Seems like some people don’t even want their youtube channels to become more popular!
There are two common mistakes which youtube film makers often make and that will cause some viewers to:
- not watch the film to the end
- make the decision to not spread the film on social media (as they otherwise would) even though they really like the film
- possibly also give the film a thumbs down.
That is because the film makers ….
- use a lot of swear words in their films – and particularly the F-word. Some use this word constantly throughout the film.
- attack the Jews as a group, and/or they make unfair generalizations about Israel (the only democracy in the Middle East) as though the political leaders and the Israeli inhabitants are the cause of various evil things going on in this world.
Swear words – particularly the F-word
Do some film makers really want to sound like immature third-graders, or why do they constantly use the F-word and other filthy expressions? Quite often I watch youtube films that have an urgent message (since they might convey an alarming conspiracy theory), and one would think that the film maker would therefore do everything in his power to increase the popularity of his film to improve the chances that it will be spread to others. But no! The film maker might still decide to use the F-word here and there which will prevent loads of people from spreading it further. The film maker might respond that he has loads of subscribers and likes, but what is wrong with getting even MORE subscribers and MORE likes? If I knew that preventing certain words would increase the chances for my important film to spread, I would definitely avoid those words. I can only conclude that the film makers feel that their films are not important enough or worth the trouble of avoiding curse words.
The Jews and Israel (the only democracy in the middle east)
The problem is two-fold:
a) Israel is unfairly attacked as a country (sometimes simply for existing) and Israeli politics are also unfairly criticized (maybe they do not like the way Israel protects its citizens from flying rockets and constant terrorist attacks from their Arabic neighbors).
b) The Jews are attacked as a group, and sinister Jewish individuals (who might not even be Jewish more than in the name) are used as representatives of all Jews and of Israel. That goes even if it would be a Jew like Rothschild, who does not regard himself as either a practicing Jew or a lover of Israel but is rather an anti-Jew. Why must a selection of mean-spirited Jews be regarded as the typical Jews of this world and represent the entire community of Jews?
We should of course be allowed to criticize Jews and Israel just like everyone/everything else, but the problem is rather that Jews and Israel are often criticized with another measurement, and unfair generalizations are often made. Jews are often criticized as a group as though they usually work as a unit and have common coffee breaks where they think up various ways to rule the world. There are of course corrupt politicians in Israel as well and Jews who are evil, but why must the whole country and the people as such be judged as a group? Other countries and people are not judged in this way.
Yes, it is very likely that the Israeli intelligence service has been guilty of some dark actions in its history, but the same thing can be said about the intelligence services in the US, Great Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, etc. So why is Israel specifically treated as though it stood out among other countries and constantly demonized? The American CIA has done a lot of bad deeds in its days (and the FBI, and corrupt politicians), but I would not dream of judging all America on the basis of their intelligence service, nor Americans as a group. On top of this, it might only be two percentage of the highest level of CIA who are bad guys with no regard for either America or other countries, and it would simply be wrong to judge America and Americans for something they are innocent of. Not even if we would hypothetically discover that the CIA has started numerous wars in this world and is behind 90% of all false flag operations.
Sometimes I watch youtube films that are excellent because of great support for a certain theory. However, then the film maker might proceed to ruin the film by making attacks on the Jews and/or Israel where he/she neglect to provide support other than saying perhaps “And Israel is behind it because that’s the pattern”, or they might give examples of bad stuff Jews or Israel have done. But are examples really enough? Is it for example possible to prove that Americans are dumber than Canadians by providing examples of dumb Americans? I pray to God you say no.
Israel – a tiny spot in the Middle East
The film makers might make a preposterous claim, such as “Israel is slaughtering Arabs”, but provides no support for this unfair generalization. If they lived in Israel themselves, how would they handle things if they were under constant attacks from their neighbors and risked to die in a rocket attack or a bomb blast in a market? How would they react if they had to deal with Arabic organizations which have on their agenda to erase Israel from the map and the Jews out of existence? How would they react if their neighbors praised terrorists who have killed Jews, and named streets after them? Would they not like a protecting fence, and would they not like a strong Israeli defense? It would be suicide for Israel to lay down their weapons.
