This 'moral law' argument is equivocation: Moral AREN'T 'laws' like legal laws & therefore need NO law giver -no God. This argument says NOTHING about why Christianity MUST be true among a huge number of alternative religious beliefs.
Athiests want to assert that while they don't know everything, they know God isn't real. Another thing, as for comments like the one below mine, never take anything out of context. You want to tell the giver of life that it's wrong for him to take it. Also, you want to tell the moral law giver what is immoral. We are judged by intention of actions, not actions alone. Know the intention before you judge the action.
It is clear to me that morality is emergent from our evolution as highly socialized and reasoning primates. Good and evil are likewise emergent from the solidarity of humanity (what enabled us to prosper). The Moral Law does not need to be either immutable or from a moral law giver.
Ravi's example of neighbors that eat each other is fatuous. That kind of society won't last. It is our evolved sensibilities (remember that there is variation) that gives us the feelings of morality.
A popular myth is that religion has killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more peaceful place were it not for religion. Total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Those killed in the name of Christendom= 264,000. 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 over 1/3 of all people ever killed!
Christianity that kills is not biblical Christianity. It's man in error and with an agenda in mine that has little or nothing to do with Christ. (i.e. Slave owners of the earlier centuries in America). Only time in scripture that you see it appears as if God allowed or demonstrated killing or brutality was judgment or punishment for sin in the Old Testament allowing man's actions to have it's full course of consequence.
@ninjajesus81 What absolute rubbish. Seriously. I must have missed that part of the Gospels where Christ sent out the apostles to slay everyone going.
@ninjajesus81 I'm sure you have a point here, however it isn't clear to me.
If you are talking about God in the Hebrew Scriptures, well quite frankly how often do you see he/she/it personally killing anyone? Is it not the case that such acts tend to be the work of man or what we would call natural disaster?
Christians understand through belief in Christ. Christ being God speaking directly to us, rather than messages relayed by unreliable middlemen, however admirable.
@ninjajesus81 Flood to me sounds a great deal like a Natural Disaster. I don't think we look around the world today and assume every flood is a punishment from a deity?
Further, these humans do the killing, that is all we can be sure of, as they personally attest to it. That they claim they were 'told to' by 'God' is another matter altogether.
The testimony of Christ throws all sorts of doubt over the veracity of the 'God told me to kill' crowd of the Hebrew Bible.
@MrWildbill20056 God specifically said he caused the flood. Your argument is much like "I didn't kill him, the bullet did".
But if you want specific instances where god personally kills somebody with his own hands, or lack thereof, there's plenty of examples. Do I really have to show you, or do you honestly not know they exist?
@ninjajesus81 If you examine the language of the Hebrew Bible, short of human actions God takes responsibility for everything. Further you are dealing with Noah, who is almost certainly a mythological figure that conveys figurative, not literal truth.
If you trot out Soddom and Gamorra, I'll use natural disaster. Same for all but the final plague with regards to Egypt. In each case I will demonstrate that those punished were given the option to avoid it also, and thus assume responsibility.
@ninjajesus81 You are mistaking ultimate responsibility with intentional liability. Of course, in a theistic universe, God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens. IF God did not act, then nothing would happen, period.
All I see in this case are people of past time's ascribing an action to God. David's actions as a consequence are those of a man who believes God will heal his child, rather than one who believes the child's death is an inevitable payment.
@MrWildbill20056 Your explanation doesn't negate the fact that god would be responsible for killing. If he's responsible for everything, then killing is included.
And yes, those people are ascribing an action to god. Obviously there is no god to do anything, but as far as the Bible is concerned, god specifically killed the baby.
@ninjajesus81 Indeed but then only the in sense that a parent is responsible for the actions of their child long after they themselves are dead.
Taking your irrelevant assertion out of the equation, so far as the writers and people of the time were concerned this was an action of God. However their presumptions on the matter are no superior to ours.
In contrast to the life of Christ, there are no multiple witnesses to God making a statement on this matter either way.
@ninjajesus81 Believe that as you may. Keep deceiving yourself thinking that God kills for no reason. God doesn't kill sinful man kills. These things would've never been if mankind didn't try to overrule the authority of Almighty God. But in the every knee will bow. Believe it or not.
@psykomystro I don't think god does anything because there is no god. But the Bible gives many examples of him killing people. He killed everyone in the world with the flood. That was a just thing to do? You're a disgrace if you believe that.
The difference is, my misguided Friend, that not one person has been killed in the name of atheism - it doesn't carry any beliefs that people would kill or die for. Whereas, in the case of the 2 major religions, the whole belief system is based on sacrifice and killing, and is supported by the blood of martyrs.
Human sacrifice is repulsive to me - but you worship it.
In addition, even if your statistics WERE right:
It is not a defence in law to say, "They killed more than us, Your Honour"
@StrumstickJoe Communism was an atheistic movement... I say this from reading a Soveit and Communist literature, and so they self-describe themselves as atheist. Here is a small sampling (many by Marxist/Soviet philosophers) of a few books in my home library of over 4,500 book: Dialectical Materialism; The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy; the Communist Manifesto; Toward Soviet America; A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninest Semantics; ....[con't]....
@SeanG200 Mr. SeanG2oo, I totally agree with you. I am a former Atheist and former member of a Communist youth group here in the Philippines. Atheism is what drives Communism.
@StrumstickJoe ... [from con't].... Dialectical Materialism: A Historical & Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union; Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. I have many, many other books dealing with this topic in full or in part. but the damning evidence is that these "regimes" self-identify with atheism... much to the chagrin of left leaning professors at CSUN or COC [a local community college].
@StrumstickJoe You are dead-wrong Mister. Haven't you researched well? In the Philippines, Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front have been killing our fellow Filipinos all in the name of Atheism-Communism SINCE its foundation on 1930's. (Communist insurgency in the Philippines IS the worlds LONGEST insurgency in the world). They torture our government soldiers and extort money from small-time but honest business-men. All in the name of Ideology.
@StrumstickJoe Don't put Christianity on a par with Islam or Atheism-Communism; Atheism-Communism is utilitarian which means if it has to kill, IT WILL KILL ( I know this because I was a Commie activist schooled in the idea that for us to win CIVIL WAR must be done); the same thing in Islam: in order to advance Islam, one should kill an infidel. Christianity SACRIFICED THE LAMB ONLY ONCE! Any killing after this in the name of JESUS is DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE.
@StrumstickJoe Furthermore, inquisition, religio-civil wars, were the result of a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED RELIGION (this is a big no-no to Jesus). Even the Crusades. They tell us that Christians wanted to get Jerusalem back for Christianity; when in fact Princes and Kings used this as a pretext to get the NOD of the Roman Pope to their political schemes...
@gatsbyfaulkner 1) Hi. The RC church celebrated AH’s birthday every year – and they never excommunicated him. He said in mein kampf that to kill the jews was god’s work.
I wouldn’t ever claim that there were no atheist beliefs in the minds of marauding tyrants – I simply say that atheism doesn’t have a political agenda within itself. Again, “it doesn't carry any beliefs that people would kill or die for.” Religions do...
@StrumstickJoe I've read your comments. You ignored all the evidences I offered. First in your #2 reply, you said your AIM is to RID the world of people people who have apocalyptic VIEW. Doesn't it sound SO MARXIST-LENINIST-MAOIST?((I know this because I am a former student of the Atheistic thought of Communism) Therefore, you HAVE in mind TO REMOVE FROM the people the BELIEF in SUPERNATURAL BEING i.e RELIGIOUS VIEW which is BY THE WAY, one of the fundamental Human Rights as stated by the UN.
@StrumstickJoe It is not a defence in law to say, "They killed more than us, Your Honour"-- you say. I believe this. As a Christian I don't condone people who kill for religion. I hate it. But why is it that every time I raise the connection of Atheism with its influence on Hitler; Atheism with Marx's Satanism (oh yes he was), an ATHEIST, though not denying it, WILL TRY TO EVADE THE ISSUE BY POINTING ALL THE WORLD'S WOES TO RELIGION?
@gatsbyfaulkner 2) Certainly my aim, as Christopher Hitchens’ and Cristina’s, is to rid the world of the threat of people who have an apocalyptic view of the world and care little for this (our only) life as a result.
@StrumstickJoe Plus, you are raising MORAL concerns that is within the sphere of RELIGION. Why are you so concern about the moral flaws of religion etc.? You don't believe in a MORAL LAW GIVER; what are you so problematic about? Moreover, from your replies I inferred that YOU HAVE NO SOLUTION TO THE CONCERNS YOU ARE raising. You show at least that HUMAN BEINGS are the only problem solvers of this world!
@StrumstickJoe STATISTICS BTW matters. For instance Amnesty International relies on investigation and reports that include quantitative data especially on Human Rights Violations issue. So the defense "they killed more than us" can be, at some point, accepted. This however will mean that the party who said this admits accountability. I don't lump Atheists together with Hitler or Stalin. So give the same respect to Theists who will defend the Word of God by reason not by sword.
If the bile (sorry - bible!) is your favourite book, why don't you try reading the passages I suggested and justify them (to yourself, please) one by one.
The only way possible to "follow" the book is to pick and choose the bits you think have any humanity and morality, and ignore the parts you can't stomach.
The thing as a whole is vindictive, immoral and dangerous.
@StrumstickJoe depends on your point of view. Do you not have anybody in your life that you would die for in order to save them from a horrible and torturous death? And if you did so would that person consider your self-sacrifice to be repulsive? Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is repulsive. Sacrifice to save somebody's life, which is what Christ did, is the most loving thing you can do.
@AegeanKing Of course, I have several people for whom I would "take the bullet" - but it is nothing to do with morals.
The leap of logic you take to say that the jc sacrifice (actually, if it happened it was just an execution in brutal times, and if I had been there I would have felt compelled to stop it! That would have buggered up the prophecy!!) was "for my sins" & "to save me" is what I have never ever ever understood.
@StrumstickJoe It's not a leap of logic. It is perfectly logical and coherent. The idea of atonement is not that hard to understand. Let me try and see if I can break it down for you. On the Christian view, sin is rebellion. the wages of sin are spiritual death. Now, let me stop there and give and ask a rhetorical question. In our society, would we consider a judge in a court to be "just" or caring for society if he let all criminals go without punishment? No, of course not. (continued)
@StrumstickJoe We would rightly call that judge unfit to serve and have him removed. The same applies to God. In order to be just, there must be punishment for transgression. Now, the Christian view says that because God loves his creation he sent his only Son, who was sinless, to take on the sins of the world and pay the penalty for the worlds sin. Thereby making people who would believe in him and have a relationship with him "justified" since the price of their sin has been paid.
