On top of this, God is all-powerful. He never had to kill to protect the human race, because he could have snapped his fingers and said 'Poof! Pure human race! Poof! Lord and savior is born! Poof! Eternal life!' You also claim the 'New law' completely destroyed the 'old law'. But, if you believe all the Gospels are true, Jesus says not one letter of the law will be changed. [Matthew 5:18-20] Look it up, if you don't believe me.
@151user "Why couldn't God just poof the perfect world into being and skip all this."
Because Omnipotence is not the ability to do that which is logically impossible. God can't create a world of free creatures that never sin; because for these creatures to have actual freedom it must be possible that sin could occur. God could make a world of automatons that never sin, but not of free creatures.
@151user "Jesus was virgin born of Mary, so he isn't genetically related to Joseph right?"
Jesus is a human. He being born into the world he took a human nature upon himself, and became both man and God at the same time. He did not have a human nature prior to this, so where did his human genetic nature come from? Well half was from Mary, and presumably the other half from Joseph. This isn't like Greek myth where the God has physical sex with the woman, producing a half-God being.
Basically, we simply have to ask ourselves, "is it impossible for God to impregnate Mary with Joseph's DNA to produce a pregnancy outside of sex?" The Bible clearly states Jesus as of the line of David. Now we could interpret that simply as simply meaning in the eyes of the law; much like how adopted children are seen in the eyes of the law as being the children of their adopted parents, not their biological parents.
But there is no logical reason as to why God could not have used the DNA of Joseph to create the human nature of Jesus. So as long as it's possible, then we might as well take the bible at face value when it says that Jesus is of the line of David. Unless there was some compelling reason to think that God couldn't have done this, it is reasonable believe it.
And we can hardly expect the bible to explain it in terms of modern biology for us.
(continued) You seem to weigh everything on this view that murder is okay if it protects Jesus's 'family line'. But this doesn't even make sense. Jesus, according to both Gospels describing his family line (Matthew and Luke), is 'related' to all those people (Noah, etc.), on Joseph's side of the family. But these gospels also say Jesus was a virgin birth, conceived by the holy spirit. So Jesus wasn't even genetically related to the people you mention. (continued [Just one more!])
(continued) You also say someone cannot be kidnapped and sold into slavery, but that only applied to hebrews. Enslaving people from cities you invaded was also allowed (as well as forcing the women to merry you). Also, involving 'free sex', you say they stoned them so they wouldn't get STDs? Death or herpes: given that choice, herpes looks pretty good. (continued)
Ok, well first you also have to understand that there were strict cleanliness laws which were to prevent contact with Disease as well. So herpes meant you became a leper (which is really a generic term in the bible for any visible illness) and were exiled. But not all STI's (not all of them are technically diseases, so the proper terms is infections) are visible.
But you have oversimplified this and have created a misrepresentation. These infections are not harmless, or trivial; diseases can kill far more than wars or corporal punishment. Just look at the aids epidemic in Africa.
Secondly, the stigma associated with promiscuity instilled into the Israelites made it less likely that they would violate these moral commands, so the number of deaths, compared to the deaths that might have been with disease is very low. A few will be executed by stoning, to prevent many from dying by infectious disease.
(continued) You claim God owns everyone because he 'created us'. Does a parent 'own' their child, because they caused the child's existence? This also requires a concept of property. Ownership is more of a point of view, than anything else. I, for own, do not think someone is entitled to 'own' a person, just because that person was created by them. If that person is capable of making decisions and living on his/her own, then that being shouldn't infringe on the person's freedom. (continued)
@151user *God created us so he owns our life; by that logic then our Parents own us."
No, read what you just said. God created us, so our parents did not create us. Our parents are his creations too, just as their parents were. If you follow the chain back, the ownership ultimately belongs to God and God alone.
The bible does commands us to honour our parents, and to support them. Jesus specifically took issue with Israel for violating this command in the New testament.
(continued) On the topic of the flood. I find it amusing that your logical reason for why God flooded the world, was to get rid of giants that came into the world because people and angels fornicated? Not only is this silly, but it makes God a nazi. God saw the 'impure' races, and wished to destroy them, in order to keep his master race 'pure'. And murdering 'half breeds' somehow doesn't count as murder. (continued)
(continued) For instance, you make the assertion that if morality is subjective, people have no *right* to infringe on another's morality. Who says they have no right, if everything regarding what one should or should not do is subjective? One may infringe on another's morality, by that logic, because there is no objective moral telling them not to. (continued)
Well that is a case of the video getting a bit confused; because if morals are subjective then they don't really exist in nature since we simply create them for ourselves. So there isn't any real Good or Evil, and nobody's rights are violated no matter what you do, because rights don't exist to be violated.
But then if you say that the Flood was evil, well that's simply your opinion. Since there are no actual morals, only subjective morals, then Good and evil don't actually exist. So the flood wouldn't actually be evil, it's just your opinion that it's evil. If my opinion is different, you have no logical way to say I'm wrong. You could tell me I'm wrong, but that wouldn't follow logically.
Please forgive my long responses. There is quite a bit I disagree with, and it will take a number of comments to do it. Someone's ice cream preference isn't harming anyone else's. But someone's moral wish to stone people does. Are you really unable to see the difference? Also, some morals are more logical than others. Furthermore, of course people have can infringe on another's morality, regardless if it is subjective or not, if that morality is harming others. (continued)
@151user *Stoneing is different than ice cream, can't you see the difference?"
Can't you? One is subjective (ice cream preference), one is objective (stoning). The problem here is not for the objectivist, because the person who believes in moral objectivity can easily make the distinction between the two.
The problem here is for the person that wants to affirm that there are only subjective morals. Most relativists typically have unjustified presumptions hidden inside their morals.
What are some of these presumptions? Well you might say that stoning is bad because it takes a person's life. But why is it bad to take a person's life? As a christian, I have two answers. First, that person belongs to God, and is valuable to God; his life does not belong to me, I do not have the right to take it. Secondly, I have been given a command by God not to take the life of another; doing so would violate that command.
But what does a secular person have to answer the question, "why is it bad to take person's life." On a subjective view where no actual morals exist, then there are no such things as moral duties and obligations either. So in the end isn't the secular person left simply saying, "it's bad because I say it's bad." But that's just an arbitrary opinion. Couldn't you have decided it's good instead if you wanted to?
@Satarack lol... you do realise that there have been crusades and inquisitions, which was all religious based. An atheist's moral come from reasoned, logical and debated sources. We are not so stupid to just blindly accept something as all powerful that needs to be communicated through a medium, other people, which also cannot be agreed upon by all 'believers'. No atheist has ever killed anyone because they're 'atheist', but religious people kill each other because of non-belief
@Scyeth Of course it's evil if Christians disobey their own morals. But unlike Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, these crimes of Christians were in contradiction with the teachings of the bible.
The irony is you are blindly accepting assumptions that you cannot justify logically. I can affirm my morality as logically deriving from God's existence, but you have nothing, you have no foundation on which to rest your house of cards.
@Satarack As Scyeth said, we can base our actions on reason. Most people want to live, yes? Then it makes sense to have morals that preserve life. Most people do not like pain, yes? Then it makes sense to avoid hurting people as much as possible. I considder basing all your morals on the chance a god existed, and that somehow the god wants you to do certain things, to be impossible to justify logically. If God doesn't exist, morals based on that said God become meaningless (house of cards, yes?)
@Alp00000000000000001 Scyeth did respond to my post, but it was so full of insults that I think the video creator removed it.
In either case, I think you don't realize that you're making assumptions. If I want to live, what does it matter whether others live as well? If I can steal, lie, and cheat my way into power, and get away with it, why shouldn't I? What reason is there that I should obey morals when they benefit society but not necessarily me?
You see, if you try to reason with a person like that they'll just laugh at you. They'll tell you that just because I don't want to feel pain, doesn't mean that they are somehow obligated not cause pain in others. As long as they don't feel pain, why should it matter if anyone else does?
See, you've assumed the golden rule to be true, do unto others as you would unto yourself. But what justification is there for that?
But how do we derive morals from God? Well, God is defined as the greatest being. By greatest we mean most worthy of worship, that there is no conceivable being that could exist that would be more worthy of worship than God.
As such, God has all the properties that are good to have to the maximum possible degree (ie. Omnipotence), and none of the properties that are bad to have (ignorance, vanity, etc.).
On such a definition, God must also be morally perfect. A being that is morally perfect is more worthy of worship than a being that is not; so it follows logically that God must necessarily be morally perfect of his own nature.
Therefore, there exists an absolute morality that exists necessarily, apart from opinion. Thus if God exists it follows by definition that an objective morality exists.
@Alp00000000000000001 But you misunderstand something; morals don't exist without a foundation. That's why the house of cards analogy is good, without a foundation to support them they fall apart. So the best way to approach this is to ask whether logic can provide a similar foundation for ethics. And I think the answer to that is no.
First, Logic is relative. Simply, logic is about determining valid logical forms that allow us to reach conclusions from knowledge.
@Alp00000000000000001 Another way of saying it, is logic allows us to determined implications of our knowledge. There isn't any new information in the conclusion that wasn't implied in the knowledge that we have, logic is simply the process of extracting this conclusion from that knowledge. So by it's relative nature logic cannot be a foundation for ethics.
But secondly, even if we take logic as a foundation, it is not objective.
@Alp00000000000000001 If your conclusions depend on your knowledge; then as your knowledge changes, so will your conclusions. Suppose that we could derive morality from the contingent knowledge we have of the universe, well that knowledge is contingent and will change as well learn more. We would have to know everything in the universe before we could determine what these morals actually are; but with our limited knowledge we could only create subjective morals.
@Alp00000000000000001 Finally, such a morality based on logic would not be binding. Logic cannot create obligations that we must perform lest we face the consequences of violating these morals. They would amount to nothing more than words on paper, if a selfish person doesn't care about the well being of the human race then why should he follow such morals? There would always be those who would say, "if I don't get caught then I don't face the consequences."
@Satarack [Hey, it's User151. I'm replying to all comments on this account] "God can't create a world of free creatures that never sin; because for these creatures to have actual freedom it must be possible that sin could occur."
