My most successful video ever is the one I did regarding how Alcohol changes your personality traits 2 years ago.
https://youtu.be/79EuNq4BGBo

So, I thought it would be appropriate to do another video which goes into why alcoholism is so difficult kick, and, give some thoughts on one or two things one can do to increase their success in actually doing so.

So I was sent a video in which the focus was on claims by celebrities to be channelling spirits etc... in order to help them with their work, and I was asked what I though, and this comes at the same time wherein I engaged in a discussion with an elder about a narcissistic member of our church whom rather than be dealt with appropriately we find we constantly run into the issue where people tend to spiritualise away many problems in what's become a type of religious handwaving in order to avoid actually dealing with what's otherwise a mundane physical problem.

My basic point is, when people say that they are channelling spirits etc... why do we automatically believe them?

Here is the video in question by Little Light Studios.
https://youtu.be/z1ST3rfb2ww

We have that experience where people say stuff like ''I don't feel Christ is like that'' or 'I don't think Jesus would have a problem with this'' or ''I don't believe that God would reject such a person''. We also notice the constant self reference, and whilst we always wait for the them to substantiate these assertions, it never comes. You are just given musings, opinions, feelings and so on.

Here are examples of an actual conversation I have had with a Christian, honest to God, this was the very same person in the very same conversation.

''I feel like necromancy has more to do with other spirits that arent connected directly with you. I do divining for my family, I like that.''
''I dont think our culture is demonic''
''I think that the concept of what a spirit is or isnt has shifted over time''.
''it fits with my understanding with the world and my relationship with God and nature, if anything it strengthens my relationship with christ I'd say.'
''but I don't base my relationship with God and christ on judeo-christian framework.''
''I base this on biblically + ideologies rooted in akan culture''

Nothing but ludicrous self reference
Why do so called christian do such things these days? Why are there hundreds of different versions of God and Christ popping up all over the place?
I attempt to answer this in this video. Clue... narcissism.

I came across a meme a little while back and it stuck with me at how badly people have understood what is required for love to be possible. I discuss the psychological necessity not only for being loved of course, no one disputes this, but for loving yourself as a means for making it possible at all.

So, Ive got cancer.

And guess what, God is still fair.

Basically, this video serves to dismantle the emoji type manner in which we view emotions and shows that all emotions find their origins in cognition, therefore if emotions are irrational and dysfunctional it is because the individuals cognition is likewise dysfunctional and furthermore, if cognition's can be questioned because we recognise that cognition's can be flawed, then unlike modern political and activist orthodoxy, emotions can be questioned as well because they do not simply arise out of nowhere to be taken as gospel truth and considered infallible and sacred like some spirit, but they find their origins in our cognition's and are constructed by us and therefore, we are responsible for their accuracy.

The following are only some resources on the subject, I naturally cannot link every single one but merely provide a start for research. Also, Professor Lisa Feldman's research brings together hundreds if not thousands of other research papers in the field so what you are getting is a distillation of a significant amount of research.

How Emotions are made Lisa Feldman Barret
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M00SFHL/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Testing alternative models of dispositional empathy: The Affect-to-Cognition (ACM) versus the Cognition-to-Affect (CAM) model
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917305949

Two facets of affective empathy: concern and distress have opposite relationships to emotion recognition
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2020.1724893

In this video I tackle some common question posed to me by viewers and non viewers, namely, why is it that by damaging the brain I can change the person if the mind is not dependent on the brain. Does this not prove that the mind can be reduced to materialistic processes contrary to Christian reckoning?
Does A.I. threaten the way we will view human minds?

Libet Experiments
https://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/cvance/libet

Libet Experiments and its implications
https://www.bethinking.org/human-life/the-libet-experiment-and-its-implications-for-conscious-will

Benjamin Libet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

Dr Michael Egnor on Dualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI&list=PLcookc5e197ephYM2UGkKx1jyvAvh0OfI&index=2&t=1136s

Dr William Lane Craig on Dualism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EjKXCDcE&list=PLcookc5e197ephYM2UGkKx1jyvAvh0OfI&index=12&t=0s

So, I talk about hell.