Thats not the way it works. You can't go to a judge and say "I just killed somebody but don't send me to jail cuz I'll do some good deeds to make up for it". There is nothing about the story is incomprehensible. You just don't want to comprehend it. You did not "give" your sins to anyone. If you want a relationship with God, your sins will be forgiven cuz Christ has paid the price for sin. Without it, you are dead in your sins and YOU will have to pay the penalty for sin instead of Christ.
@StrumstickJoe In any case, what you think is irrelevant. You can rail against the decrees of God all you want. That still wont change the fact that sin leads to spiritual death and separation from God forever. Without Christ you are damned.
@StrumstickJoe You're just another angry atheist. Try learning how to have a conversation with somebody without being such an aggressive and abrasive prick.
Hmmm, 2 thoughts there: a) anything posted by me or others that goes against dodgy religious grain is always attacked as angry and abrasive; b) your gratuitous insult could easily be called abrasive, couldn't it?
I would suggest there is also a sign of frustration there, because I truly don't believe in what you believe in, and it must be incomprehensible and irritating to you.
What you believe doesn't matter either, unless it leads you to the terrorism so rife in faith.
@StrumstickJoe When you call my beliefs trash, that is abrasive language. I am not frustrated in the least about your intransigence. Its not me that you have to answer to. I wish I could meet one atheist who wasn't a condescending prick and was capable of having a civilized conversation.
@AegeanKing Ahhh! So it's a general malaise, this prick-like behaviour by atheists, is it - and not a personal insult you threw at me, then?
That softens the blow!
I think if you read my posts all over this yt you will find some very civilised conversation - some christians have even asked me to be "friends" - which surprises me. Some have gone "private" and really made me think - as I might have made them think, maybe.
I have no gods to answer to - no constant "watcher". (That's gooood!)
@StrumstickJoe stop trolling. Don't you atheists have anything better to do than be obsessed with your own unbelief?? Real atheists move on with their life and do not obsess over something they do not believe in. You however are not a real atheist. Most youtube atheists fall in two camps. One is the troll trouble maker i enjoy teasing people childish camp. The other camp is the " i really want to believe and Im looking for a reason to believe which is why I troll theist videos". Ur the latter.
@StrumstickJoe So, on the Christian view, the sacrifice of Christ was one of ultimate love. The sacrifice of Christ reconciled man with God. The death of Christ is directly analogous to you "taking the bullet" in order to save a loved one. I hope that helped.
I would also strongly recommend that anyone interested, examine a very powerful analysis of Mr. Harris' secularist perspective & subjectivism by Jackson Lears. The article is called, "The same old new atheism" . It can be read in the May 2011 issue of the Nation Magazine.
Also, no such thing as "human sacrifice as a tenet of Christian theology
@StrumstickJoe Your knowledge of history is lacking. Hitler, Stalln, Mao,etc killed millions upon millions due to their core atheism beliefs. They reduced people to being nothing more then a compiled clump of matter (reductionism/materialism), no better then a twig from a tree so to speak. You reduce people to that and it's not hard to see how they could commit genocide and other crimes. Reductionism, materialism, and naturalism are dangerous ideas when applied to people.
people have been killed in the name of everything, including atheism. But I am more interested in this...what Bible have you read that teaches human sacrifice? Are you arguing that the Self-giving Son (in cooperation with the Father's will to redeem) is the same as people putting someone to death for the purpose of appeasing a deity? Because Christ gave of himself as propitiation for sin. in other words, what man meant for evil, Christ meant for good. it was his doing. please respond
@Follower172 I replied privately to this, but, after seeming to want to hear my reasons, you seem to have defaulted from further comment.
I should add that, whilst I am very doubtful that the jc character ever existed, I utterly renounce his relevance and claims to moral leadership if he did.
The whole faith is an immoral mess based on admiration for a loony who took his son up the mountain to kill him because of a voice in his head.
@StrumstickJoe Considering the overwhelming evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (both biblical and and secular), what has lead you to doubt it? You do realize that there is no debate of the existence of Jesus among New Testament scholars? Even atheists grant this as a grounded historical fact.
@ZaoHudor It seems possible that there was a charismatic (though bizarre and probably deluded) rabbi around about 2,000 yrs ago. Though why you should believe that he should be your moral guide (much less that he is still talking to you!) is utterly beyond me.
I am an atheist - as were we all once - and I don't think he was there - but if he was - so what?
@StrumstickJoe Given your atheistic presuppositions, it's now wonder that you would believe Jesus to have been deluded. But I'm glad you at least now except the undeniable fact that He existed. I always find it rather strange why atheists are so eager to deny the historical Jesus' existence. It's as though they do not want Him to have existed.
@ZaoHudor It's as though you need me to admit "he" existed, which I didn't. I don't accept it at all.
Atheists are born. There are no presuppositions. We are all born atheists - we need to be duped and indoctrinated to accept the bizarre doctrines of one of the many thousands of faiths - depending entirely on where we are born and to whom.
Again - I wish you peace and clarity here on earth - for there is nothing to follow.
@StrumstickJoe Do you believe that the denial of Jesus' existence is rational? If so, then what reason do you have to reject both biblical and secular sources that evidence His existence? Why do you depart from contemporary NT scholarship?
Second, atheism is an epistemological position. Babies do not have epistemological positions concerning fundamental philosophical questions. There are developed as one begins to reason. Thus atheists are not born.
@ZaoHudor The existence or not of your friend jc has no bearing whatever on the human race. An atheist is a person without a god, or a need for a god - that would define a newborn.Neither I nor a baby has need to study the nature of knowledge; its presuppositions and foundations, or its extent and validity. 'NT scholarship' is an oxymoron. Belief in magic is the position of the moron.
I genuinely have no more time for this at present, though much work remains to be done, obviously.
@StrumstickJoe "An atheist is a person without a god, or a need for a god". Atheism is is the belief that there is no god, or, as some might say today, lack of belief in a god. The Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names defines atheism as, "belief that God does not exist". It concerns belief, which is epistemological.
So I must, therefore ask, where did you get your definition from? Please provide a reputable source. Or did you just make it up?
@StrumstickJoe "NT scholarship' is an oxymoron." You are very ignorant of what speak. NT scholarship is the analytical study of the New Testament texts — their historicity, origin, authorship, dating, and content. There are many atheists and agnostic NT scholars as well. So if you believe that disciplines at Cambridge, Oxford, and just about every other major university are oxymoronic, then I can only urge you to refrain from speaking about things you know not of.
There is a lot of evil in the world, and the vast majority of it is in religion.
The histories of the bible and the koran are trails of blood, often crossing and re-crossing.
They are incitements to immorality and murder and mutilation.
They fail morally by sanctioning genocide, celebrating infanticide and tolerating slavery. They fail logically with self contradiction and historical inaccuracies, and utter lies.
@StrumstickJoe Actually, just in the twentieth century alone, atheistic [non-religious] political movements have killed more people than the previous 19 centuries of all religious combined -- thusly fulfilling a "prophecy" by Nietzsche: “There will be wars such as there have never been on earth before. Only from my time on will there be on earth politics on the grand scale.... “this most gruesome of all guests”, who stands at the door, is to be welcomed.” (from my quotes page at r-pt[dot]net)
@SeanG200 *facepalm* Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
@SeanG200 Very well said. I enjoyed reading this discussion. You make some strong intelligent points. I am gonna stck a couple of them in the ole bag o "answer for my faith" and use them whenever needed. God Bless.
@libertas2011 I haven't read all of it for a long time; I have other things to do. But you could try these bits of you want to revise it yourself: * Deut 25:11-12 * Genesis 38:8-10 * Deut 21:18-21 * Ex 35:2 * Lev 20:13 * Isaiah 13:13-16 * Exodus 21:20-21 * 1 Tim 2:11-12 * Col 3:22-23 * Luke 14:26 * Deut 22:13-21 * Isaiah 40:8
@StrumstickJoe It was never meant to be "pick only what's good" You need to know the bigger picture. Most of the verses you pointed out are from the old testament (the time of law) which was meant for the Israelites prior to Christ's death & are no longer applicable to our times which belongs to the new testament (the time of grace). I'd gladly help explain the implication of what I said & the verses you mentioned but seeing that you've already decided to keep a closed mind, doing so is useless.
@StrumstickJoe "I suggested and justify them (to yourself, please) one by one" It appeared to me that you didn't want to hear the justification of the scriptures you quoted. But anyhow, first you need to understand what made the Old Testament books different from the New testament. This requires first and foremost a willing ear to listen, if you'll allow me then I'll gladly explain it to you to the best of my knowledge. And after hearing, I'll leave it to you to decide if it's acceptable or not
@StrumstickJoe [con't] But don't go about making hasty conclusions without investigating thoroughly. You have raised some legitimate points regarding the apparent "ridiculous" texts and I would feel the same way as you if I didn't study carefully what they meant. So if indeed you are trying to make sense of all of these and not just trolling then I would gladly share. But if not then I won't force it either. Peace be with you sir.
@geforcemmx2000 i think that after deciding that the texts are valueless, and that one is an atheist and does not believe in any gods whatever, then the only reason to read or quote the texts is to illustrate to those of faith that they are wrong. I don't feel I need bible study. The contradictions and primitive, immoral values within should convince all that there is no god.
Add to that the randomness of his "perfect" universe, and there is nothing to support the faith at all.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo I apologize for the ranting of @HermitintheRain. I am an unabashed follower of Jesus and it saddens me when my brothers and sisters in Christ don't realize that what they are saying isn't beneficial but erratic and judgmental. I assure you not all of us talk that way.
So are we the deciders of sin as well? Was Hitler's morality the failure of a morality apart from God's morality? You say a single monotheistic view, but are you not advocating that we are all monotheists, following our own moral code? Is that not shifting sand as Jesus stated (Matthew 7:26)? If we decide our morals, how does God judge on judgment day? What standard does he follow for each of us? Where is the scripture that matches what you are saying?
@GTPrescott While YouTube's 500 character posts do not allow the sufficient space for convo (go to r-pt[dot]net), I will say that if unsaved you are determined to be determined (following genes and environment via the end result of the colliding of free atoms). Or you are truly free within a moral paradigm to act in God's boundaries. That was the conclusion of Stephen Hawkings via a lecture. Not me. Type in "Stephen Hawkings" in my search box at my blog, check the first selection.
@SeanG200 Hi Sean, thank you for the link to the site. I actually was replying to GrandSupremeDaddyo with those questions as I was engaging him in his belief of an ever-shifting morality...