But who created sin? God, right? Why would God create sin?
"is it impossible for God to impregnate Mary with Joseph's DNA to produce a pregnancy outside of sex?"
Why would God go to that trouble? Why not simply let Joseph impregenate his DNA into Mary the usual way?
@Satarack "The Bible clearly states Jesus as of the line of David. Now we could interpret that simply as simply meaning in the eyes of the law; "
Then what is the point of protecting the family bloodline, if Jesus's blood isn't even going to be in the bloodline? God killed tens of thousands of people just for man-made legal purposes?
"So herpes meant you became a leper (which is really a generic term in the bible for any visible illness) and were exiled..." But all of that doesn't explain why being stoned to death is better than getting an STI.
"These infections are not harmless, or trivial; diseases can kill far more than wars or corporal punishment. Just look at the aids epidemic in Africa."
An epidemic which was made worse by people advocating against birth control, in the name of God.
"A few will be executed by stoning, to prevent many from dying by infectious disease."
Can you seriously look-over murdering people just like that? Should we stone everyone in Africa who has aids? Also, after filling three comments talking about it, you never explained why God couldn't simply destroy the disease, rather than the person carrying it. He's all powerful, for Christ's sake.
@Satarack "Our parents are his creations too, just as their parents were. If you follow the chain back, the ownership ultimately belongs to God and God alone."
To me, this is like being a slave to a slave. The slave-owner may be a slave to someone else, who they have to obey, but they are still free to command their own slave when it doesn't go against their master. I also said 'by that logic', meaning that even if God were not real, by that logic, parents should own their children.
@Satarack "Well that is a case of the video getting a bit confused; because if morals are subjective then they don't really exist in nature since we simply create them for ourselves"
To me, it is better that we create morals ourselves. And besides, even if God did exist, his moral compass would still only be God's opinion. So morality would still be subjective.
@Satarack "The problem here is not for the objectivist, because the person who believes in moral objectivity can easily make the distinction between the two."
And I say objective morality cannot exist, even if there was a god. What if God said he was wrong? Would he still be right? What if God said he was evil? Would he still be good? And how is stoning objective? If you see madness in the streets, is it not sane to confront it? Even if they are doing it in the name of 'objective right'?
@Satarack "Well you might say that stoning is bad because it takes a person's life. But why is it bad to take a person's life?"
If you can get on the common grounds with a person that life is good, then yes, you can argue with that person that stoning does not make sense because of it. If the person views life as evil, reasoning with them in anyway is going to be difficult, no matter what your religion/non-religion is.
"As a christian, I have two answers. First, that person belongs to God, and is valuable to God;"
But why is God valuable?
"his life does not belong to me, I do not have the right to take it."
Ownership is a matter of opinion. Also, even if his life doesn't belong to you, who says you can't take it? (if the answer is "because God told me 'no'", see my response to your other reason.)
@Satarack "So in the end isn't the secular person left simply saying, "it's bad because I say it's bad."
Simply change it to "it's bad because God says it's bad" and you have the theist's concept of morality. You can say "it's bad because, if we can both agree that human life is a good thing, this will greatly harm human life"
@Satarack "IWhat reason is there that I should obey morals when they benefit society but not necessarily me?"
If you view human life as good, that means people other than yourself. It does not take much empathy to understand other people have emotions like yourself, and are capable of being hurt, like yourself. If you view hurting people as wrong, then why would you hurt people? There are millions of atheists who could do all the things you mentioned, but don't.
@Satarack "You see, if you try to reason with a person like that they'll just laugh at you. They'll tell you that just because I don't want to feel pain, doesn't mean that they are somehow obligated not cause pain in others."
If someone has no problem causing pain to others, do you really think you could reason with them by saying 'a magic man who created the moon and the stars said in a book once that what your doing is bad' would work? Why would they feel an obligation to obey God?
@Satarack "But how do we derive morals from God? Well, God is defined as the greatest being. By greatest we mean most worthy of worship, that there is no conceivable being that could exist that would be more worthy of worship than God."
I view such a being as still unworthy to worship. Blindly following and obeying something/someone is extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
@Satarack "morals don't exist without a foundation."
And how is helping human life not a foundation for a moral compass? You base your moral compass on a collection of stories, in which one of the characters in the stories says people should do certain things. So how is the 'house of cards' analogy good for my argument, but not for your own?
@Satarack "If your conclusions depend on your knowledge; then as your knowledge changes, so will your conclusions."
Yes, of course. Which is why we can only make decisions based on the knowledge we have at the time. But this goes for anyone. You base you knowledge on things you read in the bible. But if you found you misread them, or if you found a passage you didn't read, your morality would change.
@Satarack "if a selfish person doesn't care about the well being of the human race then why should he follow such morals?"
Of course. But that person clearly exists, regardless if there is a god or not. And there are people who cannot be reasoned with, regardless if there is a god or not. But what does that have to do with your own moral compass? We arn't talking about his morals, or lack there of. We're talking about your own.
You claim an objective morality then later in the same video say that god changed morality from the old testament and the new testament. You can't have it both ways (even if you try to explain it as a prelude to Jesus). Stoning is a great way to stop STD's and promote obedience.
I respect your attempt to answer these tough questions but I think you are having to do mental gymnastics to rationalize the craziness of the bible. Good luck on your journey toward truth. I once believed as you did.
@worksequalsalvation so you want to say that Bible is wrong? about the burning of his son, of course God wouldn't have allowed it to happen, we've seen exactly that, God just wanted to see if Abraham fully trusts God whatever the circumstance or condition would be...
You say God commanded this. God said He never did. Did you forget that part? Jer 19:5-6. You are saying God does NOT know our hearts. You are saying God is a liar and that He did command it. You are saying God stoops to the most wicked levels and commands things which He forbids.Murder is forbidden. You are calling James a liar. He says God does not tempt with evil. Murder is evil by all moral standards.
You love those pagan rituals taught to you by pagan priests in suits.
@worksequalsalvation You need to study the bible as a whole and not take passages and interpret them out of context.God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac because their actions are pointing ahead to the person of Christ in a typology of the true sacrifice. First of all, God says to Abraham to take his only son. But, we know that 13 years earlier Ishmael had been born to Abraham. So why would God call Isaac the only son? The answer becomes clear when we see what the Scriptures teach.
@worksequalsalvation Both Isaac and Jesus are called the only begotten son. Of course Abraham knew he had a son named Ishmael. But it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant; it was Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Plus, Isaac was representing the future Messiah Jesus was also called the only begotten son.
@worksequalsalvation Both Isaac and Jesus are called the only begotten son. Of course Abraham knew he had a son named Ishmael. But it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant; it was Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Plus, Isaac was representing the future Messiah Jesus was also called the only begotten son.
@worksequalsalvation Also, both Jesus and Isaac were offered on a hill and most scholars that I have read agree that it was the very same hill upon which they were both offered, though around 1800 years apart.Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. And the servant represented the God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac. So, why did Abraham offer his son Isaac?
@worksequalsalvation He did so out of obedience, believing that God could raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19), and also in his obedience he acted out the true sacrifice of the true only begotten son, Jesus.God was testing Abrahm so that Abrahm would know that his love for God has to come first above all else including his son.
@worksequalsalvation The reason it had to be taken so far is because people have free will to choose to decide and when we become indecisive about something as human beings we sometimes must experience a traumatic event to become wholly decisive and unfaltering about our future judgments.In fact Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac would not have been sin, since no one had yet been commanded not to make human sacrifice to God.
God did command not to murder. Gen 9. Are you saying God said he never thought people would do this evil and never commanded and He goes further, He says He never mentioned it....even as a suggestion? Is this your position that God is a liar? Is your position God commands something He later calls wicked and evil? Isn't this capriciousness? How can anyone then rely on anything God says?
You see the argument you find yourself went you believe man and reject God's own words?
@worksequalsalvation if we are to be technical, Jer 9:5 tells about children being sacrificed to Baal, which is not the same as with Isaac...you also have to better understand the meaning of the word murder, which is a premeditated crime. Abraham did no act out of his own premeditation or evil, he was merely following God's order which is exactly the point here. When God commended this He did not intend or premeditate Isaac to be murdered, that's why He stopped Abraham,
Your god is capricious.He instructs not to do something and then commands one to do it.Satan sure is laughing his ass.James tells us God will NOT tempt with evil.Jer19 is speaking of sacrificing children to Baal.He says He never commanded it,mentioned it nor did it ENTER HIS MIND.
If God commanded this,would not Satan duplicate?Who would want to worship a capricious god demanding burning one's son?Unreliable at best.Down right wicked.Flee from appearance of evil.
@worksequalsalvation as i said before, you need to read the bible more carefully: i repeat, Jer 19:5 is about childred sacrificed to baal it has absolutely nothing to with passage from genesis, about God tempting, lets see:The first thing to notice is that James is referring to temptation "with evil." Secondly, if you keep reading in James, you will find that this temptation "with evil" is the temptation to sin:"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished , bringeth forth death." - James 1:14-15. Clearly James is referring to the temptation to sin, but that is not the type of temptation that was taking place in Genesis chapter 22.
@worksequalsalvation Note the following verse in the book of Hebrews:"By faith Abraham, when he was "tried", offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son..." - Hebrews 11:17 Hebrews defines Abraham's temptation as a trial of faith, not a temptation to sin.
Who is the unknown writer of Hebrews?Do you care who Rome placed into it?I see your boy Jephthah made it as one of the great fathers of faith.Ha,ha,ha.Jephthah tell his false god that if he gives him victory,he will sacrifice the first thing which comes out of his house.His daughter comes out and he sacrifices her.I think you should name your boy after this "great man of faith."
We know Paul did not receive his doctrine of faith by God nor did the writer(s) of Hebrews.
They use the Septuigent which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT having much mistranslations. The Hebrew says that Abraham saw the promises of God and counted them(the promises)as righteousness.Paul and unknown Hebrews writer read Septuigent,say they are divinely inspired,and state "God saw Abram's faith and counted it as righteousness." We have enough evidence here to convict Paul and unknown pagan writer of Hebrews of frauds. Ha,ha,ha.Gullable Christians duped again.