In this video I attempt to make some further points clear following my video "What the Hell?" according to an inquiry by a viewer.
Perhaps Watch the related video first to gain context for this video.

"What the Hell"
https://youtu.be/TrCePmeX3LA

I hope this helps.

By request, this video is designed to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity. Please note, this is not a defence, I am herein presupposing that the Trinity is a true doctrine.

What I am here to do is to demonstrate that there are in fact 2 different version of the doctrine of the trinity which are fundamentally distinct.
1. Based on Greek Philosophy as articulated by St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas and formed the post schism Dogma of Roman Catholic church. This view is expressed in the Catholic rendition known as the The Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei.
2. The second is based upon divine revelation and an explicit rejection of Hellenistic categories and which informed the articulation of the Trinity as hashed out in the 7 ecumenical councils, whos main proponents were individuals such as St Basil, Gregory Palamas, Maximus the confessor, St John of Damascus and a few others.

I also go on to try and demonstrate the logical out workings of each view to show why its so important to get them right because their consequences have far reaching influences in how we understand many other doctrines as well.

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 17/1 (Spring 2006): 125–139.
Article copyright © 2006 by Merlin D. Burt.
History of Seventh-day Adventist Views on the Trinity
Merlin D. Burt
http://archive.atsjats.org/10Burt-SDATrinity0601.pdf

28 fundamental beliefs of Adventists
https://szu.adventist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/28_Beliefs.pdf

St Augustine
https://www.iep.utm.edu/augustin/

St Thomas Aquinas
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/#SH4b

Neoplatonism
https://www.iep.utm.edu/neoplato/

Summa Theologiae - Prima Pars
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

St Basil Letter 234
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202234.htm

Letter Pope Agatho to 6th council affirming essence energy distinction
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Volume III - Church History
Fourteenth Century
Saint Gregory Palamas
https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/fourteenth-century/saint-gregory-palamas

Have you ever felt like the brothers and sisters in faith sitting next to you at church were faking it to the degree that many of them perhaps even do not realise it?
Ever felt that the niceness is put on, even creepy perhaps and that the people standing up in front had an alternative agenda?
Whatever happened to the role of truth in the church that we hear almost nothing about it today other than the constant insistence on being nice and loving? What happened to reproof, discipline, responsibility, accountability?

Have you noticed that truth is making way for the cult of opinion and emotions?

Here is the link to the source I use in the video.
http://www.appstate.edu/~hillrw/narcissism/arrogantshycomparison.html

The National Museum of African American History and Culture released a chart in which they outline whiteness or what it means to be white.

Let me warn you, this video is a bit of a rant because this chart is not only racist as hell, but it is amongst the finest examples of the ideological degeneracy that the social justice movement is intent on infecting your mind with.

This whiteness chart basically shows that the social justice warriors have basically regressed so far that their idea of what it means to be white, and conversely, what it means to be non white, basically falls perfectly in line with the most racist white supremacist views of the 9th century and demonstrates in spectacular fashion precisely why it is that those of us who are "minorities" in general do not succeed because large swathes of our people hold to the idea that literally every sinful and counter productive thing imaginable is in fact a cultural feature that we should not let go of and have a right to.

What is worse, is that counter to numerous useful idiots that call themselves Christians, it is painfully evident that this ideology is designed to destroy Christian influence and Christian morality and it is more effective than any form of atheism has ever managed to achieve because unlike this ideology, atheism at large still believes in right and wrong.

The numerous useful idiots, a term coined by communists to refer to liberals and ignorants who were willing to collaborate with them simply because they used the right slogans, do exactly this. Millions upon millions of Christians who should know by now that it is not rhetoric, but by their fruits you will know them, have done the exact opposite and given their minds and hearts over to be manipulated by every wind of doctrine spread by every unclean and hateful bird.