Can a man live without GOD? of course he can, in physical sense. Can he live without GOD in a reasonable way? The answer to that is (NO) because such a person is compelled to deny a moral law to abandon hope, to forfeit meaning and to risk no recovery if he is wrong (those who choose to live without GOD should face the consequences of such a choice)
if god does not exist how do you have moral values in life listen up i might blow u away........... if humans are conscious of an objective moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. This lawgiver must be morally Superior to us in order to explain the sense of authority that we feel the moral law has over us and indeed the law giver must be or posses a mind AKA if u are moral how did you become moral your parents wait what about them how did they WELL i know its GOD
One of the basic moral principal that all mankind agreed is to not do something to others that you don't want them do to you. What if I punish you, for not giving you any convincing evidence about something, that I want you to believe is true. You'll understand assuming you have the capability to put your mind in other person's perspective. The evidence razi mentioned is good enough when you already believe God exists. Come on, are you saying that's the best evidence God can offer?
And that was the most horse-crap spin of a response as I've ever heard. The person questioning never mentioned he believed in a 'moral giver," or a 'moral god,' he merely asked a simple question to which this zany sot imposed his ignorant interpretation of god, and his assumption that a moral god is required for the answer, and slapped this guy in the face with it.
All this guy does is spit poison and push his books...loser.
The gentleman actually said yes, that he was invoking a moral law as his assumption behind the question. Besides what would you think the word "self-centered" refers to? Politics?
Secondly, if you're holding Ravi accountable for that alone, then it sounds like you did listen to the rest of the video, you just cut it off from there. If you're coming to watch a video in order to find something wrong with it, then you'd be wasting your time.
@BassP86 I'm sure he said "yes" due to the fact that this guy pushed him to it. I did watch the whole video and no, I did not come here to argue. I thought this guy might have something interesting to say: didn't know what side of the fence he was on.
He's plain wrong in his "assumptions" - they are merely those, assumptions. His perspective is merely his own, and it is flawed. Nothing surprising here - another brainwashed attempt at argument/book sales.
Ravi ASKED him if it was the assumption in his question, then there was pause where the gentleman said yes, then Ravi said, "It has to be or else the question self-destructs." No pushing at all.
You're going to have to explain what he is wrong about and how he is wrong, instead of just saying that he's wrong. Simply saying that somebody is wrong doesn't make it so.
@BassP86 The person asking the question is weak..shouldn't let this guy bully you. I already explained why this person is an idiot. Are you REALLY asking me to repeat what I've said already - just with more detail, or are you prone to support this idiots claims because YOU too are weak and have bought into his personal story...? Maybe you like his book, or just like to argue? I don't like to argue. Maybe you are convinced that I don't know wtf I'm talking about - fine. Lol. I do.
What you said in your original comment was all relating to moral law, not the general concept of evidence which is what the question was about. You say that Ravi is wrong about God being needed to answer the question. But how does that make him deceptive? What about the REST of his answer that he gave to the gentleman?
Btw, how is the gentleman asking the question weak? Because he's actually taking what Ravi says into consideration instead of just shutting it out? This atheist was simply being open-minded and respectful of Ravi, which is how most atheists portray themselves. Funny how you accuse BOTH people.
I'm not here to argue either. But if you claim that you're not going to argue, then you shouldn't be leaving a comment of complaint about how Ravi "spits poison", which implies that you ARE here to argue.
@BassP86 Does not imply that I am here to argue. it needs to be shut out. All insanity should be dealt with for the common good. Insanity is what makes this world a nightmare - if weak-minded, brainwashed, storytellers were responded to appropriately (no debate, no argument, no sympathizing) we'd be stronger, wiser, less ignorant, and I believe with better spirit. I'm done.
Even though I greatly respect you as a human being, it is evident that all you came here for was to look and see if Ravi was an atheist. Since he's not one, he MUST be "insane".
Actions speak louder than words. You're not here to listen for something interesting, bro. With all due respect, if you're not willing to respect other people with different beliefs, including your fellow atheists who ask religious people honest questions, you'll always be wasting your time. Peace.
@milackk7 selfishness, pride and greed are what makes this world a nightmare. the Bible is right when it says the human heart is bent towards evil. remove selfishness and greed. replace pride with the ability to admit your mistakes and weaknesses and help each other out with their mistakes and weaknesses, and the world would be an amazing place. this is exactly what Christ told humans to do! and Ravi is anything but a weak-minded, brainwashed storyteller!
@lightbrownpoop "the Bible is right when it says the human heart is bent towards evil" - Is the bible also right when it names the author and engineer of human hearts?
"replace pride with the ability to admit your mistakes" - If only you could admit that it was a mistake to believe such a silly story once you reached the age of reason, and did not discard God with Santa and the Tooth Fairy. But you are a proud Christian, yes?
Ravi is anything BUT intelligent, educated, and worth discussing.
@BassP86 Because the law isn't necessarily morally correct. If I had said that "morality" is based on consensus, then that argument would commit a logical fallacy. The Law, on the other hand, is just a name given to the popular consensus concerning a host of moral arguments, and it is neither necessarily right nor wrong, morally. Actually, this is the exact same distinction I drew for the other poster, so really the answer you're asking for was right there in the comment that you responded to.
I'm getting really fed up of Ravi playing, what he thinks is, his trump card.
WE are the moral law givers, not God, we decide what is right and wrong. If this wasn't the case we would be helplessly devoted to folowing the rules of the Bible.
The very fact that we can question the morality of God is proof that he canot be the only source of morality.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo So there are 5.86billion sources of morality. We figure, in each society, then, a consensus of moral do's and don'ts. So the consensus then is the plum line, to go outside it is immoral. Corrie ten Boom, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Niemoller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are all immoral. You prefer personally vanilla ice-cream over that of chocolate, or you prefer caring for babies personally rather than scolding them with boiling water for fun.
Your analogy fails. Those figures would never have gathered the mass of support they did without individuals being able to consider and evaluate their ideas. The progression of society is only possible when the status quo can be challenged.
For example, just because the civil rights movement faced resistance, does not mean it went against the consensus. If it really had gone against, then a democratic would not have allowed legislation to pass in its favour.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo No, we are talking about absolutes here. Rape could have been morally advantagious for the species to survive, it is merely currently taboo. It could be advantagious for the species to survive again. In a theistic worldview, rape (at any time and place in the universe) is morally/absolutely wrong. "A Natural History of Rape" gives an account of violent behavior from an evolutionary position, as does "Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence."
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
Are you comfortable executing anyone who works on a Sunday? Me for example? The moral code of your scripture orders you to put me to death. You can either do it, or be considered immoral by your religion.
If the moral usefulness of scripture is to give you a convenient black or white attitude to moral issues then you should have no qualms about putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger.
Jesus came to set people free of religion. Jesus is the highest standard and worthy to be praised. Have you ever studied Jesus Christ? Nothing compares to his love - it's unconditional and everlasting. No one can ever earn it by performance or evil.
ps ~ were you thankful for the soldiers that fought for our freedom in Canada on remembrance day?
@GrandSupremeDaddyo ...[con't from]... if you fish around my site, type in "William Provine" (videorow[dot]blogspot[dot]com). He rightly understands as an atheist what it means when "atheistic Darwinism" is true. If only two people on the earth exist and live are on an island with no culture or religion between them, and one kills the other for expanded food supply or because he just doesn't like him, It is still morally wrong. Absolutely.
Well congratulations on dishing out one of the biggest fallacies in the God debate. Right behind Ravi's on the top ten of "Ignorant things people believe about atheists."
Evolution is not a religion, a world-view, a way of life, or, as you and many others seem to believe; the moral compass of atheism.
Evolution is the source of both our empathy and our sentience. However we are now capable of using our sentience to effectively corrupt our biological imperatives.
Take contraception for example, our biology dictates an urge in all humans to reproduce, but our sentience means we can use contraception and therefore satify the biological urge without satisfying the evolutionary imperative.
If our moralty was dictated by evolution, as you suggest, contraception would be the most horrifying thing we could imagine, since reproduction is probably the most important part of evolution.
@SeanG200 I know Jesus is the Son of God because no human would ever come up with the idea of the Son of God dying on the cross for our sins. It does not make sense to the human mind. A human would create a God to suit their own desires. God took on your sin so that you might live and have eternal life. It's that simple. He stands at the door and knocks. Don't shut the door in His face.
@SeanG200 No, you're confused. Yes, there are 5.86 (actually 6.8) billion sources of morality. But they are each a source for THEMSELVES only, not for everyone as a whole. There is no "morality" that exists for everyone. You must determine for yourself what you deem moral based on human interaction and a host of other factors. But you can't pour scolding water on a baby because it's your "preference." Most people have determined that to be immoral, and therefore there are laws against that.
Ravi is brilliantly using his skills for good purposes. Science proves either a good or perverted purpose and I'm thankful to hear some good substance behind the biblical principles of God's truth.
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
I have no doubt that Ravi is a good person at heart, and that he thinks he is doing good work. Conveniently for his kindly image; I have never heard him speak about his views on homosexuals whom he surely believes will burn forever in hell. This is where the "struggle with those that don't readily accept" begins.
The only reason you are comfortable with the goodness in scripture is because the religion it spawned has cherry picked those parts out in order to propagate itself.
I have many reasons why I have accepted Christ, most of them are based on my opinions and experiences with God - not by you falsely concluding based on your opinions and your experiences. I fear God's word. There's a big difference with comfort and fearing God.
So you're not comfortable with it. You just obey out of fear? There are other examples in history where people have been inspired into obedience and subservience through fear. You don't need a history lesson to know how they generally end up, and it's fitting that you bring up remembrance day - it was the bravery and sacrifice of those we remember and those like them that has freed us from such oppression in the past.
Personally and thoughtfully, there's many reasons why I aim to obey. Yes, it's interesting to read how people are inspired! Comfortable, or not - there's many different life circumstances. It certainly is not always a bed of roses standing for the truth. No, you don't need a history lesson, but they certainly do paint a picture.
Thanks for making a positive statement about those that have sacrificed their lives, that's good to here.
If we're going into personal reasons for following religion. The only conclusion I can draw is that to be moral, in the Christian definition, is to be selfish. If you aim to be good only because you expect a reward, and avoid being bad only because you fear punishment then your acts, no matter how generous or commendable, only serve your own purpose.
Selfish? How? Jesus dies for us. That's the problem with religion - the bible says our righteousness is as filthy as rags. God loves us know matter what. Our acts serve our own unique talents, skills and abilities. It's up to us to use them for his glory or our own. Our intelligence is a prime example. It appears you are using it to serve for your own purpose and not God's? It's too bad some Christians are selfish about it - that's not the way it should be!
I just explained how it's selfish. Christian morality is a childlike system of punishment and reward that relies on self-interest. An Atheist who acts selflessly is far more commendable. Someone who does not believe in life after death is sacrificing far more when they die for their country.
