What a remarkable knowledgeable, educated speaker. Love his delivery. Not trying to impress or entertain. Just presenting information and you can take it or leave it. High respect for him.

I love this lectures, I watch them out of order, cause I've discovered your channel recently. I thought you were just a professor, or an academic, cause your very scientific views. Maybe bc of my background, I grew catholic, I considered myself atheist at one point, then agnostic, now not sure... But anyway, maybe I won't become a believer, but I love learning, and I do it a lot with your videos. You are very gifted when it comes to explaining things, you make any topic very entertaining. I hope you continue with this forever, thanks a lot.

Long before I saw this excellent lecture, I read about how officials of the Church asked Galileo "are you sure what you see through your new optical instrument are not artifacts of that instrument ?" To me *that* was the essence of the scientific method: You cannot just trust what your instrument shows you - you also have to question your method of investigation (and not just your theories).

@robkunkel8833

Ай бұрын

Seems rather simple but you’re right. I suppose one modern day equivalent is all the flack that Boeing is taking these days. Sometimes you have to think outside the box to determine if all your assumptions and theories) are working 100% of the time.

I. Had. No. Idea. That was fascinating.

thanks so much doctor! Very exited to comment after watching ;D

Excellent as always. I would add one minor point about how big a problem the lack of visible stellar parallax was. Not only did it require the stars to be extremely far away, but you could calculate their approximate size based on their visible appearance in the sky if they were that far away. star would have to be many times larger than not only the sun, but our entire solar system. This is not actually the case but nobody was suggesting light refraction as a solution. So in order to believe in heliocentrism, you actually had to accept a couple unproven, unlikely, and in the case of star size, completely untrue hypotheses.

Found this channel while looking to learn more about gnosticism several weeks ago - have been fully obsessed with the lectures since. Have you had one strictly on zoroastrian religion and zarathustra? If so I can't find it, also I think that maybe not all lectures are in the lecture playlist - John mentioned the biography of satan lecture several times, f.e., but I can't find it. However, if there hasn't been a dedicated zoroastrianism lecture I would greatly GREATLY appreciate one. I've now been looking to find out more about the history and religion itself, but I'm finding a lack of sources that I feel that I can trust as reliable here on youtube

Super interesting as always. Thanks!

Thank you for your posts.

Did John Dehlin watch this lecture and respond? Great explanation.

Always love to hear about some random strangers family tree and heritage stories

Can't wait for the polygamy one. I have my doubts that JS ever was a polygamist as well, based off the "Joseph Smith Papers." As far as I can tell so far all evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as gossip and hearsay. But I'm keeping an open mind and I'm excited to hear the evidence 💜

@wolfumz

2 жыл бұрын

There's definitely good historical evidence that Smith was polygamous, particularly from looking at the trove of documents in the JS papers. In fact, historical documents can make the case that Smith married polygamous wives while they were still married to other men, men who congregants of the LDS church. I'm not sure if I'm reading your comment correctly. History doesn't really have the concept of hearsay... a document is typically either trustworthy on the issue at hand, or is not. Hearsay is more something for the courts. Dan vogel wrote a great biography of Joseph Smith, although it is not focused on JS' polygamy. Vogel's published a book on the topic, as well as made videos on you tube.