First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it.
@worksequalsalvation The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow. On the pther hand many scholars believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of God for the remainder of her life.
@worksequalsalvation Since human sacrifice was clearly a violation of divine law, does it seem likely that God would have granted Jephthah’s victory (Judges 11:32), knowing that such would result in a gross, pagan tragedy?There is no condemnation of Jephthah’s act in the record of Judges or elsewhere. This seems rather strange in view of the fact that another judge’s heathen conduct is reprimanded (see the case of Gideon — Judges 8:27).
@worksequalsalvation The girl went into the mountains to bewail her virginity, not her impending death (11:37). If she knew she was about to die, why did she spend the final two months of her life in mountain solitude, rather than remaining with her family (11:36-37)?
@MrGrantsharp. In their ultimate origin. Temptations come from the flesh; trials are sent from God. He allowed Satan to test Job (Job 1:6-12). Therefore when we speak of "trial" we see God's fingerprints; when we see temptation, we see our own—or the devil's. In their immediate origin. Temptation comes from within; trials usually come from outside us. Job suffered physically, but inwardly—at least at first—there was no apparent struggle.
@MrGrantsharp In their moral relevance. Temptation, when it is sexual in nature, has considerable moral relevance, but a trial may be what I would want to call morally neutral, such as illness or losing one's keys. With reference to what is tested. Temptation will usually attack a weak spot; trials test our strength as well as exposing a weakness we may have been unaware of—as with Job, who turned out to be so self-righteous.
@MrGrantsharp Any trial that God sends—death of a loved one or friend, financial reverse, loss, illness, misunderstanding, losing your keys, failure, disappointment, betrayal, abuse, unemployment, depression, accident, loneliness, missing a train or plane, rejection, not getting that important invitation, or any physical pain—should be seen as having our Lord's handprints all over them.
prt5 Christians need this wicked story as they say it is a prophetic message of Jesus. God said he never thought men would do such a thing and he didn't just mean to false gods. God hates blood sacrifices which the scribes continuing in their Canaanite religions,where writing.Rome's church,while following Paul,sacrificed many,many children.On Caesar had the pope executed for too much blood.
Jesus never commanded sacrifices."Your sins r forgiven.Go sin no more." contin
You are not the first to attempt to create compliance into a very troubling book.We know people lie in Bible...God says so.Jer8:8,14:14.Is God capricious?One can say God can do anything He wants.However,he can not be just and command a man to do sin.
Murder is forgidden.Gen9,Ex20.However,God commands a man to murder and burn his son.Not his first,but the second son of the first wife.Ismael is the son of inheritance and promise according to God's laws. continue.
@Lordlaneus What it means is that it is ok to kill in self defense or to execute if you cannot rehabilitate. You gotta look deeper than literal meaning.
prt4."Jer19:5-6" They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter."
God NEVER commanded this lie aren't you glad.NO!You probably are NOT glad.Most Christians love bloody atonement and reject Gods words in Ez33
@MexyJew1 well, he didnt live that long, but he did live longer than the modern human. There is a scientific explanation for this in that before the flood there was probably a layer of water in the atmosphere protecting humans from a multitude of things like giving them cleaner oxygen to breathe. It might also just be because God gave him longer life. remember, this is a supernatural being who transcends the laws of nature we're talking about.
@randallfe If you're*** going to insult someone else's intelligence, make sure you can spell and form sentences correctly. I've never listened to Kent Hovind, but I believe in scientific evidence.
@randallfe Obviously, the Bible is my first piece of evidence because even many atheists believe a lot of it is true. Water in the stratosphere would protect against dangerous radiation from space, such as skin cancer caused by over exposure to the sun (which would explain the age of some patriarchs in the Bible). An experiment recorded by time magazine revealed that oxygen found fossilized had 50% more pressure, which would be explained by the aforementioned water. Need I say more?
part2.Deut21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has...." continued
prt7. This might explain it a little more. Sadly, few want to worship in truth.They want to follow the paganism their fathers have handed down.Why is America Mystery Babylon in prophecy?It is because almost all,whether they practice it or not,believe in blood sacrifices.Blood is on their hands and they do not worship our Creator but a very pagan god.
Very good video , well explained and I think you're right in all statements you've made, And I hope Our Lord Jesus bless you in a big way , cause you've been very helpful for Christian life.
Very good video , well explained and I think you're right in all statements you've made, And I hope Our Lord Jesus bless you in a big way , cause you've been very helpful for Christian life.
@mafuletrekkie The unfortunate mistake that you're making is that slavery in Israel meant the same thing that the British colonists and Americans did to blacks for hundreds of years. You couldn't be more wrong in that assumption. Let me put it this way, slavery in Israel was a MUCH better alternative than entering the US Federal DOC, but somehow today's secular society miss that fact. Today, a young man goes to prison as a car thief or a pot dealer, and comes out a murderer / rapist / psycho.
For something to carry the modifier "objective" it must be whatever it is apart from anything else. So for a behavior to be objectively right or wrong it must be right or wrong based on its own merit, not because God said so. Values cannot exist apart from a valuer. Therefore, even an almighty valuer's values are subjective.
Also, your alibis for why God had to kill children are asinine because if God is almighty, he could have accomplished his goals without killing children.
@CamilloJacobson So with the context in mind of who the Amalekites were, in your opinion, what should God have told Saul to do about them? What mercy should God have shown on the Amalekites that He hadn't already shown them?
@bustedprius I wasn't commenting on what should have been done. I was merely pointing out that if god indeed omnipotent, then he could have accomplished his goals and still spared at least the innocent children. To say that god had no other choice but to kill them limits god's power.
@CamilloJacobson However, by making the statement that God could have done something else, you must have had something in mind, or else your statement becomes nothing more than simple rhetoric. What should God have instructed Saul to do instead of commanding him to exterminate the Amalekites? Keep in mind, God already had promised the Israelites that He would bless those that blessed them, and curse those that cursed them.
@bustedprius Honestly, I didn't have anything else in mind, but since you've asked I guess I could give it a shot.
To fulfill the desired outcome of cursing those that cursed Israel, god could have smote all the Amalekite adults with boils or caused them to expel their internal organs through their sphincter. He could have done any number of things, including ordering the Israelites to slaughter them all. However, he did not have to do kill the infants who were incapable of cursing anyone.
while i understand and respect what you are saying in this video, i cannot agree with your assessment that somebody following their natural biological instincts to mate with someone who happens to be of the same gender as themselves (aka homosexuality) is wrong or immoral
Would it be a good thing if the majority of the world became homosexuals? There's a reason why sometimes me are 1 min interested in women and mess around with a bunch of them then they say "All along I was gay after all of those women so now I must do stuff with men". that's dumb
It depends what inspires us, like I've grown up seeing my mum and dad and many other men and women together and that's how we come into the world so it makes sense really lol.
I've got an open mind to these things like homosexualities could be born that way. Maybe they are I mean a family of thieves who bring children into the world might pass on their thieving traits to them and those children would probably grow up to be pretty good thieves. Who knows but I don't judge anyone anyway because I'm no better.
It's all down to us how we pass down our genes. A pregnant woman drinks and smokes and the baby comes out deformed is that God's fault?
@100pjp001 i think they almost certainly are born that way, and even if they arent i dont really care. in my opinion theres nothing wrong with people being gay and it appears as if you at least somewhat agree with me.
Like I said I'm not judging, but the thing is in the long run it's not a good thing for humanity in terms of the human population. Not saying it's considered wrong because they hurt people a number of them are extremely nice people. But if years from now the majority of the human race start to become more inspired to be gay then the human race will die eventually that's the problem with it. Not saying that to be nasty but it is true at the end of the day and it's worrying.
@100pjp001 i dont believe it works like that. I seriously doubt that people who were straight would "choose" to be gay. I'm not saying they wouldn't choose to have a homosexual experience, but people who are naturally attracted to females will end up marrying a woman in the long run and people who are naturally attracted to males will end up marrying a male.
Sorry to say but that is the case sometimes only because an old friend of mine's dad was into women even married his mother I think then next thing you know they separate and he's in a long term relationship with his boyfriend. not too sure if he still is haven't seen my friend for years. But believe me it does happen, and maybe some people are just gay from birth, I'm open to that.
I'm aware it's natural to do it because animals do it too but it doesn't make it ok, it's also natural to steal, kill and do all kinds of sick twisted things that people out there do but doesn't make it ok, does it? Also just to point out it's not just homosexuality that's bad for the human population, that's just 1 thing, but if more and more people are inspired to be that way it won't be good.
@100pjp001 so you mean that it isnt good to be open minded? why should you get into someones life and dictate how someone should live? if they want to be with someone of the same sex it is their choise not yours. yes your right Stealing killing is natural but being a homosexual and is two completely diffrent things, even if you by any chance think it is. Inspired you say, yes more and more people do get more inspired by homosexuals now, but that does not mean that they become a homosexual.
Me being honest doesn't mean I'm dictating to anyone nor am I against open mindedness at all just telling the truth that's all. Just like saying I'm not open minded cos I didn't try stealing before or something. We can see something for what it is and we don't do it simple as that.
Never said what people do is my choice again just being honest. It is indeed people's choice what they do but don't mean I can't be honest about their choice does it?
Of course gay people inspire others but probably in other ways that has nothing to do with their sexuality but sexually too tho probably as I've seen it happen lol. I've seen or heard of people have a change of heart and they're suddenly into the same sex. It does go on.
@100pjp001 yes I am well aware of thats some people do say that they are homosexuals but they are not, for some years it was a fashion thingy to be homosexual in Sweden, however even if many people "become" a homosexual it isnt going to do any harm to the hetrosexual couples as there are way more hetrosexual people in the world then homosexuals, I belive that some people that make a completely shift from hetrosexuality to homosexuality or vice vers is because they are not sure what they llike.
There may be more straight people at the moment but that could change years from now and it will do harm but because it's minor compared to killing and robbing etc people don't see it doing any harm but in the long run with all the promotion it seems to be getting on tv, films. The fact also that gay "parents" can bring up children now will encourage homosexuality even more.
