Debate Otoya and his detractors on whether all knowledge we have comes from God.

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

well, the more you research and dig, the more you realize pretty much every narrative of the 20th century is a lie, created to, at best make money. examine things, almost every 20th century paradigm seems aimed at attacking the truth of what God has told us. from the age of the universe to the origin of species to sexuality to world history, what science is,...they lie to you about things in front of your own eyes (fossils, for example) etc.

when jesus said the only way is through him, he was being literal. as time progresses we are reaching a point where the only thing left that is true and accurate, is the bible.

i would just suggest that people deny literally everything they are told. dont listen to ppl with money, guys in suits, corporations, your government, nothing. at the most optimistic level, the people are just dumb like everyone else and in worst case scenario, they are actively and intentionally lying to deceive you. poison you, kill you, etc..

compare claims to what you can observe and/or what is documented. look objectively at a claim and ask "does that make any fucking sense?

when they tell you "lucy" is an ancestor of human beings, look for yourself at the skeleton. ask yourself, does this really look at all related to human being? ask yourself, when you see a t-rex fossil...do you really think that turned into a fucking bird? it doesn tmake any sense and in 2023, with knowledge of how DNA works, it is completely debunked.

follow truth. when someone makes a claim, see if its supported. if its coming from the government ro a corporation, it pretty much never is

We know a lot of these things (at least in the natural sciences) because some very smart people made educated guesses based on existing knowledge and tested them. These guesses turned out to be correct,

according to who? who said they were right? consenus doesnt make something factual, as galileo would attest

The holy grail of science is a guess that can explain and predict everything that ever happens.

so modern sciences are evidenty looking for God, who has literally been there in their faces all along?

 

[Creative Username]

according to who? who said they were right?

When you make observations of the environment or set up experiments to test these educated guesses. Not saying modern science is perfect by the way, far from it.

consenus doesnt make something factual, as galileo would attest

Correct. That's why neutrality and rigor are key to finding the truth through the scientific method.

so modern sciences are evidenty looking for God, who has literally been there in their faces all along?

You know that quote from Heisenberg? I like to think he's right.

 

[John Freeman]

according to who? who said they were right? consenus doesnt make something factual, as galileo would attest


so modern sciences are evidenty looking for God, who has literally been there in their faces all along?

God is the real life equivalent of a "dream theory". It's impossible to prove or disprove. If we had stopped looking at things and questioning how or why they are that way, and just said "god did it", our society would have stagnated right then and there until someone came along and decided to actually examine the world critically.

Only a fucking retard looks at a computer or car and thinks "hmm, must be magic". Technology is the result of our evolving understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it. Almost everything we know about science is applied in technology. We know atoms are real because every prediction we make under the assumption that they are real turns out true, and for almost 100 years we've been able to "see" them via an electron microscope.

Everything we think to be true is the result of successful experiments. Dismissing everything as "god" is ignorant. We're working with the tools we have, which are our brains and senses. Our understanding of the universe will always be incomplete and imperfect, but it serves us just fine.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

When you make observations of the environment or set up experiments to test these educated guesses. Not saying modern science is perfect by the way, far from it.

Yes of course, we know things based on what we observe, obviously.

But you are not doing the observation. Anthony fauci is, for example

Correct. That's why neutrality and rigor are key to finding the truth through the scientific method.

Good luck lol

God is the real life equivalent of a "dream theory". It's impossible to prove or disprove

Says who? Who says its impossible to prove or disprove? Why dont you allow the evidence and facts to speak for themselves

. If we had stopped looking at things and questioning how or why they are that way, and just said "god did it", our society would have stagnated right then and there until someone came along and decided to actually examine the world critically.

no scientists in history agrees with this.

Everything we think to be true is the result of successful experiments. Dismissing everything as "god" is ignorant.

According to who?

We're working with the tools we have, which are our brains and senses.

Which god created

Our understanding of the universe will always be incomplete and imperfect, but it serves us just fine.

You are basically correct. But God, as creator of the universe, does have a complete and perfect understanding. Why not trust what he says about it?

 

[John Freeman]

Says who? Who says its impossible to prove or disprove? Why dont you allow the evidence and facts to speak for themselves

no scientists in history agrees with this.


According to who?

Which god created

You are basically correct. But God, as creator of the universe, does have a complete and perfect understanding. Why not trust what he says about it?

I can't believe I have to break this down for you.