We need to realise something now, and settle our minds upon this fact. Christians who have adopted the social justice gospel are not our brothers and sisters because what they have adopted is not merely a slight variation, but an entirely different and new gospel, and as such when you converse with these apostates, you need to consider it an interfaith dialogue.

In this video I go through a Typology in which the Patriarch habitually gave into their wives, and explore, using the biblical motifs wherein Women represent the Church, to see if this has anything to show us when it comes to Gods express laws and commands versus the common asseveration's that the church has the authority to modify and reinterpret them.

Also, apologies for the audio, it seems settings somehow changed and I made the error of assuming it was ok. If it is unbearable please let me know.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture released a chart in which they outline whiteness or what it means to be white.

Let me warn you, this video is a bit of a rant because this chart is not only racist as hell, but it is amongst the finest examples of the ideological degeneracy that the social justice movement is intent on infecting your mind with.

This whiteness chart shows that the social justice warriors have essentially regressed so far that their idea of what it means to be white, and conversely, what it means to be non white, basically falls perfectly in line with the most racist white supremacist views of the 19th century and demonstrates in spectacular fashion precisely why it is that those of us who are "minorities" in general do not succeed because large swathes of our people hold to the idea that literally every sinful and counter productive thing imaginable is in fact a cultural feature that we should not let go of and have a right to.

What is worse, is that counter to numerous useful idiots that call themselves Christians, it is painfully evident that this ideology is designed to destroy Christian influence and Christian morality and it is more effective than any form of atheism has ever managed to achieve because unlike this ideology, atheism at large still believes in right and wrong.

The numerous useful idiots, a term coined by communists to refer to liberals and ignorants who were willing to collaborate with them simply because they used the right slogans, do exactly this. Millions upon millions of Christians who should know by now that it is not rhetoric, but by their fruits you will know them, have done the exact opposite and given their minds and hearts over to be manipulated by every wind of doctrine spread by every unclean and hateful bird.

We need to realise something now, and settle our minds upon this fact. Christians who have adopted the social justice gospel are not our brothers and sisters because what they ha..

Ever heard someone say "we are not under the law"?
In this video, I address that.

I, as a former Atheist and now Christian who attempts to evangelise, try to articulate what Atheism is according to what my experience was, what I see being popularly proposed and what is generally accepted as atheist definitions whenever I engage an atheist in discussion, and also a bit of what I have read in more scholarly works, one of which I provide below.

I then provide reasons why I reject Atheism in general according to the few different variations that could most commonly come up.

Stanford Entry on Atheism and Agnosticism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe

Whaddo You Meme had Dr William Lane Craig on his show in a very amusing video response to common Atheist memes.

Concerning one meme however, regarding the eating of pork, I believe that a golden opportunity was missed by my brothers in Christ, especially in the midst of this Capunka Vibus Pandemic.

Johns Hopkins Study
http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Further_Research/Health/-Appreciation%20of%20Leviticus%20XI%20and%20Deuteronomy%20XIV.pdf

Counsels on Diet and Foods
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/384.3093#3098

The Ministry of Healing
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/135.1584#1592

In this episode we address the 10th question concerning refutations of common arguments against Gods law and the 4th commandment.

In this video I go though the next 3 questions as outlined in the first video, namely:

7. What is the purpose of the law?
8. Can it be changed or modified in any way?
9. What about the Lords day?

In this episode I address the following 3 questions as laid out in the first video.

4. Which law was nailed to the cross?

5. What about Legalism?

6. What is the purpose of the law?

I this series I am going to address a commonly asked question which is generally posed a follows..

"The bible speaks of a law that we should obey, but often Christians say that the law is not applicable, therefore, do we obey or not obey, which law is it, and how do we make sense of this issue?"

In Part one I address the following questions.