So you mean to tell me that when straight people suddenly become gay it's because they weren't sure. So men pretended that they enjoyed their experience with all the women they slept with then suddenly they realise they were gay all along?! Don't make me laugh.
@100pjp001 no Sir, I am not saying that all straight people just do that but some do, there are many people that are not sure what sexual orientation they have and therefore they do try the same sex or the other sex. and I am not trying to make you laugh. just to let you know some of my friends that have had sex with girls and liked it then tried boys felt that they where actually loving that more then girls, so yea there are people that realise that they have been gay all along.
@1Gabrielsson1 we have a difference of opinion and i dont believe that either of us is going to be able to convince the other one otherwise, so let's just agree to disagree, ok?
@Prognosticator00 we absolutely have diffrent opinions which is very good to have, and I agree that none of us will be able to convince the other. thank you for the fast replies to my comments and i hope you think the same of me.
Probably so but the ones who have slept with a bunch of women, then they go for the same sex point there is that they couldn't of been born gay if they enjoyed those women. But you know I'll agree that there may be some men that may of been with say 1 woman and their sexual relationship was crap and its because he was really gay. I'll agree that that does happen but same time there are those that have a change of heart and that happens too.
@100pjp001 oh absolutely I do also belive that some people do change from girl to boy or the other way just because it feels better acording to them so why not let them? animals are doing it why shouldnt man? basicly we are a very inteligent animal. my opinion is that we have come far into a civilized way of thinking and by so accepting people being diffrent, that includes diffrent sexual orientations or sexes. the thing I do not get is why do so many people have problems with HBT people?.
Feels better huh? Maybe and it's not really a case of letting them cos it's not my choice what people do with their lives. But the fact is if most of humanity years from now were inspired to be gay it's not good it's not good for the population is it. Fact is were all bad in some way or another but the worst thing we can do is think that's there's nothing wrong with what were doing.
Oh yea indeed accept people as people but just be aware that we all have inequity
"oh absolutely I do also belive that some people do change from girl to boy or the other way just because it feels better acording to them so why not let them?"
Not the point I was making, the point I was making is that they're not always born gay.
Animals are gay why can't man be? Animals do all kinds of savage things anyway doesn't mean we should do it does it? Animals like pigs eat their own crap doesn't mean it's ok for us to do it.
@100pjp001 you are correct that animals do all kind of savage things, but I do not see a person that is having sex with a person of the same sex a savage, if accept people for being what they are is a bad thing then maybe we are savages but atleast we are savages with a open mind. I know that some people say that they are gay isnt gay, but as I said in a previous comment who are you to dictate another persons life. we both live in a modernized western country that do allow same sex couples.
My point being is that just because animals do what they do doesn't make it ok for us to do it. See you made the point that "animals do it so why can't we". Not saying homosexuality is initially savage but it'll do harm to the population years from now if more and more are inspired to be gay. It's promoted nowadays in movies, music videos and tv shows, the things that children are exposed to is disgusting. Point there is it's likely it'll grow and it won't be a good thing.
Of course accept people for who they are because were all sinners and I'm not saying judge but I'm just making a point that homosexuality is just 1 bad thing that people do and it will affect humanity years from now, just stating the obvious that it's not good for the human population in the long run.
Getting things twisted again are we? Again in MY previous comment I'm not dictating at all and I'm not against open mindedness just stating the obvious facts so don't know what that has to do with dictatorship or being against open mindedness. Why do you say that?
I know modernized western countries allow same sex couples don't mean it's a good thing. Our modernized western countries have made all kinds of stupid laws don't make them ok just because they're modernized.
@100pjp001 I didnt mean that you are doing it (using the "you" word dosnt mean that you peronaly does it) what I mean with dictating is that why should anyone be allowed to tell someone what is wrong and whats not. what makes same sex couples so repulsive to people? it is their life, they should be the ones that decides if they want to have sex with the same sex not you. now if you excuse me I would like to leave this discussion that we have, but I am glad we had it.
"(using the "you" word dosnt mean that you peronaly does it)"
Well I don't know that, from anyone reading that they would think it's directed towards them personally. But nevertheless I am included because I have that view on homosexuals so it is towards me too. Anyway it is pretty obvious that it's wrong because of human population years from now and the more and more promotion it gets it wouldn't surprise me if the gay population kept rising and the human population? not good.
I know homosexuality is a different thing to killing, just pointing out it's natural just like killing and so on all natural doesn't make it ok. Just like you said homosexuality is natural animals do it so that makes it ok it doesn't tho.
If we do everything because it's natural why do we judge people for obeying their natural laws if the world just happened naturally and everything in it formed naturally, why do we then judge someone for being natural? Don't make sense.
Homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable, like on tv kids are exposed to homosexual activities now like men kissing and being together and they'll look at that and think it's ok. Like it's ok for gay "parents" to bring kids up nowadays so they'll see that and think being gay's cool. So it looks to me that the homosexuality population will increase over the years from now with all the promotion and support it gets.
Actually, our feelings were put there by a process that weeds out non-survival characteristics. For the most part, when backed by that understanding and a further process of scientific rationality applied to them, they are a fairly reliable guide to moral behavior and not nearly as subjective as you've represented here. Much less subjective in fact, than anything contained in an iron and bronze age book of mythology. Furthermore, WOW ... you are still completely nuts.
You're really cute, but if I may ask, why did God go to such great lengths to "preserve" the bloodline of Jesus Christ when he is omnipotent? I mean, couldn't he just make sure Jesus' bloodline would be preserved in his "plan" or whatever? That, or couldn't he find another way for Jesus to be born, such as finding another family? I'm an atheist, but that's just a question I have. Please answer it! I actually want to know.
I dont understand what you mean by "preserve the blood line of jesus christ" or that this bloodline could somehow be contaminated? The only context where I can think of someone calling a bloodline "contaminated" is when white supremacists say that a white person had a child with a non white person. This is a racist concept regardless of what race you are trying to "preserve." Hopefully it isnt what you mean. What are you talking about when you say this.
Hold on, if god is almighty, why was there no other way then Jesus Christ to save the world. It seems you use one vaguely correct argument to explain everything That isn't proving your statement.
@lennartsmit Think about it,God's OWN people killed him.And some believed in him.It is choice,He tested the human race.It is trust and faith my friend
@urbman29 First of all, I'm an atheist. I don't belive in this fairytale for grownups and what you said doesn't have anything to do with what i said. I said that if you believe god is almighty you also belive that he can do anything he wants when he wants it. Noah's flood, of which no geological evidence has ever been presented, wasn't neccesary if god would just bring the saviour to the earth. It removes the issue of the bloodline being contaminated.
@lennartsmit in the human mind that would be the better thing to do.I have a good analogy for you.right out of the blue.An atom,It is a proven fact that we will NEVER be able to look at one or make a diagram of it.Yet we believe in it because there is evidence of it.God,can not be proven,NOR dis proven/physically seen,yet we shun him down because it isn't *scientific*.The problem with science,is that it is a constant variable.it ALWAYS changes.
One of the best videos I have ever seen on the old testament. It's a common thing for all to remember the supposed bad but never the good.
solarisgalrocks 1 month ago
This is one long "the ends justifies the means" argument, with a little "god owns you so he can kill you if he wants" thrown in.
JonasGrumby71 1 month ago
Amazing video...keep making vids venom
Dudejrs 1 month ago
On top of this, God is all-powerful. He never had to kill to protect the human race, because he could have snapped his fingers and said 'Poof! Pure human race! Poof! Lord and savior is born! Poof! Eternal life!' You also claim the 'New law' completely destroyed the 'old law'. But, if you believe all the Gospels are true, Jesus says not one letter of the law will be changed. [Matthew 5:18-20] Look it up, if you don't believe me.
151user 1 month ago
@151user "Why couldn't God just poof the perfect world into being and skip all this."
Because Omnipotence is not the ability to do that which is logically impossible. God can't create a world of free creatures that never sin; because for these creatures to have actual freedom it must be possible that sin could occur. God could make a world of automatons that never sin, but not of free creatures.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user "Jesus was virgin born of Mary, so he isn't genetically related to Joseph right?"
Jesus is a human. He being born into the world he took a human nature upon himself, and became both man and God at the same time. He did not have a human nature prior to this, so where did his human genetic nature come from? Well half was from Mary, and presumably the other half from Joseph. This isn't like Greek myth where the God has physical sex with the woman, producing a half-God being.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *Jesus genetics continued*
Basically, we simply have to ask ourselves, "is it impossible for God to impregnate Mary with Joseph's DNA to produce a pregnancy outside of sex?" The Bible clearly states Jesus as of the line of David. Now we could interpret that simply as simply meaning in the eyes of the law; much like how adopted children are seen in the eyes of the law as being the children of their adopted parents, not their biological parents.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *Jesus Genetics final*
But there is no logical reason as to why God could not have used the DNA of Joseph to create the human nature of Jesus. So as long as it's possible, then we might as well take the bible at face value when it says that Jesus is of the line of David. Unless there was some compelling reason to think that God couldn't have done this, it is reasonable believe it.
And we can hardly expect the bible to explain it in terms of modern biology for us.
Satarack 1 month ago
(continued) You seem to weigh everything on this view that murder is okay if it protects Jesus's 'family line'. But this doesn't even make sense. Jesus, according to both Gospels describing his family line (Matthew and Luke), is 'related' to all those people (Noah, etc.), on Joseph's side of the family. But these gospels also say Jesus was a virgin birth, conceived by the holy spirit. So Jesus wasn't even genetically related to the people you mention. (continued [Just one more!])
151user 1 month ago
(continued) You also say someone cannot be kidnapped and sold into slavery, but that only applied to hebrews. Enslaving people from cities you invaded was also allowed (as well as forcing the women to merry you). Also, involving 'free sex', you say they stoned them so they wouldn't get STDs? Death or herpes: given that choice, herpes looks pretty good. (continued)
151user 1 month ago
@151user "Death or herpes, herpes sounds good."