No it's not. Our country was based on the founding fathers that fought for a Christian nation. The public schools in Canada had prayer and were started by smart people who were influential and cared and used their gifts for God's glory. Many MANY people are being martyred for their faith more than ever (stats) since 1900's. They are giving up their lives to share the truth because of life after death - standing in front of God serving, thanking Jesus for forgiveness.
I don't contest most of what you just said. But none of it counters anything I said. I already know why these people give up their lives, that's what my statement was regarding.
I can't speak for Canada but this myth that America is a christian nation is getting tiring. What christian values are there in America other than the ones it has in common with most other, incidentally non-christian nations? Homophobia? Human rights violations? Xenophobia? the list goes on.
What about the founding fathers? If you mean they were responsible for the Christian nation then let's have a look at how the Ten Commandments compare to the constitution."Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That gets scrapped by freedom of religion. "Do not take the Lord's name in vain." Freedom of speech says goodbye to that. "Keep the sabbath holy." Working on a sunday is perfectly legal. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour." Ahem, capitalism.
You also mentioned Christians with gay friends. I can't imagine how you can sustain a friendship with someone your religion considers an abomination deserving nothing but execution. The only plausible way is if a person was capable of their own moral judgement and chose to reject that piece of scripture. Which would make Ravi's assertions in this video redundant.As for Christophobia I'm afraid, even after googling it, I don't know what you're referring to and it's relevance.
christianity feels that all sins are a slap in the face of the giver of such moral law. now the idea of homosexuality as a sin is a huge topic, which Ravi does speak of in another video. Though we disapprove of the sin, we still Love the person. Christ came and spoke to the sinners, not to the ones who felt they were morally just. Second, Jesus never speaks of executing Homosexuals, rather, he condones a ministry of Love and Charity.
Jesus doesn't speak of executing them, he doesn't need to, the Bible's directions on that topic were already quite clear. Jesus spreads a message of love in one hand and a the threat of eternal hellfire in the other. As a philosopher he was progressive and revolutionary, but his ties to the wrathful supreme ruler of the universe make him the finest example of religious hypocrisy in history.
You say it is wrong that we serve our own purpose yet you don't think the same of God, who uses us to serve his. Why the double standard? He may be the ruler of the universe but if I wanted to live under a supremely powerful, unaccountable, unelected dictator I'd move to North Korea.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo As a person who wants to be Christian, I gotta tell you that my life here on earth needs to be about learning the truth of the Gospel. So that I am able to preach Christ's love and forgiveness even in hell.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo that's your false view of what Christianity is and I have to agree that much of the world has that view because we as Christians have to failed to live according to what we believe. Your ignorance is shown by saying Christians are self-fish yet we are called to serve those around us. Are you familiar with missionaries? I've never heard a Christian say I came to Christ because I'm afraid of hell..We long to be good in a bad world period...
If you accept Jesus you must accept his divinity as God, the same God who slaughtered 99% of the life on earth because he wasn't happy how it turned out. The same God who decrees 'love me or burn'. You can't pick out the parts of scripture you like and dismiss the rest, it's all or nothing.The Christianity we see today has been watered down over centuries in a feeble attempt to fit in with, and even claim credit for, the moral character of contemporary society.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo You mentioned homosexuality a very sensitive subject but what the world fails to realize is the danger of homosexuality and the main purpose we were created in God's image..If your cosmic accident wanted all of us to not reproduce then we would all have to be the same sex BUT we aren't cosmic accidents, we ALL, were meant to reproduce..Truth is a hard-pill to swallow, that's why many don't..Atheism is propaganda!! Look up the definition for propaganda..
@GrandSupremeDaddyo atheism is propaganda also, look up the definition...If your cosmic luck process wanted us to not reproduce we would ALL be the same sex BUT were meant to populate the earth through the conception of a sperm and an egg, NOT two sperms and NOT two eggs...Once that is violated were destroying one of the main reasons God created us in the first place..Truth is a hard-pill to swallow and that's why many don't.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo (true story) a 18-month year old baby was raped by a guy who took a shot of snake blood mixed with liquor because of the idea of this very same statement you just said..Anybody who says morality is subjective is in fact giving people like this guy the OK to rape babies.
The level of ignorance you have displayed with that comment is beyond belief. I can only hope it's a Poe, if not, and that is what 'subjective morality' means to you then I genuinely worry for your mental state.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo what are you talking about? People who believe morality is up to the individual(i.e subjective), AGAIN, give people permission to act as they please. You do know what morality is right? You do know what subjective means right? Then if you read my comment properly you would understand where I'm coming from and why I refuse to take this notion, that our actions our guided by our DNA (by the way, this is Dawkins teaching)..
Subjective morality does not mean it is up to the individual! It means morality is not as simple as a series of rights and wrongs. It is a consideration for the consequences of your actions as a result of an instinctive empathy developed over millions of years to ensure we don't annihilate ourselves.
To even think your snake venom analogy represents those who apply reason and empathy to their morality, rather than scripture, is plain retarded.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo we do annihilate ourselves, what's your reason for this? People claim to puff at how many religion has killed but none stop to think how many atheism has killed.Secondly, people who base their belief just off logic alone are not appealing to the other two critical pieces to decision making, pathos and ethos. By the way, my story was not an analogy it actually happened and it's because his wiring was wrong from over a millions ago? How is this not dancing to the DNA concept?
Finally: "this is Dawkins teaching" . . . what!? Dawkins is not 'our leader'. The only reason he garners the admiration he does is because he is particularly effective and getting to the heart of the logical, scientific flaws in the claims of religion. To believe in evolution is not to follow it's rules. Natural selection flourishes on struggle and suffering, just because I believe those rules exist does not mean I want to adhere to them!
@GrandSupremeDaddyo Dawkins? that's not what the world thinks..I agree with you religion has been falsely used..The Radical Muslims who crashed into the towers claimed they were doing in the name of "Allah" and we know that's not the case but the world attached on it like fly to dog poop..Wait a sec, your willing to accept the fact that natural selection flourishes on pain and suffering but people shake their fist at God for the pain and suffering in the world. What a double standard..
You'll excuse me if this reply takes a while. There's a hell of a lot of either misunderstaning, ignorance or outright lies for me to address. Firstly the lies:"Atheism is propaganda!"You asked me to look up the definition of propaganda, I suggest you look up the definition of Atheism. The lack of belief cannot have an agenda or rally against another 'ism'."Atheism has killed"What could you possibly be referring to?
The fact that some genocidal dictators of the previous century had no affiliated religion does not mean they were motivated by atheism. Stalin killed for power, the same applies to Mao, they were not trying to spread an atheist ideal or dogma since atheism has neither. Hitler was Catholic, he capitalised on the religious hatred of Jews rife in europe at the time and declared many times, both in his speeches and his book, that he was doing God's work.
Secondly the misunderstanding:"What a double standard."It's only a double standard if you worship evolution, or believe it to be a conscious entity. Evolution is just an observed fact, a consequence of natural laws. If I said I believed in gravitation you surely wouldn't accuse me of a double standard because of the pain and suffering caused by people falling!? As a conscious being God is accountable for what he either allows or causes to happen.
This 'moral law' argument is equivocation: Moral AREN'T 'laws' like legal laws & therefore need NO law giver -no God. This argument says NOTHING about why Christianity MUST be true among a huge number of alternative religious beliefs.
sitemountain 3 months ago
Athiests want to assert that while they don't know everything, they know God isn't real. Another thing, as for comments like the one below mine, never take anything out of context. You want to tell the giver of life that it's wrong for him to take it. Also, you want to tell the moral law giver what is immoral. We are judged by intention of actions, not actions alone. Know the intention before you judge the action.
MrDddlll 3 months ago
It is clear to me that morality is emergent from our evolution as highly socialized and reasoning primates. Good and evil are likewise emergent from the solidarity of humanity (what enabled us to prosper). The Moral Law does not need to be either immutable or from a moral law giver.
Ravi's example of neighbors that eat each other is fatuous. That kind of society won't last. It is our evolved sensibilities (remember that there is variation) that gives us the feelings of morality.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
A popular myth is that religion has killed more people than anything else, so the world would be a lot more peaceful place were it not for religion. Total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Those killed in the name of Christendom= 264,000. 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years. The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic Communism with a total of 110,000,000 over 1/3 of all people ever killed!
ScreeminMeeme 4 months ago
why have you changed his name from ravi to razi?
this stark glaring error in the title video of the persons first name!!! causes loss of credibility
ashwadhwani 5 months ago
Ravi is a Jedi
polycarp256 5 months ago
Christianity that kills is not biblical Christianity. It's man in error and with an agenda in mine that has little or nothing to do with Christ. (i.e. Slave owners of the earlier centuries in America). Only time in scripture that you see it appears as if God allowed or demonstrated killing or brutality was judgment or punishment for sin in the Old Testament allowing man's actions to have it's full course of consequence.
psykomystro 6 months ago in playlist Ravi Zacharias Misc
@psykomystro The only time in scripture where God allows killing, or kills people himself, is all throughout the Bible. There is no "only time".
Christians who kill are doing exactly what the Bible tells them to do.
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjajesus81 kill and murder are mutually exclusive. learn the difference please or remain ignorant.
5506 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 What absolute rubbish. Seriously. I must have missed that part of the Gospels where Christ sent out the apostles to slay everyone going.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Jesus was ok, it's god who was the murderous asshole. But they're the same person.
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 I'm sure you have a point here, however it isn't clear to me.
If you are talking about God in the Hebrew Scriptures, well quite frankly how often do you see he/she/it personally killing anyone? Is it not the case that such acts tend to be the work of man or what we would call natural disaster?
Christians understand through belief in Christ. Christ being God speaking directly to us, rather than messages relayed by unreliable middlemen, however admirable.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Well god killed everyone in the world with the flood. That was him personally.
But a lot of deaths are caused because he tells the people to kill.
Christians can hide behind Jesus all they want, but Jesus is god and he's the same god from the old testament.
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 Flood to me sounds a great deal like a Natural Disaster. I don't think we look around the world today and assume every flood is a punishment from a deity?
Further, these humans do the killing, that is all we can be sure of, as they personally attest to it. That they claim they were 'told to' by 'God' is another matter altogether.
The testimony of Christ throws all sorts of doubt over the veracity of the 'God told me to kill' crowd of the Hebrew Bible.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 God specifically said he caused the flood. Your argument is much like "I didn't kill him, the bullet did".
But if you want specific instances where god personally kills somebody with his own hands, or lack thereof, there's plenty of examples. Do I really have to show you, or do you honestly not know they exist?