1. Origins of the dispute
2. Does God require us to keep a law?
3. What is the general Testimony of the Christian world?

Each Part in the series will address roughly 3 questions or aspects of this issue.

I this series I am going to address a commonly asked question which is generally posed a follows..

"The bible speaks of a law that we should obey, but often Christians say that the law is not applicable, therefore, do we obey or not obey, which law is it, and how do we make sense of this issue?"

In Part one I address the following questions.

1. Origins of the dispute
2. Does God require us to keep a law?
3. What is the general Testimony of the Christian world?

Each Part in the series will address roughly 3 questions or aspects of this issue.

I ran into a conversation on YouTube wherein two atheists were quite determined to convince me that doubt should be considered a virtue, and even rewarded, and this canard is usually set up in contrast to faith, which many atheists say is not a virtue and is actually a deep fault.

This video presents why I think this is nonsense.

How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell; that for the sins of a brief, earthly life they are to suffer torture as long as God shall live.
Yet this doctrine has been widely taught, and is still embodied in many of the creeds of Christendom.
Said a learned doctor of divinity: “The sight of hell-torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. When they see others who are of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, it will make them sensible of how happy they are.”
Another used these words: “While the decree of reprobation is eternally executing on the vessels of wrath, the smoke of their torment will be eternally ascending in view of the vessels of mercy, who, instead of taking the part of these miserable objects, will say, Amen, Alleluia! praise ye the Lord!”

Where, in the pages of God’s Word, is such teaching to be found? Will the redeemed in Heaven be lost to all emotions of pity and compassion, and even to feelings of common humanity? Are these to be exchanged for the indifference of the stoic, or the cruelty of the savage?—No, no; such is not the teaching of the Book of God.
Those who present the views expressed in the quotations given above may be learned and even honest men; but they are deluded by the sophistry of Satan. He leads them to misconstrue strong expressions of Scripture, giving to the language the coloring of bitterness and malignity which pertains to himself, but not to our Creator. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?” [Ezekiel 33:11.] GC88 535.1

Schadenfreude is borrowed from German; it is a compound of Schaden, "damage, harm", and Freude, "joy". The German word was first mentioned in English texts in 1852 and 1867, and first used in English running text in 1895.
Schadenfreude (/ˈʃɑːdənfrɔɪdə/; German: [ˈʃaːdn̩ˌfʁɔʏ̯də] (About this soundlisten); lit. 'harm-joy') is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another.

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him."
King Solomon
Proverbs 24:17–18

Caesarius of Heisterbach regards "delight in the adversity of a neighbour" as one of the "daughters of envy ... which follows anger" in his Dialogue on Miracles

Brain-scanning studies show that Schadenfreude is correlated with envy in subjects. Strong feelings of envy activated physical pain nodes in the brain's dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; the brain's reward centers, such as the ventral striatum, were activated by news that other people envied had suffered misfortune. The magnitude of the brain's Schadenfreude response could even be predicted from the strength of the previous envy response.
Takahashi, H.; Kato, M.; Matsuura, M.; Mobbs, D.; Suhara, T.; Okubo, Y. (2009-02-13). "When Your Gain Is My Pain and Your Pain Is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schadenfreude". Science. 323 (5916): 937–9
Angier, Natalie (17 February 2009). "In Pain and Joy of Envy, the Brain May Play a Role". The New York Times.

Corrections
I mentioned that I thought the quotes were of Catholic individuals, but they were from William Rounseville Alger: A Unitarian and Jonathan Edwards: A Congregationalist.
Asseveration's regarding Hellenistic influences in their thinking still stand.

This is just a shortish video where I just put my thoughts on this question out there as I have heard Atheist debaters state or at least hint that the idea of saying that we were created in the image of God is somehow a sign of arrogance.

I suggest, that not only is it not arrogance, but, that it would be very strange indeed to not say as much, and in fact its logically necessary if the Christian God, or indeed any god, exists and subsequently requires anything at all from us.