@adriennepatterson6113

2 жыл бұрын

@@wolfumz I agree! I am well versed on the subject. And a frequent commenter on Dan's channel. My stance is that either Joseph Smith is a liar, or he is not. Either he is a prophet, or he is not. He never admitted to polygamy, and denied it to his dying day. His wife until her old age denied it as well, even as they slandered her and damned her to (ultimately long delayed) destruction. So I ask you this. Why would the LDS church call their founder a liar? Why would the Community of Christ call their matriarch a liar? How does the religion hold any foundation at all if they are liars about such a thing as this? The revelation on polygamy and the threats against Emma by name were not published to the congregation until years after Joseph & co.'s assassination. Brigham is known to have dozens of wives. It would needs be that Joseph should have too, if his claim would have credence. So anyone claiming wifery would have been gladly greeted and their ficticious nuptials blessed with bona-fides. It provided Brighamites precedence for their current practice and bragging rights for as many plural wives as pledged. Temple ordinances are done posthumously all the time in the LDS church anyway. And so far as DNA analysis of any so-called progeny has shown, these "marriages" appear to be have remained either unconsum- or extremely careful-mated. As I said, I look forward to seeing all these historical documents laid out. I just don't see how Joseph Smith would be both false enough to make a bold faced lie to his congregants and himself, and also be worthy to restore Christ's gospel. And to be dumb enough to leave a document trail to prove it? Forgeries, lies, slander, gossip, boasting, and wishful thinking. If they be not, then Joseph Smith was never a prophet at all. His journal entries read very truthful to me. I prefer those historical documents to any. My simple explanation.... "These hoes comin in a bakers dozen. Claiming they was with me when they know they really wasn't." Tangent - Lucy Mack Smith has journal entries descibing how when Joseph was a boy he would regale the family in the evening with the most interesting stories of the ancient inhabitants of their land. I find that such a very interesting anachronism.

@HumblyQuestioning

2 жыл бұрын

@@adriennepatterson6113 not sure I agree with you but I absolutely approve of your use of Kanye to support your position. Ridiculous 🤣

@adriennepatterson6113

2 жыл бұрын

@@HumblyQuestioning "I lived a hundred lives so guess that mean I had a hundred wives and I am simply high off life for the hundredth time" "Aw, this'd be a beautiful death.... Jumping out the window letting everything go..." "Now I ain't sayin he a gold digger..." Ok I think that's all I got. For now 😉

@Christiancatholic7

11 ай бұрын

@@adriennepatterson6113he was a huge polygamist that’s why they killed him. He was messing with other mens wives

Wait! There's a sub group of LDS...?

@xp8969

2 ай бұрын

Dozens of them

But if you needed to boil it down to "gallileo wrote a book about the earth moving and the church didn't like it and shut him down, after banning copernicus," that would be consistent with everything here and a pretty good argument that religion hinders science. I think this is a stiuation where our boy John knows much more than the person he is arguing with, and can make them look stupid by slaying them with detail. He can win the argument but they (those who depict religion as an obstacle to scientific progress) are still right and he is still wrong.

15:50 it was a fact that many Greek philosophers held to Heliocentrism. I don't know what Pastor Hamer is talking about here.

@JamesLee-js1cd

2 жыл бұрын

There's a HUGE difference between "many philosphers held the belief" and "scientists had known." The latter language (intentionally I'd argue) evokes the specifically modern-day scientific consensus founded upon falsifiability, testibility and peer-review.

@dharmadefender3932

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesLee-js1cd Not prior to the 1500s there wasn't. Science was natural philosophy. They were the same.

@JamesLee-js1cd

2 жыл бұрын

@@dharmadefender3932 That is precisely my point; the wording history channel uses is inaccurate and misleading, hence Hamer calling it "not a fact"

@dharmadefender3932

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesLee-js1cd How is a fact misleading? Again, scientists i.e., natural philosophers, in Greece and Rome had arguments and evidence for the sphericity and centricity of the Earth.

@paulrhome6164

2 жыл бұрын

@@dharmadefender3932 People studying the natural world through observation in the few centuries prior to the scientific method were called natural philosophers, and they are the ones being referred to "the same thing" loosely in relation to scientists. There were no natural philosophers in ancient Greece or Rome. There may be some that you feel fits that definition, but that is not who is being talked about. That was a completely different tradition, the culmination of which was Aristotle's geocentrism.

