God gets bored and creates stuff.
Written, Animated and Voiced by
Sam T
http://www.ebolaworld.com
http://www.samtproductions.com
WANT MORE?!
http://www.ebolaworld.com
http://www.ebolaworld.com/blog
http://ebolaworld.newgrounds.com
http://www.twitter.com/ebolaworld
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/ebolaworld
SEE MY DEMO REEL:
http://www.samtproductions.com
Business Inquires: sam@samtproductions.com
Duration : 0:4:30
[youtube dcWR9sjBy3A]
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
My favourite …
My favourite sentence from the bible is “In the beginning…” I love that sentence. Bible is such a great work of literature
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
True?
True?
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
u have skill, dont …
u have skill, dont waste it on this. im noot a religion freak but this might offend others, but this is good stuff. try another theme not so……. umm, u know what i mean.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
lol =)
lol =)
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
god is gay
god is gay
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
thats funny he …
thats funny he sounds like kiba from yu gi oh lmaso
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
love it! haha!!
love it! haha!!
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
you would be lookin …
you would be lookin for that you sick fuck
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
hes got a hairy …
hes got a hairy dick at 2:28
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
this is funny as
this is funny as
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
The fun thing is …
The fun thing is when you compare what you refer to as the two accounts of the same story to other ancient religions in the region. The first account bears similarity to the creation myth of one religion, the second to a separate. Furthermore the style and grammar of the different accounts indicate not only different authorship but different time period.
Despite your suggestion that I have not bothered looking up answers, I studied this fairly thoroughly long ago.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
[cont] defending …
[cont] defending the clearly indefensible biblegod but that is where it cuts off and goes to the back cover. I just did a cursory glance the first go-’round. I’m going to try to find it at the library. After all, I’ve already paid for it (taxes) and can just read it and return it and let you know what I think. I know many of the biblical fundamentalist are dead-set against the idea of “open theology”
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
pg. 39 he goes into …
pg. 39 he goes into the logical syllogism St. Anselm goes into and your right, he does call it incomplete. He brings the ideas of *perfect being theology* & *(biblical) creation theology* to fill-in-the-blanks and bring about the idea of an ‘absolute creator.’ He then goes into god’s “goodness” and freely confesses the inadequacy of the morals of biblegod. The problem is that most people’s conception of god begins w/various ‘holy’ books and whole schools of thought are dedicated to [cont]
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@Freethinker7718
…
@Freethinker7718
hmmm.
That’s interesting. The last chapter I have read is actually right past that point, and I can’t remember it relying on St. Anselm’s Ontological argument at all (In fact, it seems as if Morris disapproves of St. Anselm’s argument as not being a valid argument, but having its merits).
But I’ll definitely tell you if it comes up later in the book.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
I was able to see …
I was able to see 49 pages on a google book preview/review and already I see a couple things that are problematic. First and foremost is that it seems heavily dependent on St.Anselm’s Ontological argument. We can get into Kant’s refutation of the argument, the fact that it has problems regarding the fact that every god-concept that has been postulated either is NOT the greatest collection of qualities a being could possess, etc. The cheapest I’ve seen the book so far has been $18.96, not bad.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@Freethinker7716
…
@Freethinker7716
Sounds good!
Good luck on getting a hold of it; I had it for my systematic theology course and, since its academic, you may have to search around to find a better price on it! (maybe amazon or a similar site? idk)
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
As someone who is …
As someone who is genuinely interested in the truth I will be looking into this resource. I love to learn and if there is something I can learn from it I will be most thankful. Expect a critical review of the material ; ) To be continued…
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@Freethinker7718
…
@Freethinker7718
Benevolence, in systematic theology, is not an “omni-quality.”
Systematic theology does not involve a being with all omni-qualities, but rather, a being with COMPOSSIBLE omni-qualities.
Systematic theology is the most rigorous course I have taken in my life, but you might be able to get a general idea of what systematic theology really is and what these terms mean by reading “Our Idea of God” by Thomas V. Morris.
Sys. Theo. is too complex to convey properly over this medium.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
The whole point is …
The whole point is that these omni-qualities logically invalidate one another. Care to define an logical and hence POSSIBLE God-concept?
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Omni means all, so …
Omni means all, so you’re arguing one omni-quality is BEFORE another? And if you are trying to slide under the radar by envoking “limited” omni-qualities then they are not omni-qualities at all. I am not the one wedded to the concept of omni anything, you are. Is God evil? Is God good? What if God is indifferent? Congratulations on the college-level courses by the way. Would you like your award shipped to you directly or will you be attending the ceremony. I’m clapping for you right now.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@Freethinker7718
I …
@Freethinker7718
I have yet to hear an actual argument against the rationale for freewill.
If all you have is an opinion, I’d suggest you research it a bit more or let the subject go.
I’m sure there’s things that you’re more versed in than theological ethics!
(and I don’t consider it to be a loss for someone if they do not come up with a counter-argument! Feel free to drop it if you don’t have any information which adds to the discussion! I don’t mind, really. ^_^)
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
CzarAdam2009
Oh: no …
CzarAdam2009
Oh: no problem!
I enjoy talking to you, and I have no problem clearing up any confusion!
The only goal I have on here is to inform, so I have no problem answering questions. ^_^
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
As for the advanced …
As for the advanced medical practices, I’m sure I could find some but what I should’ve said (that I am more familiar with) is health issues:
There is bacteria in pork that cannot be killed without heating it to a high temperature and freezing it at an extremely low temperature, which the ancients were not capable of.
The Judeo-Christian God:
forbade the eating of pork.
Forbade the eating of natural-death carcasses (which we now know could have been diseased)
(text limit keeps me limited! haha)
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@CzarAdam2009
Its a …
@CzarAdam2009
Its a common misconception and I totally understand where you’re coming from!
Its something I had to look into as well.
If you read Genesis 1, you’ll notice that the words “And God said” are used each time in reference to a definite chronological order (that is, right after a marked day), whereas the words “Then God said” are only used in two cases: both of which happen to be the only accounts which occurred on the same day, and indicating that it is not a definite ordering.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
@Freethinker7718
…
@Freethinker7718
Your argument is a joke.
You’re talking to a guy who has taken college-level courses in systematic theology. Omnipotence has ALWAYS come before the attribute of benevolence.
Also, benevolence is not–within any line of systematic theology that I have studied–considered “omni” by any means. I doubt that you even know what that would LOOK like.
God could very well be evil and still be God, but if God is not omnipotent he is not God, by definition.
Care to try another approach?