How am I supposed to "trust what god says" when he can't just say it to my face? I'm open to the possibility of a god, and I will gladly eat my words. But good luck proving something like that exists.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

I can't believe I have to break this down for you.

How am I supposed to "trust what god says" when he can't just say it to my face? I'm open to the possibility of a god, and I will gladly eat my words. But good luck proving something like that exists.

He has shown it to your face. You ignored it and started listen to retards and Satanists instead.

Of course there is a God, inanimate objects cannot build themselves and self replicate

We can put this to a scientific experiment you can observe. Take 6 1"x1" pieces of wood. Leave them in your backyard. Observe how long it will take for those pieces if wood to organize into a cube

Or simply look at any object you own. A car, computer, your house, your very body. Did any of that form on its own, spontaneously?

There's your observation

We also have history itself...it seems to be completely impossible probability that that prophet daniel from 600bc was able to predict exact dates of things more than 1000 years in the future

Except the Bible itself is clearly a human-written, human-edited document. I do think there's truth to it but not in a "take it at its word" way.

when something is dictated, we credit the person saying yhe the thing, you dont credit the person taking dictation

The bible is for the most part a historical document, it should go through the same scrutiny process we apply to say, an account of the Peloponnesian war or Alexander the great, right?

Where is the evidence for this "human-edited" claim? The manuscripts surely dont suggest this, weve never found any old copies that differ from what we consider the canon. The case for the bible being "edited" kind of went out the window with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls

In order for the "telephone game" theory to hold water, you would at the very least need to find a scriptural source that is different from what we have today. Occasionally we do find differences or edits but they are from sources way way later

Speaking to God can be achieved in moments, and I feel the best way to understand the Bible is to ask God and fact-check everything. One thing that is apparent even without that though is that the authors of the Bible did a lot of projecting and reflecting their own limited understanding (this is the only way to make sense of the part about the plagues of Egypt for example, since every translation explicitly said that God made Pharoah obstinate, only to then punish Pharoah for his obstinance... which makes no sense.

Why? Where is this "projecting"?

In the case of the plagues, the purpose was to demonstrate the sheer power of god over false gods, be it the pharoah or any of the demons he worshipped. The river nile turned to blood because god killed the river goddess, the sun went dark because he killed the sun god, the frogs came to mock the egyptian worship of their frog god

It makes more sense to think that either something was lost in translation or else that the original scribe misunderstood something... not helped by that the Bible began as an oral tradition and thus probably was subject to the Game of Telephone effect before anyone had a chance to write it down).

The bible didn't begin as oral tradition. The jews in history were an oral culture, but the lawmakers and governments wrote down plenty.

If there is mistranslation, why do all the dates, locations, etc match?

Again, the telephone thing doesn't apply. There are no alternate versions or copies changed. If you're going to make the telephone game claim, you would need evidence before even making the claim

 

[skykiii]

when something is dictated, we credit the person saying yhe the thing, you dont credit the person taking dictation

.... you literally think the Bible was penned all in one session, by a guy who was literally told by God what to write?

The bible is for the most part a historical document, it should go through the same scrutiny process we apply to say, an account of the Peloponnesian war or Alexander the great, right?

Yup.

Where is the evidence for this "human-edited" claim?

Right in the book itself... and in the very fact that this little thing called "the apocrypha" exists, and how some parts of the Bible are accepted as canon by some denominations but not others.

But mostly just because a lot of the Bible's narrative makes sense only from a human perspective, not a godly one.

The manuscripts surely dont suggest this, weve never found any old copies that differ from what we consider the canon.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA blatantly wrong. Just for example there's two versions of the Book of Daniel.

In order for the "telephone game" theory to hold water, you would at the very least need to find a scriptural source that is different from what we have today. Occasionally we do find differences or edits but they are from sources way way later

Dude the Bible itself makes reference to books that no longer exist, plus Christians somehow know about things like Lilith and the Nephilim which funnily enough are barely described in the Bible itself (indicating a cultural expectation that the audience would understand these concepts implicitly, much the same way a Donald Duck cartoon won't explain what a Duck or a Witch is because the expectation is that kids already know).

Why? Where is this "projecting"?

DUDE. I literally described it in the part you quoted.

Think about it. Your own explanation is that the plagues were meant to show God's superiority. Yet this demonstration was only necessary--according to the text--because God itself "hardened Pharoah's heart" and made him not release the Israelites. So the implication is people have no free will and can be made to behave however God wants. Which then makes his displays of power rather pointless because he can just force them to react however he wants....