Ok, well first you also have to understand that there were strict cleanliness laws which were to prevent contact with Disease as well. So herpes meant you became a leper (which is really a generic term in the bible for any visible illness) and were exiled. But not all STI's (not all of them are technically diseases, so the proper terms is infections) are visible.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Satarack *OT and STI's continued*
But you have oversimplified this and have created a misrepresentation. These infections are not harmless, or trivial; diseases can kill far more than wars or corporal punishment. Just look at the aids epidemic in Africa.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *OT and STI's final*
Secondly, the stigma associated with promiscuity instilled into the Israelites made it less likely that they would violate these moral commands, so the number of deaths, compared to the deaths that might have been with disease is very low. A few will be executed by stoning, to prevent many from dying by infectious disease.
Satarack 1 month ago
(continued) You claim God owns everyone because he 'created us'. Does a parent 'own' their child, because they caused the child's existence? This also requires a concept of property. Ownership is more of a point of view, than anything else. I, for own, do not think someone is entitled to 'own' a person, just because that person was created by them. If that person is capable of making decisions and living on his/her own, then that being shouldn't infringe on the person's freedom. (continued)
151user 1 month ago
@151user *God created us so he owns our life; by that logic then our Parents own us."
No, read what you just said. God created us, so our parents did not create us. Our parents are his creations too, just as their parents were. If you follow the chain back, the ownership ultimately belongs to God and God alone.
The bible does commands us to honour our parents, and to support them. Jesus specifically took issue with Israel for violating this command in the New testament.
Satarack 1 month ago
(continued) On the topic of the flood. I find it amusing that your logical reason for why God flooded the world, was to get rid of giants that came into the world because people and angels fornicated? Not only is this silly, but it makes God a nazi. God saw the 'impure' races, and wished to destroy them, in order to keep his master race 'pure'. And murdering 'half breeds' somehow doesn't count as murder. (continued)
151user 1 month ago
(continued) For instance, you make the assertion that if morality is subjective, people have no *right* to infringe on another's morality. Who says they have no right, if everything regarding what one should or should not do is subjective? One may infringe on another's morality, by that logic, because there is no objective moral telling them not to. (continued)
151user 1 month ago
@151user *Subjective morality having no right."
Well that is a case of the video getting a bit confused; because if morals are subjective then they don't really exist in nature since we simply create them for ourselves. So there isn't any real Good or Evil, and nobody's rights are violated no matter what you do, because rights don't exist to be violated.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *Subjective morality continued*
But then if you say that the Flood was evil, well that's simply your opinion. Since there are no actual morals, only subjective morals, then Good and evil don't actually exist. So the flood wouldn't actually be evil, it's just your opinion that it's evil. If my opinion is different, you have no logical way to say I'm wrong. You could tell me I'm wrong, but that wouldn't follow logically.
Satarack 1 month ago
Please forgive my long responses. There is quite a bit I disagree with, and it will take a number of comments to do it. Someone's ice cream preference isn't harming anyone else's. But someone's moral wish to stone people does. Are you really unable to see the difference? Also, some morals are more logical than others. Furthermore, of course people have can infringe on another's morality, regardless if it is subjective or not, if that morality is harming others. (continued)
151user 1 month ago
@151user *Stoneing is different than ice cream, can't you see the difference?"
Can't you? One is subjective (ice cream preference), one is objective (stoning). The problem here is not for the objectivist, because the person who believes in moral objectivity can easily make the distinction between the two.
The problem here is for the person that wants to affirm that there are only subjective morals. Most relativists typically have unjustified presumptions hidden inside their morals.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *Moral subjectivity continued*
What are some of these presumptions? Well you might say that stoning is bad because it takes a person's life. But why is it bad to take a person's life? As a christian, I have two answers. First, that person belongs to God, and is valuable to God; his life does not belong to me, I do not have the right to take it. Secondly, I have been given a command by God not to take the life of another; doing so would violate that command.
Satarack 1 month ago
@151user *Moral subjectivity final*
But what does a secular person have to answer the question, "why is it bad to take person's life." On a subjective view where no actual morals exist, then there are no such things as moral duties and obligations either. So in the end isn't the secular person left simply saying, "it's bad because I say it's bad." But that's just an arbitrary opinion. Couldn't you have decided it's good instead if you wanted to?
Satarack 1 month ago
@Satarack lol... you do realise that there have been crusades and inquisitions, which was all religious based. An atheist's moral come from reasoned, logical and debated sources. We are not so stupid to just blindly accept something as all powerful that needs to be communicated through a medium, other people, which also cannot be agreed upon by all 'believers'. No atheist has ever killed anyone because they're 'atheist', but religious people kill each other because of non-belief
Scyeth 1 month ago
@Scyeth Of course it's evil if Christians disobey their own morals. But unlike Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, these crimes of Christians were in contradiction with the teachings of the bible.
The irony is you are blindly accepting assumptions that you cannot justify logically. I can affirm my morality as logically deriving from God's existence, but you have nothing, you have no foundation on which to rest your house of cards.
Your naive sound bite attacks are toothless.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Satarack As Scyeth said, we can base our actions on reason. Most people want to live, yes? Then it makes sense to have morals that preserve life. Most people do not like pain, yes? Then it makes sense to avoid hurting people as much as possible. I considder basing all your morals on the chance a god existed, and that somehow the god wants you to do certain things, to be impossible to justify logically. If God doesn't exist, morals based on that said God become meaningless (house of cards, yes?)
Alp00000000000000001 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 Scyeth did respond to my post, but it was so full of insults that I think the video creator removed it.
In either case, I think you don't realize that you're making assumptions. If I want to live, what does it matter whether others live as well? If I can steal, lie, and cheat my way into power, and get away with it, why shouldn't I? What reason is there that I should obey morals when they benefit society but not necessarily me?
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 *continued*
You see, if you try to reason with a person like that they'll just laugh at you. They'll tell you that just because I don't want to feel pain, doesn't mean that they are somehow obligated not cause pain in others. As long as they don't feel pain, why should it matter if anyone else does?
See, you've assumed the golden rule to be true, do unto others as you would unto yourself. But what justification is there for that?
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 *Morals from God*
But how do we derive morals from God? Well, God is defined as the greatest being. By greatest we mean most worthy of worship, that there is no conceivable being that could exist that would be more worthy of worship than God.
As such, God has all the properties that are good to have to the maximum possible degree (ie. Omnipotence), and none of the properties that are bad to have (ignorance, vanity, etc.).
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 *Morals from God continued*
On such a definition, God must also be morally perfect. A being that is morally perfect is more worthy of worship than a being that is not; so it follows logically that God must necessarily be morally perfect of his own nature.
Therefore, there exists an absolute morality that exists necessarily, apart from opinion. Thus if God exists it follows by definition that an objective morality exists.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 But you misunderstand something; morals don't exist without a foundation. That's why the house of cards analogy is good, without a foundation to support them they fall apart. So the best way to approach this is to ask whether logic can provide a similar foundation for ethics. And I think the answer to that is no.
First, Logic is relative. Simply, logic is about determining valid logical forms that allow us to reach conclusions from knowledge.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 Another way of saying it, is logic allows us to determined implications of our knowledge. There isn't any new information in the conclusion that wasn't implied in the knowledge that we have, logic is simply the process of extracting this conclusion from that knowledge. So by it's relative nature logic cannot be a foundation for ethics.
But secondly, even if we take logic as a foundation, it is not objective.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 If your conclusions depend on your knowledge; then as your knowledge changes, so will your conclusions. Suppose that we could derive morality from the contingent knowledge we have of the universe, well that knowledge is contingent and will change as well learn more. We would have to know everything in the universe before we could determine what these morals actually are; but with our limited knowledge we could only create subjective morals.
Satarack 1 month ago
@Alp00000000000000001 Finally, such a morality based on logic would not be binding. Logic cannot create obligations that we must perform lest we face the consequences of violating these morals. They would amount to nothing more than words on paper, if a selfish person doesn't care about the well being of the human race then why should he follow such morals? There would always be those who would say, "if I don't get caught then I don't face the consequences."
Satarack 1 month ago
@Satarack [Hey, it's User151. I'm replying to all comments on this account] "God can't create a world of free creatures that never sin; because for these creatures to have actual freedom it must be possible that sin could occur."
But who created sin? God, right? Why would God create sin?
"is it impossible for God to impregnate Mary with Joseph's DNA to produce a pregnancy outside of sex?"
Why would God go to that trouble? Why not simply let Joseph impregenate his DNA into Mary the usual way?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Satarack "The Bible clearly states Jesus as of the line of David. Now we could interpret that simply as simply meaning in the eyes of the law; "
Then what is the point of protecting the family bloodline, if Jesus's blood isn't even going to be in the bloodline? God killed tens of thousands of people just for man-made legal purposes?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack
"So herpes meant you became a leper (which is really a generic term in the bible for any visible illness) and were exiled..." But all of that doesn't explain why being stoned to death is better than getting an STI.
"These infections are not harmless, or trivial; diseases can kill far more than wars or corporal punishment. Just look at the aids epidemic in Africa."
An epidemic which was made worse by people advocating against birth control, in the name of God.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack
"A few will be executed by stoning, to prevent many from dying by infectious disease."
Can you seriously look-over murdering people just like that? Should we stone everyone in Africa who has aids? Also, after filling three comments talking about it, you never explained why God couldn't simply destroy the disease, rather than the person carrying it. He's all powerful, for Christ's sake.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "Our parents are his creations too, just as their parents were. If you follow the chain back, the ownership ultimately belongs to God and God alone."
To me, this is like being a slave to a slave. The slave-owner may be a slave to someone else, who they have to obey, but they are still free to command their own slave when it doesn't go against their master. I also said 'by that logic', meaning that even if God were not real, by that logic, parents should own their children.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Satarack "Well that is a case of the video getting a bit confused; because if morals are subjective then they don't really exist in nature since we simply create them for ourselves"
To me, it is better that we create morals ourselves. And besides, even if God did exist, his moral compass would still only be God's opinion. So morality would still be subjective.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "If my opinion is different, you have no logical way to say I'm wrong. You could tell me I'm wrong, but that wouldn't follow logically"
I can say your logic is flawed. I can ask why an entity would flood the planet. And I can say if the reasoning in the argument is faulty or not.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "So as long as it's possible, then we might as well take the bible at face value when it says that Jesus is of the line of David."