Israel has shown in history that they are willing to give up land for peace (Sinai, Gaza, etc). They initially got their tiny land mass (NOT taken from any “Palestinians”) through a UN resolution, and they were not silly enough to say no thanks. They had no country, unlike the Arabs, and Jews had already lived in danger in several countries for many years. Israel immediately offered to share their little spot with the Arabs (despite that the Arabs had huge territories already, including the new Transjordan), but the Arabs started a war as a response. Those Arabs who were wise enough to remain in Israel (they were not forced to leave) became full members of Israel and can share in all the benefits the country provides. There is of course lots more to say, but my point is simply that I have seen SO many great youtube films totally ruined by unfair attacks on Jews/Israel, and the films themselves might have nothing to do with the Middle East anyway. I have seen films about topics such as megaliths (stones) where the lecturer for some reason takes the chance to attack the Jews as a group.
Links:
https://askdrbrown.org/library/some-major-problems-statement-palestinian-president-abbas
http://history-of-israel.org/history/time_line.php
http://www.shamrak.com/Masada2000-HistoryofPalestine.htm
http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/do-you-think-you-know-who-the-palestinians-are/
Bjorkbloggen 
Please excuse me for bringing up a subject unrelated to your post; the only relationship being it’s viewing popularity on youtube given the controversial nature of this subject. The subject is the flat earth which has a lot of hits on youtube. If you were unaware of this topic, you may be thinking who in their right mind would believe this? Before I delved into this area, I thought the same thing too – until I further examined the scriptures.
Consider, if the writers of the Bible down through the ages were inspired by God to describe the heavens and the earth, then one can presume that God imparted accurate information to them contained in the words of Scripture which describe his creation. So is the earth flat and stationary, or is it a rotating sphere which circles the sun as first proposed by Copernicus in his heliocentric model? Isaiah in 40:22 describes the earth as a circle. “It is he who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.” A circle by definition is a two-dimensional object whereas a sphere is three-dimensional. Was Isaiah unaware of the distinction between a circle and a sphere? Apparently he was able to distinguish between the two for in Isa 22:18 he wrote: “He will roll you up tightly like a BALL and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there the chariots you were so proud of will become a disgrace to your master’s house.” So Isaiah knew the difference between a ball and a circle and through the inspiration of the Spirit he chose to depict the earth as a circle on a flat plane.
Ps 19:6 describes the sun making its circuit to the other end. Joshua in 10:12-13 commanded both the sun and the moon to stand still. In just these two passages we find that the sun moves – not the earth. The heliocentric model posits that the sun doesn’t move around the earth but instead the earth revolves around the sun. Was Joshua correct in commanding the moon to stop but incorrect in commanding the sun to stop? Were both David and Joshua wrong in their observations? Or were they employing phenomenological language to describe what they saw? The other possible alternative is that the scriptures accurately state that the sun does indeed move – contrary to the heliocentric model. If one adopts the view that David and Joshua were describing the sun’s movements from an anthropocentric perspective, that explanation becomes problematic where we read in 2 Kings 20:9-11 and Isaiah 38:8 that God caused the shadow of the sun to move back across Ahaz’s stairs. In order for that to happen, under the heliocentric model, the earth would have had to suddenly stop moving at its equator at 1,000 mph, begin rotating in the opposite direction and then stop once more and return to spinning in its normal rotation. I can only imagine what the inhabitants of the earth would experience under those conditions as it would be akin to a freight train suddenly slamming on its brakes; throwing its occupants violently forward. Consequently I don’t think the heliocentric model fits with what happens in 2 Kings and Isaiah. The geocentric model however where the earth is stationary and the sun moves, poses no conflict with these scripture passages.