This does not make sense from a celestial perspective (the true God would never behave like this)... but it totally makes sense from the perspective of ancient man who has not yet hit upon the concept of free will and is still thinking literally anything that happens must be something God made happen.

The Bible has many such instances of this, where its clear the author and even the characters are assuming God thinks like a person of their own time would, when surely God would not--indeed God's actual thought process would probably be alien to them.

Heck, the mere fact that God is often referred to as a man is an example of what I mean. Biological sex only exists as a means of sexual reproduction, something God would not need to do, thus God would not need a gender. Besides, weren't Adam and Eve supposed to be the first man and woman? If God is already a man, then Adam can not be the first, because God is. Again, the kind of thing ancient writers would never think of.

If the Bible were truly dictated directly by God, it would mention this kind of thing. Instead what you often see is people ascribing their own attitudes to God. The entire Book of Judges is a good example of this.

And you keep asking for proof of "human edited document" but its been known to Bible scholars (And pretty obvious just by reading the text) that every book of the Bible had a different author.

 

[skykiii]

You might like this, not because of the main topic of the video, but the section on how the book was written:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kpkp2vxX3I

Actually I'm digging this video so far.

when something is dictated, we credit the person saying yhe the thing, you dont credit the person taking dictation

Okay, for some reason the feature that lets me ping you by typing part of your name and then selecting the correct person from a list isn't working, so I had to repeat-quote to ping you....

But yeah, watch the video NoReturn posted.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

.... you literally

almost everything you said was incorrect (2 versions of daniel, different canons, etc) and/or trying to speak on god's behalf in contradiction to what he says ("god wouldnt think this way, god wouldnt do xyz").

i obviously can't expand in it because speaking against jew/muslim faggotry propeganda is a bannable offense.

i would simply recommend doing more research that doesnt come from inbred sandniggers and satanists

 

[skykiii]

almost everything you said was incorrect (2 versions of daniel, different canons, etc)

OH FOR FUCK SAKE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additions_to_Daniel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

I personally own many versions of the Bible including several that include these alternate versions and apocrypha, so pray tell, how am I "incorrect?"

This is like hearing someone claim that Tolkien never modified the Hobbit or that George Lucas never revised the Star Wars trilogy--even though you can actually easily source all the different versions online.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

OH FOR FUCK SAKE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additions_to_Daniel

fake news

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

now youre trying to backpedal. i never said apocrypha didn't exist. of course it exists....but that doesnt mean there are different canons. the protestant bible is the only canon, as it excludes things not about the messiah or the revelation of the messiah. something like the Book of Maccabees is historically accurate, but it is not relevant to the messiah, so no need for it to be included in a compilation of book about the messiah and his savlation of humanity.

adam ived for almost 1000 years and wrote shit too, BUT they are not relevant to the messiah.

it is telling that catholics include this books, they dont care about jesus anyway, so they just throw any willy-nilly book in their bibles, related to jesus or not

I personally own many versions of the Bible including several that include these alternate versions and apocrypha, so pray tell, how am I "incorrect?"

because you dont know what "canon" means

 

[skykiii]

.but that doesnt mean there are different canons. the protestant bible is the only canon, as it excludes things not about the messiah or the revelation of the messiah.

Uhh, no, dumbass, that's not how it works. Just because you don't like/believe it does not mean it doesn't exist.

This whole "well its not part of MY canon!" thing you're trying to do is just irritating and makes you look retarded.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

Uhh, no, dumbass, that's not how it works. Just because you don't like/believe it does not mean it doesn't exist.

again, never said it didn't exist. i specifically said the opposite

This whole "well its not part of MY canon!" thing you're trying to do is just irritating and makes you look retarded.

first off, it's not MY canon, it is God's canon

second, since anything is evidently fair game for inclusion, should we include an account fo the War of 1812 in the bible too?

 

[skykiii]

again, never said it didn't exist. i specifically said the opposite

You sperged about how its not "real canon" because it included things you thought were "irrelevant."

Your words were, AND I QUOTE: now youre trying to backpedal. i never said apocrypha didn't exist. of course it exists....but that doesnt mean there are different canons. the protestant bible is the only canon, as it excludes things not about the messiah or the revelation of the messiah. something like the Book of Maccabees is historically accurate, but it is not relevant to the messiah, so no need for it to be included in a compilation of book about the messiah and his savlation of humanity.