Just because you think it's possible means we should take a two-thousand year old book, filled with contradictions and fallacies, at 'face value'?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "The problem here is not for the objectivist, because the person who believes in moral objectivity can easily make the distinction between the two."
And I say objective morality cannot exist, even if there was a god. What if God said he was wrong? Would he still be right? What if God said he was evil? Would he still be good? And how is stoning objective? If you see madness in the streets, is it not sane to confront it? Even if they are doing it in the name of 'objective right'?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "Well you might say that stoning is bad because it takes a person's life. But why is it bad to take a person's life?"
If you can get on the common grounds with a person that life is good, then yes, you can argue with that person that stoning does not make sense because of it. If the person views life as evil, reasoning with them in anyway is going to be difficult, no matter what your religion/non-religion is.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack
"As a christian, I have two answers. First, that person belongs to God, and is valuable to God;"
But why is God valuable?
"his life does not belong to me, I do not have the right to take it."
Ownership is a matter of opinion. Also, even if his life doesn't belong to you, who says you can't take it? (if the answer is "because God told me 'no'", see my response to your other reason.)
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "Secondly, I have been given a command by God not to take the life of another; doing so would violate that command."
What why shouldn't you violate that command? Yeah, he'll burn you in hell for all time, but maybe you like torture.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Satarack "So in the end isn't the secular person left simply saying, "it's bad because I say it's bad."
Simply change it to "it's bad because God says it's bad" and you have the theist's concept of morality. You can say "it's bad because, if we can both agree that human life is a good thing, this will greatly harm human life"
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "IWhat reason is there that I should obey morals when they benefit society but not necessarily me?"
If you view human life as good, that means people other than yourself. It does not take much empathy to understand other people have emotions like yourself, and are capable of being hurt, like yourself. If you view hurting people as wrong, then why would you hurt people? There are millions of atheists who could do all the things you mentioned, but don't.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "You see, if you try to reason with a person like that they'll just laugh at you. They'll tell you that just because I don't want to feel pain, doesn't mean that they are somehow obligated not cause pain in others."
If someone has no problem causing pain to others, do you really think you could reason with them by saying 'a magic man who created the moon and the stars said in a book once that what your doing is bad' would work? Why would they feel an obligation to obey God?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "But how do we derive morals from God? Well, God is defined as the greatest being. By greatest we mean most worthy of worship, that there is no conceivable being that could exist that would be more worthy of worship than God."
I view such a being as still unworthy to worship. Blindly following and obeying something/someone is extremely dangerous, in my opinion.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "On such a definition, God must also be morally perfect"
Who says? God? That is circular reasoning. My sandwich is morally perfect, because I cannot conceive of a more perfect sandwhich than it.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "morals don't exist without a foundation."
And how is helping human life not a foundation for a moral compass? You base your moral compass on a collection of stories, in which one of the characters in the stories says people should do certain things. So how is the 'house of cards' analogy good for my argument, but not for your own?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "If your conclusions depend on your knowledge; then as your knowledge changes, so will your conclusions."
Yes, of course. Which is why we can only make decisions based on the knowledge we have at the time. But this goes for anyone. You base you knowledge on things you read in the bible. But if you found you misread them, or if you found a passage you didn't read, your morality would change.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "Finally, such a morality based on logic would not be binding."
When did I ever say I based my morality soley on logic in itself?
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
@Satarack "if a selfish person doesn't care about the well being of the human race then why should he follow such morals?"
Of course. But that person clearly exists, regardless if there is a god or not. And there are people who cannot be reasoned with, regardless if there is a god or not. But what does that have to do with your own moral compass? We arn't talking about his morals, or lack there of. We're talking about your own.
Alp00000000000000001 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You claim an objective morality then later in the same video say that god changed morality from the old testament and the new testament. You can't have it both ways (even if you try to explain it as a prelude to Jesus). Stoning is a great way to stop STD's and promote obedience.
I respect your attempt to answer these tough questions but I think you are having to do mental gymnastics to rationalize the craziness of the bible. Good luck on your journey toward truth. I once believed as you did.
ultim4t32 2 months ago
Comment removed
ultim4t32 2 months ago
you need to cite from king james.
DisposableHeroesPlay 2 months ago
Most of what was said here is correct but the laws on food haven't changed because it was unclean then and is unclean now.
Jondadon2006 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation so you want to say that Bible is wrong? about the burning of his son, of course God wouldn't have allowed it to happen, we've seen exactly that, God just wanted to see if Abraham fully trusts God whatever the circumstance or condition would be...
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator
You say God commanded this. God said He never did. Did you forget that part? Jer 19:5-6. You are saying God does NOT know our hearts. You are saying God is a liar and that He did command it. You are saying God stoops to the most wicked levels and commands things which He forbids.Murder is forbidden. You are calling James a liar. He says God does not tempt with evil. Murder is evil by all moral standards.
You love those pagan rituals taught to you by pagan priests in suits.
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation You need to study the bible as a whole and not take passages and interpret them out of context.God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac because their actions are pointing ahead to the person of Christ in a typology of the true sacrifice. First of all, God says to Abraham to take his only son. But, we know that 13 years earlier Ishmael had been born to Abraham. So why would God call Isaac the only son? The answer becomes clear when we see what the Scriptures teach.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation Both Isaac and Jesus are called the only begotten son. Of course Abraham knew he had a son named Ishmael. But it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant; it was Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Plus, Isaac was representing the future Messiah Jesus was also called the only begotten son.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worksequalsalvation Both Isaac and Jesus are called the only begotten son. Of course Abraham knew he had a son named Ishmael. But it was not Ishmael who was the son of the promised covenant; it was Isaac, (Gen. 17:19). That is why God called Isaac Abraham's only son. Plus, Isaac was representing the future Messiah Jesus was also called the only begotten son.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation Also, both Jesus and Isaac were offered on a hill and most scholars that I have read agree that it was the very same hill upon which they were both offered, though around 1800 years apart.Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. And the servant represented the God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac. So, why did Abraham offer his son Isaac?
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation He did so out of obedience, believing that God could raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19), and also in his obedience he acted out the true sacrifice of the true only begotten son, Jesus.God was testing Abrahm so that Abrahm would know that his love for God has to come first above all else including his son.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation The reason it had to be taken so far is because people have free will to choose to decide and when we become indecisive about something as human beings we sometimes must experience a traumatic event to become wholly decisive and unfaltering about our future judgments.In fact Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac would not have been sin, since no one had yet been commanded not to make human sacrifice to God.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator
God did command not to murder. Gen 9. Are you saying God said he never thought people would do this evil and never commanded and He goes further, He says He never mentioned it....even as a suggestion? Is this your position that God is a liar? Is your position God commands something He later calls wicked and evil? Isn't this capriciousness? How can anyone then rely on anything God says?
You see the argument you find yourself went you believe man and reject God's own words?
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation if we are to be technical, Jer 9:5 tells about children being sacrificed to Baal, which is not the same as with Isaac...you also have to better understand the meaning of the word murder, which is a premeditated crime. Abraham did no act out of his own premeditation or evil, he was merely following God's order which is exactly the point here. When God commended this He did not intend or premeditate Isaac to be murdered, that's why He stopped Abraham,
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator
Your god is capricious.He instructs not to do something and then commands one to do it.Satan sure is laughing his ass.James tells us God will NOT tempt with evil.Jer19 is speaking of sacrificing children to Baal.He says He never commanded it,mentioned it nor did it ENTER HIS MIND.
If God commanded this,would not Satan duplicate?Who would want to worship a capricious god demanding burning one's son?Unreliable at best.Down right wicked.Flee from appearance of evil.
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation as i said before, you need to read the bible more carefully: i repeat, Jer 19:5 is about childred sacrificed to baal it has absolutely nothing to with passage from genesis, about God tempting, lets see:The first thing to notice is that James is referring to temptation "with evil." Secondly, if you keep reading in James, you will find that this temptation "with evil" is the temptation to sin:"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished , bringeth forth death." - James 1:14-15. Clearly James is referring to the temptation to sin, but that is not the type of temptation that was taking place in Genesis chapter 22.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation Note the following verse in the book of Hebrews:"By faith Abraham, when he was "tried", offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son..." - Hebrews 11:17 Hebrews defines Abraham's temptation as a trial of faith, not a temptation to sin.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator
Who is the unknown writer of Hebrews?Do you care who Rome placed into it?I see your boy Jephthah made it as one of the great fathers of faith.Ha,ha,ha.Jephthah tell his false god that if he gives him victory,he will sacrifice the first thing which comes out of his house.His daughter comes out and he sacrifices her.I think you should name your boy after this "great man of faith."
We know Paul did not receive his doctrine of faith by God nor did the writer(s) of Hebrews.
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator
They use the Septuigent which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT having much mistranslations. The Hebrew says that Abraham saw the promises of God and counted them(the promises)as righteousness.Paul and unknown Hebrews writer read Septuigent,say they are divinely inspired,and state "God saw Abram's faith and counted it as righteousness." We have enough evidence here to convict Paul and unknown pagan writer of Hebrews of frauds. Ha,ha,ha.Gullable Christians duped again.
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
First, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt sacrifice, he did so without God’s approval, for the law of Moses condemned human sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:10). The writer of the book of Hebrews would not have endorsed that particular atrocity any more than he would have sanctioned Abraham’s lying (Genesis 12:10ff), or Rahab’s prostitution (Joshua 2:1ff). Reporting an event is not the equivalent of sanctioning it.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation The allusion in the book of Hebrews would reflect a characterization of Jephthah’s life of faith, viewed in its entirety, and would not discredit him simply because of an isolated (though horrible) act of sin, the fulfillment of a rash vow. On the pther hand many scholars believe that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering; rather, it is argued that he devoted her, as a virgin, to the service of God for the remainder of her life.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation Since human sacrifice was clearly a violation of divine law, does it seem likely that God would have granted Jephthah’s victory (Judges 11:32), knowing that such would result in a gross, pagan tragedy?There is no condemnation of Jephthah’s act in the record of Judges or elsewhere. This seems rather strange in view of the fact that another judge’s heathen conduct is reprimanded (see the case of Gideon — Judges 8:27).