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 If you examine the language of the Hebrew Bible, short of human actions God takes responsibility for everything. Further you are dealing with Noah, who is almost certainly a mythological figure that conveys figurative, not literal truth.
If you trot out Soddom and Gamorra, I'll use natural disaster. Same for all but the final plague with regards to Egypt. In each case I will demonstrate that those punished were given the option to avoid it also, and thus assume responsibility.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 So god takes responsibility for the deaths, meaning he killed them. Or are you saying he's lying?
You're basically saying you can squirm your way out of anything by making up an excuse.
Well let's start.
Samuel 12:14 - 18 God makes a baby sick and the baby dies because of something its father did.
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 You are mistaking ultimate responsibility with intentional liability. Of course, in a theistic universe, God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens. IF God did not act, then nothing would happen, period.
All I see in this case are people of past time's ascribing an action to God. David's actions as a consequence are those of a man who believes God will heal his child, rather than one who believes the child's death is an inevitable payment.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Your explanation doesn't negate the fact that god would be responsible for killing. If he's responsible for everything, then killing is included.
And yes, those people are ascribing an action to god. Obviously there is no god to do anything, but as far as the Bible is concerned, god specifically killed the baby.
ninjajesus81 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 Indeed but then only the in sense that a parent is responsible for the actions of their child long after they themselves are dead.
Taking your irrelevant assertion out of the equation, so far as the writers and people of the time were concerned this was an action of God. However their presumptions on the matter are no superior to ours.
In contrast to the life of Christ, there are no multiple witnesses to God making a statement on this matter either way.
MrWildbill20056 5 months ago
@ninjajesus81 Believe that as you may. Keep deceiving yourself thinking that God kills for no reason. God doesn't kill sinful man kills. These things would've never been if mankind didn't try to overrule the authority of Almighty God. But in the every knee will bow. Believe it or not.
psykomystro 3 months ago
@psykomystro I don't think god does anything because there is no god. But the Bible gives many examples of him killing people. He killed everyone in the world with the flood. That was a just thing to do? You're a disgrace if you believe that.
ninjajesus81 3 months ago
@Roper122 Please enlighten us with your wisdom and correct Dr Zacharias. Until you do, shut up.
dinopad10 6 months ago
Jesus is so kind and forgiving..his mercy endures forever...
doobersmanster 7 months ago in playlist ! RAVI Zacharias Lectures of Wisdom!
Ravi tries the old " moral " argument... and fails dismally... yet again.
* Yawn
Roper122 7 months ago
The difference is, my misguided Friend, that not one person has been killed in the name of atheism - it doesn't carry any beliefs that people would kill or die for. Whereas, in the case of the 2 major religions, the whole belief system is based on sacrifice and killing, and is supported by the blood of martyrs.
Human sacrifice is repulsive to me - but you worship it.
In addition, even if your statistics WERE right:
It is not a defence in law to say, "They killed more than us, Your Honour"
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Communism was an atheistic movement... I say this from reading a Soveit and Communist literature, and so they self-describe themselves as atheist. Here is a small sampling (many by Marxist/Soviet philosophers) of a few books in my home library of over 4,500 book: Dialectical Materialism; The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy; the Communist Manifesto; Toward Soviet America; A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninest Semantics; ....[con't]....
SeanG200 8 months ago 12
@SeanG200 Mr. SeanG2oo, I totally agree with you. I am a former Atheist and former member of a Communist youth group here in the Philippines. Atheism is what drives Communism.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe ... [from con't].... Dialectical Materialism: A Historical & Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union; Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. I have many, many other books dealing with this topic in full or in part. but the damning evidence is that these "regimes" self-identify with atheism... much to the chagrin of left leaning professors at CSUN or COC [a local community college].
SeanG200 8 months ago 5
@StrumstickJoe You are dead-wrong Mister. Haven't you researched well? In the Philippines, Communist Party of the Philippines-National Democratic Front have been killing our fellow Filipinos all in the name of Atheism-Communism SINCE its foundation on 1930's. (Communist insurgency in the Philippines IS the worlds LONGEST insurgency in the world). They torture our government soldiers and extort money from small-time but honest business-men. All in the name of Ideology.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Don't put Christianity on a par with Islam or Atheism-Communism; Atheism-Communism is utilitarian which means if it has to kill, IT WILL KILL ( I know this because I was a Commie activist schooled in the idea that for us to win CIVIL WAR must be done); the same thing in Islam: in order to advance Islam, one should kill an infidel. Christianity SACRIFICED THE LAMB ONLY ONCE! Any killing after this in the name of JESUS is DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Furthermore, inquisition, religio-civil wars, were the result of a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED RELIGION (this is a big no-no to Jesus). Even the Crusades. They tell us that Christians wanted to get Jerusalem back for Christianity; when in fact Princes and Kings used this as a pretext to get the NOD of the Roman Pope to their political schemes...
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner 1) Hi. The RC church celebrated AH’s birthday every year – and they never excommunicated him. He said in mein kampf that to kill the jews was god’s work.
I wouldn’t ever claim that there were no atheist beliefs in the minds of marauding tyrants – I simply say that atheism doesn’t have a political agenda within itself. Again, “it doesn't carry any beliefs that people would kill or die for.” Religions do...
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe I've read your comments. You ignored all the evidences I offered. First in your #2 reply, you said your AIM is to RID the world of people people who have apocalyptic VIEW. Doesn't it sound SO MARXIST-LENINIST-MAOIST?((I know this because I am a former student of the Atheistic thought of Communism) Therefore, you HAVE in mind TO REMOVE FROM the people the BELIEF in SUPERNATURAL BEING i.e RELIGIOUS VIEW which is BY THE WAY, one of the fundamental Human Rights as stated by the UN.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe It is not a defence in law to say, "They killed more than us, Your Honour"-- you say. I believe this. As a Christian I don't condone people who kill for religion. I hate it. But why is it that every time I raise the connection of Atheism with its influence on Hitler; Atheism with Marx's Satanism (oh yes he was), an ATHEIST, though not denying it, WILL TRY TO EVADE THE ISSUE BY POINTING ALL THE WORLD'S WOES TO RELIGION?
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner 2) Certainly my aim, as Christopher Hitchens’ and Cristina’s, is to rid the world of the threat of people who have an apocalyptic view of the world and care little for this (our only) life as a result.
You are bombarding me. I have a novel to write.
Peace.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Plus, you are raising MORAL concerns that is within the sphere of RELIGION. Why are you so concern about the moral flaws of religion etc.? You don't believe in a MORAL LAW GIVER; what are you so problematic about? Moreover, from your replies I inferred that YOU HAVE NO SOLUTION TO THE CONCERNS YOU ARE raising. You show at least that HUMAN BEINGS are the only problem solvers of this world!
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.
I wish I did have solutions to the concerns I am raising.
(I have my solutions, actually, but no answer to the means of having the world accept them)
All I know is that religion is not the solution, for it is a large part of the problem.
When you came out of your communism, or whatever, I think you took a wrong turn.
You seem to have strong convictions.
I don't think such intensity is the answer.
Peace.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@gatsbyfaulkner
Incidentally. I happen to think that you can't legislate human rights.
Human rights are, or should be, embedded in the psyche of all moral human beings.
Peace.
And goodnight.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StrumstickJoe Once again you avoided my point... Done typing here.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe STATISTICS BTW matters. For instance Amnesty International relies on investigation and reports that include quantitative data especially on Human Rights Violations issue. So the defense "they killed more than us" can be, at some point, accepted. This however will mean that the party who said this admits accountability. I don't lump Atheists together with Hitler or Stalin. So give the same respect to Theists who will defend the Word of God by reason not by sword.
gatsbyfaulkner 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe What do you think the whole eugenics movement is based on? [atheism]
14ATruther 8 months ago
@14ATruther
Did you answer your own question?
If so why did you ask me?
I don't agree with your answer.
If the bile (sorry - bible!) is your favourite book, why don't you try reading the passages I suggested and justify them (to yourself, please) one by one.
The only way possible to "follow" the book is to pick and choose the bits you think have any humanity and morality, and ignore the parts you can't stomach.
The thing as a whole is vindictive, immoral and dangerous.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe depends on your point of view. Do you not have anybody in your life that you would die for in order to save them from a horrible and torturous death? And if you did so would that person consider your self-sacrifice to be repulsive? Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is repulsive. Sacrifice to save somebody's life, which is what Christ did, is the most loving thing you can do.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@AegeanKing Of course, I have several people for whom I would "take the bullet" - but it is nothing to do with morals.
The leap of logic you take to say that the jc sacrifice (actually, if it happened it was just an execution in brutal times, and if I had been there I would have felt compelled to stop it! That would have buggered up the prophecy!!) was "for my sins" & "to save me" is what I have never ever ever understood.
I really mean that, I have tried and tried.
StrumstickJoe 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe It's not a leap of logic. It is perfectly logical and coherent. The idea of atonement is not that hard to understand. Let me try and see if I can break it down for you. On the Christian view, sin is rebellion. the wages of sin are spiritual death. Now, let me stop there and give and ask a rhetorical question. In our society, would we consider a judge in a court to be "just" or caring for society if he let all criminals go without punishment? No, of course not. (continued)
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe We would rightly call that judge unfit to serve and have him removed. The same applies to God. In order to be just, there must be punishment for transgression. Now, the Christian view says that because God loves his creation he sent his only Son, who was sinless, to take on the sins of the world and pay the penalty for the worlds sin. Thereby making people who would believe in him and have a relationship with him "justified" since the price of their sin has been paid.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@AegeanKing No! If you mean was I helped to understand the "moral " of the mythology - I still see it as immoral rubbish.
If you think you answered my point about your "guilt" & "sin" obsessions, then you only confirmed my worst suspicions.
The whole bizarre story in incomprehensible.
Giving my "sins" to someone else would be the height of immorality!! Wouldn't it?
Atonement is the requirement of low human emotion.
If you do wrong - rectify it!
If "eve" does "wrong" - that's down to her!
Trash!
StrumstickJoe 6 months ago
Thats not the way it works. You can't go to a judge and say "I just killed somebody but don't send me to jail cuz I'll do some good deeds to make up for it". There is nothing about the story is incomprehensible. You just don't want to comprehend it. You did not "give" your sins to anyone. If you want a relationship with God, your sins will be forgiven cuz Christ has paid the price for sin. Without it, you are dead in your sins and YOU will have to pay the penalty for sin instead of Christ.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe In any case, what you think is irrelevant. You can rail against the decrees of God all you want. That still wont change the fact that sin leads to spiritual death and separation from God forever. Without Christ you are damned.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe You're just another angry atheist. Try learning how to have a conversation with somebody without being such an aggressive and abrasive prick.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@AegeanKing Abrasive?