You're saying they're not even A canon because they're not your canon. You even had the gall to tell me "look up what 'canon' means." Guess what dumbass.... I'm using the right definition.

BTW you might wanna look up what "backpedaling" means too.

should we include an account fo the War of 1812 in the bible too?

lol wut?

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

You sperged about how its not "real canon" because it included things you thought were "irrelevant."

not things I thought were irrelevant, things that are irrelevant, because they are not on topic.

Your words were, AND I QUOTE: now youre trying to backpedal. i never said apocrypha didn't exist. of course it exists....but that doesnt mean there are different canons. the protestant bible is the only canon,

this is true

You're saying they're not even A canon because they're not your canon.

no not MY canon. God's canon. i have nothing to do with it

You even had the gall to tell me "look up what 'canon' means." Guess what dumbass.... I'm using the right definition.

i dont think so, you think apocrypha is topically related to the rest of the bible

lol wut?

you support things unrelated to the topic being inserted into the bible. should we add the Life of Julius Casear?

 

[skykiii]

not things I thought were irrelevant, things that are irrelevant, because they are not on topic.

you support things unrelated to the topic being inserted into the bible. should we add the Life of Julius Casear?

Okay, dude? Even in your preferred protestant canon, there's a lot of books that have nothing to do with Jesus--most especially in the Old Testament. So this whole "its not canon because its irrelevant to the life of Jesus" argument doesn't even fly (unless you can explain to me how either Ruth or Jonah are at all relevant).

And on the other side of the coin, some of the apocryphal books are about Jesus.

So, your own standard is contradictory.

By your own standard, the Bible should include the life story of Amakusa Shiro Tokisaida.

no not MY canon. God's canon. i have nothing to do with it

............

Hey, if anyone besides this guy is still reading this topic and has not been scared away by this autistic Bible argument, is it even worth bothering with Otoya at his point?

 

[Creative Username]

It's called trust and verify as much you want to/can

It wouldn't be possible at all to have history and the other sciences if there weren't a baseline level of trust in what someone else wrote, and some ability to verify what they wrote

People working to prove/disprove other people's models with great redundancy is what makes science tick.

no not MY canon. God's canon. i have nothing to do with it

What makes it God's canon? Anything other than your personal preference for it?

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

there's a lot of books that have nothing to do with Jesus--most especially in the Old Testament.

every old testament book talks about jesus and/or the lineage/geneology of jesus. thats literally the entire reason the ancient jews and prophets wrote the shit down

So this whole "its not canon because its irrelevant to the life of Jesus" argument doesn't even fly (unless you can explain to me how either Ruth or Jonah are at all relevant).

the gospels of matthew and luke both explai Jonah's relevance to christ and it's foretelling of jesus being in the tomb for 3 days (belly fo the fish) and goin gto hell for 3 days (crying out from sheol). Jesus himself also references the book of Jonah by comparing the people in his time to ninevah.

the book of ruth is yet ANOTHER warning from god, to people, about racial purity, which is a lesson god teaches all throughout the OT (the flood, conquests of king david, etc). in a broad general sense, god cares chiefly about the purity of human DNA

And on the other side of the coin, some of the apocryphal books are about Jesus.

sure, lots of books in the world are about jesus. but that doesnt make them auto-include into the bible

By your own standard, the Bible should include the life story of Amakusa Shiro Tokisaida.

why would that be included?

What makes it God's canon? Anything other than your personal preference for it?

the accuracy of it and the topic(s) contained in it

for example, are you familiar with the Mormons, im sure....so they have a lot of extra books in their "canon"....do you know why they are excluded? because they contain prophecy and prophets that never came true (such as the building of the mormon temple in 18-whatever)

other books, like gnostics books (like the gospel of thomas or gospel of mary), are not included because they directly contradict the actual gospels and gods commandments themselves

 

[Tablet County]

is it even worth bothering with Otoya at his point?

No. I don't typically say this of people but you're looking a true-blue brainwashed puritan. Possibly a born again. Disregard his schizophrenia.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

No. I don't typically say this of people but you're looking a true-blue brainwashed puritan. Possibly a born again. Disregard his schizophrenia.

theres no such thing as schizophrenia, and adherance to truth is the opposite of "brainwashing"

i also dont get the "puritan" reference. i dont do heroin either, does that make me a puritan?

keep my name away from your gay psyops