There is a small misunderstanding about the Cherokee. They insist that they are a sovereign nation. They can and have offered enrollment (citizenship) to anyone they wish. Roughly at the time of the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie, they offered enrollment to a lot of Scots. Enrollment is not genetic, but is direct lineal ancestry. Direct descendants of freedmen are also included.

a history of the lds 😕

The story is more complex. The book of Copernicus, the Revolutions of Celestial Spheres, was published in 1543. The book was forbidden 75 years after the death of Copernicus. In this period nobody complained about Copernican system. In fact the friends of Galileo Galilei from the top management of the Catolic Church had advised him that is no problem as long as the discussion was declared as a hypothesis not a fact. If it is a fact only hard evidence is needed. This was the best solution rejected by Galileo. He declared that the real system was that of Copernic and only stupid people will support the system of Ptolemeu (meaning the heads of Catolic Church). Then the Church asked to show the proof. Supporting the Copernican system was very hard enterprise. The Copernican system was a complicated one. It was drafted only from 28 direct observations of Copernic and more observation from Ptolemeu. The system was like this: the Sun was in the center, Tera is spinning around its axis and is rotating around a center in space which is near to the Sun. The plane of the planets did not include the Sun. Copernicus still clung to strict Aristotelian ideas in his heliocentric system: It retained epicycles, if now they were centered on the Sun instead of the Earth. It required uniform circular motion. This made his system complex: 48 epicycles, compared to 40 in the Ptolemaic geocentric system. but, it did not use the complicated equant. Still only described the motions of the planets without explaining them physically. The orbits were circles. In order to accommodate the observation from reality with his system, Copernic introduced In detail, the Copernican System was complex and unwieldy. It was arguably only an incremental improvement over the Ptolemaic system, insofar as it made somewhat better predictions of the positions of the planets than the Ptolemaic calculations of the day, and it was somewhat easier to use mathematically because it eliminated the difficult artifice of the equant. In practice, however, it made up for this by offering a considerable measure of conceptual simplicity: many of the contrivances of the geocentric system needed to explain retrograde motions and the differences in the motions between inferior and superior planets were eliminated. In a world of increasing change, the idea behind it was to prove powerful, and truly revolutionary. The demonstration of such system was almost impossible at that time. Copernic presented it as a hypothesis not a real thing. Later on, Galileo took a very curious stance to define as stupid people who were against Copernican system. He had no possibility to show the proof of this system. The climax took place in 1633 when he was 70 and published a book called Dialog about Great Systems. In this book, the dialog was among 3 characters. One of them, Simplicitus, used to play the stupid role and was reproducing the words of the Pope, not more not less. This was very offensive so the Church asked the ultimate demand: show us the proof. Of course, Galilei did not have the proof only some week explanation. The trial was meant to teach a lesson to Galilei. He was not at all in prison (he was accommodated at the Embassy of Florence in Rome) and no other significant measure against the Professor were taken. The goal was only to force Galileo to dezavuate what he said . This was was humiliating. So, in short this was the story. Very nice presentation.

You are wrong. It was well known that the earth was round centuries before, almost a a milennia before actually. It was proven by Pythagoras in the 6:th century BC...

@masonkesslar8168

Жыл бұрын

You mean Eratosthenese. Pythagoras proposed the earth was round, because a sphere to him is a perfect shape.

The severity of the penalty is not the relevant thing here. What is relevant is the oppression and even persecution aspects of it. It goes back to the monotheistic concept of one god. If there's only one god, there's only one right way. All others are wrong. And it gets into nearly every aspect of human existence, from taxes to sex. I think monotheistic religions tend to be more oppressive than polytheistic ones for that reason

@langreeves6419

Жыл бұрын

If there's one God doesn't mean there's only one right way.

@andrewsuryali8540

Жыл бұрын

No, polytheistic religions as they were actually practiced were much tougher on people who broke conformity. There was zero separation between religion and state in polytheism, so persecution was easier. Think of the sharia law in Islam but for a belief system with more gods. That's how historical polytheism actually worked.

BS