In the heliocentric model the moon’s light is nothing but a reflection of the sun’s light as the moon does not possess any light of its own. Yet in Gen 1:16 we find that God made “two great lights” – not one. In 1 Cor 15:41, the sun, moon and stars each possess their own splendor/glory. The moon does not reflect the sun’s splendor but possesses its own splendor. Even the stars differ from each other in their splendor. What can that mean? Both the Torah and the Septuagint state that God placed the sun, moon and stars in the firmament (v.17) across which the birds fly (v.20). If the firmament is a solid vault or dome as I understand it according to ancient Hebrew cosmology (like a snow dome) then these celestial bodies are within the dome and much smaller and closer to the earth than what we were taught in school. They occupy the same air space within which the birds fly and hence are not situated in outer space. If a solid firmament structure exists, then space travel is impossible, satellites do not orbit around a spherical globe and man never landed on the moon. I am aware this sounds like an enormous conspiracy theory and cognitive dissonance may be resonating at this point. When I looked into the occult history and founding of NASA, Operation Fishbowl by the US Military, Admiral Byrd and the secrecy surrounding Antarctica, the curvature of the earth, etc., I became suspicious that what I was taught in school about our planet is not in fact reality. Here’s a link to one of Rob Skiba’s videos which describes his own journey.
Perhaps you were already aware of all of this and have drawn your own conclusion. If so, I apologize for interjecting this subject matter into your post.
Blessings,
LikeLike
Evan,
If I’m not mistaken I believe you brought up the topic of flat earth briefly in another thread and I certainly welcome it since it’s of high value to consider why we believe the things we do.
Apparently the idea of the flat earth is getting increasingly popular, and therefore I believe it’s important to get to know the arguments involved.
What I can’t understand is why people get angry when they hear about the flat earth. Why is that? If people are wrong about the flat earth, isn’t it better to provide better arguments? In order to do that, we must first learn what the arguments are in the first place, in order to not fight against straw men.
Rob Skiba is the one who got me thinking about this, but I no longer follow him on FB. That’s because of his hostile attitude towards people who don’t share his views about Christmas, Easter, etc. His films about the flat earth are great however, and I can recommend them as well. 🙂
Blessings!
LikeLike
Now that you mention it, I think you are correct as I did comment on the flat earth earlier. I had totally forgotten! My old age must catching up on me. 🙂 But you are correct in that for some reason people (including Christians) get angry when flat earth or any other topic is broached that does not fit their paradigm. I’m sure you must have encountered Christians who instead of showing love and mutual respect, get nasty and obstinate when disagreements about doctrinal matters occur. Instead of loving the brethren as Jesus commanded and simply just agreeing to disagree, these discussions often deteriorate into personal attacks. We are warned in the scriptures to walk in the Spirit instead of walking in the flesh. I could never understand that because if I’m wrong and misunderstand something – especially doctrine – I would appreciate someone else correcting me and showing me my error. After all, I do not want to believe false doctrine, much less teach it to someone else so I remain open to correction.
By the way, I have not seen this subject covered on your blog which is another doctrinal matter with important implications. I lean toward Universalism because after a couple of years of study I think the whole of Scripture most corresponds to that soteriological framework. I certainly believe in a literal and physical lake of fire where condemned sinners end up, but that it is temporary (according to the age; not eternal) for the purpose of chastisement and to bring about reconciliation instead of everlasting punishment.
For example:
(God does not desire to save all) + (he is able to save all) = all are not saved [Calvinism]
(God desires to save all) + (he is not able to save all) = all are not saved [Arminianism]
(God desires to save all) + (he is able to save all) = all are saved [Universalism]
One of the key determinants is how the noun aion and its adjectival forms aionion, aionios, etc. are translated which could mean eternity and eternal respectively or age and age-lasting. Therefore does time in the lake of fire for sinners last forever, or does it last only for an age of time? Depending on how one translates aion/aionios influences one’s belief in this matter.
G. Campbell Morgan sometimes called the “prince of expositors” states in his book God’s Methods with Men: “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into great error in our constant usage of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end” (p.185-86).
The doctrine of apokatastasis contends that God will one day restore all to himself according to working of his will through the ages of time. If this is true, then the evangelical/fundamentalist view of eternal torment in hell is a total mischaracterization of the scriptures.