Hmmm, 2 thoughts there: a) anything posted by me or others that goes against dodgy religious grain is always attacked as angry and abrasive; b) your gratuitous insult could easily be called abrasive, couldn't it?
I would suggest there is also a sign of frustration there, because I truly don't believe in what you believe in, and it must be incomprehensible and irritating to you.
What you believe doesn't matter either, unless it leads you to the terrorism so rife in faith.
StrumstickJoe 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe When you call my beliefs trash, that is abrasive language. I am not frustrated in the least about your intransigence. Its not me that you have to answer to. I wish I could meet one atheist who wasn't a condescending prick and was capable of having a civilized conversation.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@AegeanKing Ahhh! So it's a general malaise, this prick-like behaviour by atheists, is it - and not a personal insult you threw at me, then?
That softens the blow!
I think if you read my posts all over this yt you will find some very civilised conversation - some christians have even asked me to be "friends" - which surprises me. Some have gone "private" and really made me think - as I might have made them think, maybe.
I have no gods to answer to - no constant "watcher". (That's gooood!)
StrumstickJoe 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe stop trolling. Don't you atheists have anything better to do than be obsessed with your own unbelief?? Real atheists move on with their life and do not obsess over something they do not believe in. You however are not a real atheist. Most youtube atheists fall in two camps. One is the troll trouble maker i enjoy teasing people childish camp. The other camp is the " i really want to believe and Im looking for a reason to believe which is why I troll theist videos". Ur the latter.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@AegeanKing And you're wrong. deliberately (and provocatively so, I would suggest!)
Your post was contradictory, and contained uneducated generalisations.
StrumstickJoe 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe there is nothing contradictory between real atheists and youtube atheists. stop trolling theist videos looking for controversy.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@StrumstickJoe So, on the Christian view, the sacrifice of Christ was one of ultimate love. The sacrifice of Christ reconciled man with God. The death of Christ is directly analogous to you "taking the bullet" in order to save a loved one. I hope that helped.
AegeanKing 6 months ago
I would also strongly recommend that anyone interested, examine a very powerful analysis of Mr. Harris' secularist perspective & subjectivism by Jackson Lears. The article is called, "The same old new atheism" . It can be read in the May 2011 issue of the Nation Magazine.
Also, no such thing as "human sacrifice as a tenet of Christian theology
shieldsff 3 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Your knowledge of history is lacking. Hitler, Stalln, Mao,etc killed millions upon millions due to their core atheism beliefs. They reduced people to being nothing more then a compiled clump of matter (reductionism/materialism), no better then a twig from a tree so to speak. You reduce people to that and it's not hard to see how they could commit genocide and other crimes. Reductionism, materialism, and naturalism are dangerous ideas when applied to people.
03chrisv 2 months ago
@03chrisv so if they just happened to kill them in a religious way such as sharlia law, that would be fine?
Fergusforslipknot 2 months ago
absolutely false! in every sense of the word.
mbghill130 2 months ago
people have been killed in the name of everything, including atheism. But I am more interested in this...what Bible have you read that teaches human sacrifice? Are you arguing that the Self-giving Son (in cooperation with the Father's will to redeem) is the same as people putting someone to death for the purpose of appeasing a deity? Because Christ gave of himself as propitiation for sin. in other words, what man meant for evil, Christ meant for good. it was his doing. please respond
Follower172 2 months ago
@Follower172 I replied privately to this, but, after seeming to want to hear my reasons, you seem to have defaulted from further comment.
I should add that, whilst I am very doubtful that the jc character ever existed, I utterly renounce his relevance and claims to moral leadership if he did.
The whole faith is an immoral mess based on admiration for a loony who took his son up the mountain to kill him because of a voice in his head.
I hope those who read this find reality.
StrumstickJoe 2 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Considering the overwhelming evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (both biblical and and secular), what has lead you to doubt it? You do realize that there is no debate of the existence of Jesus among New Testament scholars? Even atheists grant this as a grounded historical fact.
ZaoHudor 2 months ago
@ZaoHudor It seems possible that there was a charismatic (though bizarre and probably deluded) rabbi around about 2,000 yrs ago. Though why you should believe that he should be your moral guide (much less that he is still talking to you!) is utterly beyond me.
I am an atheist - as were we all once - and I don't think he was there - but if he was - so what?
I hope you find peace and clarity within reality.
StrumstickJoe 2 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Given your atheistic presuppositions, it's now wonder that you would believe Jesus to have been deluded. But I'm glad you at least now except the undeniable fact that He existed. I always find it rather strange why atheists are so eager to deny the historical Jesus' existence. It's as though they do not want Him to have existed.
ZaoHudor 1 month ago
@ZaoHudor It's as though you need me to admit "he" existed, which I didn't. I don't accept it at all.
Atheists are born. There are no presuppositions. We are all born atheists - we need to be duped and indoctrinated to accept the bizarre doctrines of one of the many thousands of faiths - depending entirely on where we are born and to whom.
Again - I wish you peace and clarity here on earth - for there is nothing to follow.
Thank goodness!
StrumstickJoe 1 month ago
@StrumstickJoe Do you believe that the denial of Jesus' existence is rational? If so, then what reason do you have to reject both biblical and secular sources that evidence His existence? Why do you depart from contemporary NT scholarship?
Second, atheism is an epistemological position. Babies do not have epistemological positions concerning fundamental philosophical questions. There are developed as one begins to reason. Thus atheists are not born.
ZaoHudor 1 month ago
@ZaoHudor The existence or not of your friend jc has no bearing whatever on the human race. An atheist is a person without a god, or a need for a god - that would define a newborn.Neither I nor a baby has need to study the nature of knowledge; its presuppositions and foundations, or its extent and validity. 'NT scholarship' is an oxymoron. Belief in magic is the position of the moron.
I genuinely have no more time for this at present, though much work remains to be done, obviously.
StrumstickJoe 1 month ago
@StrumstickJoe "An atheist is a person without a god, or a need for a god". Atheism is is the belief that there is no god, or, as some might say today, lack of belief in a god. The Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names defines atheism as, "belief that God does not exist". It concerns belief, which is epistemological.
So I must, therefore ask, where did you get your definition from? Please provide a reputable source. Or did you just make it up?
ZaoHudor 1 month ago
@StrumstickJoe "NT scholarship' is an oxymoron." You are very ignorant of what speak. NT scholarship is the analytical study of the New Testament texts — their historicity, origin, authorship, dating, and content. There are many atheists and agnostic NT scholars as well. So if you believe that disciplines at Cambridge, Oxford, and just about every other major university are oxymoronic, then I can only urge you to refrain from speaking about things you know not of.
ZaoHudor 1 month ago
There is a lot of evil in the world, and the vast majority of it is in religion.
The histories of the bible and the koran are trails of blood, often crossing and re-crossing.
They are incitements to immorality and murder and mutilation.
They fail morally by sanctioning genocide, celebrating infanticide and tolerating slavery. They fail logically with self contradiction and historical inaccuracies, and utter lies.
It's impossible to justify them.
Peace on earth - let's have it.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Actually, just in the twentieth century alone, atheistic [non-religious] political movements have killed more people than the previous 19 centuries of all religious combined -- thusly fulfilling a "prophecy" by Nietzsche: “There will be wars such as there have never been on earth before. Only from my time on will there be on earth politics on the grand scale.... “this most gruesome of all guests”, who stands at the door, is to be welcomed.” (from my quotes page at r-pt[dot]net)
SeanG200 8 months ago 10
@SeanG200 I have heard this non-defence of religious bloodshed before. It wouldn't stand up in court.
You want to believe religion - that's your commitment, your privilege.
I personally can not, nor would not want to, take the leap of faith you meed to believe childishly in magic events.
Goodbye
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@SeanG200 *facepalm* Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
Do that with today's population then count.
TheDcac 7 months ago
@SeanG200 Very well said. I enjoyed reading this discussion. You make some strong intelligent points. I am gonna stck a couple of them in the ole bag o "answer for my faith" and use them whenever needed. God Bless.
r3v001 5 months ago
@StrumstickJoe Have you actually read the Bible?
libertas2011 8 months ago
@libertas2011 I haven't read all of it for a long time; I have other things to do. But you could try these bits of you want to revise it yourself: * Deut 25:11-12 * Genesis 38:8-10 * Deut 21:18-21 * Ex 35:2 * Lev 20:13 * Isaiah 13:13-16 * Exodus 21:20-21 * 1 Tim 2:11-12 * Col 3:22-23 * Luke 14:26 * Deut 22:13-21 * Isaiah 40:8
Peace on earth.
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
@StrumstickJoe It was never meant to be "pick only what's good" You need to know the bigger picture. Most of the verses you pointed out are from the old testament (the time of law) which was meant for the Israelites prior to Christ's death & are no longer applicable to our times which belongs to the new testament (the time of grace). I'd gladly help explain the implication of what I said & the verses you mentioned but seeing that you've already decided to keep a closed mind, doing so is useless.
geforcemmx2000 7 months ago
@geforcemmx2000
you asked me if I'd read the bible, and I then quoted some of the passages which show it to be a nasty piece of work.
You then tell me that those bits are no longer applicable, but at the same time tell me it is NOT just pick out what you want.
Then you imply that it is ME that has the closed mind.
In order to follow a faith you have to suspend disbelief.
Faith is the spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from proof.
Peaceon earth.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe "I suggested and justify them (to yourself, please) one by one" It appeared to me that you didn't want to hear the justification of the scriptures you quoted. But anyhow, first you need to understand what made the Old Testament books different from the New testament. This requires first and foremost a willing ear to listen, if you'll allow me then I'll gladly explain it to you to the best of my knowledge. And after hearing, I'll leave it to you to decide if it's acceptable or not
geforcemmx2000 7 months ago
@StrumstickJoe [con't] But don't go about making hasty conclusions without investigating thoroughly. You have raised some legitimate points regarding the apparent "ridiculous" texts and I would feel the same way as you if I didn't study carefully what they meant. So if indeed you are trying to make sense of all of these and not just trolling then I would gladly share. But if not then I won't force it either. Peace be with you sir.
geforcemmx2000 7 months ago
@geforcemmx2000 i think that after deciding that the texts are valueless, and that one is an atheist and does not believe in any gods whatever, then the only reason to read or quote the texts is to illustrate to those of faith that they are wrong. I don't feel I need bible study. The contradictions and primitive, immoral values within should convince all that there is no god.
Add to that the randomness of his "perfect" universe, and there is nothing to support the faith at all.
Thank you.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
Youtube comments about religion make me sad. Go talk to real people, read some books.
