community:

• has one real origin and forgets it (and by the way, not because it's so old it was ten millennia in the past either)
• replacing it with a fictitious origin
• and manages to treat the fiction as collective memory of fact
• without any trace of an event which would have allowed for a fraud to happen, like the "golden tablets" event in Mormonism (contrast Mormons, who do have this trace of an occasion for error about the far past).

Lou T

@hglundahl I do not care about general knowledge about mythology within any groups. My issue is when groups make unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality.

Atheism definitely is not a religion or a world view. It's simply stating that I do not buy into the unsubstantiated claims of the existence of any gods.

Science is not a religion. Science can be considered a collection of verifiable information. It can also be considered the method by which information is verified.

You love your false equivocations.

@hglundahl I am not making those claims. I am stating that there is zero reason to believe the supernatural claims of any religion. Not one such claim of miracles or resurrection has been verified, nor has any framework for such events to happen ever been demonstrated to be plausible.

I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to demonstrate with your examples of language. While the concepts you've conveyed do not make sense, they are grammatically correct. Which only serves to prove my point that language has a means of verification.

I think you're misinterpreting her point when she says she was taught by people no smarter than herself. She is stating that she had been taught by people who did not have access to more information than herself, and that the claims they were asserting as truth could not be validated with the available information.

So if you're so determined to make a comparison with language, it's the same as an American who only knows english, trying to teach someone else Greek without having any reference material. You cannot teach knowledge you do not have.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "Science is not a religion. Science can be considered a collection of verifiable information."

Sciences in general are mostly collections of verifiable information. In some cases there are inverifiable informations or entire sciences. Having Science as a religion involves two things:

• claiming it doesn't happen, or at least we right now don't risk it happening
• claiming methods other than those of the sciences do not also provide verifiable information.

Neither of these claims is involved in practising a bona fide science.

"It can also be considered the method by which information is verified."

Science is not A method. Sciences have methodS. All methodS of scienceS are not equivalent, and they do not taken together constitute your unverified mythical beast of "the sceintific method" ...

"She is stating that she had been taught by people who did not have access to more information than herself,"

What I took her to mean as well.

Doesn't mean there is no more information to be had, like on Church history.

"and that the claims they were asserting as truth could not be validated with the available information."

I think they could.
A) She had been taught.
B) Her parents had been taught.
C) There is no reason to believe in any gap of that process when it comes to "Christ is risen" when going back in time.
D) There is no reason to believe this was once presented in as suspect ways as the golden plates. No record of such a presentation is available.
E) For Protestant claims about Sola Scriptura, which involve nature of the Bible as self explaining, there is a record of such a gap in the transmission, it's called the Reformation. Those who refused it are called Catholics and Orthodox.
F) There is for "Christ is risen" no good scenario available for how the claim could have arisen in a fraudulent way.

"You cannot teach knowledge you do not have."

Good argument against some of your science believing claims. These two:

"Not one such claim of miracles or resurrection has been verified, nor has any framework for such events to happen ever been demonstrated to be plausible."

Both are universal negatives. Don't swing such a thing around, unless you have done some verification that nothing like that has at least been attempted.

Both of these are pep talks for science believers, not rational arguments backed up (at least here) by actual reasons.

@lout160 "You cannot teach knowledge you do not have."

However, you can have knowledge without a complete overview of the proofs for it against all and every possible or actualised doubts.

Hence, her parents taught her Christian knowledge, but not Christian Apologetics.

Lou T

@hglundahl regardless of whether it is knowledge of Christian mythology or knowledge of Christian apologetics, it wasn't the truth it was presented as.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 that does not follow from the fact she learned it from non-experts, and this was my whole point in the original answer, and main point all over it.

Meanwhile, what do you mean exactly by Mythology?

Presumably, you are not comparing the Resurrection of Christ to totally prehuman supposed events, like Cronos being son of Uranus and father of Zeus or Australopithecus being descendant of Ardapithecus and ancestor to Homo erectus.

Lou T

@hglundahl You're missing the point. She learned from people who were not in a position to know any more than she was, Yet the information was presented as fact when none of them had the means to validate it. Expertise does not matter in this regard.

And i mean mythology in the truest sense of the word: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

Jesus is no more valid than Hercules.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 Ah, you make Hercules the comparison?

Fine.

Now, I think Hercules existed.

The idea that Christians would not first have invented a fantasy origin for their own religion, then held that up as collective memory and forgot the real one is as valid for Hercules as for Jesus (or somewhat less, since there is more time between event and earliest known sources).