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@worksequalsalvation The girl went into the mountains to bewail her virginity, not her impending death (11:37). If she knew she was about to die, why did she spend the final two months of her life in mountain solitude, rather than remaining with her family (11:36-37)?
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@sergeevspredator "11:17 Hebrews defines Abraham's temptation as a trial of faith, not a temptation to sin." is this not the same thing ?
MrGrantsharp 3 months ago
@MrGrantsharp. In their ultimate origin. Temptations come from the flesh; trials are sent from God. He allowed Satan to test Job (Job 1:6-12). Therefore when we speak of "trial" we see God's fingerprints; when we see temptation, we see our own—or the devil's. In their immediate origin. Temptation comes from within; trials usually come from outside us. Job suffered physically, but inwardly—at least at first—there was no apparent struggle.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@MrGrantsharp In their moral relevance. Temptation, when it is sexual in nature, has considerable moral relevance, but a trial may be what I would want to call morally neutral, such as illness or losing one's keys. With reference to what is tested. Temptation will usually attack a weak spot; trials test our strength as well as exposing a weakness we may have been unaware of—as with Job, who turned out to be so self-righteous.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@MrGrantsharp Any trial that God sends—death of a loved one or friend, financial reverse, loss, illness, misunderstanding, losing your keys, failure, disappointment, betrayal, abuse, unemployment, depression, accident, loneliness, missing a train or plane, rejection, not getting that important invitation, or any physical pain—should be seen as having our Lord's handprints all over them.
sergeevspredator 3 months ago
@bustedprius
prt5 Christians need this wicked story as they say it is a prophetic message of Jesus. God said he never thought men would do such a thing and he didn't just mean to false gods. God hates blood sacrifices which the scribes continuing in their Canaanite religions,where writing.Rome's church,while following Paul,sacrificed many,many children.On Caesar had the pope executed for too much blood.
Jesus never commanded sacrifices."Your sins r forgiven.Go sin no more." contin
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
great work man, God bless
sergeevspredator 4 months ago
I hope we figure this all out. We're the first to try and conquer these issues.
OsamabinLadenisGAY 4 months ago
@OsamabinLadenisGAY
You are not the first to attempt to create compliance into a very troubling book.We know people lie in Bible...God says so.Jer8:8,14:14.Is God capricious?One can say God can do anything He wants.However,he can not be just and command a man to do sin.
Murder is forgidden.Gen9,Ex20.However,God commands a man to murder and burn his son.Not his first,but the second son of the first wife.Ismael is the son of inheritance and promise according to God's laws. continue.
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@Lordlaneus What it means is that it is ok to kill in self defense or to execute if you cannot rehabilitate. You gotta look deeper than literal meaning.
nintendo768 4 months ago
@nintendo768
prt4."Jer19:5-6" They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter."
God NEVER commanded this lie aren't you glad.NO!You probably are NOT glad.Most Christians love bloody atonement and reject Gods words in Ez33
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
@MexyJew1 well, he didnt live that long, but he did live longer than the modern human. There is a scientific explanation for this in that before the flood there was probably a layer of water in the atmosphere protecting humans from a multitude of things like giving them cleaner oxygen to breathe. It might also just be because God gave him longer life. remember, this is a supernatural being who transcends the laws of nature we're talking about.
TheWordOfLife1 4 months ago
@TheWordOfLife1 a layer of water in the atmosphere 0.0... you actually believe kent hovind well your a dumb ass
randallfe 4 months ago
@randallfe If you're*** going to insult someone else's intelligence, make sure you can spell and form sentences correctly. I've never listened to Kent Hovind, but I believe in scientific evidence.
TheWordOfLife1 4 months ago
@TheWordOfLife1 where is the scientific evidence which supports your claim??
randallfe 4 months ago
@randallfe Obviously, the Bible is my first piece of evidence because even many atheists believe a lot of it is true. Water in the stratosphere would protect against dangerous radiation from space, such as skin cancer caused by over exposure to the sun (which would explain the age of some patriarchs in the Bible). An experiment recorded by time magazine revealed that oxygen found fossilized had 50% more pressure, which would be explained by the aforementioned water. Need I say more?
TheWordOfLife1 4 months ago
@TheWordOfLife1
part2.Deut21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has...." continued
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
but wasnt noah in the old testement 1000 yrs old???
MexyJew1 5 months ago
greath work man
TheMistAnchorite 6 months ago
I know my string of posts is a bit confusing, but I was writing them as I watched, and arguments kept popping up in my head in no apparent order.
davimedrade 7 months ago
expertly explained.
Amritizcool66 7 months ago
@Amritizcool66
prt7. This might explain it a little more. Sadly, few want to worship in truth.They want to follow the paganism their fathers have handed down.Why is America Mystery Babylon in prophecy?It is because almost all,whether they practice it or not,believe in blood sacrifices.Blood is on their hands and they do not worship our Creator but a very pagan god.
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=DDgaSpmMnpM
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=0HYpGHXagBA
youtube(dot)com/watch?v=6it23V8hOdE
worksequalsalvation 3 months ago
1. Herodotos called them SERVANTS.
2. The Romans called them SLAVES.
spa05akw 8 months ago
Very good video , well explained and I think you're right in all statements you've made, And I hope Our Lord Jesus bless you in a big way , cause you've been very helpful for Christian life.
Blessings
andycasi 9 months ago
Very good video , well explained and I think you're right in all statements you've made, And I hope Our Lord Jesus bless you in a big way , cause you've been very helpful for Christian life.
Blessings
andycasi 9 months ago
@mafuletrekkie The unfortunate mistake that you're making is that slavery in Israel meant the same thing that the British colonists and Americans did to blacks for hundreds of years. You couldn't be more wrong in that assumption. Let me put it this way, slavery in Israel was a MUCH better alternative than entering the US Federal DOC, but somehow today's secular society miss that fact. Today, a young man goes to prison as a car thief or a pot dealer, and comes out a murderer / rapist / psycho.
bustedprius 9 months ago
the bible condones slavery
tizzle46 9 months ago
@tizzle46 So what?
bustedprius 9 months ago
For something to carry the modifier "objective" it must be whatever it is apart from anything else. So for a behavior to be objectively right or wrong it must be right or wrong based on its own merit, not because God said so. Values cannot exist apart from a valuer. Therefore, even an almighty valuer's values are subjective.
Also, your alibis for why God had to kill children are asinine because if God is almighty, he could have accomplished his goals without killing children.
CamilloJacobson 9 months ago
@CamilloJacobson Please don't make statements about the Bible without backing them up. What children are you talking about?
bustedprius 8 months ago
@bustedprius 1 Samuel 15:3
CamilloJacobson 8 months ago
@CamilloJacobson So with the context in mind of who the Amalekites were, in your opinion, what should God have told Saul to do about them? What mercy should God have shown on the Amalekites that He hadn't already shown them?
bustedprius 8 months ago
@bustedprius I wasn't commenting on what should have been done. I was merely pointing out that if god indeed omnipotent, then he could have accomplished his goals and still spared at least the innocent children. To say that god had no other choice but to kill them limits god's power.
CamilloJacobson 8 months ago
@CamilloJacobson However, by making the statement that God could have done something else, you must have had something in mind, or else your statement becomes nothing more than simple rhetoric. What should God have instructed Saul to do instead of commanding him to exterminate the Amalekites? Keep in mind, God already had promised the Israelites that He would bless those that blessed them, and curse those that cursed them.
bustedprius 8 months ago
@bustedprius Honestly, I didn't have anything else in mind, but since you've asked I guess I could give it a shot.
To fulfill the desired outcome of cursing those that cursed Israel, god could have smote all the Amalekite adults with boils or caused them to expel their internal organs through their sphincter. He could have done any number of things, including ordering the Israelites to slaughter them all. However, he did not have to do kill the infants who were incapable of cursing anyone.
CamilloJacobson 8 months ago
So if I say that the Old Testament is obsolete, then I am wrong?
ShalomQCCircle 9 months ago
while i understand and respect what you are saying in this video, i cannot agree with your assessment that somebody following their natural biological instincts to mate with someone who happens to be of the same gender as themselves (aka homosexuality) is wrong or immoral
Prognosticator00 10 months ago
@Prognosticator00
Would it be a good thing if the majority of the world became homosexuals? There's a reason why sometimes me are 1 min interested in women and mess around with a bunch of them then they say "All along I was gay after all of those women so now I must do stuff with men". that's dumb
It depends what inspires us, like I've grown up seeing my mum and dad and many other men and women together and that's how we come into the world so it makes sense really lol.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
I've got an open mind to these things like homosexualities could be born that way. Maybe they are I mean a family of thieves who bring children into the world might pass on their thieving traits to them and those children would probably grow up to be pretty good thieves. Who knows but I don't judge anyone anyway because I'm no better.
It's all down to us how we pass down our genes. A pregnant woman drinks and smokes and the baby comes out deformed is that God's fault?
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 i think they almost certainly are born that way, and even if they arent i dont really care. in my opinion theres nothing wrong with people being gay and it appears as if you at least somewhat agree with me.
Prognosticator00 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
Like I said I'm not judging, but the thing is in the long run it's not a good thing for humanity in terms of the human population. Not saying it's considered wrong because they hurt people a number of them are extremely nice people. But if years from now the majority of the human race start to become more inspired to be gay then the human race will die eventually that's the problem with it. Not saying that to be nasty but it is true at the end of the day and it's worrying.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 i dont believe it works like that. I seriously doubt that people who were straight would "choose" to be gay. I'm not saying they wouldn't choose to have a homosexual experience, but people who are naturally attracted to females will end up marrying a woman in the long run and people who are naturally attracted to males will end up marrying a male.