LIGHTRONIX 9 months ago 6
@GrandSupremeDaddyo I apologize for the ranting of @HermitintheRain. I am an unabashed follower of Jesus and it saddens me when my brothers and sisters in Christ don't realize that what they are saying isn't beneficial but erratic and judgmental. I assure you not all of us talk that way.
MurasalaKid318 9 months ago 4
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Same rubbish everytime. Can't even be bothered to mention why.
myironlungca 1 year ago
So are we the deciders of sin as well? Was Hitler's morality the failure of a morality apart from God's morality? You say a single monotheistic view, but are you not advocating that we are all monotheists, following our own moral code? Is that not shifting sand as Jesus stated (Matthew 7:26)? If we decide our morals, how does God judge on judgment day? What standard does he follow for each of us? Where is the scripture that matches what you are saying?
GTPrescott 1 year ago
@GTPrescott While YouTube's 500 character posts do not allow the sufficient space for convo (go to r-pt[dot]net), I will say that if unsaved you are determined to be determined (following genes and environment via the end result of the colliding of free atoms). Or you are truly free within a moral paradigm to act in God's boundaries. That was the conclusion of Stephen Hawkings via a lecture. Not me. Type in "Stephen Hawkings" in my search box at my blog, check the first selection.
SeanG200 1 year ago
@SeanG200 Hi Sean, thank you for the link to the site. I actually was replying to GrandSupremeDaddyo with those questions as I was engaging him in his belief of an ever-shifting morality...
GTPrescott 1 year ago
Comment removed
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can a man live without GOD? of course he can, in physical sense. Can he live without GOD in a reasonable way? The answer to that is (NO) because such a person is compelled to deny a moral law to abandon hope, to forfeit meaning and to risk no recovery if he is wrong (those who choose to live without GOD should face the consequences of such a choice)
cjwoulard 2 days ago
cjwoulard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if god does not exist how do you have moral values in life listen up i might blow u away........... if humans are conscious of an objective moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. This lawgiver must be morally Superior to us in order to explain the sense of authority that we feel the moral law has over us and indeed the law giver must be or posses a mind AKA if u are moral how did you become moral your parents wait what about them how did they WELL i know its GOD
cj
cjwoulard 1 year ago
One of the basic moral principal that all mankind agreed is to not do something to others that you don't want them do to you. What if I punish you, for not giving you any convincing evidence about something, that I want you to believe is true. You'll understand assuming you have the capability to put your mind in other person's perspective. The evidence razi mentioned is good enough when you already believe God exists. Come on, are you saying that's the best evidence God can offer?
TheAbsolutePeace 1 year ago
And that was the most horse-crap spin of a response as I've ever heard. The person questioning never mentioned he believed in a 'moral giver," or a 'moral god,' he merely asked a simple question to which this zany sot imposed his ignorant interpretation of god, and his assumption that a moral god is required for the answer, and slapped this guy in the face with it.
All this guy does is spit poison and push his books...loser.
milackk7 1 year ago
@milackk7
The gentleman actually said yes, that he was invoking a moral law as his assumption behind the question. Besides what would you think the word "self-centered" refers to? Politics?
Secondly, if you're holding Ravi accountable for that alone, then it sounds like you did listen to the rest of the video, you just cut it off from there. If you're coming to watch a video in order to find something wrong with it, then you'd be wasting your time.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 I'm sure he said "yes" due to the fact that this guy pushed him to it. I did watch the whole video and no, I did not come here to argue. I thought this guy might have something interesting to say: didn't know what side of the fence he was on.
He's plain wrong in his "assumptions" - they are merely those, assumptions. His perspective is merely his own, and it is flawed. Nothing surprising here - another brainwashed attempt at argument/book sales.
milackk7 1 year ago
@milackk7
Ravi ASKED him if it was the assumption in his question, then there was pause where the gentleman said yes, then Ravi said, "It has to be or else the question self-destructs." No pushing at all.
You're going to have to explain what he is wrong about and how he is wrong, instead of just saying that he's wrong. Simply saying that somebody is wrong doesn't make it so.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 The person asking the question is weak..shouldn't let this guy bully you. I already explained why this person is an idiot. Are you REALLY asking me to repeat what I've said already - just with more detail, or are you prone to support this idiots claims because YOU too are weak and have bought into his personal story...? Maybe you like his book, or just like to argue? I don't like to argue. Maybe you are convinced that I don't know wtf I'm talking about - fine. Lol. I do.
milackk7 1 year ago
@milackk7
What you said in your original comment was all relating to moral law, not the general concept of evidence which is what the question was about. You say that Ravi is wrong about God being needed to answer the question. But how does that make him deceptive? What about the REST of his answer that he gave to the gentleman?
(cont.)
BassP86 1 year ago
Btw, how is the gentleman asking the question weak? Because he's actually taking what Ravi says into consideration instead of just shutting it out? This atheist was simply being open-minded and respectful of Ravi, which is how most atheists portray themselves. Funny how you accuse BOTH people.
I'm not here to argue either. But if you claim that you're not going to argue, then you shouldn't be leaving a comment of complaint about how Ravi "spits poison", which implies that you ARE here to argue.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 Does not imply that I am here to argue. it needs to be shut out. All insanity should be dealt with for the common good. Insanity is what makes this world a nightmare - if weak-minded, brainwashed, storytellers were responded to appropriately (no debate, no argument, no sympathizing) we'd be stronger, wiser, less ignorant, and I believe with better spirit. I'm done.
milackk7 1 year ago
@milackk7
Even though I greatly respect you as a human being, it is evident that all you came here for was to look and see if Ravi was an atheist. Since he's not one, he MUST be "insane".
Actions speak louder than words. You're not here to listen for something interesting, bro. With all due respect, if you're not willing to respect other people with different beliefs, including your fellow atheists who ask religious people honest questions, you'll always be wasting your time. Peace.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 good answer!
ricardomaman 1 year ago
@milackk7 selfishness, pride and greed are what makes this world a nightmare. the Bible is right when it says the human heart is bent towards evil. remove selfishness and greed. replace pride with the ability to admit your mistakes and weaknesses and help each other out with their mistakes and weaknesses, and the world would be an amazing place. this is exactly what Christ told humans to do! and Ravi is anything but a weak-minded, brainwashed storyteller!
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop "the Bible is right when it says the human heart is bent towards evil" - Is the bible also right when it names the author and engineer of human hearts?
"replace pride with the ability to admit your mistakes" - If only you could admit that it was a mistake to believe such a silly story once you reached the age of reason, and did not discard God with Santa and the Tooth Fairy. But you are a proud Christian, yes?
Ravi is anything BUT intelligent, educated, and worth discussing.
Reerrpad5515 1 year ago
Moral law has only one source, not 6 billion sources.
"in some cultures it is moral to love your neighbor, in others it is moral to eat them, which do you prefer?"
rubbersole79 1 year ago
@rubbersole79 No, the LAW has one source (consensus). "Morality" is different for each individual person, and therefore, yes, has 6 billion sources.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
"No, the LAW has one source (consensus)." - Why does that not commit the fallacy of an appeal to popularity?
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 Because the law isn't necessarily morally correct. If I had said that "morality" is based on consensus, then that argument would commit a logical fallacy. The Law, on the other hand, is just a name given to the popular consensus concerning a host of moral arguments, and it is neither necessarily right nor wrong, morally. Actually, this is the exact same distinction I drew for the other poster, so really the answer you're asking for was right there in the comment that you responded to.
instereovideos 1 year ago
I'm getting really fed up of Ravi playing, what he thinks is, his trump card.
WE are the moral law givers, not God, we decide what is right and wrong. If this wasn't the case we would be helplessly devoted to folowing the rules of the Bible.
The very fact that we can question the morality of God is proof that he canot be the only source of morality.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo So there are 5.86billion sources of morality. We figure, in each society, then, a consensus of moral do's and don'ts. So the consensus then is the plum line, to go outside it is immoral. Corrie ten Boom, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr., Martin Niemoller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer are all immoral. You prefer personally vanilla ice-cream over that of chocolate, or you prefer caring for babies personally rather than scolding them with boiling water for fun.
SeanG200 1 year ago 12
@SeanG200
Your analogy fails. Those figures would never have gathered the mass of support they did without individuals being able to consider and evaluate their ideas. The progression of society is only possible when the status quo can be challenged.
For example, just because the civil rights movement faced resistance, does not mean it went against the consensus. If it really had gone against, then a democratic would not have allowed legislation to pass in its favour.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo No, we are talking about absolutes here. Rape could have been morally advantagious for the species to survive, it is merely currently taboo. It could be advantagious for the species to survive again. In a theistic worldview, rape (at any time and place in the universe) is morally/absolutely wrong. "A Natural History of Rape" gives an account of violent behavior from an evolutionary position, as does "Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence."
...[con't]...
SeanG200 1 year ago 2
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
Are you comfortable executing anyone who works on a Sunday? Me for example? The moral code of your scripture orders you to put me to death. You can either do it, or be considered immoral by your religion.
If the moral usefulness of scripture is to give you a convenient black or white attitude to moral issues then you should have no qualms about putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Jesus came to set people free of religion. Jesus is the highest standard and worthy to be praised. Have you ever studied Jesus Christ? Nothing compares to his love - it's unconditional and everlasting. No one can ever earn it by performance or evil.
ps ~ were you thankful for the soldiers that fought for our freedom in Canada on remembrance day?
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo ...[con't from]... if you fish around my site, type in "William Provine" (videorow[dot]blogspot[dot]com). He rightly understands as an atheist what it means when "atheistic Darwinism" is true. If only two people on the earth exist and live are on an island with no culture or religion between them, and one kills the other for expanded food supply or because he just doesn't like him, It is still morally wrong. Absolutely.
SeanG200 1 year ago
@SeanG200
Well congratulations on dishing out one of the biggest fallacies in the God debate. Right behind Ravi's on the top ten of "Ignorant things people believe about atheists."
Evolution is not a religion, a world-view, a way of life, or, as you and many others seem to believe; the moral compass of atheism.
Evolution is the source of both our empathy and our sentience. However we are now capable of using our sentience to effectively corrupt our biological imperatives.
Cont...
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@SeanG200
Take contraception for example, our biology dictates an urge in all humans to reproduce, but our sentience means we can use contraception and therefore satify the biological urge without satisfying the evolutionary imperative.