I think the Greeks misunderstood Hercules, so claims about him being "son of Zeus" are bogus, and he probably misunderstood himself, so, he probably made that claim himself, but then he was never claimed to have made miracles, except a very late claim of his raising a dead, in a distant land, which may be influenced by memories of Elijah among the Phoenicians.

"She learned from people who were not in a position to know any more than she was"

As an earlier part in a chain of information, yes, they were in a position to know more than she did before they told her.

Lou T

@hglundahl They were not in an earlier chain of information. The source was the bible, and in the timeframe of which she is speaking, she was equally acquainted with it.

And I am not speaking of some guy named Hercules. I'm talking about the Hercules that fought against giants on mount Olympus along side Zeus.

The myth of Hercules fighting on mount Olympus is as real as Jesus performing any miracles.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "The source was the bible,"

No, the ultimate source was the observation of Jesus' disciples, which were then written down in some of the youngest books of the Bible.

"I'm talking about the Hercules that fought against giants on mount Olympus along side Zeus."

Hercules probably dreamed he had been drafted for that cosmic fight, and as he was very strong and irascible to erratic in character, no one dared contradict him.

"The myth of Hercules fighting on mount Olympus is as real as Jesus performing any miracles."

No, the "myth" of Hercules being sent out on ten missions was as observed by people in Tiryns, as Jesus performing miracles was observed by people in Galilee, Jerusalem, South Lebanon.

However, as to exactly how Hercules did when accomplishing the missions, people in Tiryns relied on Hercules and Iolaus telling the truth. Iolaus was hardly independent. Jesus doing miracles was seen by crowds.

Lou T

@hglundahl The deciples are just characters in the biblical fairytale. They wrote nothing. Even then, she wasn't raised or taught by the disciples. She was raised in a household by christian parents who did not have a source for their claims beyond an ancient storybook. Your ability to misrepresent any premise is unmatched.

Hercules is another character in another set of stories perhaps inspired by the legends of a man named Hercules. Just like this Jesus folklore is perhaps centered around any number of the many people who were named Jesus.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "She was raised in a household by christian parents who did not have a source for their claims beyond an ancient storybook."

Beyond a tradition in which the named book is not represented as a story book.

NOW you are very directly making a very extraordinary claim.

A community comes to like a story book. It then comes to replace the real events in its past with the story in that story book. You cannot prove such a process ever happened, or even give a coherent suggestion as to how it would have happened.

"perhaps inspired by the legends of a man named Hercules."

As a Catholic, I am free to state, no, Hercules was not a god, but he was also not a story book character, the "myth" basically sees him as his contemporaries and he himself saw him. No one claimed divine miracles for him, until after Elijah had already raised a boy, that was not the first accretion, probably works XI and XII were added by his own bragging.

There are things remaining to be explained if so, like what the Centaurs were, Cheiron and Nessus, but it is credible.

Superhuman strength was also given to Beowulf and before the Flood to Neanderthals, and may be linked to high levels of Neanderthal genes in these men.

Making a parallel for your extraordinary claim doesn't show it is not extraordinary.

Lou T

@hglundahl Yes. My claim is not extraordinary. Suggesting that a book with talking animals and magic spells is a fairytale is not an extraordinary claim at all. It's actually quite reasonable.

Suggesting that the characters of that storybook, god, jesus, moses, and the disciples, are all fictional characters, is also not an extraordinary claim. It's quite rational and adheres to reality. The bible is a work of fiction. And try not get hooked on that fact, I'd hate to have to use the Spiderman quote.

I understand the typical theist relies on dishonesty and special pleading in order to justify such faith. However, you've presented nothing but dishonest false premises and misrepresentations of my statements. That's rather unproductive and disrespectful. What do you hope to achieve with such conduct?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "Suggesting that a book with talking animals and magic spells is a fairytale is not an extraordinary claim at all."

It's not about the content of extraordinary events!

Suggesting that Sherlock Holmes and Lord of the Rings are works of fiction is not extraordinary, because that's how they have always been taken.

Suggesting that Sargon of Akkad, Hercules, Jesus or George Washington are (mainly) fictional characters is extraordinary, because that's how they have never been taken, until early Enlightenment Christians decreed that about Hercules, and late Enlightenment Apostates extended the decree to Jesus.

"I'd hate to have to use the Spiderman quote."

Finding in real life the Church that Jesus founded (the Catholic Church) is related how to finding in real life the buildings of the Daily Bugle? Yeah, right. The buildings of the Daily Bugle are still not observed in New York City.

"I understand the typical theist relies on dishonesty and special pleading in order to justify such faith."

And I find that the special pleading is all on your side.