LikeLike
Hey Evan
The flat earth is not the only conspiracy theory that people get mad about (yes also Christians), and I have personally been severely verbally attacked when I listed a few suspicious facts about certain terrorist attacks (false flags…). However, for some people the flat earth may be the No 1 conspiracy theory that people simply should not accept, or else they are insane and should be isolated. I can understand their conviction, but I cannot understand why Christians are not capable of keeping a decent discussion level about it. If the flat earthers are wrong, we should at least respect them for not lying about their belief system (would it have been better if they were dishonest and lied?), and if they are wrong, well how about explaining why they are in error? Does God really tell us to turn our backs on people who are mistaken about things? The problem of course is that globe believers generally have no idea how the flat earth system works, and they have no interest in finding out. They are perhaps just interested in explaining that flat earthers are wrong and stupid.
I haven’t written any blog posts about the flat earth in English, but I’ve written a couple in Swedish (one rather recently). I figured there are some good articles and youtube films out there already which cover the flat earth, but I haven’t seen any in Swedish that I can recall.
I’m not sure about the lake of fire, so I keep the question open. It’s quite possible that HADES is a temporary place for anguish and bliss (two separate departments) which will eventually be thrown into Gehenna (the lake of fire) and dissolve. I’ve seen and read some Near Death Experiences, and they have got me thinking as well.
I’ve written a blog post where “eternal” is a major factor, when it comes to God’s eternal covenant with the Israelites, which was in fact not “eternal” as in our understanding of the word.
I’m not sure I follow you about your Universalist view point based on the examples you gave. I of course hesitate to use the expression “arminianism”, but both arminianism and freewillism are based on the idea that God certainly wants to save all and CAN save all but still chooses not to save all because he doesn’t want to mold people into remote controlled robots who can do nothing else but obey him. He would much rather create people with free will, and this means that there is a chance that people will not love him or obey him. God wants to save all and would have liked for everyone to repent so that all indeed could be allowed into his kingdom and get saved. But alas, we have free will and all people don’t come to him. They therefore don’t meet the requirements. I even suspect that you agree with me about this, so I’m thinking that I may have misunderstood you.
Blessings
LikeLike
Yes, I agree with you. In the scriptures we find that God has given man a free will. We also find that God is absolutely sovereign having omniscience and omnipotence over everything. The inherent problem with Calvinism is that it emphasizes God’s sovereignty while neglecting that God gave humans the ability to choose (as in the Garden of Eden). By the same token, the problem with Arminianism is that it emphasizes man’s free will while neglecting God’s sovereignty. As you pointed out, in Arminianism although God desires to save all, he can’t because he does not want to interfere with a person’s ability to choose and love him freely. Yet in the Old Testament we find the example that God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart (God’s sovereignty) and Pharaoh hardened his own heart (free will). This OT example though hard to rationally fathom indicates that God is somehow able to retain his sovereignty while still allowing man (Pharaoh) to exercise his free will. Universalism best fits this paradigm as it addresses how God is able to save while preserving both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
John 12:32 reads: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” One must ask does “all” really mean “all” or only “some?” Calvinists and Arminians have to qualify all and make it to mean some. A Christian Universalist has no need to qualify all and interprets all to mean all (everyone) according to its plain meaning. The Greek word for “draw” in this verse is helkō which can also be translated as “drag.” This same word is used in Jn 21:6 to describe the dragging of a fishing net. One encounters resistance while dragging in a fishing net. Will God one day ultimately drag all men to himself despite their initial resistance and unbelief? The view of those who hold to eternal torment in the lake of fire does not allow for this possibility. Yet, we find in the book of Revelation this anomaly. Throughout Revelation, the phrase “kings of the earth” appears 7 times in Rev 6:15; 17:2,18; 18:3,9; 19:19; 21:24. In all but the last citation the kings of the earth are portrayed in Revelation as aligned with Mystery Babylon and are the enemies of God. Yet, in 21:4 we find that the “kings of the earth” will one day bring their splendor into the New Jerusalem. One must therefore ask how or why are the kings of the earth who are consistently and without exception portrayed in Revelation as evil and unrepentant, allowed into the New Jerusalem where “nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (21:27). It appears that somehow even the kings of the earth who were previously God’s enemies, after having spent some unknown age of time in the lake of fire will through chastisement one day repent and be allowed to enter into the New Jerusalem.