Prognosticator00 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
Sorry to say but that is the case sometimes only because an old friend of mine's dad was into women even married his mother I think then next thing you know they separate and he's in a long term relationship with his boyfriend. not too sure if he still is haven't seen my friend for years. But believe me it does happen, and maybe some people are just gay from birth, I'm open to that.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
I'm aware it's natural to do it because animals do it too but it doesn't make it ok, it's also natural to steal, kill and do all kinds of sick twisted things that people out there do but doesn't make it ok, does it? Also just to point out it's not just homosexuality that's bad for the human population, that's just 1 thing, but if more and more people are inspired to be that way it won't be good.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 so you mean that it isnt good to be open minded? why should you get into someones life and dictate how someone should live? if they want to be with someone of the same sex it is their choise not yours. yes your right Stealing killing is natural but being a homosexual and is two completely diffrent things, even if you by any chance think it is. Inspired you say, yes more and more people do get more inspired by homosexuals now, but that does not mean that they become a homosexual.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Me being honest doesn't mean I'm dictating to anyone nor am I against open mindedness at all just telling the truth that's all. Just like saying I'm not open minded cos I didn't try stealing before or something. We can see something for what it is and we don't do it simple as that.
Never said what people do is my choice again just being honest. It is indeed people's choice what they do but don't mean I can't be honest about their choice does it?
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Of course gay people inspire others but probably in other ways that has nothing to do with their sexuality but sexually too tho probably as I've seen it happen lol. I've seen or heard of people have a change of heart and they're suddenly into the same sex. It does go on.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 yes I am well aware of thats some people do say that they are homosexuals but they are not, for some years it was a fashion thingy to be homosexual in Sweden, however even if many people "become" a homosexual it isnt going to do any harm to the hetrosexual couples as there are way more hetrosexual people in the world then homosexuals, I belive that some people that make a completely shift from hetrosexuality to homosexuality or vice vers is because they are not sure what they llike.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
There may be more straight people at the moment but that could change years from now and it will do harm but because it's minor compared to killing and robbing etc people don't see it doing any harm but in the long run with all the promotion it seems to be getting on tv, films. The fact also that gay "parents" can bring up children now will encourage homosexuality even more.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
So you mean to tell me that when straight people suddenly become gay it's because they weren't sure. So men pretended that they enjoyed their experience with all the women they slept with then suddenly they realise they were gay all along?! Don't make me laugh.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 no Sir, I am not saying that all straight people just do that but some do, there are many people that are not sure what sexual orientation they have and therefore they do try the same sex or the other sex. and I am not trying to make you laugh. just to let you know some of my friends that have had sex with girls and liked it then tried boys felt that they where actually loving that more then girls, so yea there are people that realise that they have been gay all along.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1 we have a difference of opinion and i dont believe that either of us is going to be able to convince the other one otherwise, so let's just agree to disagree, ok?
Prognosticator00 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00 we absolutely have diffrent opinions which is very good to have, and I agree that none of us will be able to convince the other. thank you for the fast replies to my comments and i hope you think the same of me.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Probably so but the ones who have slept with a bunch of women, then they go for the same sex point there is that they couldn't of been born gay if they enjoyed those women. But you know I'll agree that there may be some men that may of been with say 1 woman and their sexual relationship was crap and its because he was really gay. I'll agree that that does happen but same time there are those that have a change of heart and that happens too.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 oh absolutely I do also belive that some people do change from girl to boy or the other way just because it feels better acording to them so why not let them? animals are doing it why shouldnt man? basicly we are a very inteligent animal. my opinion is that we have come far into a civilized way of thinking and by so accepting people being diffrent, that includes diffrent sexual orientations or sexes. the thing I do not get is why do so many people have problems with HBT people?.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Feels better huh? Maybe and it's not really a case of letting them cos it's not my choice what people do with their lives. But the fact is if most of humanity years from now were inspired to be gay it's not good it's not good for the population is it. Fact is were all bad in some way or another but the worst thing we can do is think that's there's nothing wrong with what were doing.
Oh yea indeed accept people as people but just be aware that we all have inequity
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
"oh absolutely I do also belive that some people do change from girl to boy or the other way just because it feels better acording to them so why not let them?"
Not the point I was making, the point I was making is that they're not always born gay.
Animals are gay why can't man be? Animals do all kinds of savage things anyway doesn't mean we should do it does it? Animals like pigs eat their own crap doesn't mean it's ok for us to do it.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 you are correct that animals do all kind of savage things, but I do not see a person that is having sex with a person of the same sex a savage, if accept people for being what they are is a bad thing then maybe we are savages but atleast we are savages with a open mind. I know that some people say that they are gay isnt gay, but as I said in a previous comment who are you to dictate another persons life. we both live in a modernized western country that do allow same sex couples.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
My point being is that just because animals do what they do doesn't make it ok for us to do it. See you made the point that "animals do it so why can't we". Not saying homosexuality is initially savage but it'll do harm to the population years from now if more and more are inspired to be gay. It's promoted nowadays in movies, music videos and tv shows, the things that children are exposed to is disgusting. Point there is it's likely it'll grow and it won't be a good thing.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Of course accept people for who they are because were all sinners and I'm not saying judge but I'm just making a point that homosexuality is just 1 bad thing that people do and it will affect humanity years from now, just stating the obvious that it's not good for the human population in the long run.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Getting things twisted again are we? Again in MY previous comment I'm not dictating at all and I'm not against open mindedness just stating the obvious facts so don't know what that has to do with dictatorship or being against open mindedness. Why do you say that?
I know modernized western countries allow same sex couples don't mean it's a good thing. Our modernized western countries have made all kinds of stupid laws don't make them ok just because they're modernized.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@100pjp001 I didnt mean that you are doing it (using the "you" word dosnt mean that you peronaly does it) what I mean with dictating is that why should anyone be allowed to tell someone what is wrong and whats not. what makes same sex couples so repulsive to people? it is their life, they should be the ones that decides if they want to have sex with the same sex not you. now if you excuse me I would like to leave this discussion that we have, but I am glad we had it.
Thank you sir.
1Gabrielsson1 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
"(using the "you" word dosnt mean that you peronaly does it)"
Well I don't know that, from anyone reading that they would think it's directed towards them personally. But nevertheless I am included because I have that view on homosexuals so it is towards me too. Anyway it is pretty obvious that it's wrong because of human population years from now and the more and more promotion it gets it wouldn't surprise me if the gay population kept rising and the human population? not good.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@1Gabrielsson1
Glad I've had this discussion too it makes me think.
I didn't say all of that to personally get nasty against gays, just stating the obvious about it that's all. Nobody's perfect.
Take care.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
I know homosexuality is a different thing to killing, just pointing out it's natural just like killing and so on all natural doesn't make it ok. Just like you said homosexuality is natural animals do it so that makes it ok it doesn't tho.
If we do everything because it's natural why do we judge people for obeying their natural laws if the world just happened naturally and everything in it formed naturally, why do we then judge someone for being natural? Don't make sense.
100pjp001 9 months ago
@Prognosticator00
Homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable, like on tv kids are exposed to homosexual activities now like men kissing and being together and they'll look at that and think it's ok. Like it's ok for gay "parents" to bring kids up nowadays so they'll see that and think being gay's cool. So it looks to me that the homosexuality population will increase over the years from now with all the promotion and support it gets.
Anyway homosexuality is just 1 problem.
100pjp001 9 months ago
ha, more thumbs down bc you ruin the scoffers excuses.
betterworld1 10 months ago
Comment removed
CoonAndFriends2 10 months ago
Actually, our feelings were put there by a process that weeds out non-survival characteristics. For the most part, when backed by that understanding and a further process of scientific rationality applied to them, they are a fairly reliable guide to moral behavior and not nearly as subjective as you've represented here. Much less subjective in fact, than anything contained in an iron and bronze age book of mythology. Furthermore, WOW ... you are still completely nuts.
MrMZaccone 10 months ago
im not too sure it was the child that was daemonic, its the upbringing that can be really bad
jarhead572 10 months ago
You're really cute, but if I may ask, why did God go to such great lengths to "preserve" the bloodline of Jesus Christ when he is omnipotent? I mean, couldn't he just make sure Jesus' bloodline would be preserved in his "plan" or whatever? That, or couldn't he find another way for Jesus to be born, such as finding another family? I'm an atheist, but that's just a question I have. Please answer it! I actually want to know.
xoxILoveCatsxox 10 months ago
I dont understand what you mean by "preserve the blood line of jesus christ" or that this bloodline could somehow be contaminated? The only context where I can think of someone calling a bloodline "contaminated" is when white supremacists say that a white person had a child with a non white person. This is a racist concept regardless of what race you are trying to "preserve." Hopefully it isnt what you mean. What are you talking about when you say this.
tuberofyou1 10 months ago
Hold on, if god is almighty, why was there no other way then Jesus Christ to save the world. It seems you use one vaguely correct argument to explain everything That isn't proving your statement.
lennartsmit 10 months ago
@lennartsmit Think about it,God's OWN people killed him.And some believed in him.It is choice,He tested the human race.It is trust and faith my friend
urbman29 10 months ago
@urbman29 First of all, I'm an atheist. I don't belive in this fairytale for grownups and what you said doesn't have anything to do with what i said. I said that if you believe god is almighty you also belive that he can do anything he wants when he wants it. Noah's flood, of which no geological evidence has ever been presented, wasn't neccesary if god would just bring the saviour to the earth. It removes the issue of the bloodline being contaminated.
lennartsmit 10 months ago
@lennartsmit in the human mind that would be the better thing to do.I have a good analogy for you.right out of the blue.An atom,It is a proven fact that we will NEVER be able to look at one or make a diagram of it.Yet we believe in it because there is evidence of it.God,can not be proven,NOR dis proven/physically seen,yet we shun him down because it isn't *scientific*.The problem with science,is that it is a constant variable.it ALWAYS changes.
urbman29 10 months ago
@urbman29 Who says we can't see atoms? We already have electronmicroscopes who can see individual atoms, albeit large ones.
lennartsmit 10 months ago
@lennartsmit then we can make a complete diagram of it?because the ones now a days are just *accepted*
urbman29 10 months ago
@urbman29 How do you mean we can't make a diagram of of it? Ever looked in a chemistrybook?
lennartsmit 10 months ago
@lennartsmit that is the *ACCEPTED* diagram of the atom.
urbman29 10 months ago