"However, you've presented nothing but dishonest false premises"

None of which you have actually shown either false or dishonest.

"and misrepresentations of my statements."

More like trying to bring in logical implications of them you were unaware of.

"What do you hope to achieve with such conduct?"

Plan A, convince you and our readers. Plan B, convince some of our readers.

@lout160 By the way I hope you don't find this too unproductive and disrespectful, I make sure we get readers:

[link here]
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/05/a-dialogue-under-one-comment.html

Lou T

@hglundahl I was unaware that the specifics I listed were censored. I'll try again with a lite version.

2 Samuel 24: 1 is incompatible with I Chronicles 2 1:1.

2 Samuel 24:9 is incompatible with I Chronicles 21:5

[2 Samuel 24:9 is incompatible with I Chronicles 21:5]

2 Samuel 24:13 is incompatible with I Chronicles 21:12

2 Kings 8:26 is incompatible with 2 Chronicles 22:2

Everything listed here is conflicting absolute values. For one to be true, the other would have to be false. They are mutually exclusive realities, in the context of the story of course.

Hans Georg Lundahl

2 Samuel 24: 1 is incompatible with I Chronicles 2 1:1.
And the anger of the Lord was again kindled against Israel, and stirred up David among them, saying: Go, number Israel and Juda.
And Satan rose up against Israel: and moved David to number Israel.

Satan was the tempter, got permission from God's anger.

2 Samuel 24:9 is incompatible with I Chronicles 21:5
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people to the king, and there were found of Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword: and of Juda five hundred thousand fighting men.
And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men.

Challoner already answered that: [5] "The number": The difference of the numbers here and 2 Kings 24. is to be accounted for, by supposing the greater number to be that which was really found, and the lesser to be that which Joab gave in.

2 Samuel 24:13 is incompatible with I Chronicles 21:12
And when Gad was come to David, he told him, saying: Either seven years of famine shall come to thee in thy land: or thou shalt flee three months before thy adversaries, and they shall pursue thee: or for three days there shall be a pestilence in thy land. Now therefore deliberate, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.
Either three years' famine: or three months to flee from thy enemies, and not to be able to escape their sword: or three days to have the sword of the Lord, and pestilence in the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying in all the coasts of Israel: now therefore see what I shall answer him who sent me.

Challoner already answered that one: [12] "Three years famine": Which joined with the three foregoing years of famine mentioned, 2 Kings 21. and the seventh year of the land's resting, would make up the seven years proposed by the prophet, 2 Kings 24. 13.

2 Kings 8:26 is incompatible with 2 Chronicles 22:2
Ochozias was two and twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri king of Israel.
Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri.

Challoner: "Forty-two": Divers Greek Bibles read thirty-two, agreeably to 4 Kings 8. 26.

Lou T

@hglundahl I do not appreciate how much you misrepresent my words. I never suggested or hinted at George Washington being fictional. There is nothing outside of the bible to suggest that Jesus even existed let alone the son of an undemonstrated god.

It's not my burden to disprove your mythology. There is no reason to take it seriously. You've yet to prove it's more than a fairytale. You're the one claiming it is truth, not me.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "I never suggested or hinted at George Washington being fictional."

Suggested? No.
Hinted? No.

I actually stated you were inconsistent.

"There is nothing outside of the bible to suggest that Jesus even existed"

You mean, little outside the Christian tradition, and that in reaction to it?

Like there is most evidence for George Washington in the American tradition, and apart from that, in reactions to it?

"let alone the son of an undemonstrated god."

Who demonstrates Himself when turning the universe around earth, and Who is indirectly demonstrated whenever we speak, since we both know the universe is not eternal, does not have man since eternity, and since I know that human language is the kind of thing that could not evolve from ape vocalisations.

And, I'll accept Hercules somehow rid Lernean marches from the apparition of a hydra, I'll accept that Sargon claimed to be king of the world, after beating a king of the land, I'll accept George Washington beat people at Trenton and Princeton. None of them is claimed to have cured lepers, only Hercules with once raising a dead, in a very atypical manner (both for Hercules and for raising from the dead), and that probably for the reason that Elijah's raising of the boy was by Phoenicians atributed to Baal, whom many identified with Hercules, so that the latter too was credited with raising ... but not a boy, since he was already under some suspicion for Iolaus. Even that event is placed well outside the Mycenaean Greek sphere, so his own culture was outside it. The parallels would not be to Jesus' miracles, more like to "Jesus in Tibet in the lost years" which not many believe is true.

