Your opinion on this apologetic youtube video

[CrossoverManiac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPD5Jni_YFk&feature=channel_video_title

I have my opinion on this video and the flaws in his arguments, but I would like to hear from you.

[jabcat]

Sorry bro, I didn't have the patience to get through it.  After a few more people weigh in, plz share your thoughts. 

[micah7:9]

Sorry bro, I didn't have the patience to get through it.  After a few more people weigh in, plz share your thoughts.

Ill second that :bigGrin:

[jabcat]

My attention span is SOOOOOOOOO short.   :mblush:

[CrossoverManiac]

Since no one wants to watch it, I'll give you an overview.

1). The video parodies a clip from the pro-atheist movie "Zeitgeist" in which a man attacks theism.

2). The producers of the apologetic video redefines the term supernatural to include natural phemonon that can not be detected by the five natural senses.

3). He concludes that God is the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

My problem with the apologetic video is that it borders on pantheism.

[WhiteWings]

Depends a little on how you look at things.
Those 4 fundamental forces (that are represented by the four horsemen according to some) are the foundation of this universe.

John 1 [ACV]
3 All things came to be through him, and apart from him not even one thing came to be that has come to be.

That includes those 4 forces. Of course God having created those 4 forces doesn't exactly make Him those forces. But sometimes that line between things is very thin. Take for example "God is love". Is God truely love or is love a true and integral part of His personality/being? I think the last. But because it can't be seperated it's in a way also the first.
The universe isn't God. God isn't the universe. But the universe can't be seperated from God, because without God the universe/4 forcees simply wouldn't exist. And makes me think about the "God is love" verse. I think it's correct to say God is the 4 forces if you also look beyond that.
All love isn't God but God is love. The 4 forces aren't God but God is the 4 forces. :dontknow:
If you are interested in this sort of stuff I can dig up an article showing how the "Big Bang" is a pattern of the tribes/OT.

All a bit vague  :dontknow:
:2c:

[CrossoverManiac]

Depends a little on how you look at things.
Those 4 fundamental forces (that are represented by the four horsemen according to some) are the foundation of this universe.

John 1 [ACV]
3 All things came to be through him, and apart from him not even one thing came to be that has come to be.

That includes those 4 forces. Of course God having created those 4 forces doesn't exactly make Him those forces. But sometimes that line between things is very thin. Take for example "God is love". Is God truely love or is love a true and integral part of His personality/being? I think the last. But because it can't be seperated it's in a way also the first.
The universe isn't God. God isn't the universe. But the universe can't be seperated from God, because without God the universe/4 forcees simply wouldn't exist. And makes me think about the "God is love" verse. I think it's correct to say God is the 4 forces if you also look beyond that.
All love isn't God but God is love. The 4 forces aren't God but God is the 4 forces. :dontknow:

As a writer, I'm tempted to write a sci-fi story in which the four forces are considered to be God by a fictional extraterrestrial society.

If you are interested in this sort of stuff I can dig up an article showing how the "Big Bang" is a pattern of the tribes/OT.

All a bit vague  :dontknow:
:2c:

Sure, give us the link.

[redhotmagma]

I must say the more i contemplate those very things WW the more i lean toward pantheism, but not fully. The line is much more blurry now

[WhiteWings]

Sure, give us the link.

Scroll down: http://www.abarim-publications.com/GenesisStandardModel.html

Start of the article. Use the navigation on the left: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Genesis1Theories.html

[WhiteWings]

I must say the more i contemplate those very things WW the more i lean toward pantheism, but not fully. The line is much more blurry now

Pantheism is totally unbiblical. As I wrote I can see God is those 4 forces. But God also has to be more because for example those 4 forces don't interact with mankind like we see in the Bible. Neither do they write/inspire a Bible.
Pantheism has several flavors but basicly means God=Universe
Panentheism: The universe is inside of God.
That last view isn't unBiblical I think. 3:22am here. Time for deep sleep instead of deep thoughts. Nite :lazy:

[jabcat]

I must say the more i contemplate those very things WW the more i lean toward pantheism, but not fully. The line is much more blurry now

Pantheism is totally unbiblical. As I wrote I can see God is those 4 forces. But God also has to be more because for example those 4 forces don't interact with mankind like we see in the Bible. Neither do they write/inspire a Bible.
Pantheism has several flavors but basicly means God=Universe
Panentheism: The universe is inside of God.
That last view isn't unBiblical I think. 3:22am here. Time for deep sleep instead of deep thoughts. Nite :lazy:

You guys are talking over my head a little bit, but I like this.   :thumbsup:

[redhotmagma]

Yes panentheism is the more correct term I guess.  Like I said the lines are blurry, He is not the creation but everything is because of Him, and upheld, and glued together.

[Molly]

Since no one wants to watch it, I'll give you an overview.

1). The video parodies a clip from the pro-atheist movie "Zeitgeist" in which a man attacks theism.

2). The producers of the apologetic video redefines the term supernatural to include natural phemonon that can not be detected by the five natural senses.

3). He concludes that God is the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.

My problem with the apologetic video is that it borders on pantheism.

I agree.  He misses the point as much as the maker of the original video did.