If our moralty was dictated by evolution, as you suggest, contraception would be the most horrifying thing we could imagine, since reproduction is probably the most important part of evolution.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@SeanG200 I know Jesus is the Son of God because no human would ever come up with the idea of the Son of God dying on the cross for our sins. It does not make sense to the human mind. A human would create a God to suit their own desires. God took on your sin so that you might live and have eternal life. It's that simple. He stands at the door and knocks. Don't shut the door in His face.
jen4um 1 year ago
@SeanG200
Plessy v. Ferguson shows what happens when moral progress does not have the support of society at large.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@SeanG200 No, you're confused. Yes, there are 5.86 (actually 6.8) billion sources of morality. But they are each a source for THEMSELVES only, not for everyone as a whole. There is no "morality" that exists for everyone. You must determine for yourself what you deem moral based on human interaction and a host of other factors. But you can't pour scolding water on a baby because it's your "preference." Most people have determined that to be immoral, and therefore there are laws against that.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Ravi is brilliantly using his skills for good purposes. Science proves either a good or perverted purpose and I'm thankful to hear some good substance behind the biblical principles of God's truth.
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PamelaGutter
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
God's Holy Scriptures provide a moral code which are the fundamentals of living a right life. I can understand the struggle with those that don't readily accept as some do 'good things' and have not had the nurturing of truth. (And others as we know with the many things embedded in society pursue evil without conviction..)
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
I have no doubt that Ravi is a good person at heart, and that he thinks he is doing good work. Conveniently for his kindly image; I have never heard him speak about his views on homosexuals whom he surely believes will burn forever in hell. This is where the "struggle with those that don't readily accept" begins.
The only reason you are comfortable with the goodness in scripture is because the religion it spawned has cherry picked those parts out in order to propagate itself.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
I have many reasons why I have accepted Christ, most of them are based on my opinions and experiences with God - not by you falsely concluding based on your opinions and your experiences. I fear God's word. There's a big difference with comfort and fearing God.
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
So you're not comfortable with it. You just obey out of fear? There are other examples in history where people have been inspired into obedience and subservience through fear. You don't need a history lesson to know how they generally end up, and it's fitting that you bring up remembrance day - it was the bravery and sacrifice of those we remember and those like them that has freed us from such oppression in the past.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Personally and thoughtfully, there's many reasons why I aim to obey. Yes, it's interesting to read how people are inspired! Comfortable, or not - there's many different life circumstances. It certainly is not always a bed of roses standing for the truth. No, you don't need a history lesson, but they certainly do paint a picture.
Thanks for making a positive statement about those that have sacrificed their lives, that's good to here.
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
If we're going into personal reasons for following religion. The only conclusion I can draw is that to be moral, in the Christian definition, is to be selfish. If you aim to be good only because you expect a reward, and avoid being bad only because you fear punishment then your acts, no matter how generous or commendable, only serve your own purpose.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
Selfish? How? Jesus dies for us. That's the problem with religion - the bible says our righteousness is as filthy as rags. God loves us know matter what. Our acts serve our own unique talents, skills and abilities. It's up to us to use them for his glory or our own. Our intelligence is a prime example. It appears you are using it to serve for your own purpose and not God's? It's too bad some Christians are selfish about it - that's not the way it should be!
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
I just explained how it's selfish. Christian morality is a childlike system of punishment and reward that relies on self-interest. An Atheist who acts selflessly is far more commendable. Someone who does not believe in life after death is sacrificing far more when they die for their country.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
No it's not. Our country was based on the founding fathers that fought for a Christian nation. The public schools in Canada had prayer and were started by smart people who were influential and cared and used their gifts for God's glory. Many MANY people are being martyred for their faith more than ever (stats) since 1900's. They are giving up their lives to share the truth because of life after death - standing in front of God serving, thanking Jesus for forgiveness.
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
I don't contest most of what you just said. But none of it counters anything I said. I already know why these people give up their lives, that's what my statement was regarding.
I can't speak for Canada but this myth that America is a christian nation is getting tiring. What christian values are there in America other than the ones it has in common with most other, incidentally non-christian nations? Homophobia? Human rights violations? Xenophobia? the list goes on.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
The fact is, I was referring to the founding fathers.
What about Christophobia? What about Christians who have friends that are lesbian or gay? The list goes on...
PamelaGutter 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
What about the founding fathers? If you mean they were responsible for the Christian nation then let's have a look at how the Ten Commandments compare to the constitution."Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That gets scrapped by freedom of religion. "Do not take the Lord's name in vain." Freedom of speech says goodbye to that. "Keep the sabbath holy." Working on a sunday is perfectly legal. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour." Ahem, capitalism.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
You also mentioned Christians with gay friends. I can't imagine how you can sustain a friendship with someone your religion considers an abomination deserving nothing but execution. The only plausible way is if a person was capable of their own moral judgement and chose to reject that piece of scripture. Which would make Ravi's assertions in this video redundant.As for Christophobia I'm afraid, even after googling it, I don't know what you're referring to and it's relevance.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo
christianity feels that all sins are a slap in the face of the giver of such moral law. now the idea of homosexuality as a sin is a huge topic, which Ravi does speak of in another video. Though we disapprove of the sin, we still Love the person. Christ came and spoke to the sinners, not to the ones who felt they were morally just. Second, Jesus never speaks of executing Homosexuals, rather, he condones a ministry of Love and Charity.
bubbawubker 1 year ago
@bubbawubker
Jesus doesn't speak of executing them, he doesn't need to, the Bible's directions on that topic were already quite clear. Jesus spreads a message of love in one hand and a the threat of eternal hellfire in the other. As a philosopher he was progressive and revolutionary, but his ties to the wrathful supreme ruler of the universe make him the finest example of religious hypocrisy in history.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
You say it is wrong that we serve our own purpose yet you don't think the same of God, who uses us to serve his. Why the double standard? He may be the ruler of the universe but if I wanted to live under a supremely powerful, unaccountable, unelected dictator I'd move to North Korea.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo As a person who wants to be Christian, I gotta tell you that my life here on earth needs to be about learning the truth of the Gospel. So that I am able to preach Christ's love and forgiveness even in hell.
tetrahydroscope 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo that's your false view of what Christianity is and I have to agree that much of the world has that view because we as Christians have to failed to live according to what we believe. Your ignorance is shown by saying Christians are self-fish yet we are called to serve those around us. Are you familiar with missionaries? I've never heard a Christian say I came to Christ because I'm afraid of hell..We long to be good in a bad world period...
ChristianTheology101 1 year ago
@PamelaGutter
If you accept Jesus you must accept his divinity as God, the same God who slaughtered 99% of the life on earth because he wasn't happy how it turned out. The same God who decrees 'love me or burn'. You can't pick out the parts of scripture you like and dismiss the rest, it's all or nothing.The Christianity we see today has been watered down over centuries in a feeble attempt to fit in with, and even claim credit for, the moral character of contemporary society.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo You mentioned homosexuality a very sensitive subject but what the world fails to realize is the danger of homosexuality and the main purpose we were created in God's image..If your cosmic accident wanted all of us to not reproduce then we would all have to be the same sex BUT we aren't cosmic accidents, we ALL, were meant to reproduce..Truth is a hard-pill to swallow, that's why many don't..Atheism is propaganda!! Look up the definition for propaganda..
TheLeadershipCorner 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo atheism is propaganda also, look up the definition...If your cosmic luck process wanted us to not reproduce we would ALL be the same sex BUT were meant to populate the earth through the conception of a sperm and an egg, NOT two sperms and NOT two eggs...Once that is violated were destroying one of the main reasons God created us in the first place..Truth is a hard-pill to swallow and that's why many don't.
ChristianTheology101 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo (true story) a 18-month year old baby was raped by a guy who took a shot of snake blood mixed with liquor because of the idea of this very same statement you just said..Anybody who says morality is subjective is in fact giving people like this guy the OK to rape babies.
TheLeadershipCorner 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
The level of ignorance you have displayed with that comment is beyond belief. I can only hope it's a Poe, if not, and that is what 'subjective morality' means to you then I genuinely worry for your mental state.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo what are you talking about? People who believe morality is up to the individual(i.e subjective), AGAIN, give people permission to act as they please. You do know what morality is right? You do know what subjective means right? Then if you read my comment properly you would understand where I'm coming from and why I refuse to take this notion, that our actions our guided by our DNA (by the way, this is Dawkins teaching)..
TheLeadershipCorner 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
Where do I even start!?
Subjective morality does not mean it is up to the individual! It means morality is not as simple as a series of rights and wrongs. It is a consideration for the consequences of your actions as a result of an instinctive empathy developed over millions of years to ensure we don't annihilate ourselves.
To even think your snake venom analogy represents those who apply reason and empathy to their morality, rather than scripture, is plain retarded.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo we do annihilate ourselves, what's your reason for this? People claim to puff at how many religion has killed but none stop to think how many atheism has killed.Secondly, people who base their belief just off logic alone are not appealing to the other two critical pieces to decision making, pathos and ethos. By the way, my story was not an analogy it actually happened and it's because his wiring was wrong from over a millions ago? How is this not dancing to the DNA concept?
TheLeadershipCorner 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
Finally: "this is Dawkins teaching" . . . what!? Dawkins is not 'our leader'. The only reason he garners the admiration he does is because he is particularly effective and getting to the heart of the logical, scientific flaws in the claims of religion. To believe in evolution is not to follow it's rules. Natural selection flourishes on struggle and suffering, just because I believe those rules exist does not mean I want to adhere to them!
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo Dawkins? that's not what the world thinks..I agree with you religion has been falsely used..The Radical Muslims who crashed into the towers claimed they were doing in the name of "Allah" and we know that's not the case but the world attached on it like fly to dog poop..Wait a sec, your willing to accept the fact that natural selection flourishes on pain and suffering but people shake their fist at God for the pain and suffering in the world. What a double standard..
TheLeadershipCorner 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
You'll excuse me if this reply takes a while. There's a hell of a lot of either misunderstaning, ignorance or outright lies for me to address. Firstly the lies:"Atheism is propaganda!"You asked me to look up the definition of propaganda, I suggest you look up the definition of Atheism. The lack of belief cannot have an agenda or rally against another 'ism'."Atheism has killed"What could you possibly be referring to?
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
The fact that some genocidal dictators of the previous century had no affiliated religion does not mean they were motivated by atheism. Stalin killed for power, the same applies to Mao, they were not trying to spread an atheist ideal or dogma since atheism has neither. Hitler was Catholic, he capitalised on the religious hatred of Jews rife in europe at the time and declared many times, both in his speeches and his book, that he was doing God's work.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago
@TheLeadershipCorner
Secondly the misunderstanding:"What a double standard."It's only a double standard if you worship evolution, or believe it to be a conscious entity. Evolution is just an observed fact, a consequence of natural laws. If I said I believed in gravitation you surely wouldn't accuse me of a double standard because of the pain and suffering caused by people falling!? As a conscious being God is accountable for what he either allows or causes to happen.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 1 year ago