Jesus by contrast several times healed people and raised dead, also multiplied food, also produced wine, also stilled storms and also preached a very unusual, for the time, view of God, life, everything, and we have that from a tradition that started directly with Him for all we can tell. Feel free to suggest ways in which those facts would not suggest Him as being the God of the Universe, but if you take to Alien protector or reincarnated advanced masters, I'll smirk.

"It's not my burden to disprove your mythology."

As you define "mythology" it is perhaps your burden to prove and show that category exists as you understand it.

Or, in other words, suggest the social or mental mechanism by which readers of Spiderman come to conclude that Peter Parker actually lived. Not meaning five year olds or otakus, but a community of readers who can function.

You're the one claiming such transitions happen, not I.

Lou T

@hglundahl No, I mean there is Absolutely nothing anywhere that suggests the Jesus of your mythology ever existed. Tradition is not a measure of validity.

In no way am I being inconsistent. These fabricated false equivocations of yours is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss my points without ever addressing them.

@hglundahl God is undemonstrated. There is no reason to believe "the universe is turned by him". Language is demonstrated when people speak. Sound and vibrations, again, no god evident in such activity.

I do not know the universe isn't eternal. It just might. Nothing indicates that it's not.

Human language is an ape vocalization as humans are a species of ape.

@hglundahl Yes. I know about the Jesus myths and the fairytales about healing, food, magically walking on water and coming back from the dead. There is zero reason to believe any of that ever happened.

When i ask google to define mythology, this is what comes up:

1. A collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

"A book discussing Jewish and Christian mythologies."

It seems that even Oxford dictionary uses Christianity as an example of mythology. Seeing as how the bible is a book of outrageous unrealistic claims that have never been substantiated, I'd say the burden of proof required to qualify the bible as a book of mythology is met.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@lout160 "Tradition is not a measure of validity."

When it comes to what is meant as knowledge of the past and of whether a text is meant as such knowledge or an entertainment piece it is. Tradition can be wrong about a fact, but it is not wrong about category.

"These fabricated false equivocations of yours is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss my points without ever addressing them."

If you are not inconsistent, how, on your view, do you know George Washington existed?

"There is no reason to believe "the universe is turned by him"."

Except we see it turn. Every day.

"Language is demonstrated when people speak. Sound and vibrations, again, no god evident in such activity."

You forget grammar, sth that apes don't have.

"Nothing indicates that .. the universe isn't eternal."

Hydrogen? If you'd agree that stars process H+H > D, D+D > He, then Hydrogen would be depleted if the universe had existed from eternity.

"Human language is an ape vocalization as humans are a species of ape."

In ape vocalisations, one sound or repetition of a sound indicates one thing, either pragmatic or emotive, like "let's eat" or "how are you?"

In human language, one sound is meaningless, a series of diverse sounds code for an incomplete meaning, and a series of such meanings spell out a complete one. That complete one is so typically notional, that pragmatic and emotive are small subsets.

No plausible transition has been suggested. It's fifty years since a book on Homo erectus came out, and today Tomasello, one world leading expert on the matter, is no closer to an answer than that book was 50 years ago.

If Adam was created within 168 hours from the space of the whole universe, and given a language on day 1, that's a miracle. But if creatures with ape vocalisations (what's normally so described, not your nitpicking on Evolutionist ideology) came to use instead of that a human language, that would also be a miracle. Just one I don't think happened.

"There is zero reason to believe any of [healing, food, magically walking on water and coming back from the dead] that ever happened."

That's your evaluation.

You are obviously aware there are reasons in texts we compare to texts on George Washington winning at Trenton and Princeton battles.

"When i ask google to define mythology,"

Google can't define anything. The source you looked at gave verbal definitions, reflecting modern usage, which is not necessarily consistent.

"1. A collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition."

So, since US is a cultural tradition, or has one, George Washington winning at Trenton and Princeton is mythology, because it is a story (original meaning of the Greek word) which expressess US culture?

"to qualify the bible as a book of mythology"

You mentioned unrealistic, unsubstantiated, but that was not in the definition you cited. But it was anyway a verbal one. What would you approximate as a "scientific definition" of "myth"?

My point is, the word "myth" need not mean "did not happen" even if that's a popular side issue attached to the word.

Notes with quotes

(1) I finally came to 15:01 the conclusion that really the only 15:04 reason I believe this is because my mom 15:06 and dad told me to and people who are no 15:11 smarter than me told me 15:13 to.

(2) if I came up with a 15:50 question and I was in Bible studies with 15:52 this man he had an answer and at the 15:55 time it would make sense and maybe it 15:57 was because I want it to make sense