If this is so, then passages such as Rom 5:15-19 make sense. “But so also the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the trespass of the one, the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gift in grace, which is of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many! And the gift is not as through one having sinned. For truly the judgment from one was unto condemnation; but the gift is out of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! So then, just as through one trespass, it is unto condemnation to all men, so also through one act of righteousness it is unto justification of life to all men. For as indeed through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous.”
The point that Paul was trying to make is that Adam’s disobedience brought condemnation and death to ALL men. Using parallelism, Paul writes that in similar fashion Jesus’ obedience brought justification and life to ALL men. If justification and life is only made to SOME men as Calvinists and Arminians believe, then Adam’s transgression is greater than the gift of God’s grace through the atonement of the cross since in Adam ALL die, but in Christ only SOME will be made alive. The is exactly the opposite of Paul’s teaching in this passage where he writes that Christ’s obedience and sacrifice is superior to Adam’s transgression – therefore all will be justified and saved.
It is scriptures such as these above which only make sense to me given the framework of the doctrine of Apokatastasis and that is why my curiosity was provoked into further study. If you are so inclined, tentmaker.org has a wealth of information on the subject and is a good place to start.
Blessings to you.
LikeLike
Hey Evan
<< We also find that God is absolutely sovereign having omniscience and omnipotence over everything.
Well, yes and no. Those words aren't actually used (at least not in the KJV), but this of course doesn't mean God is not all of those things. The question is then how we interpret those words, and if we apply the descriptions of God in the Bible. I'm rather sure we have the same view about God, from what I've been reading from you 🙂
I understand what you mean with "can't", since you described it well (and I agree) but I never use this word about this issue since it might confuse people, believing God lacks an ability, or that man is more sovereign than God. It's rather that God "won't" save all because he doesn't want to interfere with the free will that he has given us, and he doesn't want to save sinners. (It's also true that he actually "can't" save sinners, due to his creation and the kingdom of God that he has in store for us).
Yes I agree about Pharaoh's heart. I think I can understand why it both works to say that Pharaoh hardened his heart, and that God also did it. If we preach to a person, and this person rejects the gospel, it's possible to say that this person has hardened his heart towards it. But I believe it's also possible to say that WE (who preached to him) hardened his heart. Especially if we knew beforehand that he was an atheist and likely would respond with a rejection of the gospel. It would be like walking up to him, give him a chance to once again hear the gospel and respond to it, and drive the expected "hardening of his heart" out from him, if you know what I mean. The time when he rejected the gospel was when he hardened his heart, and he wouldn't have hardened his heart in that minute unless WE caused it to happen by setting the ball rolling. So it works both ways. We aren't responsible and guilty of his decision, but we sort of initiated the rejection which we suspected would be coming.
<<John 12:32 reads: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” One must ask does "all" really mean "all" or only "some?"
Jesus came to die for the WORLD. That would be all, and perhaps John 12:32 isn't saying anything else than that. ALL has been given the light, so all are drawn, but all of course don't come (and some come and don't stay).
<<The point that Paul was trying to make is that Adam's disobedience brought condemnation and death to ALL men.
It's true that we must die due to Adam (including Jesus), and DEATH will pass to all men. I agree that it's parallelism, and it should be ALL in both places. It's possible to understand it as universalism if you read Rom. 5:18-19 alone (the same ones who die are the same ones being justified and alive), but if we read the rest of the text I believe we can see that we don't die spiritually unless we sin like Adam, and we don't live spiritually unless we become like Jesus (believe, repent and live holy lives). It's still true that Adam brought the first sin into the world and that we will all die physically due to him. Not everyone will enter the narrow gate to life, and it would have been better for Judas to not be born …
I believe it's possible to believe that the hell torture is temporary, while at the same time not be a universalist. Revelations is such a deep book and I haven't studied it as much as I would like. There will indeed be gnashing of teeth in the furnace of fire, in the outer darkness.
Thanks for the link. I'd like to study it and I hope I get a chance.
Blessings!
LikeLike
Indeed; based on your past posts I know you allow the scriptures and the Spirit to guide you to all truth instead of the traditions of men!
LikeLike